Artificial Intelligence Legislation
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I declare my relevant interest, as set out in the register, as an adviser to Endava plc and to Simmons and Simmons LLP and as a member of the technology and science advisory committee of the Crown Estate.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I appreciate the significant interest in the Government’s intentions for AI legislation, and I thank the noble Lord for his valuable contributions on the issue. The Government do not speculate on legislation ahead of future parliamentary Sessions, and I cannot confirm the timing of any such Bill. However, we will keep Parliament updated on the timings of any consultations ahead of bringing forward any legislation. We have remained committed to ensuring the UK and its laws are ready for the changes AI will bring.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, when it comes to AI legislation, the position of the previous Government was largely “wait and see”; so it is with this Government. But what is really required if you are an innovator, investor, citizen, creative or consumer is clarity, consistency and certainty. Further, the excellent Ada Lovelace Institute recent research showed that 72% of those surveyed said they would feel more comfortable with AI were it specifically regulated. Would the Minister not agree that, to deliver that clarity, consistency, certainty, comfort and confidence to act, we need a cross-sector, cross-economy, right-sized AI regulation Bill right now?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I remind the House that AI is already regulated in the UK and we regulate on a context-specific approach. Our regulators can take account of the developments in AI, which are indeed rapid, and ensure that they are tailored. In addition, as noble Lords know, we have got various regulators undertaking regulatory sandboxes and the new proposal for the AI growth lab, which will look across all sectors and allow regulators to collaborate on this quite rapidly changing technological development.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare in interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society and as a consultant to DLA Piper on AI policy. The first meeting of the rather grandly named Lords’ AI and copyright parliamentary engagement group takes place tomorrow. Would it not be extraordinary if the Government did not bring forward a Bill in the face of that engagement group’s conclusions and those of the industry working groups? Would any of those discussions not be rendered meaningless without a Bill next year? If a Bill does not come forward, would that not demonstrate the influence of big tech and the major technology companies on the Government?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The issues to which the noble Lord refers have, of course, been extensively debated here. One outcome of conversations during the passing of the data Act was a commitment to have these discussions. I also think it would be premature to decide the nature or timing of legislation until those discussions are completed. Like the noble Lord, I highlight the importance of the parliamentary consultations, the first of which with Peers is indeed happening tomorrow, with the two Secretaries of State.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, given the concerns that exist about the misuse of AI by pernicious actors, can my noble friend the Minister reassure the House that the Government are regularly stress-testing these threats, that we are preparing robust answers to them and that we will not therefore have any catastrophic incidents in this country? Will the lessons from the stress testing, if they exist, inform any future legislation?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her interest in this area. I can highlight that the AI Security Institute was established to provide the Government with exactly this kind of evidence and respond effectively to emerging AI risks. It has tested more than 30 frontier models, including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic and others, and works closely with security experts across government, including the National Cyber Security Centre and Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. This is to ensure the institute’s work informs the preparations against AI-related incidents. We are committed to ensuring the UK is prepared for the changes AI will bring, and the institute’s research will continue to inform our approach.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, several European countries, including Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland, have recently launched their own sovereign large language models to reduce dependence on models from the US and China. Now that hardware compute capabilities are no longer an issue in this country, is it not time for the UK to start developing its own sovereign large language model?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord asks a very good question about our sovereign capabilities. The Sovereign AI Unit’s remit spans the full AI stack, including large language models. Our priority is to secure UK access to the best models, including by deepening strategic partnerships and remaining open to backing UK companies to compete. However, we are focusing our efforts where there is greater opportunity for the UK to advance its strategic position in AI, looking across the value chain. This could mean supporting companies developing narrow models in high-impact sectors in which the UK has strengths, such as defence or drug discovery, or backing paradigm-shifting approaches in computing that can outperform incumbents.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, in September the Government announced plans for a national digital identity system—a policy that will have very profound implications for the safe use of AI, particularly agentic AI. Can the Minister confirm that the interaction between the Government’s digital identity scheme and AI systems will be explicitly included within the scope of the consultation? If not, can the Minister commit to ensuring that it is?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Viscount asks about digital ID, as he highlights a proposal which was announced a few months ago. Digital ID will help make it easier for people to access the services they are entitled to and prevent illegal working. It will streamline interactions with the state, saving time and cutting frustrating paperwork. A public consultation on the digital ID will launch in the coming few weeks, to ensure the system is secure, trusted and inclusive. I will take back his specific question on the coverage of the consultation coming up.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
