Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Monday 19th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I presume that it is where employees are based here in the UK, but if I am wrong I will write to the noble Baroness and clarify that.

In conclusion, I am grateful to all noble Lords for tabling these amendments but, for the reasons set out, the Government cannot support them. The Government are on the side of workers, not abusers. We will ensure that workers have the fair protections at work that they deserve. I therefore ask that Amendment 83 is withdrawn and that Clause 20 stands part of the Bill.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I asked the Minister to set out in detail how future regulations and these clauses will work in practice. I hope she is able to take that on board between Committee and Report.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I will attempt to update your Lordships’ House on these issues at the time the noble Lord has suggested.

Trade Negotiations

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Wednesday 14th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as a vice-chair of the All-Party Motor Group, I must say that this agreement was good news for the UK car industry or, perhaps more importantly, it was less bad news—coming in where the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, left off. In truth, manufacturers will still see a rise from pre-Trump tariffs of 2.5% to post-Trump ones of 10%, but that is much more manageable than the 27.5% that was being faced and jobs will be saved, which is good news. As a key shareholder in the industry, I am sure the Government will welcome the moves on steel as well.

But on those and on the wider perspective, there is much detail still to resolve and I think it would be helpful if the Minister could set out a timetable for when businesses will start to know the detail of what this agreement will actually deliver. To date, the Government have not published the documents we need, such as impact assessments on key British industry. That leaves us in the dark at the moment as to what Ministers have really given up in exchange for these lower tariffs.

I was a little intrigued by the ethanol concession. Secretary of State Jonathan Reynolds said in the Commons:

“On ethanol, we … are working closely with our domestic sector to understand its concerns and any potential impacts to businesses, including what more Government can do to support the sector”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/5/25; col. 35.]


This seems a little late. Some weeks ago, when I met staffers of senior senators and asked them what their number one red line was, the most popular response was “Ethanol”. If I knew six weeks ago, I assume the Government knew a long time before that, which means there was plenty of time to work through the implications on domestic suppliers. Yet it seems only now is that process under way. How can negotiators know the value of what they are conceding without having done the work that seems now to be under way?

The deal also allows more American beef into the UK market. The Secretary of State was at pains to say that imports would not compromise our standards, so can the Minister confirm that this is being achieved by uprating the tariff rate quota for so-called “high-quality” beef? To put this into context, can the Minister share the Government’s analysis of how much high-quality beef the US produces per annum and what is the annual expected level of imports of that beef into the United Kingdom? Finally on this, can she set out in detail what border inspection regime will be planned to make sure that this indeed meets the standard of high-quality beef?

Given the urgent need for phytosanitary agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House what conversations the Government have had with their EU counterparts about this decision to allow US beef into the United Kingdom?

Overall, how certain is any of this? For example, Trump 1 signed a full trade deal with Canada and Mexico, the USMCA, in 2018 and then Trump 2 threw this self-same deal out in his first week of this presidency. This UK-US agreement may have been endorsed by President Trump this month, but what confidence do the Government have that new demands will not be made next month, or the month after that—or at Christmas? Does the Minister agree with the Liberal Democrats that the best long-term defence is to build our trading relationships with long-standing partners which do not change their views all the time, including the European Union and dependable allies such as Canada? Can the Minister explain to your Lordships’ House the Government’s analysis of how this US deal impacts the furthering of relationships with those reliable potential partners?

A further unanswered question, touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, surrounds our position with China. The deal with the US includes strict security requirements, particularly around the British steel and pharmaceutical industries. These requirements have already caused China to complain that this could be used to squeeze Chinese products out of British supply chains. How will the Government manage their relationship with China when President Xi knows that Trump is leaning on us in every way with our relationships? What is the Government’s message to China as a result of this deal?

The level of uncertainty over the details in this agreement begs many questions, but again, it seems the Government will duck proper scrutiny. If this was a full-blown trade agreement, we would expect it to be put before your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member. But so far, we have been starved of the involvement of the Grimstone agreement and we have not really been taken in on this. Can the Minister confirm whether the International Agreements Committee will scrutinise this agreement?

Even if we did make a report, the key to a debate in the Commons is still held by the Government. The shortcomings of our scrutiny process of trade deals are laid bare. At the very least, can the Minister confirm that this agreement will have a full Commons debate? If the Government do not follow this course, that will indicate that this agreement is not a treaty that needs to be fully ratified and lodged with the WTO. If it is not a fully ratified treaty, under the WTO most favoured nation rules the UK will have to offer similar tariff-free entry to all other countries, not just the United States. Unless Keir Starmer wants to join Donald Trump in breaking a fundamental international agreement that supports world trade, this should be treated as a trade deal and lodged with the WTO. That requires a full CRaG process in your Lordships’ House.

[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 noble Lords for their remarks and the questions they have asked today. Of course, we recognise the strong level of interest in this House in this historic trade deal that we have secured with the United States. To ensure that those interested can see for themselves precisely what has been agreed, the general terms of the deal have now been published on GOV.UK and a copy has been placed in the Library.

As the Prime Minister has rightly said, we are living in a new world now, one

“less governed by established rules and more by deals and alliances”.

Our vision is to leverage our relationships with other powerhouse economies to make the UK a global hub for trade and investment. This is why last Thursday we reached an agreement on the basis of an economic prosperity deal with the United States. But I say in answer to noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that this is a deal; it is not a full-blown treaty. We need to be absolutely clear about that.

