Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, there have been some excellent debates in this group. I ask for some clarification, particularly from the Government, on something I am confused about. I am sympathetic to Amendment 74A. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, made a very useful and insightful contribution that brought another layer to the discussion. There is a danger of us talking about these things technically, yet in a rather old-fashioned way, when there is a lot more evidence and new phenomena to consider.

Amendment 74A looks at the impact on—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness, but we are not debating Amendment 74A. It is grouped elsewhere.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

I have the right group; I have just said the wrong thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in what has been a very interesting debate. I will try to reflect on what I have heard as I speak; that will make my job quite difficult and probably make my speech completely incoherent, but I will do my best.

We closed last week with a couple of de-grouped Conservative amendments. I promised to reserve what I would say on statutory sick pay for this group, which means that I am unlikely to speak on the next group. Last week the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, spoke firmly against the Government’s proposed changes. I have seen evidence of businesses arguing strongly either for the status quo or for a two-day threshold.

I am not a behavioural scientist, but I can read a room politically. The party that is sitting on a huge majority in the Commons has made it very clear where it stands on this issue, and that has been reasserted by some of the even stronger comments we have heard from the Benches opposite. Businesses have drawn the same conclusion. Many of those I talk to are seeking ways to ameliorate this, rather than eliminate it, which is probably unlikely.

I was interested to hear the noble Lords from the Conservative Front Bench speak to Amendments 71A and 71B. Their version of amelioration appears to be to reduce the amount of SSP, or at least severely limit it. We heard a different story from the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady O’Grady, who set out why SSP is important and why the rate is meaningful. To contextualise poverty, we are talking about the poorest people who are working people but still extremely poor. It is difficult to overestimate the generosity of this scheme, but that is what I have heard from several on the Conservative Benches. This is a very modest offer. With her statistics, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, set it out very clearly, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.

Before I talk to my own Amendment 74 and Amendment 73, I will deal with the others. In Amendment 75, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, call for a reviewer to report within two years. I mentioned there is a subsequent group which also has impact assessment amendments in it. I am not really sure why we are debating them separately. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, I am going to mention 74A to 74C, which have been shunted into a separate group. Taken together, there is a slightly curious mismatch of timings: Amendment 75 is after two years, 74B and 74C after six months and 75A after a year. I agree that there do need to be impact assessments following whatever your Lordships decide, perhaps on a more systematic calendar than the ones suggested.

I am interested in the pre-emptive impact assessment. For the benefit of your Lordships’ Committee, it would be good to hear the Minister spell out the detail of the impact assessment of business on the current proposed measures. If, as the Minister says, the costs will be relatively modest, the costs of Amendment 73 or 74 would also be relatively modest, which takes me to the point in question.

As we have heard very eloquently from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, she and I have come up with very similar suggestions in terms of amelioration, which is what I was talking about earlier. Rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, I slightly prefer the version from noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, but that is not the point—this is not a competition. We would like to sit down with the Government and thrash through a way whereby a rebate scheme can be reintroduced. This seems to be the sensible approach. We care deeply about SMEs—they drive a huge part of our economy. This is a way of making sure that they do not get disadvantaged as employees get what they deserve as SSP. That is what I am asking for from these Benches. Very sensibly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Noakes, and others supported it. I hope that the Minister will be able to make a positive noise about that and we can sit down and have that conversation.

Today, we have heard that SSP is absolutely vital for a section of society who are already massively disadvantaged. We should not be drawing lines and pushing them further down. We should be finding ways of making sure that they are not disadvantaged even more and, at the same, we should find ways of making sure that our SME sector is not also disadvantaged.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a really good debate on these issues, and I hope that I can do justice to all the questions and points that have been raised.

I begin with Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, on independent reviews into the effects of SSP reforms on small and medium enterprises. As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment, which was published on 21 November 2024 and can be found on GOV.UK. This considered the likely direct business impact of the SSP changes, including on small and medium enterprises. In the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that delivering these measures will cost businesses a modest £15 extra per employee. I assure noble Lords that the Government remain committed to monitoring the impact of these SSP measures. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of the SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

I draw attention to the Keep Britain Working review. We asked Sir Charlie Mayfield to lead this independent review, which will consider recommendations to support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces, support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence and retain more disabled people and people with health conditions.

While I am speaking about the variety of illnesses that people on sick leave incur, let me address the issue of mental health absences, which was raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady Cash and Lady Smith, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and my noble friend Lord Davies. Our proposals have to be seen in the wider context of the Bill. The Bill is intended to improve the experience of employees at work, so measures such as flexible working, guaranteed hours and protection from harassment could—we believe will—reduce stress at work, potentially leading to fewer incidents of burn-out and better employee mental health, and therefore fewer related absences. For us, that is an important challenge that we intend to monitor.

Amendment 73, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, would introduce a rebate scheme to reimburse SMEs for the cost of SSP for the first four days, although I think she clarified that she meant three. I thank her for her interest in SSP, and of course I appreciate her extensive knowledge and experience in this area, as a former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. As previously mentioned, regarding waiting days, the changes we are making to SSP will cost businesses around an additional £15 per employee, a relatively modest amount in comparison with the benefits of reduced presenteeism and the positive impact that this will have on our lowest paid members of society. As the noble Baroness may recall, we previously delivered SSP rebate schemes such as the percentage threshold scheme. This was abolished due to SMEs underusing it, and feedback that the administrative burden was complex and time consuming. So I suggest that a rebate scheme that covered only the first three days of sickness and absence would also be quite administratively burdensome, both for businesses to claim and for the Government to process.

Previous SSP rebate schemes also did not encourage employers to support their employees. We know that employers having responsibility for paying sick leave helps maintain a strong link between the workplace and the employee, with employers encouraged to support employees to return to work when they are able.

Sticking with the theme of rebate schemes, Amendment 74, from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would introduce an SME rebate scheme for the whole duration of sickness absence. I reiterate the points I made earlier about the limited cost to business as a result of SSP changes and the experience of previous rebate schemes. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that we have moved a long way from the Beveridge system of social insurance. The costs and the mechanisms are very different now.

A rebate for the full cost of SSP could cost the Government up to £900 million a year. I do not believe that a rebate scheme is the best way to support our SMEs at this time. We will be considering the findings of the aforementioned Keep Britain Working review, which is expected to produce a final report with recommendations in the autumn. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, challenged me to keep talking about this, and of course I am very happy to do so.

Amendments 71A and 71B were tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. As they may be aware, the Government consulted on what the rate of SSP should be for those who currently earn below the lower earnings limit. There was no clear consensus from stakeholders on the percentage. The Government believe that the 80% rate strikes the right balance between providing financial security to the lowest paid employees when they need to take time off work to recover from illness and limiting the cost to business. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said, if we are not careful, we will be penalising the very poorest in our society.

Crucially, the total amount saved by business, if the rate were set at 60% compared to 80%, would be around £10 million to £30 million per year. That is about a £1 difference per employee per year, or less than 0.01% of total spending on wages annually by businesses. On the noble Lord’s Amendment 71A, which would set the rate at 60% for the first three days of a period of incapacity for work, the amounts potentially saved by business become even smaller, with the difference in cost being a matter of pennies. Given the minimal savings for businesses, the complexity for employers in administrating different rates is difficult to justify.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am a little puzzled by the groupings between this and the previous amendments. I have gone the opposite route and decided to speak to this group rather than the last one, but everything that I say in this group applies equally to Amendment 75, which would have created a review of the impact of the changes on small and medium-sized businesses. This group would require impact assessments to carried out for the various other effects that the Bill would have—so really it is the same subject.

Frankly, a lot of this would not be necessary if the Bill had been properly thought through from the beginning, if there was not so much detail to be filled in later by regulation and, in particular, if a proper impact assessment had been carried out on the various changes proposed. The Bill will, by the Government’s own admission, impose costs on business, disproportionately on smaller businesses, of around £5 billion, and will, again by the Government’s own admission, have potentially negative impacts on employment opportunities for those with poorer employment records. It is deeply unsatisfactory that it should not have been properly impact-assessed.

The Regulatory Policy Committee rated the impact assessment as “not fit for purpose”. It is worth reminding noble Lords what it said:

“Given the number and reach of the measures, it would be proportionate to undertake labour market and broader macroeconomic analysis, to understand the overall impact on employment, wages and output, and particularly, the pass-through of employer costs to employees. The eight individual IAs and the summary IA need to provide further analysis and evidence in relation to the rationale for intervention, identification of options (including impacts on small and microbusinesses) and/or justification for the preferred way forward”.


It is damning that that was not done before the Bill was presented to us.

Now, before the Minister points this out, I concede that the statutory sick pay individual impact assessment is the only one of 23 that is rated as good—in itself a pretty damning statistic. However, the impact assessment for the monitoring and evaluation plan for the statutory sick pay part is rated as weak. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already referred to the potential behavioural aspects that arise, which are not in any way covered in the impact assessment. In fact, there is a complete cop-out; it says, “We can’t do this because of the behavioural impacts”.

Sadly, these proposed amendments and Amendment 75 in the previous group are clearly necessary, as are the others that we will debate later today and throughout the Committee process. The five-year review that the Minister referred to earlier frankly does not cut it, given the significance of the measures in this Bill and how quickly how they will have impact. Five years is way too long to wait to understand whether it is damaging.

I do not wish to test noble Lords’ patience by repeating this speech multiple times during the process of the Committee, so I ask the Minister to take as read my support for proper and timely reviews and assessments of the impacts of this Bill as we go forward.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords have identified, we are now continuing the important debate on statutory sick pay and specifically to address the impact of these measures on businesses.

It is important to highlight that the statutory sick pay system, and the changes that we have brought about as part of this Bill, is designed to balance providing support for the individual with minimising the costs to the employer. This group of amendments, Amendments 74A, 74B and 74C, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require impact assessments on absenteeism, enhanced sick pay schemes, occupational health, and short-notice shift working.

As I mentioned earlier, and as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has already identified, the Government have already undertaken a regulatory impact assessment which considered the likely direct business impact of SSP changes. This included considering the impact on small and medium enterprises and sectoral impacts.

Overall, in the regulatory impact assessment, the Government estimated that the cost of delivering these measures would be approximately £15 extra per employee, a relatively modest amount when compared to the positive impacts that these changes will have for employees and overall productivity. I thank the noble Lord for the three amendments tabled in this group, all of which would require impact assessments. I look forward to debating those with the other 23 or so requests for impact assessments that the Opposition have already tabled. We have a plethora of requests for impact assessments. I reassure the noble Lord that we are at the same time updating our regulatory impact assessment and operating a post-implementation review of the measures—so the Opposition’s requests are probably not necessary.