I thank the noble Lord. The World Economic Forum has said that dis- and misinformation is the number one threat to economic stability. Generative AI has hugely increased the scale of that threat. There is concern from AI safety groups that companies are not adequately tackling the problem. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government will take this as seriously as they do cyberattacks?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Viscount for his question. Strengthening media literacy education is incredibly important: it helps people navigate the growing presence of AI-generated content and it is important in schools and further than that. Noble Lords will remember that we have welcomed the report of the independent Curriculum and Assessment Review, which recommends that children in schools should be taught how to spot fake news and disinformation, including AI-generated content, and help develop critical thinking skills to protect themselves online.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I very much welcome the meeting that is taking place tomorrow, which came out of the commitments made by the Government during the passage of the data Bill. However, I understand that, notwithstanding the fact that the Government are not going to say what legislation they are introducing at this point, they are discussing the principles by which they will go forward. Can the Minister commit to the House that one of those principles, given the discussions we had in this House, will be that access to data, particularly around the creative industries, should be with the active consent of creators and rights holders?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend highlights one of the important points made during the passage of the Bill. The whole swathe of those discussions, both at technical level and with parliamentary colleagues, is intended to have the views of rights holders and other actors on the table, so that we can work through these at the same time as the AI developments are happening in real time.
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I note my register of interests, specifically as an adviser to SMEs in AI—VED 3, Automated Analytics and Scrumconnect—and as part of the AI APPG. Let me bring some good news to the House: the UK AI sector is booming. Nearly half of UK businesses’ resilience budgets are now going on AI, agentic AI and technology. This investment been supported by the UK Government’s sector-led, principles-based approach to AI regulation, designed to foster innovation and ensure safety. As the Minister confirms, I hope this flexible model will continue and be central to our strategy. Is the Minister aware that recent analysis shows that the EU’s AI Act has contributed to a 20% decline in AI formations in the region, and up to a €500,000 annual compliance cost for high-risk systems, disproportionately affecting SMEs and deterring investment—outcomes the UK has wisely avoided?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point about the way in which we regulate. The UK has a bespoke approach. It is obviously important that we continue to work with other countries, as AI development is not something that happens only in the UK. Therefore, there is an element of needing to talk to the US and the EU, for example, about the developments. The noble Lord is absolutely right that our approach here is designed to safeguard security, build trust and get the economic benefits for the people of the UK.
Employment Rights Bill
Baroness Lloyd of Effra ExcerptsMonday 17th November 2025
(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 View all Employment Rights Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 144-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (14 Nov 2025)
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will speak also to Motions C and C1. In this group, we will be debating the amendments relating to zero-hours contracts and seasonal work.
Amendment 1B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require employers to write to workers at the end of each reference period, explaining their right to receive the guaranteed-hours offer and giving them the option to accept or decline. I take this opportunity once again to thank the noble Lord for his contribution throughout the Bill. We agree on many of the fundamentals relating to the security of work, and we have commonality in wanting to protect workers from precarious employment.
I recognise that the intent and sentiment behind the amendment is to ensure a balanced and practical approach, and I share the noble Lord’s desire for the Bill to work for businesses and workers alike. I look forward to further conversations with him on this matter and beyond, when we will continue our programme of consultation to ensure that the Bill’s measures are delivered effectively and proportionately for business.
However, the amendment as drafted would alter fundamental aspects of the Bill. We are building an economy based on fair competition between businesses, greater productivity in the workplace, job security for workers and a fair reward for hard work. We need to tackle exploitative zero-hours contracts that leave some staff unable to plan their working lives or manage their family finances, and the provisions in the Bill do that. We appreciate that some groups value the flexibility that zero-hour contracts can provide. Those workers will be able to decline a guaranteed-hours offer and remain on their existing arrangements if that works best for them. I hope noble Lords agree that ending exploitative zero-hours contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most is imperative.
Motion C relates to Amendment 48B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom. The Government are fully aware that work in certain sectors fluctuates throughout the year, and we recognise the importance of those sectors. That is why consideration of seasonal work is built into the right to guaranteed-hours provisions. There are several ways in which an employer could approach seasonal demand. One approach would be to use annualised-hours contracts, which allow employers to vary the number of hours worked at different times of the year. Some businesses already use these contracts, ensuring that they can account for fluctuating demands in work when planning, while enabling workers to plan for household budgeting. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed-hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable. The Bill also provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as needs evolve.