Our trading relationship with the US, worth £315 billion per year, is now set to grow. We already have £1.2 trillion invested in each other’s economies, and between us we employ about 2.5 million people across both countries. That is why the deal is so important. Saving thousands of well-paid, highly skilled jobs that are vital for our economy is essential, protecting jobs in the automotive, steel, aluminium, pharmaceuticals and aerospace sectors, which employ over 320,000 people across the UK. In addition, an estimated 260,000 jobs are supported across the economy by the auto industry alone.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, said that the deal on the automotive sector brought welcome relief. I agree with that. For the car industry, we have negotiated a quota of 100,000 vehicles which reduced tariffs from 27.5% to 10%, and secured an arrangement for associated car parts, recognising the vital role the sector plays in our economy. We have already seen Jaguar Land Rover come out in support of the deal. It is very positive news for iconic British manufacturers such as McLaren and Morgan.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the future of the steel sector. For steel and aluminium, the deal will remove the 25% additional tariffs that were put in place earlier this year, reducing US tariffs to an average of 0.6% for steel, including derivatives, and 2.7% for aluminium, including derivatives. This is a major victory for steelmaking in the UK. It reassures us that steelmaking is alive and well in this country, thanks to the action that this Government are taking, providing a critical lift for the steel industry, which has been brought back from the brink of collapse, allowing UK steelmakers to continue exporting to the US.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about agriculture. For UK beef farmers we have delivered unprecedented market access. Our farmers will be able to export their high-quality beef, through an exclusive UK quota, to a market of over 300 million people, providing unparalleled access to the world’s largest consumer market. The NFU has long campaigned for this, and this Government have delivered. I want to be crystal clear: agriculture imports to the UK will still have to meet our high-quality food and animal welfare standards.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox—or maybe it was the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—asked whether we were engaging with the farming community. I confirm that colleagues in Defra regularly engage with the farming organisations, and indeed with the NFU, on this issue of market access.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about statistics to do with beef. I have to say that I do not have those to hand, but obviously I am happy to write with the detail of those proposals.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about the digital services tax. I reassure him that there are no changes to that tax in the agreement.

The noble Lord also asked about the impact on the pharmaceutical sector. For pharmaceuticals and life sciences, the deal provides assurances that we will receive significant preferential access in the case of any new US tariffs in future, something that only the UK has so far secured. The pharmaceutical manufacturing sector alone contributes £20 billion to the UK economy a year and employs around 50,000 people, so that is a welcome move.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, asked about Northern Ireland. I confirm that we have closely considered the impact of this agreement on Northern Ireland. First, as Northern Ireland is part of the UK customs territory and internal market, Northern Ireland exports can access the US markets under this deal on the same basis as those from the rest of the UK. Secondly, the deal does not affect how imports in Northern Ireland operate, and Northern Ireland businesses importing eligible US goods under the deal can avoid unnecessary duties within the established Windsor Framework schemes, such as the UK internal market scheme. As we have said all along, we continue to act in the best interests of all UK businesses, including those in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lords asked whether Parliament will have a say. I make it clear that the general terms document is not a treaty and will not be subject to a vote in Parliament. We will implement the terms of the existing deal in accordance with the appropriate domestic processes. To be clear, we are not seeking any change in the process of ratification of any duty. Members of this House will have the chance to scrutinise the treaty when it is agreed and presented to the House.

If I have missed out any of their points, I will of course write to noble Lords. To summarise, the deal shows what can be achieved through pragmatism, diplomacy and acting in the national interest. It shows the UK to be a key and influential player on the world stage, and one that can get deals done. We are sending a message to the world that Britain remains open for business, we will protect jobs and investment, we will boost and defend our industries, and we will drive economic growth in all parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I will need to check what is already set out in writing. There is a good deal more work to do on the background information that will need to be set out. I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Can the Minister share that response with Front Benches as well, please?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

Yes.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was a little disappointed that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, did not welcome me back as well, but I am coming to terms with that disappointment. To briefly refer back to the first group, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, made some comments about the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Leong, and had I not had to leave before we got to that group, I fear I was going to subject the Minister to a somewhat satirical analysis of that particular amendment—but, frankly, the letter did a much better job than anything I could have done.

I ask the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Leong, to take that letter and that response and discuss it with 10 people responsible for HR in businesses of different sizes to ask them what they think of it, then perhaps they could tell us what the result of those discussions were. I absolutely concur with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe: it is beyond parody that that algorithm should lead to that sort of calculation that any company is expected to make. There has to be a simpler way of getting the same result; that is what we should be thinking about.

I was somewhat intrigued by the degrouping strategy. We have amendments on guaranteed hours in the previous group, this group and the next, which is why I reserved the small comments I have to just this group. I have tried to pick through the bones of what we heard. There are some bones, and I should like the Government to comment on them.

I point to the use of language by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. On one side they are talking about flexibility and on his side they are talking about evasion and escape. Thereby hangs the problem of the debate that we might be having overall in your Lordships’ Committee. When we are talking about escape and flexibility, we are not using the same language. We have to try to find a way to bridge that divide in culture that we are dealing with. If we were doing conflict resolution, that would be the starting point.

Where I do agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, is that we should not be looking to create a two-tier situation. We have to create a system that works for employers across the board. However, the noble Lord’s point was that it would extract a huge number of people from the benefits of the Bill were we to exclude. We have to work hard to ensure that the micro-businesses are not disadvantaged by what we are seeking to do, rather than exempt them from it. That is our view from these Benches.

Back to those bones: I look to the Minister to recognise that there are businesses that have lumpy—perhaps I should say fluctuating—demand. Some of these businesses fluctuate predictably—they are cyclic. Christmas comes at the same time every year, so we always have roughly the same amount of bulge. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, pointed out, for others that lumpiness can come with the weather. I want the Minister to recognise that these businesses exist and then for us to explain that a number of issues have already come up around how to manage a workforce fairly while being economically sensible to the business within this lumpiness and fluctuation. We had groups on the first day in Committee, we have these groups, and we will have more.

I would like to sit down with the Minister to understand how the Government envision the Bill allowing businesses that know that they will have lumpy, fluctuating demand to manage a workforce. What will be the fair approach, in the Government’s view, and the economic approach, in businesses’ view, to ensure that there is a win-win? This should not be seen as an evasion or a flexibility but as an opportunity to bring things together and make them better for business and employees, because the two are completely linked in this. We have to cross that divide and sit down with the Government, to work out how flexibility comes into this and how a business will manage this process properly, while delivering the fairness that the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, put forward.

Can those of us who are interested sit down with the Minister in a seminar where she explains how, if the Bill goes through as it is, businesses with lumpy and fluctuating demand, whether seasonable or variable, can manage that going forward?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for tabling Amendments 19A, 20 and 21 to Clause 1 on the right to guaranteed hours. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Fox, that the detailed analysis of the algorithms by the noble Lord, Lord Leong, was presented only on the basis of a request for a detailed analysis of where those arguments came from. There was a much simpler version, which my noble friend gave in his verbal response, so there is more than one version of that challenge.

Amendment 20 seeks to allow employers to propose changes to permanent contracts issued after a guaranteed-hours offer within six months of acceptance, as long as there is a genuine material need in business operations. I am pleased to reassure noble Lords that this amendment is not required. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said, the zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prevent employers offering their workers variations to their contracts following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer as long as the variation does not amount to subjecting the worker to a detriment. I say to the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Londesborough, the noble Baroness Noakes, and other noble Lords, that the Bill does have the flexibility that should reassure businesses that the zero-hours provisions can be changed. As we debated previously, when talking about zero-hours contracts in the context of, for example, individuals such as students or those with caring responsibilities, those who are offered zero-hours contracts will be able to turn the offer down and remain on their current contract.