On the noble Lord’s Amendment 74A, requiring an assessment of the impact of the changes to SSP in the Bill on absenteeism, we acknowledge that overall sickness absence may increase as a result of this Bill. This is not a loophole, nor are the Government not considering businesses; rather, it is the very objective of these changes to enable the lowest-paid employees to take time off when they are sick. Under the new system, employees will be able to take the time that they need to recover from short-term illness without struggling through work and often risking the spread of infectious diseases such as influenza. Similarly, employees with long-term or fluctuating conditions should feel able to take a day of sickness absence to manage their condition to prevent it worsening. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, suggested that employees might be encouraged to misuse the system. However, if employers have the right policies and practices in place, the risk of inappropriate absenteeism can and should be mitigated.

Additionally, the noble Lord’s amendment would be quite difficult to deliver in practice. There is not a standard measure of absenteeism versus legitimate sickness absence, and in many instances, it would depend on whether you asked the employer or the employee. The Government intend to build on the regulatory impact assessment and, as I have said, we intend to conduct a post-implementation review of the measures in the Employment Rights Bill.

I turn to Amendment 74B, to assess the impact of the reforms in the Bill on employers’ ability to continue offering enhanced sick pay and occupational health services, particularly in low-margin sectors such as retail. I appreciate the noble Lord’s concern about the potential impact on this matter, and the Government certainly agree that it would not be in anyone’s interest for there to be a rollback of occupational sick pay or occupational health provision. However, the Government’s view is that these changes will serve only to strengthen the link between the workplace and the employee. I question why any business would want to use these changes as a reason to reduce the support that they provide their employees to help them stay in, and return to, work.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, asked about the Government’s policy on getting people back to work, and she was right to raise the issue. We are talking about a balance here; when people are sick, they should have the right to be off sick. I also accept the point that she made that being at work can in itself be a healing experience, and we should not lose sight of that—that there can be a positive health impact from being at work.

I once again draw noble Lords’ attention to the Keep Britain Working review. As I set out earlier in the debate, Sir Charlie Mayfield will consider recommendations on how the Government can support and enable employers to promote healthy and inclusive workplaces and support more people to stay in or return to work from periods of sickness absence. That review is expected to produce a final report in autumn this year. I believe that much of what the Keep Britain Working review is doing will address the noble Lords’ concerns, and I hope this reassures them that the Government are taking this matter seriously. We look forward to the results of the review.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 74C, which seeks to review the effects of the SSP changes on shift management and short-notice scheduling in the workplace. As discussed in relation to Amendment 74A, the number of sickness absences may go up as a result of these changes. This is because it would enable employees to take time off when they are sick.

I again reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to understand the impact of these changes on businesses. We intend to conduct a post-implementation review of these measures in the Employment Rights Bill within five years of implementation. Additionally, as I set out in the earlier debate, the Department for Work and Pensions conducts regular employer and employee surveys and will continue to do so, providing further monitoring of the impact of SSP changes on a range of employers and employees.

However, this amendment would require the Government to collect a significant amount of data from businesses on what noble Lords will understand is quite a wide range of issues. We believe that this would be administratively challenging for them to provide, particularly in less than six months. This is the very thing that the noble Lord is seeking to avoid—the extra bureaucracy that he has talked about. For example, asking employers, including SMEs, to accurately record and report to government the frequency of shift cancellations and redeployments because of sickness absence is not practical or reasonable.

We have had a worthwhile, short debate on these issues, but I hope I have persuaded noble Lords that we are on the case and therefore that the amendment can be withdrawn.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister said during her remarks that there would be a cost per employee of £15; I think she said that in the earlier group as well. Can she provide any more information on this? It seems counterintuitive. If the average number of sick days per employee is around eight, which is what the most recent survey data showed, that implies that employers are already bearing the cost of something like seven and a half days and are going to pay only for an extra half day. That does not seem to be consistent with the evidence of the nature of absences that also exist, which implies that most are at the shorter end and probably are going to be below the level at which they are currently being reimbursed by statutory sick pay.

It has been troubling me for some time, but I hope that the Minister will be able to provide some further information. I do not expect it from the Dispatch Box, although I would be delighted if it were to come from the Dispatch Box right now, but if she could write to me, I would be most grateful.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I suppose the simple answer to that is that it is in the regulatory impact assessment, which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, acknowledged was one of the things that we got a fair rating for. I refer the noble Baroness to that, which I think will give more details.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I have read it. There is no more detail in that impact assessment on the £15. That is why I am asking whether the Minister can provide further detail on how that £15 was arrived at.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am happy to write to the noble Baroness.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It would be very useful if she could share it with the other Front Benches as well.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 12th May 2025 Lords Chamber

Motion on Amendments 2 to 31

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Moved by

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 2 to 31.

2: Clause 4, page 6, line 26, after “authority” insert “to do something with the business data”

--- Later in debate ---

Motion on Amendment 32

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

Moved by

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 32.

32: Clause 28, page 30, line 32, leave out subsections (3) and (4)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 33.

33: Clause 45, page 43, line 12, leave out subsection (6)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 34 and do propose Amendments 34B and 34C instead of the words so left out of the Bill—

34: Clause 56, page 54, line 1, leave out lines 1 to 3

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 35 to 42.

35: Clause 56, page 58, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert “obtain the consent of the Welsh Ministers in relation to any provision which would be within the legislative competence of Senedd Cymru if contained in an Act of the Senedd (ignoring any requirement for the consent of a Minister of the Crown imposed under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006).”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 43.

43: Clause 67, page 75, line 26, leave out “and that is conducted in the public interest”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 44.

44: Clause 95, page 120, line 31, leave out subsection (1)

[The Parliamentary Hnder-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Amendments 45 to 51 and 78. There has, quite reasonably, been significant interest in the topic of AI and copyright. This is a hugely important issue, and a complex one. I hope that noble Lords will bear with me as I set out the Government’s position, which has been the subject of some misrepresentation in recent reporting. I make it clear that this Bill does not introduce any changes to copyright law or wider intellectual property regulation. It does not introduce an opt-out system, nor does it contain any delegated powers that would allow such a system to be implemented. All existing copyright rules continue to apply to the use of material for AI training in exactly the way it did before the Bill was introduced.

This Government recognise the enormous economic and social value of our creative industries. We saw that just last week, as the nation came together to commemorate the anniversary of VE Day. Our creative sector entertains and informs us. It is the best of us as a nation. Our manifesto quite rightly pledged to work with the creative industries to unlock their potential after years of neglect. As noble Lords will know, the creative industries are worth £124 billion GVA and support 2.4 million jobs. Since 2010, they have grown at 1.5 times the rate of the rest of the economy.

The creative industries are one of our eight priority strands within our industrial strategy. In January 2025, as a first step in delivering that strategy, we announced: first, that the British Business Bank will increase its support for creative industry businesses to help them access the finances they need to grow; secondly, that UKRI will strengthen support for the sector to drive R&D-led growth; thirdly, that shorter-duration apprenticeships as a first step towards a flexible growth and skills levy that meets creative industry employers' needs will be introduced; fourthly, a commitment to devolve funding to six priority mayoral strategic authorities to drive the growth of creative clusters; and, fifthly, a £19 million package of funding for programmes including the UK Games Fund, the UK Global Screen Fund, music export growth schemes and create growth programmes. The Government will build on this support through the upcoming creative industry sector plan, which we publish very soon.

Our manifesto also recognises both the opportunities and the risks of AI. We pledged to take early action, and one part of this was the launch of a detailed consultation on the future of copyright reform to ensure that protections are fit for purpose as technology evolves and its use becomes more widespread. That consultation closed earlier this year, and we are now analysing a large volume of responses—something in the region of 11,500—and assessing the evidence that we have received. Our proposals will be based on that evidence and what works, rather than any preferred option. This will take time to do properly and, as such, the Government did not and do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle to make any substantial changes to the law on this issue. Yes, we must act quickly, but we must also continue our thinking and engagement to ensure that the policy outcome is the one that best balances the potential of AI and the need to support rights holders.

Although we do not believe that this Bill is the right vehicle for wholesale change to copyright law, we understand the need to demonstrate that this Government, unlike others, want to follow best practice, engage meaningfully with all sides and come to the right conclusions. This is why the elected House took the decision to remove the relevant amendments passed during Lords stages and insert new provisions to demonstrate our commitment to legislate on AI in a fair, evidence-based way.

Of course we agree that there should be greater transparency about the use of protected material to train AI models. We agree that there should be more work done to identify the technical solutions that will empower rights holders to decide whether and how their material is used. We must continue to talk to all sides and to ensure that a reformed copyright regime is carefully thought through, effectively and robustly supported by the evidence. As our amendments set out, we will report on four substantive areas within 12 months. These will clearly signpost what we want to deliver and how we propose to do so. We will also carry out an economic impact assessment of the proposed changes once we have come to a settled view.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

I shall make a very brief speech. I stood up when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, stood up, but unfortunately, as so often in my life, he completely ignored me, so I will just slip in after him and just before our Front Bench. I declare my interest in the register as an adviser to ProRata.ai, which is a company that seeks to pay royalties to creatives for the use of their content in AI models. It was good to see not only the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, standing at the Bar, but also the Creative Industries Minister, Chris Bryant, which shows that something is up. They were very clearly wanting to be seen by the 400 or so creatives who wrote to the newspapers over the weekend expressing their concerns about the Government’s AI legislation and also to seek, as we all do, to curry favour with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who has led so well on so many of these issues.

As she was speaking and making the point that creatives and technologists are not apart at all, but are together, it reminded me that I became the Technology Minister in the Cameron Government because I was the Creative Industries Minister, and the reason I became the Technology Minister was because I was the only Minister in the Cameron Government in 2010 meeting the technology companies. The reason I was meeting the technology companies was because the technology companies were busily ripping off the intellectual property of the creative industries. At that time, in 2010, you would sit down with Google and say, “Anyone can search for any material on your website, come up with it illegally, stream it and download it without paying the creators of that material. What are you going to do about it?” Of course, they said, “We’re going to do absolutely nothing because you are just a little British Minister, and we only do what the White House tells us to do”.

The Labour Government had passed legislation that was concluded in the wash-up in 2010 that effectively criminalised, to coin a phrase, the teenager in their bedroom downloading music, just as perhaps some of us as teenagers might have taped music off the radio in the past. I knew when I became a Minister that that legislation was completely unworkable. It was pointless to be prosecuting teenagers when you should be taking on big tech. Actually, the music industry found a solution by using the Fraud Act and began to take action in the courts against websites that were completely ripping off IP. It allowed courts to order those websites to be blocked.

I also knew that there would be no solution until there was a commercial solution. In fact, that commercial solution has come about. In 2010, people were predicting the entire death of intellectual property, the death of the music industry, the death of the film industry and the death of television. They have never been healthier: there are commercial models because more people are prepared to pay a subscription to Spotify, Netflix or Amazon Prime to get great content for a reasonable price, so a commercial solution is possible when people work together.