We will consult with employers, trade unions and stakeholders before making regulations. It is paramount that stakeholders are engaged with before we make these necessary decisions. Through the introduction of the new right to guaranteed hours, work will become more secure and predictable. It will leave workers in some of the most deprived areas less exposed to the hidden costs of insecure work, which can add up to as much as £50 a month for some, while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes) (Con)
The Minister’s enthusiasm got the better of her but I had not actually put the Question that the amendments and reasons be now considered. I hope the House will take it that we did so do, even though we did not say it.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion C1—but before I do so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I am in complete agreement with the speech that he made on Motion A1. To recall the words that he used before, the Government were put on notice that they needed to come forward with a solution, but solution there is none. Requiring all businesses to offer guaranteed hours to every worker, including those who do not want them, imposes an unnecessary administrative burden, and one that falls, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has just pointed out, particularly heavily on small businesses. It also sits uneasily with the Government’s stated intention to reduce the regulatory load on businesses by 25%. Should the noble Lord, Lord Fox, choose to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.
On Motion C1, the Government have to recognise that seasonal work is fundamentally different in nature from permanent or year-round employment, and defining it clearly in statute will ensure that this Bill, as well as any future legislation, properly reflects the realities faced by seasonal industries. Seasonal businesses operate within narrow windows of opportunity; their labour needs rise sharply and predictably at various times of the year, then fall away again. Without a clear and credible definition, there is a risk of uncertainty both for employers trying to comply with the law and for workers trying to understand their rights.
We on these Benches have spoken to many seasonal businesses, large and small, and they remain concerned about the potential impact of the Bill and the absence of a framework that recognises the specific characteristics of seasonal labour. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, we will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. Let me start by recapping the reason for this measure.
There is a moral case to press ahead with ending exploitative zero-hour contracts. We aim to rebalance the scales so that all the risk associated with insecure work is not placed on workers. By our doing so, work will become more secure and predictable, saving workers in some of the most deprived areas up to £600 in lost income, strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy and increasing productivity, rather than the obverse.
On business engagement, we have indeed engaged with businesses and consulted them, both directly and through federations that represent a large number— hundreds and thousands—of small businesses. We will continue to do so as we implement all the measures in the Bill. We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with businesses big and small and will arrange focus sessions with SMEs specifically to look at the practical implementation, understand any challenges and make sure that we give the right guidance.
I want to reflect on the point about business regulation and the 25% target. We have established a baseline for the administrative burden; the 25% target is about ensuring that regulation is proportionate and efficient and works for business. It is not about blocking regulation that is needed to deliver the Government’s priorities. We want to implement the Bill in a way that delivers the intent as efficiently as possible. For example, the fair work agency will consolidate the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement into a single body, so we are reforming as we go ahead with all these measures, and we believe that, fundamentally, this is about balance.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of seasonality. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully conscious of the need to take account of fluctuations in seasonal demand, while ensuring that workers are not left holding all the risk. Under the Bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, depending on circumstances. I set out some of those in my opening speech, but they could be limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways, such as an annualised hours contract. We think it is important to continue to consult on seasonality.
On growth, we have seen huge progress in foreign direct investment and trade agreements. We are very keen to continue to promote the economic prospects of the country, which is fundamental to improving the productivity of the labour market. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and I look forward to further discussions on these issues.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, she said that she had consulted representative bodies of industry and commerce, by which I assume she means the FSB, the IoD and the CBI. Can she give us a flavour of those conversations, and identify any organisation that has given wholehearted support to the Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Of course, we have had many discussions and there have been amendments during the passage of the Bill as a result of some of the consultation we have had with all social partners. We made amendments to the Bill on Report in respect of fire and rehire and the school support staff negotiating body—all sorts of changes or amendments have been made through the consultation process. We have also set out a clear plan for implementation, so that each milestone is there and there is a consultation before that, so that all businesses, large and small, can have the right amount of time to prepare and to get the guidance they need to implement these measures.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I very much welcome the objective that she set out of reducing red tape. I remind her that the Bill contains 170 statutory instruments. In my experience, every statutory instrument leads to at least one regulation, so perhaps when next she stands up, she can commit to retiring at least one regulation, if not two, for each one that the statutory instruments bring in on the tail of the Bill, if indeed it ever becomes an Act.