Going back to Amendment 20, employers will still be able to propose and make changes to their workers’ contracts after they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, including in the sectors such as hospitality, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, refers. This can be done following the usual process of negotiation and agreement between employers and workers. It would be subject to the terms of the workers’ contracts as well as existing and new legislation, such as the provisions on fire and rehire. Adding a provision stating that employers can propose variations—something that they will already be able to do—while considering only a limited number of matters may risk creating legal confusion. It may, for example, inappropriately suggest that variations can be proposed only in these circumstances or suggest that other provisions of legislation that do not include similar wording restrict employers’ ability to propose variations of contracts when this is not the case.

Amendment 21 seeks to make provisions that employers may still make redundancies where these are based on genuine business needs and not linked principally to a worker’s right to guaranteed hours. I am again pleased to reassure noble Lords that the amendment is not necessary. The zero-hours provisions in the Bill do not prohibit dismissals by means of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. There are some restrictions on selecting an employee for dismissal by redundancy because they have accepted a guaranteed-hours offer, but this is not what the amendment seeks to address.

The Bill otherwise creates protection only against detriments and makes dismissals automatically unfair in very limited scenarios—including, for instance, where the principal reason for the dismissal is an employee accepting or rejecting a guaranteed-hours offer. If an employer wished to make an employee redundant, they would be required to follow the required processes in line with the terms of the employee’s contract and with employment law relating to individual or collective redundancies, to ensure that the dismissal is fair. This amendment would not substantially change the effect of the provisions, as the zero-hours measures in the Bill do not prohibit dismissal by reason of redundancy following the acceptance of a guaranteed-hours offer. But it could create unhelpful doubt as to how the legislation on redundancy already operates.

Amendment 19A seeks to list in the Bill a number of factors and circumstances that would need to be considered when determining whether it was reasonable for an employer to give a worker a limited-term contract. I emphasise that the right to guaranteed hours will not prevent employers using limited-term contracts. Under the guaranteed-hours provisions, it is reasonable for an employer to enter into a limited-term contract with a worker if the worker is needed only to perform a specific task and the contract would terminate after that task has been performed—for example, waiting at tables at a wedding—or the worker is needed only until an event occurs or fails to occur, after which the contract would terminate. This could include a worker covering another worker who is on sick leave or a worker needed only for some other kind of temporary need that would be specified in regulations, the contract expiring in line with the end of that temporary need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister for her partial response, but will she reveal the draft of those regulations while we still have an opportunity to debate them? Secondly, I think she was going to talk about consultation and so I ask what question that consultation will be asking.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I will write to noble Lords about when the regulations will be available. This may well be part of the implementation plan, which is still awaited. Noble Lords can genuinely take it from me that they will receive it as soon as it is available.

We will consult on the contents of the draft regulations and engage with a range of stakeholders, including trade unions and businesses. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked whether we could have further discussions about this. Of course I am happy to talk to noble Lords in more detail about how this might apply, because I want noble Lords to be reassured that the flexibility they seek is already in the Bill in its different formulations of wording. But I am happy to have further discussions about this.

I hope that that provides some reassurance to noble Lords. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the minute hand of legislation is approaching the blessed relief of adjournment, so I am going to reserve what I have to say about statutory sick pay to when I speak to Amendments 73 and 74 in the next group, in which I think some issues of the costs are addressed. I know the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and I have come up with amendments that are broadly similar, and I think it would be more appropriate to speak there.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased that we have moved on and that we are now debating the Bill’s important provisions to improve the provision of statutory sick pay for millions of people across the country. I therefore thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for tabling Amendments 68, 69, 70 and 71 on this topic and speaking to them. These amendments would significantly change the statutory sick pay measures in the Bill.

The pandemic exposed just how precarious work and life are for those on low incomes, with many forced to choose between their health and financial hardship. Strengthening statutory sick pay is part of the Government’s manifesto commitment to implement our plan to make work pay, ensuring that the statutory net of sick pay is available to those who need it most. These changes are important. Estimates indicate that up to 33% of influenza-like illnesses are acquired in the workplace. One sick employee coming into work can lead to 12% of the workforce becoming sick, according to WPI Economics’ modelling.

The changes to remove the waiting period and lower earnings limit from the SSP system will therefore benefit employers by reducing presenteeism, which in turn can lead to overall productivity increases and can contribute to a positive work culture that better helps recruit and retain staff. This can help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, and also contribute to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

I will turn first to Amendments 68 and 70. Removing the waiting period is essential to ensure that all eligible employees can take the time off work they need to recover from being sick, regardless of whether they are an agency worker. Removing the waiting period will also better enable phased returns to work, which evidence shows can be an effective tool in supporting people with long-term health conditions to return to and stay in work. This change should help to reduce the overall rate and cost of sickness absence to businesses, contributing to reducing the flow of employees into economic inactivity.

I regret that the noble Lord’s amendment would make this more challenging, as it would mean that employees would have to take two consecutive days off to be eligible for statutory sick pay. I do, however, understand the noble Lord’s concerns about the impact of the waiting period removal on businesses, but if employers have the right policies and practices in place—and most good employers do—the risks of inappropriate absenteeism can, of course, be mitigated. Crucially, the additional cost to business of the SSP reforms is around a relatively modest £15 per employee. We have been lobbied from both directions on these provisions because, for example, many on our own Benches would say that the rates we are proposing here should be much higher. I am sure they will make their concerns heard at some point during the passage of the Bill. It is not a great deal of money—as I say, it is £15 per employee—and it is certainly aimed at the lower rate that could be available.

On Amendment 69 regarding agency workers, one of the fundamental principles of the Bill is to ensure that people who work through employment agencies and employment businesses have comparable rights and protections to their counterparts who are directly employed. Amendments that limit the entitlement of agency workers would undermine this objective and have no reasonable justification. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said that employment agencies have more of an arm’s-length arrangement with their agency workers, but I would say the opposite: in fact, employment agencies are in a powerful relationship over their agency workers, meaning that those workers are less likely to abuse such a scheme.