It was interesting to hear the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talking about the opt-out model because it implies that you can have a conversation between big tech and creatives. The creatives can either opt out or opt in. We referred earlier to licensing deals. If anyone reads FT Weekend—in fact, everyone in this Chamber obviously reads FT Weekend as it is the Bible of the chattering classes—Sam Altman from OpenAI was featured in “Lunch with the FT”, an honour he shares with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In fact, I texted her when she was in “Lunch with the FT” and said that it is better than a peerage. At the beginning of that lunch, it says that the FT has a licensing deal with OpenAI, so it is possible to have licensing deals.

What I think none of us can really stand is the utter hypocrisy of people saying that, for the national interest, we have to rip off intellectual property. It is completely hypocritical and nonsensical. You would not find a single tech chief saying, “I think it is fine if people take our patents because that is how you get economic growth. Just take my patent”. In fact, you will not find a CEO saying that. You will see them saying in court, “He’s ripped off my patent, and I want my money back”. That is intellectual property that big tech is prepared to fight for, yet big tech is still prepared to tell us, just as they told us 15 years ago, that they can grow only by ripping off the IP of the creative industries. Let us face it: there may be AI start-ups that need open source. I totally accept that. It is a complicated landscape, but we are still talking about big tech. We are talking about Microsoft, OpenAI, xAI and Meta. We are talking about the role of the United States. Donald Trump wants to make Hollywood great again. This is where he could start.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I first thank all noble Lords from across the House for their many eloquent and well-made speeches. The Government share the passion displayed today. We all care about the creative sector and want to see it flourish. We all want to find ways to make that a reality. We are talking here about the practicalities of how we can do that in a proper way; that is what we are addressing today. Nobody doubts the fantastic contribution that the creative sector makes to the UK. I thought I had set out some of that in my opening speech, but I am very happy to confirm it again.

On the practicalities, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, sets out wide-ranging obligations on businesses that make AI models available in the UK and would require the Secretary of State to nominate a body to enforce them. I agree with the noble Baroness that the creative sector has always been an early adopter of technology, and that the creative and AI sectors go hand in hand. A number of noble Lords made that point, and made it well.

I also completely recognise the value generated by the creators—again a point well made by a number of noble Lords—and their great cultural and economic contributions to society. The noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Berkeley, my noble friend Lord Brennan and many other speakers spoke about that.

It is the Government’s view—and, moreover, morally right—that creators should license and be paid for the use of their content. The Government have always been clear that we want to see more licensing by the AI sector. The obligations in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, however, would affect a wide range of businesses and require detailed disclosure of information. This would include a mechanism to identify individual works, but it is very uncertain whether it would be possible to meet that requirement when a significant proportion of material on the internet does not have clear metadata to facilitate this. The scale of the impact on those businesses is unknown but, without a proper impact assessment, there is a real risk that the obligations could lead to AI innovators, including many home-grown British companies, thinking twice about whether they wish to develop and provide their services in the UK.

We agree that, if transparency obligations are to be created in this way, there will need to be provision for their oversight and enforcement, but that is not something that can be dropped on the first regulator that comes to mind. There is currently no body with the skills and resources to perform this function. We need a proper discussion about funding, clarity over what enforcement powers are required, and answers to a whole range of other questions.

It should also be noted that one of the main issues that creative industries are struggling with is enforcement of their rights under the current rules. As was said earlier—and I am happy to reiterate—we are not saying that the copyright laws are broken; at the heart of this is the question of enforcement.

Transparency would help with knowing what is being used, but that alone will not be a silver bullet for small creators and businesses seeking redress through our legal system. As many noble Lords will know, there are live court cases in train in the UK and other key jurisdictions. The Government, and I, recognise the urgency of the problem, as so fantastically put by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin.

This is why DCMS and DSIT Ministers are prioritising meetings with creative and AI stakeholders to discuss potential solutions as a top priority. Indeed, they held meetings and discussions with both sectors last September. We have moved quickly to consult, having hosted round tables and bilateral meetings with creatives and their representatives. These have been of great value and we will continue to hold those meetings.

However, all these moving parts mean that something needs to be developed as a full working approach. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, does not offer an instant solution, instead asking the Government to come up with regulations in 12 months. We cannot make such significant interventions without properly understanding the impact. This is why our position is to report on four substantive issues within 12 months and set out our proposals in that time. As I said in my opening speech, our proposals will be based on the evidence from the 11,500 responses and, indeed, will concentrate on what works rather than any preferred option. As the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, said, the solution must indeed involve creators and AI developers being in the same room, and this is what we will endeavour to do.

I further agree with the noble Lord that AI should not become a way to whitewash copyright piracy. The Government support strong action against copyright piracy and we will continue to do so. I also agree that it is important to support transparency. I cannot say this strongly enough. Noble Lords have seemed to suggest that we are not taking that issue seriously. Of course we are. The Government fully support and are encouraged by the work of the IETF and other fora developing new standards to help identify metadata, which will make this easier.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 45.

45: After Clause 134, insert the following Clause—
“Economic impact assessment
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning
with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) prepare and publish an assessment of the economic impact in the United Kingdom of each of the four policy options described in section B.4 of the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper, read with relevant parts of section C of that Paper (policy options about copyright law and the training of artificial intelligence models using copyright works), and
(b) lay a document containing the assessment before Parliament. Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL] 7
(2) The document may include an assessment of the economic impact in the United Kingdom of policy options which are alternatives to the options described in subsection (1)(a).
(3) An assessment included in the document must, among other things, include assessment of the economic impact of each option on—
(a) copyright owners, and
(b) persons who develop or use AI systems, including the impact on copyright owners, developers and users who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
(4) In this section—
“AI system” means a machine-based system that, from the input it receives, can infer how to—
(a) generate predictions, digital content, recommendations, decisions or other similar outputs, or
(b) influence a physical or virtual environment, with a view to achieving an explicit or implicit objective;
“the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper” means the command paper “Copyright and AI: Consultation”, numbered CP1205, published on 17 December 2024;
“copyright owner” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“develop” an AI system means carry on an activity involved in producing the system, such as (for example) designing, programming, training or testing the system (and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly); “digital content” means data which is produced and supplied in digital form; “medium-sized business” means a business with at least 50 but fewer than 250 staff;
“micro business” means a business with fewer than 10 staff;
“small business” means a business with at least 10 but fewer than 50 staff;
“use” an AI system means instruct an AI system to generate outputs or to influence an environment (and related terms are to be interpreted accordingly).”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 46.

46: After Clause 134, insert the following Clause—
“Report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems
(1) The Secretary of State must, before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed—
(a) prepare and publish a report on the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems, and
(b) lay the report before Parliament.
(2) The report must consider—
(a) the four policy options described in section B.4 of the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper, read with relevant parts of section C of that Paper (policy options about copyright law and the training of artificial intelligence models using copyright works), and
(b) such alternative options as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(3) The report must consider, and make proposals in relation to, each of the following—
(a) technical measures and standards (for example, measures and standards
concerned with metadata) that may be used to control—
(i) the use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) the accessing of copyright works for that purpose (for example, by web crawlers);
(b) the effect of copyright on access to, and use of, data by developers of AI systems (for example, on text and data mining), including the effect on developers who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses;
(c) the disclosure of information by developers of AI systems about—
(i) their use of copyright works to develop AI systems, and
(ii) how they access copyright works for that purpose (for example, by means of web crawlers);
(d) the granting of licences to developers of AI systems to do acts restricted by copyright, including the granting of licences by and to individuals, micro businesses, small businesses and medium-sized businesses.
(4) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consider the likely effect of proposals, in the United Kingdom, on—
(a) copyright owners, and
(b) persons who develop or use AI systems, including the likely effect on copyright owners, developers and users who are individuals, micro businesses, small businesses or medium-sized businesses.
(5) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must have regard to, among other things, the Consultation Paper responses.
(6) The Secretary of State may comply with this section by preparing and publishing two or more reports which, taken together, satisfy the requirements in this section.
(7) In this section—
“Consultation Paper responses” means responses to the Copyright and AI Consultation Paper received by the Secretary of State on or before 25 February 2025;
“copyright” means the property right which subsists in accordance with Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“copyright work” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988;
“web crawler” means a computer program that obtains data from websites in accordance with instructions and that can autonomously determine which websites to visit.
(8) Terms used in this section and in section (Economic impact assessment) have the same meaning in this section as they have in that section.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 47 and 48.

47: Page 170, line 2, leave out Clause 135

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 49.

49: Page 171, line 15, leave out Clause 137

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 50 and 51.

50: Page 171, line 37, leave out Clause 138

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 52.

52: Page 173, line 13, leave out Clause 140

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 54.

54: Clause 141, page 173, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 on page 174

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 55.

55: Clause 141, page 174, line 26, at end insert—
“(7A) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for creating the purported intimate image.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 56.

56: Clause 141, page 174, line 29, at end insert—
“66EA Requesting the creation of purported intimate image of adult
(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests the creation of a purported intimate image of another person (B) (either in general or specific terms),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the creation of the purported intimate image, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(2) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally requests that, if a purported intimate image of another person (B) is created, it includes or excludes something in particular (whether relating to B’s appearance, the intimate state in which B is shown or anything else),
(b) B does not consent to A requesting the inclusion or exclusion of that thing, and
(c) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
(3) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) include doing an act which could reasonably be taken to be a request (such as, for example, indicating agreement in response to an offer or complying with conditions of an offer).
(4) References in this section to making a request (however expressed) are references to—
(a) making a request directed to a particular person or persons, or
(b) making a request so that it is available to one or more persons (or people generally), without directing it to a particular person or persons.
(5) References in this section to consent to a person requesting something are—
(a) in a case described in subsection (4)(a), references to consent to a request being made that is directed to the particular person or persons, and
(b) in a case described in subsection (4)(b), references to consent to a request being made so that it is available to the person or persons (or people generally), as appropriate.
(6) An offence under this section is committed—
(a) regardless of whether the purported intimate image is created,
(b) regardless of whether the purported intimate image, or the particular thing to be included in or excluded from such an image, is also requested by another person, and
(c) regardless of where in the world the person or persons mentioned in subsection (4)(a) and (b) is or are located.
(7) It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that the person had a reasonable excuse for making the request.
(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding the maximum term for summary offences or a fine (or both).
(9) In this section, references to a purported intimate image, to creating such an image and to a person shown in an intimate state have the same meaning as in section 66E.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 57 to 79.

57: Clause 141, page 174, line 30, leave out “soliciting” and insert “requesting”

NHS: Single-sex Spaces for Staff

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a timed debate and people have quite rightly put their names down for it. As the Deputy Chairman of Committees said, the gap has already been passed and I suggest that we move on to hear from the Government Front Bench.