The Minister also talked about a moral duty in respect of zero hours. I share that moral duty. Nothing in Motion A1 resiles from that moral duty, and on that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 106 to 120, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 120C, 120D and 120E in lieu of Lords Amendments 23 and 106 to 120.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48C.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C. I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Leong
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 60B and 60C, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 60D and 60E in lieu of Lords Amendments 60B and 60C.
“Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways
(1) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly, must, before the end of the relevant 12-month period, prepare and publish guidance setting out circumstances in which a child carrying out activities for the purposes of a heritage railway in Great Britain is, or is not, to be regarded as employed in an industrial undertaking for the purposes of section 1 of the Employment of Women, Young Persons and Children Act 1920 (restrictions on the employment of children in industrial undertakings).
(2) The Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive, acting jointly—
(a) may from time to time revise guidance published under this section;
(b) must publish any revisions of that guidance.
(3) In this section—
“heritage railway” means a railway which—
(a) is operated for the purposes of—
(i) preserving, recreating or simulating railways of the past, or
(ii) demonstrating or operating historical or special types of motive power or rolling stock, and
(b) is exclusively or primarily used for recreational or educational purposes;
“railway” includes a tramway;
“the relevant 12-month period” means the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 61 and 72, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 72C in lieu of Lords Amendments 61 and 72.
(i) a day specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules of the union, and
(ii)”
Lord Collins of Highbury
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 62, to which the Commons have disagreed; and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 62C in lieu of Lords Amendment 62.
“(5) In deciding whether and when to make regulations under subsection (3) bringing section 65 (industrial action ballots: turnout threshold) into force for any purpose, the Secretary of State must have regard to what effect any provision made after this Act is passed for industrial action ballots to be conducted otherwise than by post has had, or is expected to have, on the proportion of those eligible to vote voting in such ballots.
(6) In subsection (5) “industrial action ballot” means a ballot for the purposes of section 226 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (ballots on industrial action).”
Protection of Children Codes of Practice
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, not much we debate in your Lordships’ House unites us so thoroughly as our shared recognition that children must be protected from harmful online content and behaviours. I am delighted that we are as one when it comes to the importance of shielding young people from extreme pornography, content promoting self-harm or suicide, or other serious risks.
This makes it all the more important to scrutinise how the Government and Ofcom have chosen to implement these protections. The role of the draft codes of practice, laid in April this year and brought into effect in July, is to translate Parliament’s intentions into practical rules for service providers. As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, set out so clearly, there are some serious concerns about whether these codes are achieving their stated objectives, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for bringing this important Motion to the House today and for giving us the chance to air our views.
There is some evidence that the codes are being applied in a way that risks overreach and unintended consequences. Some platforms, such as X and Reddit, in attempting to comply, blocked wide-ranging content, including parliamentary debates on grooming gangs and posts relating to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza. Several experts have warned that such overapplication risks stifling legitimate public debate. It has even been suggested that some platforms deliberately overapply some rules as a way to influence government towards weakening them.
The Act was always designed to respect freedom of expression—political and otherwise—while protecting internet users, especially children, from harm. The Government’s own guidance confirms this, but clearly the practical effect has not always to date reflected that intent.
There also exist concerns about the complexity and accessibility of the codes. Platforms, parents and of course children themselves in some instances may struggle to understand what duties are required and how to enforce them. The guidance is hundreds of pages long and, while Ofcom has issued advice on risk assessments and age-verification measures, there is a real danger that the practical realities of compliance, particularly for smaller providers, leave gaps in protection. Complexity should not become a barrier to the very protections these codes are meant to provide.
We have also been discussing the iterative approach taken by Ofcom. Presenting the codes as a first step, to be refined over time, is in principle essential, for two reasons. The first is that, as we know, this is a pioneering piece of legislation and we must remain open to adapting it. The second is that I am afraid that the people we are up against are inventive users of fast-moving technology.
However, the iterative approach is also clearly creating uncertainty. Civil society organisations have reported that their concerns were not fully addressed during consultation. Children face immediate risks and it is imperative that the Government ensure that these gaps are closed without delay. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, cited the statistic that a young life aged between 10 and 19 is lost to suicide every week where technology has been a factor. The codes should not act or be viewed as a ceiling for safety standards. Rather, they must set a floor for safety standards and be subject to firm and measurable enforcement.