Amendment 71 seeks to limit the maximum entitlement of SSP for employees with multiple employers so that they would receive no more statutory sick pay than they would be entitled to if they worked for only one employer. However, this would be administratively very complicated to deliver for businesses, particularly SMEs, and carries a high risk of SSP being miscalculated and employees being underpaid. It would particularly harm the very lowest-paid people who are working a limited number of hours. I also question the necessity of such an amendment. As it stands, employees with more than one job can already receive SSP from their employers if they earn above the lower earnings limit. The measures in the Bill will not change that, and I regret that this amendment would impact only the lowest-paid employees.

That is all I have to say on this issue at this stage, and I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment on the basis of the assurance I have given.

Steel Industry

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[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.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Monday 31st March 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, as the Minister for Industry made clear on Thursday, this Government believe in the UK steel sector. Of course we take national security issues very seriously. We keep developments in all strategic industries, including steel, under constant review. For example, high-quality steel, including for defence programmes such as the Royal Navy’s new Dreadnought-class submarines, is already being made by UK EAF producers. British Steel is not a critical supplier for other defence programmes.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister would join all your Lordships in expressing sympathy to the workers and communities not just in Scunthorpe but in Teesside who have had their steel industries whipped away from them. We have not heard much about the Government’s modern industrial strategy lately. We need one across the country and, as we have heard, we need steel to ensure we have the raw materials for manufacturing and our defence industries. If there is one, can the Minister set out for your Lordships what the Government’s steel industrial strategy is? What are the three key elements of that strategy?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, steelmaking in the UK is absolutely fundamental. We are in the process of developing a detailed steel strategy and we will come back to your Lordships’ House with further details. I make it clear that the Government will simply not allow the end of steelmaking in the UK, despite the situation we inherited, in which there has been a 50% decline in crude steel production over the past decade. We will continue to give steel, and steel in the UK, an absolute priority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that this is a balance, but there are many good reasons why we need a steel industry in the UK, although obviously not at any price. We have made a significant offer of financial support to British Steel, and I hope that when those discussions continue the matter will be resolved.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I detected a dissonance in the answers there. At one point, the Minister said that we will always have a steel industry, but she just said “not at any price”. Those two things do not work together, so which is it? Is it we will have a steel industry whatever or there is a price that we will not pay for the steel industry?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

As I say, we have made a very generous conditional offer of financial support to British Steel and negotiations are continuing. This is a live negotiation, and I cannot comment on commercially sensitive details at this stage, but we believe that our co-investment offer is fair and generous. We call on British Steel to accept that offer and the associated conditions. Obviously, there is a point at which those negotiations will not come to fruition, and we are making contingency plans, but we very much hope that we do not have to use them.

Employment Rights Bill: Productivity

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we have taken into account the impact on small and medium-sized businesses, but having an entitlement to fair, flexible and secure working should not be available only to those who work for larger organisations. At the moment, 9 million employees—almost 40% of the whole private sector—work in small and micro businesses. Any exceptions to policy based on business size would create a two-tier labour market, with some workers facing fewer protections, leading to an uneven playing field between employers of different sizes and reducing incentives for small businesses to grow.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend. He is citing one example. There are numerous examples of external support for our arguments. Academics at Warwick University, Oxford University, MIT and UCL all find a positive relationship between job satisfaction and productivity in their research—but, of course, I would welcome the opportunity to meet the academic to whom my noble friend referred.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, clearly, we have many hours in front of us as we scrutinise this Bill. Much will depend on definitions and explanation, not least a proper definition of zero-hours contracts and the role of agencies in employment. But the glaring omission is the absence of any mention of freelancers. Does the Minister agree that freelancers form the mainstay of many important sectors, not least our creative industries? Will she undertake to ensure that the Bill focuses as much on freelancers as it does on other sorts of employees?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: we will have many happy hours debating this Bill in Committee and on Report in due course. On the issue of freelancers, he will know that this is only one piece of legislation. The make work pay programme includes a much more substantial piece of legislation. Where issues cannot be resolved fully in this legislation, they will come up in the wider Bills going forward.

US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister has made clear, when it comes to the national interest, he rejects having to make any false choice between allies. We are committed to continuing our work with both the US and the EU to remove barriers to trade and help UK businesses grow. Our number one priority will be the growth of the UK economy and free and open trade with our most economically important partners. We will only ever sign trade agreements which align with the UK’s national interests.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, speaking to the last Question, noted that the Trump Administration had been completely outrageous to Canada. By extension, it must therefore have been completely outrageous to the European Union, so it is interesting to hear the opposite being argued by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to work with our allies? The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, said that Canada is our closest ally. The Prime Minister has said that we need to reset our relationship with the European Union. Why, then, have we taken a different approach to those two closest trading allies?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, as the Prime Minister has said, this is a time for a cool-headed approach on the issue of trade tariffs. The UK and the US have a strong economic relationship that is fair, balanced and reciprocal. The tariffs on steel, aluminium and derivatives being proposed by the Trump Administration are global; they are not targeted at the UK. In the meantime, we have been having regular, detailed conversations with the US Administration and have repeatedly and emphatically made the case for the UK to be exempt from proposed tariffs—most recently with the Secretary of State speaking to US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on Sunday and US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on Tuesday. We have made that point over and over again. This is a time for a cool-headed approach to any possible tariffs, and we will take every action we need to in order to defend the UK’s national interest.

Plant Oxford Site

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Tuesday 25th February 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)]

I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments and look forward to working with him in our new roles in the future.

The precise timeline for the launch of Oxford’s Mini new electric vehicle models is a commercial matter for the company. It is not unusual for a manufacturer in the automotive industry to adjust its plans for future products, including production dates. However, the reasons given by BMW are the “multiple uncertainties” that it is facing rather than any specific issue. Its concerns are about the timings and not about the willingness to invest. We are, of course, in regular dialogue with BMW to understand its future investment timelines and to discuss its plans for the UK plants and those employed there.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps it would help if we identified some of the headwinds that our automotive industry is facing. To meet the mandate and try to sell enough EVs, last year our top motor brands discounted a total of £4.5 million and still they will not reach the mandate and will face penalties. On top of that, energy costs are up to 65% higher than the costs faced in the rest of Europe and of course there are higher business rate multiples and employer NIC costs coming up. Those are the challenges that our businesses face. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that there is a challenge and undertake to find ways of better meeting it, perhaps by helping consumers to buy more EVs and looking at energy costs?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we understand the challenges faced by the sector. The Government have been working closely with stakeholders across the automotive industry and beyond to support demand for zero-emission electric vehicles. Defra has been consulting on this issue and recently closed a consultation to understand stakeholders’ views on the transition to zero-emission vehicles. However, this is not just a UK issue; a number of countries, particularly in Europe, have similar zero-emission targets for cars. It is a challenge that all automotive companies are facing globally. Nevertheless, we are committed to making the UK one of the best places in the world for automotive investment. In the Budget, we committed over £2 billion of capital and research funding for zero-emission vehicle manufacturing and its supply chains. We continue to work with this very important growth sector; it is one of the arms of our industrial strategy, so we see a strong future for the automotive industry. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made an important point.