AI: Child Sexual Abuse Material

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berger]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Internet Watch Foundation’s Annual Data and Insights Report 2024, published on 23 April, particularly with regard to child sexual abuse material generated by artificial intelligence.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend Lady Berger to her first Oral Question and thank her for it being on such an important issue that faces us today. The Internet Watch Foundation’s annual report highlights a harrowing increase in the amount of AI-generated child sexual abuse material online. The scale is shocking, with over 424,000 reports in 2024 suspected to contain child sex abuse imagery. The Government are deeply committed to tackling this crisis through the Online Safety Act and are specifically targeting AI CSAM threats in the Crime and Policing Bill. I pay tribute to the work of the IWF, which has been vital in helping us to identify and block such content.

[Baroness Berger (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. As she alluded to, the Internet Watch Foundation’s report points to hundreds of thousands of reports during the 2024 period. It is a record-breaking number of reports, which is driven partly by a number of new threats, including AI-generated child sexual abuse, sextortion and the malicious sharing of sexual imagery. The IWF says that under-18s are now facing a “crisis” of sexual exploitation and risk online. I heard what the Minister said and ask her what the Government intend to do to protect children in the UK and around the world now to ensure that, when the 2025 report comes out next year, we see a significant reduction in the number of these crimes.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, through the Crime and Policing Bill, the Government will introduce a new suite of measures to tackle the growing threat of AI. This includes criminalising AI models made or adapted to generate child sexual abuse imagery and extending the existing paedophile manuals offence to cover AI-generated child sexual abuse material. In addition, the Home Office will bolster the network of undercover online police officers to target online offenders and develop cutting-edge AI tools and other new capabilities to infiltrate live streams and chat rooms where children are groomed. The Home Office is developing options at pace on potential device operating system-level safety controls to prevent online exploitation and abuse of children. It is also vital that we tackle the widespread sharing of self-generated indecent imagery. The report shows that 91% of the images are self-generated. This is young people who are being groomed and often quite innocently sharing their material, not realising the purpose for which it will be used. This is a huge and pressing issue, and my noble friend quite rightly raises that we need to take action now to tackle this scourge.

[Baroness Owen of Alderley Edge (Con)]

My Lords, it is clear that, with the constant evolution of technology, we risk not being able to legislate rapidly enough to keep pace. How are the Government conducting their horizon scanning to ensure that we are always one step ahead of those who seek to abuse children in this way?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is quite right that we have to keep the technology up to date, and of course we are endeavouring to do that. I should say that UK law applies to AI-generated CSAM in the same way as to real child sexual abuse. Creating, possessing or distributing any child sex abuse images, including those generated by AI, is illegal. Generative AI child sexual abuse imagery is priority illegal content under the Online Safety Act in the same way as real content. However, she is quite right: we have to keep abreast of the technology. We are working at pace across government to make sure that we have the capacity to do that.

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, and the IWF have both called for a total ban on apps which allow nudification, where photos of real people are edited by AI to make them appear naked. The commissioner has been particularly critical about the fact that such apps

“go unchecked with extreme real-world consequences”.

Will the Government act and ban these AI-enabled tools outright?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Government are actively looking at options to address nudification tools, and we hope to provide an update shortly. It is a matter that we take seriously. If such tools are used to create child sexual abuse material, UK law is clear that creating, possessing or distributing child sexual abuse images, including those generated using nudification tools, is already illegal, regardless of whether it depicts a real child or not.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned that a rather high percentage of the material was generated by young people themselves, without being aware of the implications. What is she doing with the Department for Education to ensure that the risks and challenges of unsafe online behaviour are highlighted to children through schools?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a really important point about media literacy. It is again an issue that my department is taking very seriously, and it is an issue that Ofcom also has a statutory responsibility for, but she is right that schools have an essential part to play in this. The curriculum review which is currently taking place is identifying the need to give children more resilience and to give them the tools to identify what is safe and what is unsafe behaviour and to scrutinise the posts that they see in a more informed way. That work is ongoing in the curriculum review and the interim report from the Department for Education has identified that it is a priority.

[Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Con)]

My Lords, the rapidly increasing number of AI-generated images in circulation that depict child sexual abuse is deeply disturbing. The creation of such imagery uses the faces or bodies of real children, and much of it falls into category A material, depicting abuse of the most extreme kind. Will the Minister explain what the Government’s plans are to crack down on those who share information specifically on how to use text-to-image-based generative AI tools, a practice which leads to the creation of this appalling material?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, we are already taking steps to deal with this. We are committed to making sure that our laws tackle child sexual abuse materials and keep pace with technological developments. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we have introduced an offence to criminalise AI models that have been optimised to create child sexual abuse material. We have introduced an offence to criminalise those who maintain or moderate websites that use such services and use shared child sexual abuse imagery—whether it is real or fake, as the noble Lord says. In the Data (Use and Access) Bill, we have updated existing law that criminalises paedophile manuals to cover artificially generated CSAM. So there are a number of steps that we are already taking within the current legislation programme to deal with these incidents.

[Baroness Elliott of Whitburn Bay (Lab)]

My Lords, a number of concerns have been raised about Ofcom’s recently released draft illegal content codes of practice. Can my noble friend the Minister say what plans the Government have to monitor the effectiveness of those codes of practice?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

It is important to recognise that the measures that Ofcom has set out in the illegal content codes of practice and, last week, in the child safety codes of practice are a landmark change to protect users online. They mark the first time that platforms in the UK are legally required to tackle illegal content and content that is harmful to children. Section 47 of the Online Safety Act requires Ofcom to keep these under review. Additionally, Section 178 requires the Secretary of State to review the effectiveness of the regime two to five years after the legislation comes into force. The report on the outcome of that review must be laid before Parliament. I stress to my noble friend that the Act is not the end of the conversation; it is the foundation. We continue to look at how we can develop the legislation and how Ofcom can strengthen the codes in its own way. We are listening and debating, and we will not hesitate to take further action if it proves to be necessary.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, as the wording of my noble friend Lady Berger’s original Question and her supplementary question rightly emphasises, the report pinpoints AI-generated child sexual abuse images as a growing area of concern. Many of them were indistinguishable from real photographs, with the IWF suggesting that their growing number risks re-victimising persons who are previous victims of sexual abuse. Over 70% of AI-generated sexual abuse images are hosted on servers in Russia, Japan, the United States and the Netherlands. What is being done to solve the jurisdictional issues that allow perpetrators and disseminators of this appalling abuse to act with impunity?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend raises a really important point, but I stress that if a service, including file-sharing and storage services, poses a material risk to users in the United Kingdom, it must abide by the Online Safety Act and the illegal content duties, no matter where it is based. Ofcom has recognised the importance of tackling this issue specifically and has identified it as an early priority for enforcement, opening up a programme to assess the measures being implemented by file-sharing and file-storage services to prevent those services being used. My noble friend is right that a lot of these incidents are happening on an international basis. We are working with our colleagues internationally to make sure that we share information and determine the source of some of these materials, because sometimes we need to take action on an international basis.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, that we need to brief as we have debated this area already. But we do have a great debt of gratitude to my noble friend for bringing forward this amendment. He was, of course, a distinguished Minister for the arts. I do not think people have yet recognised the dangers of one size fits all.

We are very grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I join with him in wanting a detailed impact assessment, particularly for the instance he gave of front-of-house workers. I do not believe that the effect on creative industries has been properly assessed so far as this Bill is concerned, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, said, there is a need for flexibility.

The theatre industry has only just now recovered—or perhaps it has not yet recovered—from the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. The last thing it needs now is to be hit by this crude instrument of a Bill, which makes no allowance for the unique nature of the work that it does, and the flexibility that is necessarily inherent in how it delivers for audiences. I really do want to hear from the Minister the extent to which theatres—the larger groups, such as ATG and Delfont Mackintosh, but also small and independent theatres—have been consulted. To what extent have they been consulted about the effects of this Bill?

I will finish off with five questions for the Minister. First, does the Minister accept that the right to guaranteed hours as drafted risks reducing work opportunities for the very people it claims to support, such as students, carers, disabled workers, et cetera? Secondly, can the Minister explain how theatres and other seasonal or project-based employers are meant to reconcile guaranteed hours with programming closures, touring breaks or production gaps?

Thirdly, what modelling have the Government done to assess the potential job losses or reduced shift allocations that could result from this policy, and will they please publish that modelling? Fourthly, why have the Government ignored the clear expert evidence submitted by the Society of London Theatre and UK Theatre to the Public Bill Committee? Finally, does the Minister seriously believe that this legislation embraces inclusion and opportunity for the creative sector, when the sector itself is warning that it will do precisely the opposite?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for tabling Amendment 16, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to sector-specific work patterns when making regulations relating to the right to guaranteed hours. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions and for highlighting the sometimes unique employment practices that occur in the creative sector and, in particular, the theatre sector.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would say that we have engaged extensively with the Society of London Theatre and are happy to carry on doing so. We appreciate that some sectors—including the theatre sector, which is highlighted in the noble Lord’s amendment—do have fluctuating demand across the year.

This is a sector that I know all noble Lords recognise we need to support, for all the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, said, particularly for social value reasons. We therefore want to take note and make it right for the sector.

I reassure the Committee that flexibility is already built into the Bill to address issues of seasonal demand. There are several ways under the Bill that an employer could approach that issue while upholding the new rights to guaranteed hours depending on the circumstances, particularly by using limited-term contracts where that is reasonable. Those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn those down and remain on their current contract or arrangement if they wish. Furthermore, through the Bill we have also allowed for employees and unions to collectively agree to opt out of the zero-hours contract measures. Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and with a holistic view on what is best for their workers.

We will ensure that the needs of different sectors are considered when we come to design the regulations. We will continue to work in partnership with employers across the different sectors, their representatives, the recruitment sector and the trade unions to develop those detailed regulations, and we will provide clear guidance for both employers and workers in advance of implementing these measures.

The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, had a new concept of available hours for sectors with varying seasonal demand. We would push back on that issue. It could risk creating a two-tier guaranteed-hours framework for workers in sectors with more or less seasonal fluctuation. We believe that the reference period provided for in the Bill will ensure that qualifying workers are offered guaranteed hours that reflect the hours that they have previously worked.

I hope that, in that short contribution, I have been able to persuade the noble Lord that we are aware of the issues and are on the case. We feel that there is considerable flexibility in the Bill as it stands. We are happy to have further discussions. As we have heard from noble Lords, there are a range of issues and a range of options here, so there is not just one way of solving this problem. We are happy to get round the table and talk some more. We feel that, as the Bill is currently designed, it answers the concerns that are being raised with us, but we are happy to talk further. I therefore hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

The Minister talked about the reference period. SOLT would like to see a longer reference period because a year is much more of a real time length than 12 weeks. Is that something that the Government would consider at all?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

We have previously had a debate on the nature of reference periods, and that is something that we are going to consult further upon. If we are going to have a discussion, let us have a discussion on that as well, and I will see if I can reassure noble Lords on that matter.