Enforcement and proportionality are, of course, critical. The Act grants Ofcom significant powers, including fines, criminal liability and restrictions on financial and commercial arrangements. Yet there are practical challenges to ensuring that these powers are applied in a proportionate and evidence-based way. The critical challenge facing the Government as they operate the Act’s machinery is to protect children while avoiding excessive interference with legitimate content and adult access to lawful material.
All that said, we on these Benches do have questions over the Government’s handling of these codes. Our purpose is to challenge the Government to deliver children’s online safety effectively and proportionately. While I welcome the Minister to her place and wish her the very best for her very important role, particularly in this respect, I ask her for some greater clarity, if she is able to provide it, on three strands of Ofcom’s work. First, how will Ofcom monitor implementation by platforms? Secondly, how will it ensure that civil society is genuinely incorporated, and of course that consultees recognise that they have been listened to? Thirdly, how will it address current gaps in coverage without delay?
I am delighted to be participating in this important debate and to have the opportunity to seek these assurances from the Government. We must see rapid action to ensure that the codes protect children in practice, do not inadvertently suppress legitimate debate, and are accessible and enforceable in the real world. I support the scrutiny behind this regret Motion and hope that, when the Minister rises, she will provide answers that reassure us all that the protection of children online is being delivered with both effectiveness and proportionality.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions today, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, for initiating the debate. I absolutely acknowledge the huge expertise in the Room today. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell, for his suggestion of further discussions with individual Members.
I found reading the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s report an excellent basis for this discussion. That committee plays a very important role, as do other committees, such as the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee and the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee. The role of ongoing scrutiny by all these bodies is absolutely essential. On the matter of the specific committee that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned, it would be for the House to decide whether that would be set up to monitor this legislation and the codes.
As others have mentioned, we are working closely with Ofcom to monitor the effectiveness of the Online Safety Act. While the early signs are encouraging, the true test will be whether adults and children are having a safer online experience. Ofcom has put in place a robust monitoring and evaluation program, tracking changes firms are making in response to regulation, gathering data from the supervised services and commissioning research to measure impact. Some of that research has been mentioned in the course of the debate. It is quite extensive and provides a lot of information to civil society organisations, Members of this House and others.
What binds us together is the determination to do everything we need to do to keep children safe online, as built on the evidence. That is a priority. The previous Secretary of State, in issuing his statement of strategic priorities, made it clear that the first priority was safety by design. That builds on the safety by design measures within the codes, such as the safer design of algorithms to filter out harmful content from children’s feeds. On 25 July, Ofcom published its statement, setting out what it proposes to do in consequence of that statement of strategic priorities. Under the Act, it must publish further annual reviews of what action it has taken as a result of the statement of strategic priorities, including on safety by design.
We have taken action to strengthen the regulatory framework by making further offences priority offences under the Online Safety Act, reflecting the most serious and prevalent illegal content and online activity—for example, laying an SI to make cyberflashing, encouraging self-harm and the sharing of intimate images without consent priority offences under the Act.
Others have mentioned the importance of basing our decisions on good evidence of what is happening. Recognising that further research was required to improve the evidence base, the Government have commissioned a feasibility study to explore the impact of smartphones and social media use on children.
Baroness Barran (Con)
On the point about evidence, I am absolutely not an expert in this but the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, definitely is. I think it would be a very good use of the Minister’s time to meet with her. She described a situation where the research that is being done is at a population level, where changes and attribution will be difficult to discern. I understood the noble Baroness to be making the case that—I do not want to misrepresent her—what clinicians are seeing has a lot of parallels with her review of the Tavistock. On the one hand, you wait for great population-level surveys, but you need to act on what is being seen. It is important that the Government look at both.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that suggestion. I would be very happy to speak with the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and leverage her experience in drawing up the right models of evidence-gathering and research.
To come back to the core of some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others were making about the implementation of the Act through the codes, Ofcom has met the 18-month statutory timeline that was set by Parliament to finalise the guidance and codes of practice relating to illegal harms and the protection of children. The illegal content safety duties came into force in March this year, meaning that all companies in scope will need to protect all users, including children, from illegal content and criminal behaviour on their services. On 24 April this year, Ofcom submitted to the Secretary of State the final draft protection codes of conduct. That regime came into force on 25 July, following parliamentary scrutiny.