Stellantis Luton

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Thursday 28th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I feel that the onus is on me to concentrate on the Statement at hand. This is undeniably a sad announcement for a business that stretches back to the start of the previous century. It is a sad day for Luton, which has a proud tradition in vehicle manufacturing. Most of all, it is a sad day for the 1,000-plus men and women who are potentially losing their jobs.

There are people in your Lordships’ House who know Vauxhall better than I do, but although I no longer have a pecuniary interest in the automotive industry, my past work in that sector led me to value the skills and ingenuity of the people around whom I worked. My first question is this. Many businesses in other sectors are crying out for the skills possessed by the people being laid off, but in many cases those jobs are not in Luton. How do the Government plan to help retain those skills and channel those people, who are skilled workers, into well-remunerated, vital jobs? My second question concerns the town of Luton itself. What is being done to support the local community that is being denied an important driver of its local prosperity and economy? The Government need to work with Vauxhall and others to mitigate this, as it will be a major shock for the area.

This sad announcement is at the leading edge of a wider set of issues that face UK vehicle manufacturers and the Government’s plans to electrify personal transport in the UK, their so-called ZEV mandate. There are important questions regarding this ZEV mandate. As we know, 22% of cars sold this year have to be electric vehicles, EVs, rising to 28% next year. If a business fails to meet that target, either it pays a £15,000 fine on each internal combustion car it sells or it buys credits. This is handing cash to usually foreign competitors, such as Mr Musk’s Tesla. This system was put in place by the previous Government. Is it a sensible industrial strategy?

Successive Governments have taken a largely supply-side approach to this, and initially it had some success. Does the Minister agree that unless the Government address the demand side, UK manufacturers will not achieve their mandate targets? Added to that, the previous Government sent out mixed messages that caused many people who might have bought their first EV to opt for one more internal combustion engine. Demand needs to be stimulated. Infrastructure remains patchy, pavement charging is expensive for users—inhibiting the spread of EVs to people who do not have a drive on which to charge their vehicle—and sensible subsidies are being phased out. Can the Minister confirm that her department is now discussing incentives—for example, cutting VAT on EVs—with the Treasury?

Lib Dems have repeatedly called for it to be made easier and cheaper to charge vehicles by rolling out far more residential on-street chargers, ultra-fast chargers at service stations and the electricity grid infrastructure needed to support them. Additionally, VAT on public charging should be cut to 5% and all charging points should be accessible by a bank card, rather than the collection of different smart cards required.

Meanwhile, as demand stalls, the market for UK firms is getting harder. UK car makers are already competing with Chinese EVs that benefit from inbuilt domestic subsidies. In the EU and the US, these Chinese businesses are likely to face high tariffs in future. If both these huge potential markets erect such barriers, the likelihood is that Chinese EVs will flood into their remaining markets. Can the Minister set out the Government’s position on possible UK tariffs on Chinese EVs?

Yesterday the Secretary of State referred to the £2 billion for research and capital funding that was announced in the Budget. Can the Minister tell us the split between R&D and capital for that money? What is the phasing of that money—for example, how much will the industry see this financial year?

In summary, for the UK car industry basic costs have risen, energy costs have rocketed and labour costs will rise following the Budget. In the meantime, UK manufacturers are trying to sell more EVs than UK consumers want to buy, with a backdrop of cheap, subsidised imports. Does the Minister recognise that these are existential issues? When will the industry get to know what the Government’s response to these issues will be?

[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 noble Lords for their responses to the Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place. The news on Tuesday that Stellantis was commencing a consultation with staff on the future of the plant at Luton will have been very difficult to hear for the hard-working staff, their families and the wider Luton community. We have asked the company to share the details of its plans with us so that we can put in place the right support across government to help them through this process. Luton has a proud history. While this is disappointing news, we are confident that the town has a bright future ahead. We will work closely with Stellantis, trade unions, Luton Borough Council and other partners to look at the impact of this decision.

I heard the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the zero-emission vehicle mandate and how it links to this decision. Ministers met Stellantis within days of coming into office to discuss the pressures it was facing in its business, including concerns on the zero EV mandate, but that was not the only concern it raised. Noble Lords will know that this is a complicated area. The automotive industry is operating under a lot of different pressures, and this is just one of them that we are seeking to address.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked about consultation. The Statement made clear that the Secretary of State has been in constant discussion with Stellantis and others in the automotive industry to address their concerns. The Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Secretary of State for Transport are listening closely to the concerns of the industry and the wider sector about the transition to electric vehicles. This included the round table earlier this month to hear directly from major automotive companies, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the charging sector. In response, we will shortly be fast-tracking a consultation on our manifesto commitment to end the sale of new pure petrol and diesel cars by 2030, but the question here is the transition rather than the endpoint. I think we are clear about what we want to achieve by 2030. We will use this consultation to engage with industry on the previous Government’s zero EV transition mandate and the flexibilities within it, and we will welcome the industry’s feedback as we move forward.

We want to do everything we can, together with industry, to secure further investment in the British automotive sector now and over the longer term. That is why in the Budget the Chancellor committed £2 billion to research and development and capital funding to support the zero-emission vehicle manufacturing sector and the supply chain. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about this support. The Government are already backing the wider industry with more than £300 million to drive uptake of zero-emission vehicles, and we have also committed long-term funding of more than £2 billion of capital and R&D funding to 2030 for zero-emission vehicle manufacturing and its supply chain as part of a comprehensive offer to attract strategic investment and deliver real growth. There is a real opportunity for the UK from the transition to zero-emission vehicles, and we welcome the commitment Stellantis made to expand its production of electric vehicles at its other plant in Ellesmere Port by adding a second van model.