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly for the willingness she has just indicated to continue discussions. SOLT and UK Theatre updated their briefing on the Bill in the light of the amendments that the Government have brought but they retain some concerns about the amendments in this area, so I am sure that they and others across the arts sector will be glad to continue to discuss it with the Government as they continue to write the Bill as it is before us.

I am grateful to the noble Lords who have spoken, especially the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton, at this late hour; their championing of the arts knows no temporal limit. I am grateful to them for staying to express support for this amendment. I should say that I am much attracted to many of the amendments that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, have tabled later in the Bill on the need to consider its differential impacts on certain sectors. I look forward to the debates we will have those.

I am grateful too to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral for his generous remarks. I am happy to say that the UK’s theatres have indeed bounced back well from the pandemic. Last year, more than 17 million theatregoers attended a show in the West End alone—an 11% increase on pre-pandemic levels. In fact, the West End outperformed the Premier League, attracting 2.5 million more attendees. As we have just finished a long Bill on football, perhaps we ought to spend a bit more time on the things that people go to in greater numbers.

However, the sector remains precarious. As the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, said, the people who are that smiling welcome at front of house are often taken for granted. During the pandemic, we saw how challenging it was for them, especially when enforcing some of the Covid restrictions. They deal with exuberant, sometimes well-oiled audiences, and during that time they had to explain to people why they had to sit two metres apart or wear face masks, or why the show had been cancelled or much delayed. They perform a vital role in welcoming people to theatrical productions, orchestral recitals and much more. As the noble Earl said, that relates just as much to cinemas and many other cultural venues. The UK Cinema Association has provided a helpful briefing on the Bill and its impacts on our cinemas.

I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this short but important prelude to the other debates that we will have on the creative industries and the cultural sector, and I am grateful to the Minister for her willingness to continue to discuss these matters with those organisations. On that basis, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 29th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his detailed engagement with our Bill and for Amendments 1, 283 and 327. I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this wide-ranging debate, which has revisited many of the debates that we had at Second Reading.

Amendment 1 seeks to insert a new clause of the beginning of the Bill to set out the overarching purpose and to provide a framework for understanding the aims of the legislation. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his challenge on this issue, but it is important to reflect on why we are bringing the Bill forward and what we hope to achieve through it.

The plan to make work pay sets out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for the modern economy, to empower working people and, importantly, to contribute to economic growth. Delivery of that plan was, as we have heard, a manifesto commitment and part of the mandate on which the Labour Government were elected. On 10 October, the Government fulfilled their manifesto commitment to bring forward legislation within 100 days of entering office by introducing the Employment Rights Bill.

The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hunt, and others have asked about the later amendments that have been tabled. I reassure noble Lords that these are technical amendments and that the Committee will have adequate opportunity to scrutinise them all properly. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and others asked about an implementation plan. I reassure noble Lords that that will be shared as soon as it is available. We agree that businesses need guidance on the timescale and implementation of the measures in this Bill. We are working at pace to ensure that they have that information.

There is strong support for the measures included in the Bill. The Institute for Public Policy Research found that every constituency in the UK has a majority or plurality of people who believe that workers’ rights should be strengthened. My noble friend Lady O’Grady mentioned the latest poll. In addition, the TUC’s polling and that of HOPE not hate of over 21,000 people across the political spectrum has found strong support for key policies in the Bill. More than seven in 10 of UK voters—72%—support a ban on zero-hours contracts. Three-quarters of voters support giving all workers the right to statutory sick pay and ensuring that it is paid from the first day. Three-quarters of voters support giving all workers protection from unfair dismissal from the first day in their job.

This is a comprehensive Bill which delivers on a clear mandate from the British public. Once implemented, the Bill will represent the biggest upgrade of workers’ rights in a generation. Good employers support this package, because many of them are already delivering these standards. What they do not want is to be undercut on an uneven playing field.

I can give a few examples; I know the Opposition like to ask this question. Centrica, the Co-op, Richer Sounds, Nationwide, IVC Evidensia and IKEA UK and Ireland have all given their support to the measures in the Bill, and a lot of SMEs have done likewise, so it does have resonance with the business community.

Modernising the world of work will raise standards and tackle undercutting so that businesses are empowered to compete in a race to the top. I can reassure noble Lords that the Government, of course, recognise the concerns about the costs to business. The £5 billion figure from our impact assessment is a top-end estimate of the costs, which will largely represent a direct transfer to the lowest paid in society, with the bottom end of the range close to £1 billion.

The costs, therefore, are likely to be under 0.4% of our national wage bill and could even be as low as 0.1%. Furthermore, improving workers’ well-being, increasing productivity, reducing workplace conflict and creating a more level playing field for good employers would grant significant benefits worth billions of pounds per year. That is why delivering the benefits of the Bill would offset the costs.

I can reassure noble Lords that a number of these measures, as I have already said, have strong support from businesses, and we will of course carry on consulting them as we put these plans into practice to ensure that they are as effective as possible. The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, mentioned the tech sector and will know that I am very minded of this. We will continue to engage with the tech sector on a regular basis to make sure that it contributes everything it can to the Government’s growth strategy.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, and others have mentioned SMEs, and we will have the chance to debate this later in the Bill. In short, we do not agree that there should be two-tier employment rights: employment rights for all is a fundamental principle.

The noble Lord, Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, talked about skills. We are absolutely committed to a new skills agenda, which is why Skills England is modernising our skills provision. It is an area where, traditionally, the unions and employers have made common cause to make sure that the upskilling of the workforce happens on a comprehensive basis.

This Bill shows the Government’s commitment to strengthening collective bargaining rights and trade union recognition. Our approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions, employers and the Government. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, our reforms remove hurdles that frustrate the voices of workers, but trade unions will still need to win a majority of workers’ votes in a ballot to be recognised by an employer. If workers do not want to be represented by a trade union, they will have the option to vote against recognition in that ballot.

On Clause 1 and the proposed list of priorities, I agree with my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lady Carberry that the purposes are already covered in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Hendy pointed out that the Long Title already addresses the purposes within the Bill, and as my noble friend Lady Carberry pointed out, the list is not exhaustive. If we are to have a list, it would need to be a whole lot longer than it is at the moment and cover a whole range of other aspirations already covered in Labour’s Plan to Make Work Pay.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, raised other issues that could be included in that list. Again, I assure her and others that all these issues have been consulted on extensively in the Bill. I would like to reassure noble Lords that there is no need for such a clause to be inserted to achieve this aim. The Explanatory Notes set out the purpose of the Bill clearly and provide further detail on the aims of the legislation. These notes were updated when the Bill transferred to this House and will be updated again when it receives Royal Assent. The Government have also published a series of fact sheets, which are available on GOV.UK and aid the understanding of the Bill’s aims.

Finally, from a legal perspective, inclusion of such a clause could risk producing unintended consequences on the interpretation of specific provisions within the Bill, which have been drafted to achieve the particular purposes concerned. While I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is trying to achieve, and I appreciate the debate that he has created, I hope I have persuaded him that it is not appropriate to include this in the Bill.

Amendment 283 seeks to require the Secretary of State

“to publish a code of practice providing employers with guidance on complying with the Act”.

This has had much less attention in the debate but, nevertheless, I will attempt to address the concerns that the noble Lord raised.

We have consulted and remain committed to consulting widely on the detail of implementation. The Government have also committed to ensuring that, where appropriate, guidance is published to ensure that all stakeholders have the information they need to make necessary adjustments. However, a Bill-wide code of practice, as suggested in the amendment, would be duplicative of the policy-specific guidance and codes of practice that the Government will already produce to support workers, employers and trade unions in implementing the reforms.

There is existing provision for the issue of guidance and codes of practice across employment law. Where relevant, the Bill amends those provisions to reflect that they will need to be updated to take account of the changes made by the Bill. This includes codes of practice issued by ACAS under the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act. Such codes are subject to consultation requirements and must be laid in draft in both Houses for approval, and we are already working closely with ACAS to plan ahead for this work.

Where new statutory guidance is required, this is also provided for, such as in Clause 30, which inserts new Section 83D into the Procurement Act to make provision for the issue of codes of practice on relevant outsourcing contracts by appropriate authorities.

By requiring a single Bill-wide code of practice, this amendment would also risk delaying the Government in offering certainty on the details of policy and regulation on individual issues as they become available. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that this would therefore result in duplication and unnecessary delay.

Amendment 327 would prevent the implementation of measures in the Bill until the point at which the Government produce a Bill-wide code of practice. Some measures in the Bill will not require any further guidance before they are implemented—for example, the repeal of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023. Delaying the date on which these measures can commence would unnecessarily delay the point at which workers can benefit from measures in the Bill.

Codes of practice are used to provide guidance to employers on how to comply with employment law. By nature they are detailed, building on and clarifying requirements set out in statute. There are several measures in the Bill where further consultation will be required to develop regulations setting out key details of reforms. Within six months, it would not be possible for all the outstanding policy details to be finalised to inform the content of a Bill-wide code of practice. Codes should bring clarity, but these timelines would risk patchy or unclear content if we were to go ahead on the basis of these amendments.

I agree with the need to ensure that workers, trade unions and employers are sufficiently supported for the implementation of the Bill, but this amendment is unnecessary and duplicative. I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord that the codes of practice that he envisages would not help to provide the detailed guidance that employers and workers require. I thank him for raising the issue, but I hope I have persuaded him not to press those amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The Minister has shared with the Committee that there is an implementation plan. As we are now moving to consider each clause, the first few in particular, it would be helpful for the Committee to be made aware of the part of the implementation plan that governs each and every clause. Is she able to share it with the Committee and, if so, by when? Might we at least see a draft of the implementation plan, so that businesses across the UK know what lies ahead?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I know the noble Lord has already raised this, and he tempts me, but there has to be further consultation. He will understand that. Part of the legislation obviously requires further consultation to take place. We are still looking at the timescales for all this, and we obviously understand the need to provide guidance as soon as we can, but what I can say that will be reassuring to everybody concerned is that this will be a phased process; this is not a day-one process. We just need to make sure that the phasing of all this makes sense for employers so that it can be done on a proper basis and with the appropriate guidelines behind it. We are working on it, we will share it as soon as we can, and we understand the need for it, but it is not available at this time.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, for his Amendment 15. This amendment addresses an important gap in the current draft of the Bill, particularly for workers in industries such as hospitality, retail and other seasonal or temporary employment areas where fluctuating demand and short-term contracts are the norm. I believe it is vital to recognise that many workers in these sectors actually value the flexibility that comes with non-guaranteed hours. For some, the opportunity to accept irregular work, tailored to their availability and lifestyle, is not just desirable but essential. For students, people looking for part-time work and those balancing other commitments, this flexibility is often more important than the certainty of a fixed number of hours. I am particularly curious to hear the Minister’s thoughts on this amendment, as it seems to me to offer a practical and reasonable solution to the challenges posed by the Bill’s current provisions. The introduction of flexibility, in a way that empowers both the employer and the employee, can only enhance the working arrangements available to those in temporary or short-term roles.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea and Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, for tabling their amendments to the clauses on zero-hours contracts. I will begin with Amendments 7, 11 and 12, which seek to amend Clause 1 to set the initial reference period for the right to guaranteed hours at 26 weeks. They would also remove the power to define the length of the initial reference period in regulations, or would render it obsolete. I say to the noble Lords that the length of the initial reference period will be set out in regulations, and of course we will consult further on this issue, but it is expected to be 12 weeks—that is the figure we are currently thinking about.