Built Environment Sector
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in the light of the report from New London Architecture The Built Environment Sector, published on 16 September, what assessment they have made of the economic value of the built environment sector and its role in the national economy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Government recognise the importance of the built environment. It contributes hundreds of billions of pounds annually to the UK economy, supports millions of jobs and underpins key areas such as housing, infrastructure and urban regeneration. It drives innovation, sustainability and regional development, making it essential to national growth, climate goals and global competitiveness. That is why the Government provide it with extensive support through funding, policy reforms, skills development and strategic planning.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply and welcome her to her first Oral Questions. I also welcome plans to streamline judicial review for nationally significant infra- structure, where cases currently average 1.4 years. Given similar delays in housing and other planning cases during an acute housing crisis—I declare an interest as someone who is trying to build a new park in north London—does the Minister agree that comparable reforms should be considered more widely across the planning system, and will she explore whether the legislation currently before this House offers any scope to do so?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his active interest in this area. The nationally significant infrastructure projects regime is separate from other planning regimes and operates under different legislation. My noble friend will recognise that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill will speed up and streamline the delivery of new homes and critical infrastructure, supporting delivery of the Government’s plan for change milestones, building 1.5 million safe and decent homes in England, and fast-tracking 150 planning decisions for major economic infrastructure projects by the end of this Parliament.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we welcome this important report. It has highlighted the skills shortage of between 100,000 and 170,000 jobs needed annually to ensure that this sector continues to grow. As well as welcoming the Minister to her post, I ask her specifically what further actions the Government are taking to ensure that these skills gaps are filled, so that our economy can grow.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Earl makes an extremely important point. He will recall that, at the Spring Statement, the Government announced a £625 million package to boost construction skills. This aims to deliver up to 60,000 additional skilled workers and includes everything from foundation apprenticeships, the expansion of skills boot camps specially tailored for the construction industry and the establishment of construction technical excellence colleges. This will all be overseen by the Construction Skills Mission Board, which is a collaborative partnership.
Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has just set out very clearly the need for skilled construction workers to support the built environment agenda and the Government’s growth agenda. But could I push her a little further on how what she has just set out will tie in with Ed Miliband’s announcement last week about tech training hubs for the energy sector? All these things are vital for regional growth in areas such as Yorkshire and the Humber.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right to draw our attention to this area. Ensuring that we have the workers to support a clean energy transition is essential and she will know that, last week, the department put out a very detailed plan—I commend it to all noble Lords—to address the skills gaps we have in 31 priority occupations. The plan will create well-paid, secure jobs with good workplace rights. Noble Lords will also be aware that, in the last few weeks, the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has also published a skills White Paper, which shows just how joined up these projects to create skills will be. It includes details of the technical excellence colleges, which will specialise in these areas.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I too very much welcome the Minister to her seat. Much of the historic success of the built environment has depended on small and medium-sized businesses: developers, architects, housebuilders, plumbers, planners and so on. What will the Minister do to bring down the regulatory and other barriers to their continued and, I hope, growing success?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes another very important point. Over the past years, the nature of the construction market has changed and it is absolutely right to focus on small builders. There is a whole programme of support for SME builders, some of which is in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. It includes streamlined planning rules for small sites to reduce bureaucracy around those kinds of approvals and new reforms to ease biodiversity net gain requirements, again for small sites. We are also making efforts on late payments, which can be particularly difficult for small businesses in the construction industry. The consultation proposes a package of measures, including specific measures to address the use of retentions in the industry.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, my father was one of those who were known at the time as “McAlpine’s Fusiliers”, helping to build houses across this country, as many immigrants like him from Ireland did. When we talk about deregulation, can we ensure as a Government that that does not mean compromising on health and safety standards for construction workers, nor compromising on the standards of housing that we are building, so that we are building homes for the families of the future, not the slums of the future?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right on that point. We need to have the right standards, skills and funding. Among the programmes the Government have in front of them, the affordable homes programme, for example, commits £39 billion over 10 years to build social and affordable housing, which will include low-interest loans and rent settlement reforms to support housing providers to provide those decent standards of housing across the country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the report argues that the built environment should form a core part of the Government’s industrial strategy. But, as we heard in our recent debate on steel, for Britain to have a strong industrial base, we must also foster a flexible, innovative and low-tax business environment if industrial policy is to thrive. Could the Minister give the House an assurance that the Government will not impose further tax increases on British businesses in the forthcoming Budget?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I think the noble Lord knows that that is an issue the Treasury will be dealing with in due course.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister give us an update on the practice, carried out for many years under the previous Government, of land banking by housing companies? Is she able to recall the promise that we would deal with this? Can she give us an update?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
This question is very pertinent. I am afraid that I cannot give him the full details on that right now, so, if I may, I promise to follow up in writing with him.