This is a complicated issue. An expansion of electric vehicle production is going ahead. I make clear that, at Luton, only diesel vans are being produced, so, if anything, production is switching to electric vehicles and not the other way around. Our automotive sector is at the heart of UK manufacturing and the global and British brands that make vehicles here are central to unlocking further growth and investment. Our industrial strategy will address these issues and ensure that further growth and investment is absolutely at the heart of what we intend to do. As the Secretary of State said yesterday, the Government are clear that decarbonisation must not mean deindustrialisation, and that winning the race to net zero and having a world-leading automotive sector must go hand in hand.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, asked about the Budget. I do not need to take any lessons from the previous Government, since they left a £22 billion black hole that we inherited. I am sorry to remind them—I know they would rather we forgot that—but let us be honest: that is what we have inherited and have been struggling with ever since. The Budget dealt with that black hole in the Government’s finances, and—as the noble Earl mentioned—over this Parliament the Government will transform business rates into a fairer system that protects the high street, supports investment and is fit for the 21st century. The Government are permanently lowering business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from 2026-27—so we are addressing business rates.

The noble Earl mentioned the employment Bill. I am proud that we are bringing modern employment practices to this country—the previous Government promised this, but it was never delivered. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about imports, and several noble Lords mentioned Chinese EVs. Again, this is a complicated area, but we are closely analysing how imports of Chinese EVs will impact the UK’s economy and industry. It is worth stressing that the UK’s economy and industry differ from other countries in both ownership and markets. We export 80% of what we make, compared to, for example, the US and EU, where a greater proportion of production is sold domestically. So we need to adapt our approach to what is appropriate for our situation here in the UK. When we need to act, we will do so, but any action taken on Chinese EVs has to be the right one for the UK industry.

We are also looking at unfair trading practices on an international basis by supporting global initiatives at the WTO and G7, and domestically through our industry-led trade remedy systems. Here, we already apply 44 trade remedy measures, 28% of which are on China. I hope I have addressed the main points that noble Lords have raised today, and I look forward to further questions.

Post Office Horizon

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Wednesday 24th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind comments and welcome him to his new role. I echo his congratulations to Alan Bates on his very well-deserved knighthood.

Obviously, we are awaiting the details of the scheme, but once they are in place the follow-up letters will go out at pace. As the noble Lord knows, in the meantime we are implementing the £75,000 fixed sum awards and we will set out further plans for that in due course. I take note that the beginning of the Recess is next week, and I hope to come back with further information in the meantime.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the noble Baroness to her position, which I believe spans two departments. I am not quite sure what she has done to deserve that. I associate myself with the remarks made by the spokesperson for His Majesty’s Opposition and credit him for the energy he brought to this subject in the latter half of the last Parliament.

In those discussions, there was a group of people who are still not covered by what we are doing: the unsuccessful appellants of the case. There was a small but significant number who had the courage to take their case to appeal, lost their appeal and are now hanging outside this scheme. I spoke to the last Government in both this place and the other place about the reasons for that. I understand the reasons around the judicial nature of what has gone on, but can the Minister assure us that these people are not forgotten and that a route is being sought to make sure they get the same of level of redress received by the others as a result of the legislation?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course we are mindful of those cases and are carefully watching the numbers that remain in that camp. The usual routes of appeal remain for those cases. In particular, those individuals can apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission to be referred back to the Court of Appeal, if it considers that

“there is a real possibility that the conviction would not be upheld were a reference to be made”.

I hope that advice will be taken by a number of those individuals.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Wednesday 31st January 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Deputy Chairman of Committees, who once again did a magnificent job. I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones to move Amendment 108 and speak to all the other amendments in this group that are in his name—seven in total. Talk has rightly centred on the CMA’s role in standing up for consumers. This whole group focuses on an important area where consumers are in danger of not getting the best possible treatment as a result of the flexing of market power. The amendments are designed to probe the competitive relationship between providers of a service and legitimate third-party agents who sell those services on.

Online intermediaries in marketplaces can serve a valuable role, helping consumers exercise choice and explore a wider range of options for their needs, ultimately supporting competition and innovation, as long as this is done in a transparent manner. Perhaps the most obvious arena for this sort of activity is the travel industry: flights and hotel bookings. There is of course a natural struggle between the provider of services—the airline, for example—online travel agencies or OTAs, and the third player, which is the platform. This is usually Google.

The question that this group poses is: what is the CMA’s role in the competition between these parts of the industry? It also asks: how is consumer choice maintained or enhanced in that activity? My noble friend’s amendments are designed either to explore the need to protect consumers who make bookings through a third-party agent, or to ban activity that could mislead consumers about the merits of booking through a third-party agent. There are of course other elements to these relationships, and I hope this debate can flesh those out as well.

There is certainly evidence that some low-cost airlines are extensively using their market power to advance their own commercial gain while potentially eroding protection and choice and inflating prices for millions of UK holidaymakers. For example, since December 2023, most OTAs have been prevented by Ryanair from booking flights on behalf of consumers. This rendered the OTAs unable to fulfil holidays that include a Ryanair flight. I understand that a consequence of this is that it is almost impossible for consumers to book an ATOL-protected package holiday that includes a Ryanair flight. I do not have full confirmation of that, but that is my belief. It is difficult not to conclude that this blocking was designed to push customers towards booking hotels as well as flights through Ryanair, rather than as part of a package holiday through an OTA. It is easy to conclude that Ryanair was able to do this because of the market power it holds over its routes.

For its part, in a regulatory announcement Ryanair welcomed the removal of its flights from OTA websites, promising lower fares “where necessary” to encourage all passengers to book directly on ryanair.com. The fact that it did not reference the fact that it had caused the removal of the OTAs in the first place, and its use of the phrase “where necessary” regarding pricing, are clear indications of its instinct in this move. I use this example to demonstrate how serious and real things are for this sector and the consumers it serves.

The question for debate here is: how could and should the CMA act to balance the relationships that surround service providers and third-party agents? The relevant provisions here are in Clause 223, on the prohibition of unfair commercial practices, and Schedule 19, on

“Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair”.


Together, these provisions set out a list of conduct to which the consumer protections in Part 4 will apply automatically in all cases.

The list in Schedule 19 is relatively granular, so it can be extended in scope easily to deal with these issues. For example, as set out in Amendment 136, Schedule 19 could include:

“Refusing to enter into (or otherwise blocking) a transaction with a consumer on the basis that the consumer is acquiring the trader’s product through a third party acting on its behalf”.