The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, urged that the measures be proportionate and reasonable. We feel that our proposals as they stand are exactly that. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hendy for reminding us that 1.3 million people will never reach the reference period if it is 26 weeks, as their employment will not be that long. There is a very good reason why we should not extend the period.

We believe that 12 weeks is the appropriate length. It would be long enough to establish the hours that the workers regularly work while allowing qualifying workers to be offered guaranteed hours reasonably soon after they start a job, or after the right to guaranteed hours comes into effect. If the initial reference period was set at 26 weeks, workers in precarious and unpredictable work would have to wait six months to access their right to guaranteed hours. We believe this is too long in the current labour market circumstances.

Similarly, Amendment 13 would specify in the Bill that the subsequent reference period for the right to guaranteed hours is 26 weeks. The length and frequency of the subsequent reference periods will be set out in regulations. Subsequent reference periods may well be of a different length and frequency from the initial reference period. This is because, unlike the initial reference period, subsequent reference periods are not qualifying periods. Therefore, a different balance needs to be considered. It is necessary to set out both the initial reference period and subsequent period lengths in regulations to allow changes to reference periods to be made, for example in response to emerging evidence about how this novel right is working in practice or in light of evolving working practices. As I said, we intend to consult on the length and frequency of subsequent reference periods.

Amendment 9 seeks to amend Clause 1 to take workers on fixed-term contracts out of scope of the right to guaranteed hours. This could lead to avoidance behaviour, whereby employers move workers from open-ended zero-hours contracts to fixed-term zero-hours contracts. We also believe that workers on limited-term contracts lasting longer than the duration of the reference period should be entitled to a guaranteed-hours offer. This is because such workers may experience one-sided flexibility in the same way as those on permanent contracts.

I emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers using limited-term contracts. Employers can make a guaranteed-hours offer resulting in a limited-term contract if it is reasonable for that contract to be of a limited term. For example, as has been mentioned several times, it might be reasonable to provide a worker with a limited-term contract only to cover the increase in retail demand during the Christmas period. If a limited-term contract is shorter than the initial reference period, then the worker would likely not qualify for a guaranteed-hours offer, but that would depend on the conditions as to regularity or number and whether it was reasonable for the contract to be of a limited term.

Amendment 8 seeks to amend Clause 1 to set the hours threshold in the Bill at a maximum of four hours a week. It would also remove the power to set the hours threshold in regulations. I listened carefully to the arguments, in particular from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on the interests of part-time workers, but under this amendment workers who are guaranteed more than four hours per week would not be eligible for the right to guaranteed hours.

The hours threshold will be crucial to determining how many workers are included in scope of the right to guaranteed hours. It is partly intended to act as an anti-avoidance measure, preventing employers avoiding the duty to offer guaranteed hours by moving a worker on to a contract guaranteeing only a very small number of hours. Setting it to only four or fewer hours per week would mean, for example, that any worker with only five hours guaranteed per week would fall out of scope of the new provisions, even though they may experience unpredictable hours and income in the same way as other zero-hours workers. Similarly, if we were to set the threshold too high, it could have unintended consequences and impact the overtime arrangements of workers who already have sufficient predictability and security.

Additionally, given the novelty of these provisions, it is important that the Government retain the flexibility to amend the threshold in future, for example in the light of evolving work practices. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and others that we intend to consult on the hours threshold, including the issues raised today, as part of the consultation. Including the threshold in the Bill at this stage would remove the opportunity to have that consultation and for unions, employers and workers to feed in their views.

[Lord Wolfson of Aspley Guise (Con)]

Would the Minister accept that having a maximum number in the Bill would be enormously important so that business can prepare for this? The number of hours set as the threshold will determine the number of employees who need to be dealt with. If it is 3% of our workforce, that will be one thing; if it is 50%, that will be another. While I accept that the Government need flexibility, would they at least consider setting a maximum number of hours in the Bill so that business can start to prepare now, as we will need to do if we are to have the systems in place in one year’s time to implement this Bill?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As we have said when other people have suggested fixed rates, we need to avoid unintended consequences or the gaming of those arrangements. I am inclined at the moment to resist what the noble Lord has said, but we can consider that further as the Bill progresses.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, in adult social care or care, you are at the mercy of people going into hospital or passing away and those hours suddenly becoming contracted. Where are the safeguards for the employers at that point? There is no guarantee that people will come out of hospital. You cannot wish more hours to happen; you are at the mercy of people wanting care. I do not understand how this will work in the care sector, so it would be really helpful to understand the Government’s thinking on that.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The same thing would apply as for seasonal workers, in the sense of that unpredictability. The Bill allows seasonal work to continue; fixed-term contracts can be an effective way for an employer to meet temporary or seasonal demands for work—

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

Forgive me; I thank the Minister for her patience. Seasonal work is incredibly different from care, which is about the elements around you. We cannot predict when somebody will fall sick, go into hospital for long or short periods or pass away. It is a very different discussion point. I want us to be mindful, in thinking about the overall picture, of how certain sectors fit in.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Obviously, we want all sectors to have the right facilities for them. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is talking about home care or the care home sector. Perhaps we can have a conversation outside; I will attempt to set up a meeting with her, because I do not want to be misconstrued.

Amendments 10 and 31 seek to amend the Bill so that agency workers do not have a right to guaranteed hours. We are determined to ensure that agency workers who seek more certainty of hours and security of income are protected. Some workers choose agency work because they value flexibility, but they can also experience one-sided flexibility in the same way as other workers. Failing to include agency workers in the scope of the Bill could also see employers shift to using more agency workers to avoid the zero-hours measures altogether. As with other eligible workers, agency workers who prefer the flexibility that agency work provides would be free to turn down the guaranteed-hours offer.

After public consultation, the Government brought forward amendments to the Employment Rights Bill so that hirers, agencies and agency workers are clear where responsibilities will rest in relation to the new rights. However, we recognise that some measures may need to apply in a different way to agency workers because of the tripartite relationship between the end hirer, the employment agency and the agency workers. The Government will consult further and continue to work in partnership with employers’ organisations, the recruitment sector and trade unions to develop the detail of regulations in a way that avoids unintended consequences for employment agencies and hirers.

Amendment 32 seeks to remove from the Bill the power to place the duty to make a guaranteed-hours offer on the work-finding agency, or another party involved in the supply or payment of an agency worker instead of the hirer. We included this power in line with the responses to the Government’s consultation on applying zero-hours contract measures to agency workers. Responses from stakeholders were split about whether this new duty should lie between the hirer, the agency or another party in the supply chain. We are clear that, as a default, the hirer should be responsible for making the offers of guaranteed hours because they are best placed to forecast and manage the flow of future work.

However, given the unique and complex nature of agency worker relationships, which vary in different parts of the economy, the power is required to allow the Government flexibility to determine specific cases in which the responsibility to offer guaranteed hours should not sit with the hirer. For instance, this could be the case with vulnerable individual hirers who receive or procure care from agencies—I am not sure whether that is the point to which the noble Baroness referred earlier—where instead the agency might be in a better position to offer guaranteed hours. We are aware of the importance of this power and the impact these regulations could have on agency workers, hirers, agencies and others in the supply chain. For this reason, this power will be subject to the affirmative procedure, ensuring both Houses of Parliament get further opportunity to debate its use.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Can the Minister talk us through the agency question a little bit more? If you need emergency care, you go to an agency and it finds you someone, then you pay a very large sum of money for agency care. Is the Minister suggesting that in future, and considering the ups and downs, the agencies will have to guarantee those who are involved in emergency care these very high salaries, which they will have to pay, even if they do not find clients? Is that how she thinks it will work out in practice? Is it enough to say it is going to go into regulations, when this is so important for the care sector and emergency care?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I was making the point that this has complications because there are some people who are individual hirers. Some people get benefits to employ people directly, so it is not always done through a third party. That is why we need to have clearer rules about this. I am happy to write to noble Lords or explain this in a little bit more detail if that helps.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

The problem with direct payments is that you are making the person who receives the payment into the employer. They are usually individuals who are looking after their own care; they will not have the facilities to go through the quagmire of rules and regulations. I say this just to give some assistance.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I take that point. I was attempting to explain in my description, which I obviously need to develop a little bit more, that we understood some of those issues and are trying to find a way through it.

Amendments 3, 4 and 6 seek to change the model for the right to guaranteed hours from a right to be offered to a right to request. We have debated this at some length. These amendments would mean that a qualifying worker experiencing one-sided flexibility would need to make a request to their employer to access their right to guaranteed hours. Noble Lords underestimate the imbalance of powers that employees in this circumstance face. The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, mentioned young people, which is the group that is likely to be the most intimidated by having to request guaranteed hours. Therefore, we are attempting to make sure that these rights are balanced in a proper and more effective way.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Carberry for reminding us that the Low Pay Commission also looked at a right to request and, understandably, rejected it for exactly that reason. It understood that the people in those circumstances had the least power in the labour market and would therefore, quite rightly, feel intimidated about coming forward. She also raised the issue of what happens if the request is denied. I know the noble Lord, Lord Fox, attempted to address that, but I do not know that the amendments necessarily do so. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, says that employment has changed since those days. I would say that employment has become even more unpredictable and unreliable. Nothing that the Low Pay Commission said—or indeed that I said—addresses the potential exploitation which the commission identified. There is an imbalance, and it is very difficult for people to come forward and make that request; that is why we are insistent that it is done in the way that we have suggested.

After receiving an offer, the workers would then be able decide whether to accept it, based on its specific terms. That would empower the worker to decide for themselves, having seen the offer on the table. This addresses the point that some people do want to work flexible hours, and we understand that.

Amendment 15 would allow workers on limited-term contracts of four months or less to voluntarily waive their right to guaranteed hours. We believe that workers should be able to retain the flexibility of a zero-hours contract or arrangement if they wish, which is why those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down and remain on their current contract or arrangement if they wish. This amendment would add an additional opt-out mechanism for workers that could create needless confusion for both employers and workers.

Amendment 17 would provide workers with the ability to opt out of receiving guaranteed-hours offers. We understand the importance of workers being able to retain the flexibility of zero-hours contracts or arrangements if they wish, which is why those receiving a guaranteed-hours offer will be able to turn it down. However, to ensure that all qualifying workers will benefit from the legislation, all workers should be able to receive a guaranteed-hours offer. We want to ensure that employers and workers are starting from a position of equal bargaining power. Therefore, through the Bill we have allowed for employers and unions to collectively agree to opt out of the zero-hours contract measure, if they agree. Unions can make these deals based on their knowledge of the industry and a holistic view of what is best for the workers. We feel it is more appropriate than individual workers opting out of receiving offers. After receiving an offer, qualifying workers would then be able to decide whether to accept, based on their individual circumstances.

Finally, Amendment 2 would remove from the Bill the right for qualifying workers to be offered guaranteed hours. We think that all employers should be required to offer their qualifying workers guaranteed hours, as this is the best way of addressing one-sided flexibility in the workplace and ensuring that jobs provide a baseline of security and predictability.

Without guaranteed hours, workers do not have any form of certainty as to their earnings, making it difficult to apply for credit or a mortgage, to rent a flat, to plan for major events, or even to manage their day-to-day life expenses. As I have previously iterated, those who are offered guaranteed hours will be able to turn them down and remain on a current contract or arrangement if they wish. We believe that this is the right balance. I therefore hope that I have persuaded noble Lords not to press their amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister is relying a great deal on the fabled consultation that we are going to have. Can we have some idea of when that consultation is likely to take place? Can I suggest that it perhaps takes place before we get to Report, because it will iron out a great many of these arguments? The Minister asserted that some businesses have supported the 12-week reference period. Can she say which ones?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The Bill sets out, in a number of ways, that there will be regulations that will be consulted upon. This goes back to the issue of when that consultation will take place, but there is a framework for that set out in the Bill which should cover that point.

[Noble Lords]

And the second point?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I said, I read out the names of a number of businesses that are broadly supportive, but we have not gone through clause by clause asking which particular pieces of the Bill they are supporting. However, businesses that are household names are in support of the Bill.

[Baroness Verma (Con)]

My Lords, very quickly, large businesses may be able to be supportive. Could the Minister name any small business that she has come across that supports this?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Again, there is a list of SMEs that support the basis of the Bill. I do not think it is going to help anybody if we go back and ask them for the specifics of whether they agree with each clause. The fact is that they agree with the direction of travel and a number of businesses, big and small, are already carrying out many of these practices, so it will not be unusual to them. This is about good employment practice and I am sure a lot of businesses will support it.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

Committee stage
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I entirely support the Bill and I ask this question only because I am concerned about exactly what is meant by Clause 3(4)(a) saying that the Secretary of State can enter a premises “using force if necessary”. How is that expected to work?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that by now noble Lords will be more than familiar with what the Government are seeking to do with this legislation. It will allow us to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. As such, I will turn swiftly to the amendments at hand.

Noble Lords across the House have raised a number of important issues relating to the parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill. I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government take these concerns very seriously. With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that seeks to add a sunset clause to the Bill, I will reiterate what I said earlier: because of the speed at which this legislation has been drafted and the uncertainty of the situation, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to set a timeline on those specific interventions. As noble Lords are keenly aware, the current international situation is unpredictable. A fixed sunset clause would not be practical and would cause an unacceptable amount of uncertainty if a solution to the issue at hand became protracted. In those circumstances, we might have to come back to Parliament and go over this whole process again.

We can revoke directions given to a particular steel company at any time once the need for intervention has passed. As I have said, we would welcome working with the Business and Trade Select Committee in the other place and relevant committees of your Lordships’ House, to make sure that we work with your Lordships and Members of the other place and keep everyone updated, so that these powers are not in place any longer than is absolutely necessary.

I was clear in the debate earlier today that the Government will provide an update to Parliament every four sitting weeks, as well as providing information to relevant Select Committees. I do not want to pre-empt discussions in the usual channels across both Houses about the nature of these updates, but it is our intention that the first instance will be an Oral Statement and that subsequent updates will be made in an appropriate manner. What this means in practice will be subject to further discussion but could, for example, be determined by the reality on the ground at that time.

Given the interest in both the steel sector and the use of powers in this Bill, I can confirm that my noble friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the Act. This will take place within six months, with exact details to be subject to further discussion in the usual channels. In addition, as stated in the Government’s letter to all Peers this morning, we intend to publish our steel strategy in the spring. We will continue other related work, such as on our modern industrial strategy, and we will of course update noble Lords on that as well. All of these moments will allow scrutiny of the Government’s use of the powers in this Bill and of our wider efforts to support the vitally important steel industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, draws attention to Clause 3(2) and his concern about the words that the Secretary of State can do “anything”. I have to say to him that those words need to be read in conjunction with the rest of that sentence, which limits them to anything that a

“relevant person in relation to that undertaking could do”.

It is for only a very specific purpose. I hope that this commitment satisfies the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

I underline that a sunset clause would create further uncertainty for thousands of workers, who need to know that their jobs are secure on a long-term basis. Inserting a sunset clause would create an arbitrary deadline by which the long-term future of that plant would need to be settled. As I said before, nothing is off the table in our response to securing the future of steel in this country. We should send a strong message today to those whose livelihoods depend on the steel sector that this Parliament stands behind them.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, seeks to add to Clause 3(2), after “the Secretary of State”, the words,

“or a responsible person they designate”.

I can confirm that Clause 3(2) entitles the Secretary of State to do

“anything … that the steel undertaking, or any relevant person … could do”.

So officials can act in the name of the Secretary of State.

Regarding the question of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about using force if necessary, this will be a statutory power to be carried out by those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Officials or their agents could use force to enter the premises, but this would have to be lawful force; therefore, they could not assault anyone, and there would have to be clear barriers on their actions. It is up to police judgment as to whether they would intervene, based on usual policing principles.

I hope I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters. I therefore respectfully ask that all the amendments in this group are not pressed.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in wanting to send a strong message from Parliament to all those involved in the Scunthorpe steelworks that we are solidly in support of them, and that everything we do today is directed to that end.

Turning to my amendment and the debate we have just had, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, made a very important point about civil servants being able to act in the name of the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lady Coffey confirmed that that was the case, so at least we know where we are.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, very much indeed. He and I have been working together on this as hard as we possibly can to find a way through, because we do not want to stop this action in its tracks—far from it. We just feel that Parliament—in particular, the House of Lords—and the words of our Constitution Committee should not be disregarded. The committee has a right to stress the importance of sunset clauses.

However, having heard this debate, I am quite happy, following discussions through the usual channels, to indicate that such a debate could be postponed until we know a little more clearly where we are. In six months’ time, if we are to have—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have suggested—what he referred to as a substantive debate, and, as the Minister said, further debate on the operation of this legislation, we have made a great deal of progress. The voice of this Chamber has been heard, and I am very pleased to have been able to speak in this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Moylan that he and I still await the reply to the question that he posed, but no doubt the Minister will write.

I do not think that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has had an answer to her point about force. That is something that we will have to leave for another day, but it is a very important issue. We should not be giving powers in this Parliament to individuals to use force without clarifying exactly the circumstances in which they can be used.

All in all, we have reached a reasonable conclusion, and I am very grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and taken to heart the concerns of this Chamber about the need for this legislation to have an end date. We will return to that in the debate that we will have in October on a substantive Motion, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Steel Industry

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

To move that this House takes note of His Majesty’s Government’s legislative proposals to ensure the continued operation of the steel industry in the light of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, the House has reconvened under exceptional circumstances, which merit an exceptional response from the Government. Our request to recall Parliament was not made lightly, and I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for being here today as the Government seek to pass this emergency legislation.

This legislation allows the Government to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. I reassure noble Lords that, given the exceptional nature of a recall, the Government thought it better to limit the powers in the Bill—which are still significant—rather than introduce more complex matters of property rights and public ownership at the same time. This is not about nationalisation. We are keeping all options under review, and we will of course return to Parliament for further scrutiny should the need arise.

As noble Lords will know, since taking office, the Government have been negotiating in good faith with British Steel’s owners, Jingye. We have sought to prevent the early closure of the two blast furnaces at the company’s Scunthorpe site, which Jingye has claimed are no longer financially viable. We have worked tirelessly to find a way forward, making a generous offer of support to British Steel with sensible, common-sense conditions to protect the workforce and UK taxpayers, and to create a commercially viable company for the future. Jingye’s refusal to accept the deal on the table, and to accelerate the closure of the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe, has left us no other choice: we must now take control of the company’s blast furnaces.

Let there be no doubt: this Government will never hesitate to take action to protect this nation’s assets. We will not abandon the hard-working steel-making communities that have given so much to both our economy and country. Where vital industries are on the verge of collapse or where communities face devastation, we will always act in the national interest.

We do not accept the argument that steel-making has no future in the UK. As the Prime Minister asserted yesterday, our plan for change means that domestic demand for steel is set only to go up, not down. In the last few weeks alone, we have seen Heathrow Airport announce multi-billion-pound expansion plans requiring 400,000 tonnes of new steel. We have seen Universal Studios confirm that it will build Europe’s biggest theme park, and, where possible, it will use UK-made steel to make it. We need British steel for this and our critical infrastructure projects, from rail to renewable energy. We need it to keep Britain secure at home and strong abroad.

The legislation we are setting out today will also help end the uncertainty that has been hanging over British Steel’s Scunthorpe site for far too long. We know that rebuilding our steel industry brings its fair share of challenges, but we believe that they are worth facing and that we are more than prepared to overcome them. It is why we agreed a new deal with better protections for workers at Port Talbot within weeks of taking office, which will transform production and deliver a modern electric arc furnace. It is why we have delivered measures as part of the British industry supercharger to cut electricity costs for steel firms and bring prices more in line with international competitors.

It is why we have simplified public procurement, aligning it with our industrial strategy, which is putting UK firms, including those in the steel industry, in the best possible position to bid for and win public contracts. It is why we launched a consultation on our steel strategy as part of an effort to work with industry on overcoming difficult issues, such as high electricity costs and unfair trading practices, so that we can protect the UK’s industrial heartlands.

It is why we have taken the decision today to safeguard British Steel. Britain is a steel-making country. Steel-making has been fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, security and identity as a global power. Today’s legislation will help ensure that we can retain that steel-making capability here in the UK, both now and for many years to come, and I urge the House to support it. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords not just for participating in this debate but for returning to this place in these exceptional circumstances. Before I respond to the comments that have been made, I reiterate the points made by the Prime Minister yesterday and by the Business Secretary in the other place today: the Government have always said from the outset of their negotiations with Jingye that we would keep every option on the table and act in the national interest to protect British jobs.