Secondly, it could include:

“Refusing (or otherwise blocking) third party agents, acting on a consumer’s behalf, the necessary means to make or manage the consumer’s purchase”,


thereby degrading the consumer experience. Thirdly, it could include:

“Making a materially inaccurate or disparaging claim about third party alternatives through which a consumer could otherwise acquire the trader’s product”.


Fourthly, it could include:

“Imposing higher prices for a consumer who chooses to acquire a trader’s product through a third party acting on its behalf than for a consumer who acquires that product directly, in particular without providing such consumer with a clear, accurate and complete explanation as to the reason for such a price increase”.


Fifthly, it could include:

“Any act or omission which deprives a consumer of sufficient freedom to make an informed choice as to whether to purchase a product directly from a trader or to engage a third party to make such purchase on their behalf”.


We then need to ensure that the protections afforded by Part 3, on enforcement of consumer protection law, and Part 4, on consumer rights and disputes, apply equally to consumers irrespective of whether, for example, they have made flight bookings through OTAs acting as consumers’ agents or they have booked directly with the airline. The relevant provisions of the Bill relating to the definition of a “consumer” are in Clause 147, on relevant infringements, and Clause 223, on the prohibition of unfair commercial practices.

In both cases, the definition of “trader” is already explicitly extended to circumstances in which a person is acting personally or through another third party on their behalf. This concept of indirect consumer-trader relationships should be extended to the definition of “consumer”. A new paragraph should be introduced in Clauses 147 and 223 to make it explicit that it is immaterial for the purposes of that definition whether a consumer chooses to engage with a trader directly or through a third party acting on the individual’s behalf as an agent. These proposed changes are set out in Amendments 108 and 129.

Other references to indirect booking need to be provided for—again, to include the provision that it is immaterial whether a consumer engages with a trader directly or through a third-party agent. The relevant clauses here are Clause 230, on rights of redress, and Clause 243, on the meaning of “transactional decision”. Amendments 145 and 146 would make it explicit that the protections in Part 4 apply to contracts entered into by the consumer with traders, both directly and indirectly.

Given the sort of behaviour already in the market, we also need to introduce the concept of misleading or aggressive commercial practices by a trader, which are designed either to deter consumers from booking through third parties—including OTAs, which book flights on consumers’ behalf as their agents—and/or to prevent such third parties from making such bookings. In other words, we need to outlaw those practices.

This time, the relevant provisions of the Bill are in Clause 224, “Misleading actions”, and Clause 226, “Aggressive practices”. These clauses deem commercial practices to be unfair if they involve misleading actions or aggressive practices that cause the average consumer to take a transactional decision they would not have taken otherwise. A new subsection should be introduced in each of Clauses 224 and 226 to make explicit that, for the purposes of Clause 224(1)(a), “misleading information” includes

“an action where the overall effect is to deter the average consumer from using third party agents to conclude transactions on their behalf, including disparagement relating to such third parties”.

For the purposes of Clause 226, in the context of determining whether a commercial practice uses harassment, coercion or undue influence, account should be taken of

“whether the practice significantly impedes the average consumer’s freedom of choice in respect of whether they choose to make a booking directly with a trader or to use a third-party agent to conclude transactions on their behalf”.

This is the effect of Amendments 139 and 141. The Minister will understand that this is an important example of the potential misuse of market power, to the detriment of consumers. We await his response.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for that introduction. He made an excellent argument about why we should include third parties working on behalf of consumers in the remit of the Bill. As he described, this particularly relates to package travel firms.

Whether using a legacy airline or a low-cost carrier, all of us will have booked flights online. These days we have unprecedented freedom to fit our travel arrangements to our specific requirements and then pay for them at home, at the office or on our phones. But how many of us have had the far less welcome experience of discovering, a few minutes later, that our deal was not as good as we thought and that there were cheaper fares for the same flight? This is frustrating and unfair, and, unfortunately, it is due to deliberate anti-competitive practices, many of which the noble Lord described.

Low-cost airlines—LCAs—have transformed the aviation landscape. They have disrupted the market, offering travellers unprecedented choice and competition. Their rise in the UK has empowered consumers, democratising air travel and making it affordable for a much broader demographic than used to be the case. The greater availability and lower cost of flights to and from the United Kingdom has, in turn, led to the rise of online travel agencies and tour operators, known as OTAs. These offer travellers a wide array of pre-packaged holiday options, which include flights, accommodation and add-on activities. The convenience of being able to plan and book an entire trip from the comfort of one’s home has fuelled the popularity of online package travel. OTAs are becoming extremely popular and convenient ways for families to plan, book and pay for their holidays.

However, in recent years the low-cost airlines, themselves once the industry disruptors, have felt threatened by the newer online travel agencies. The industry is witnessing a growing trend of complex anti-competitive actions aimed at stifling competition. One such tactic is curtailing seat availability to specific destinations, which renders them inaccessible through OTAs or individual bookings unless bundled as airline packages. Another anti-competitive tactic is to introduce cumbersome verification procedures for passengers who book through OTAs rather than directly with the airlines, adversely affecting the consumer experience. Unfortunately, in this battle for market share between the LCAs and the OTAs, the consumers are often the casualties.

The situation is made still more opaque for consumers by the existence of 13 different types of airfare. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Leong, who has looked into this. He tells me—I will mention only the most common six—that there are normal fares, point-to-point fares, excursion fares, APEX fares, PEX and super-PEX fares, and branded fares. Additionally, some come with specific restrictions, some are non-refundable, others cannot be exchanged or transferred, and none of these restrictions is immediately obvious or consistent with ticket types.

Data Protection (Adequacy) (United States of America) Regulations 2023

Debate between Baroness Jones of Whitchurch and Lord Fox

Wednesday 22nd November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for raising his concerns about this SI this evening, and for the diligent work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in drawing to our attention the inadequacy of the original Explanatory Memorandum attached to it. In fact, had the details been included in the proper form in the first place, it could have saved me a lot of chasing around to establish what had been tabled when; as the noble Lord pointed out, it was not immediately clear.

For example, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee criticised the lack of an impact assessment, a variation of which has now finally been attached to the SI. As the noble Lord made clear, the original Explanatory Memorandum recorded that the impact assessment was not ready to be published as it had to be submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee for its review. We now know, thanks to the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, that the RPC judged the original impact assessment as not sufficiently robust, identifying areas of improvement which, if not addressed adequately, would generate a red-rated opinion. It reports that a revised IA was submitted to the Regulatory Policy Committee on 20 September. Can the Minister confirm whether this revised IA has now received a green rating from the RPC?