UK-forged steel built our railways, bridges and buildings. It is an integral part of our economic future, as it has been in our industrial past. That is why we need to pass this legislation today. I am therefore grateful to my noble friends Lord Reid, Lord Tunnicliffe, Lord West, Lady Drake, Lord Glasman and Lord Hanworth, and to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer for reminding us how fundamental steel is to our infrastructure and our future economic growth plans. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern, and my noble friend Lady Ramsey, who reminded us of the human cost of the potential closure of the Scunthorpe site. We reiterate our commitment to protecting jobs and communities impacted by that potential closure.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Moylan, complained about the urgency with which we have had to rush this legislation through. I think they do not appreciate the urgency of the situation we find ourselves in. Those blast furnaces were in danger of failing within days. That is why we are here today and why this action was so necessary. Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am not inclined to take lessons from the party opposite, given their record over the previous 14 years. In her year and a half as the Business and Trade Secretary, Kemi Badenoch met UK steel companies on just three occasions. On the party opposite’s watch, UK steel production plummeted by 4 million metric tonnes between 2010 and 2023—an eye-watering fall of 42% in manufacturing. The UK went from the 17th largest steel producer in the world to the 26th largest over that period. The economic output of UK steel halved to £2.3 billion in that time. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, heralded the use of coal and the opportunities that it would provide. I must remind him that it was his party that closed the coal mines and made us reliant on imported coal in the first place.

The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, asked if we would apologise. The Government will not apologise for acting in the national interest. As my right honourable friend said in the other place, this issue should have been resolved years ago. The situation we inherited across the board on assuming office is one in which most of our foundation industries found themselves in difficulty. Since 2010, UK crude steel production has almost halved. We know that rebuilding our steel industry after years of neglect will be a challenge, but it is one that this Government have grasped and it is why today, where others have shied, we have stepped up to take action.

I move on to some of the points that have been made. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, asked about the legal advice from the Attorney-General. It is the Government’s policy not to discuss advice provided to the Government.

The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, asked about Teesside. Ultimately, British Steel has been responsible for commercial decisions regarding its location strategy. The Government were right to prioritise protecting as many jobs as possible during those negotiations, but it is not right to force job losses in Scunthorpe to benefit Teesside. However, of course we want to do the best we can by Teesside communities, so the Government are continuing to work with the Tees Valley Combined Authority and local partners on regional investment and growth opportunities.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about international law and our obligations. I can assure him that everything we do is in compliance with our international law obligations under the WTO, the GATT framework and international law more generally. I reassure him that we are entirely satisfied that these short-term powers are within the terms of our international law obligations.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and others asked whether compensation would be paid. We need compensation provision within the Bill to preserve the investment climate and to comply with international standards, but the chances of compensation being recovered are slim because the powers are there to protect the company’s assets, not to damage them. Compensation would also have to be done via an SI, which would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny through the negative resolution.

The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, also asked whether the Bill’s powers were overreaching for the Secretary of State. The powers are linked to what a relevant person could have done. Basically, they are to do anything that management is empowered to do, so they are there within those confines.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baronesses, Lady Brinton and Lady Laing, and other noble Lords asked about the sunset clause. Because of the speed at which the legislation has been drafted and the uncertainty of the situation, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to set a timeline for these specific interventions. The current international situation is unpredictable, so a fixed sunset clause would not be workable or acceptable, as we might have to come back to Parliament and do it all again. We can, of course, revoke directions at any time in relation to a particular steel company once the need for intervention has passed. We would welcome working with the Business and Trade Select Committee to make sure we work with Members and keep them updated so that these powers are not in place any longer than is absolutely necessary. We understand the concern of the House about the use of these powers, and it is right that Parliament closely monitors this. We will be updating the House every four weeks on the use of these powers.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for those words. What this House seeks, rather than an update, is the opportunity to invoke these powers in a way that they appear to be intended. They have been called emergency powers, and the Minister has called them short-term powers. Will the Government, within six months of this Bill coming into force, commit to having a substantive debate, in both Houses, to determine whether the Act will continue and to acting on any resolution of the House of Commons on the further continuation of those powers?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I have been here on a number of occasions answering questions on the situation with steel. In the future, we will continue to engage as widely as we have done to make sure that Parliament is updated on these matters. As I have said, we will update the House every four sitting weeks on the use of these powers. I honestly think that, in these circumstances, that is sufficient.

[The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)]

The Business and Trade Select Committee, which the Minister just spoke of, is a House of Commons committee. Within our own House, we have the Industry and Regulators Committee. Are the Government proposing that they would offer the same service, as it were, to our committee as well?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for raising that question. I am sure that we would be happy to consult with the relevant committees within your Lordships’ House as well.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the cost of providing these safeguards. We are directing British Steel to act in a way that safeguards its assets, and this funding should be provided by the company. If the Government need to spend money, we will look to recover that from the company if we can and where reasonable. We have committed up to £2.5 billion for steel, via the National Wealth Fund and other routes, and no further government borrowing is envisaged to support any intervention. The alternative would be importing steel at considerable extra cost to our economy. As noble Lords have pointed out, we would then be the only country in the G20 without domestic steel production. There is a cost either way, and we must balance those costs when we make decisions going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked what was happening in Port Talbot and whether we are nationalising British Steel in response to this situation. As I made clear in my opening comments, we are not nationalising anything. We have put forward a Bill to ensure the continued safe operation of the blast furnaces. Without swift intervention, there was a risk of accelerated closure, jeopardising the safety and production outcomes of British Steel.

Tata Steel decided to close the blast furnaces at Port Talbot in January 2024 under the previous Government, and the decision to provide a grant agreement towards Port Talbot’s transition project was made by the previous Government. This transition was already well under way by the time we came into office. This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made. However, I say to the House that we negotiated an improved deal with Tata, after just 10 weeks in office, with better terms for workers, future investment opportunities for the area and the highest voluntary redundancy package Tata has ever offered. Since then, we have provided more than £50 million directly to the local community, from the £80 million available from the UK Government to help people learn new skills, to support the supply chain and to protect people’s mental health.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others asked about the endgame for British Steel. Our long-term aspiration for British Steel remains a co-investment agreement with a private sector partner to secure a long-term transformation. We are determined to see a bright and profitable future for steel-making in this country.

A number of noble Lords asked about energy prices and the cost of energy. The Government are committed to tackling high industrial prices in the UK. The British industry supercharger package of measures for energy-intensive industries came into force in April 2024 and brings energy costs for strategically important UK industries, including steel, closer in line with other major economies around the world, so that they remain competitive on the world stage. Once fully implemented in April 2025, the measures will save eligible businesses on average £24 to £31 per megawatt hour on their electricity costs. The total value of reduced electricity prices is estimated to be between £320 million and £410 million in 2025 and around £5.1 billion over 10 years. This will help keep business energy costs down.

To reiterate the point about future scrutiny of the implementation of the Bill, as the Secretary of State said in the other place, we are happy to engage with relevant committees, and I am happy to keep the House updated on these matters. We will continue to update the House every four sitting weeks on the use of these powers.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Can I just say to the Minister how grateful we are that she understands the House’s concern about the use of these powers? As I understand it, she has told the House that she will return every four weeks to update the House on the use of the powers. However, she was intervened on by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to suggest that she might go a little further than that and have a clear debate after six months. I still think that this whole question of a sunset clause is very relevant indeed. Can the Minister expand on what she said earlier—that she believes that a fixed sunset clause would not be workable or acceptable? Why not? It is generally accepted in this House that powers of this nature should have a sunset clause. Can she perhaps expand on that and give a little more detail before we consider whether to table such an amendment?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I had answered that point. The Bill, as it stands here, is to deal with one emergency. As we know, it is a volatile sector and we might need to use those powers at other times. We will use them judiciously and with care, and, as I keep saying, we will continue to update the House as to the use of those powers. We do not feel that a sunset clause is necessary or desirable in this Bill. To clarify, my general comment to the noble Lord was that we would continue to engage with the Lords committees to make sure that they are fully updated with progress going forward.

In concluding this debate, I convey my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and for helping us to pass this legislation so that we can retain steel-making capacity in the UK—for British workers’ security, for British industry’s future and for the future of British Steel workers and their families. That is our priority and that is how we intend to go forward.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

The Minister did not respond to my specific question about ensuring that the amount of any compensation paid under the terms of the Bill would be absolutely clear and stated to the public and to Parliament.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a reasonable point. I am sure that we can accommodate that and make sure that that information is available.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

Can I just point out to the Minister that I asked a number a questions that she has not answered? Will she look at the record and write to me?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I apologise to the noble Lord—he was speaking more quickly than I can write. I will endeavour to respond to the points that I have not been able to respond to so far.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Before the Minister sits down again, I made a specific point about whether nationalisation was one of the options on the table under review.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I make it clear that nothing is off the table. All options will be considered. I have also made it clear that this Bill is not about nationalising steel. If we need to take any further steps, we will obviously have to come back to the House with further proposals.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

What opportunity will this House have to reflect on the Bill?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Obviously, we have had a full debate today. As I said, we will come back regularly to report on progress to the House, including to the relevant committees of the House, so there will be plenty of opportunities to measure the implementation of the Bill as we go forward.

Motion agreed.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the Bill be now read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, for the record, we debated the purpose of this Bill earlier today.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Excerpts

3rd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

That the Bill do now pass.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Jones of Whitchurch) (Lab)]

My Lords, we are moving at pace, which is a good thing. I remain grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this process, in particular those who tabled amendments and those who have spoken in today’s debates.

The passing of this legislation is needed not just to protect British Steel and its 3,500 employees; it is needed to protect the future of the UK steel industry to forge the steel needed in our railways, homes and critical infrastructure. That is what is at stake here, which is why I am grateful to all those who have supported the Government in our action today. Our decision to protect UK steel-making now and long into the future is essential.

We know that events such as this are exceptionally rare, but the Government would never have requested a reconvening of Parliament were it not absolutely necessary. The emergency legislation introduced to this House means that the Government will now be able to order the iron ore, coal and other raw materials needed to keep the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe running.

I am grateful to everyone who has played a part in getting this legislation over the line. This includes noble Lords in this place, officials at the Department for Business and Trade, those in departments across government who have worked on the Bill, and the staff here on the estate who were called in at incredibly short notice. It is thanks to all those efforts that we can protect steel-making in this country now and for years to come. I beg to move.

[Lord Davies of Gower (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief. I just want to say that this is a very important and necessary debate, and it is right that we have had it today to do everything we can to support our remaining steel industry. I have sadly witnessed the demise of this great industry in Wales, particularly south Wales. As I say, we must do all we can to protect Scunthorpe, and this emergency Bill is intended to do just that.

It has been a very good debate, with passion from all sides of your Lordships’ House. On behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. In particular, I thank the Minister for her part in this. Without further ado, I wish noble Lords well for the rest of the recess and a particularly happy Easter.