I agree with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee that, sadly, the failure to produce this proper documentation in a timely manner occurs all too often. It makes it difficult for Parliament to carry out our scrutiny role and reflects a wider decline in drafting accuracy. I understand that the staff work under intense pressure but, in this case, I see no reason why all the checks could not have been carried out before the SI was laid, even if this resulted in a slight delay.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee also quite rightly raised concerns about the lack of contextual information in the original Explanatory Memorandum. I absolutely agreed with them on this. It was not until I read the impact assessment that the background and intent of the SI became clear. There is now a revised EM but the original printed version of the SI, which I collected from the Printed Paper Office, as I suspect the noble Lord did as well, contained the original Explanatory Memorandum, which again underlines the inadequacy of the processes adopted by the department.

In this context, I have some questions which arise from the impact assessment rather than the EM. First, is it the case that the only adequacy regulations currently in existence are with the Republic of Korea? As this is the first such agreement, how are the provisions of the regulations being monitored, and have any data breaches been identified? I hope that we would learn from that first experiment, if you like, with the Republic of Korea. Any information on how that is working would be appreciated.

Secondly, what criteria do the Government use for prioritising other potential data partnerships, as listed in the IA? Are any others near completion?

Thirdly, since Brexit and the failure of the EU privacy shield, the EU and the US have developed the data privacy framework, and we have signed up to the UK extension of that framework. In what ways does the extension vary from the EU-US agreement? If the European Commission varies that agreement, can we be assured that the UK extension will seek to reflect those changes? This would make it considerably easier for businesses to navigate the rules in the longer term.

Fourthly, since there is some sensitivity around this currently, today’s announcement that the NHS has handed US spy tech firm Palantir a contract to create a huge new data platform has rightly caused concern. Does this agreement come under the new data adequacy rules covered by this SI? Is it the case that individuals cannot opt out of the scheme, as reported in the press? What would prevent Palantir selling on the data to other US companies, provided they signed up to the US Department of Commerce’s self-certification scheme?

Incidentally, I could not see in the impact assessment any assessment of the robustness of the US rules. For example, how many data breaches are there per annum and what sanctions are taken against those who breach the rules? It is all very well having an adequacy rule, but we want to know how it is working in practice and what the US’s history has been on this. Does the Minister have any information on this?

My last question leads on to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s last recommendation, which has also been highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. The UK public are understandably suspicious about how their personal data could be misused or monetised by big corporations, both here and abroad. If they have nothing to worry about in this instance, it would have been helpful to hold a public consultation to provide reassurance and build confidence in the policy. As it stands, there are bound to be concerns about the underlying consequences of this proposed agreement. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee points out, an increasing number of experts and specialist lawyers could have contributed to the development of this policy, particularly as it may be a model for other agreements in the future.

I hope the Minister can reflect on these concerns and take them back to the department. I hope that he can also address the specific questions I have raised, and that he can assure us that the lessons about the way documentation is presented to Parliament for approval in the future will be taken on board.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. Their commentary on the process so far is quite damning. I share my noble friend’s fear that this is in danger of selling short what is an important aim of creating a viable data bridge between these two jurisdictions.

I am not going to go over the process; I will pick out a number of points from what I think is the right Explanatory Memorandum but may, of course, be the wrong one. I am acting in good faith; I think I picked it up from the table at the right nanosecond when the correct document was there.

Paragraph 7.2 of the EM says:

“DSIT officials have been working closely with counterparts in the US”.


Paragraph 25 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report says that DSIT told the committee:

“The US does not have a comprehensive data protection framework”.


The report points out, as noble Lords have said, that this framework tends to be based on a sector or state- level requirement. So who are the counterparts that DSIT talked to? There are no counterparts equivalent to DSIT who can have that competent conversation.

In practice, can they know that the treatment of data will be the same in California as it will be in Florida? If they know the answer to that question, how do they know it—who did they talk to in order to gain that information? It seems to me that the complications of data in the United States are not reflected in the Explanatory Memorandum in my hand.

That is the first point. Moving on, if you look at paragraph 7.6 in the Explanatory Memorandum, you see that it is very clear that this is a self-certifying annual process. Self-certifying is another word for ticking boxes. So, once again, how can the department be sure that this process is being properly dealt with and monitored? When we come to the enforcement of this self-certification process, is it the Department of Commerce that will be checking that this self-certification has happened? Will it be the state legislatures? Who will be the bodies in charge of this self-certification? Will there be an annual report, so we know that all these bodies are certified? Indeed, if I am giving my data to a particular organisation that is then sending that information across the United States, how do I know that that process is properly certified? It seems that these are good words but, unless they are backed up with a system and a process, they are to all intents and purposes meaningless.

The next point is picked up in paragraph 7.12 of the Explanatory Memorandum, where we talk about processors and transfers, and people in the United States who are

“indicated on the Data Privacy Framework List as participating in”

this bridge. If there is a violation from an organisation in the United States that is picked up by the Information Commissioner in the United Kingdom, what happens next? Who does what, in terms of prosecuting the organisation in the United States for wrongfully dealing with that data? Who is liable? At a corporate level, where is this dealt with? Is there some sort of corporate veil to the US company which means that the UK company is not liable? How in companies law will this operate? It seems to me that there is not the information here to answer those questions and I wonder, frankly, whether they have actually been considered.

It is quite clear that this could not have happened without the hard work and endless negotiation of the EU-US group. This rides on the back in a rule-taking process that I suppose we are going to have to get used to as things go forward. My noble friend’s point about Schrems is very true; Schrems III is coming soon, so what will the Government’s position be if it finds against the EU part of this bridge? Will we also automatically cancel the bridge? How does that then affect companies that have already transferred their data and made that decision?

There are couple of ancillary questions which are, I guess, slightly off the wall. There is an industry in this country that involves having servers and creating a UK-based server place as a safe harbour for British data. I assume the department has done an analysis of the industrial effect on those servers, because clearly many of them will be no longer needed, and data can be sent back to the United States rather than living in what are euphemistically called “clouds” but are actually server farms in the United Kingdom.

I have a final question. As the Minister knows, political parties tend to knock on doors, collect data and put that data into databases. Can he tell us what the position is on electoral databases in terms of using US-based servers to retain that data? At the moment, that is not done. Will political parties be able to move that data from servers in this country to perhaps their counterparts, assistants or supporters in the United States, in order to do analysis, targeting and whatever, or do the current rules of safe harbour still exist for electoral data?