Lord Boateng (Lab)
My Lords, gardens play an important part in enhancing the built environment. Will the Minister bring her fresh eyes and keen intellect to the task of ensuring that we do not lose the Gardens Trust as a statutory consultee in these areas?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend raises an interesting point, which I suspect has been raised in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, but it is not one that I can respond to at this point. I apologise for that, but I will also follow up with him afterwards.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, may I ask about density of housing in the new built environment? I declare an interest: I live in a village that is almost entirely terraced housing and is therefore extremely dense, with a park and allotments round it so that there is public space. I am very struck that all the new developments I see up and down the valleys of west Yorkshire are spread out. This means that access to public transport, shops, et cetera, and normal social life, are much more difficult, because developers prefer to build separate houses for better-off people. Do the Government have a strategy towards density as a way of resisting the spread of housing across green spaces?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord raises some very interesting observations on density in the UK and in his local area. This is probably something that local planning authorities and developers are best placed to opine on, in consultation and taking into account the local area. One thing that the New Towns Taskforce stressed when coming up with its report was the importance of place and character. That is a really good basis for carrying on those discussions about the nature of communities and how they can really solidify around a physical space.
Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025
Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
That this House takes note of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, it is an enormous honour to address your Lordships’ House for the first time, in introducing today’s debate on the future of the steel industry. I start by thanking all those who have welcomed me: the Garter King of Arms, the Clerk of the Parliaments, Black Rod, their excellent teams, and the doorkeepers, who have already had cause to gently shepherd me in the ways of the House for the misdemeanour of trying to take notes when I came in below the Bar to observe noble Lords at Oral Questions.
I have heard much about the civility and respect in this House, and these values are important to me—the principle of airing arguments and debating positions openly and without rancour. I thank my supporters last week—my noble friends the Leader of the House, Lady Smith of Basildon and Lady Armstrong of Hill Top—and the Front Bench team for their support, particularly my noble friends Lord Leong, Lord Collins of Highbury and the Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I pay tribute to my predecessor, my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for her tireless work on enshrining rights for decent work and embedding online safety rules, among many other areas. I am stepping into very big shoes.
On the face of it, there is perhaps not much that links my journey to this place with the steel industry. Perhaps, though, the common thread is the importance of the public and private sectors working together, and the importance of ensuring that our economy is providing decent jobs for all. For almost two decades, I have worked in the private sector and in development finance, latterly with British International Investment, the UK’s development finance institution. We focused on the dual mandate of providing a return to the taxpayer with measurable development impact. The business’s finance in emerging markets spans major renewable infrastructure supporting the green transition, manufacturing, and bringing added value to modern methods of agriculture, all underpinned with high ESG standards.
I have had the pleasure of seeing what access to the internet can bring to women business owners in Nepal, the connectivity that upgraded port infrastructure can bring to businesses in Africa, and how wind farms in Pakistan can be protected against floods through resuscitation of mangroves, at the same time bringing back fishing stocks for local fishermen.
Much earlier in my career, I had the privilege of working for the former Prime Minister, now Sir Tony Blair. I was guided by many in this House, notably my noble friends Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, Lord Wilson of Sedgefield and, later, Lady Morgan of Huyton. That taught me the importance of rooting positions in facts as well as political arguments, but also that strong teams are built on laughter and mutual support, as well as hard work.
When it came to choosing the title I would take on joining the House, I must admit that I struggled a little. I was born in the south of England and have family roots in Wales. I enjoy nature, hiking and the living world. I live in south London and, over the past years, I have learned more about its local history and the Great North Wood that is still a corridor between the parks of Brockwell, Sydenham woods and Crystal Palace. I was intrigued by the waves of development and gradual urbanisation. I wanted something that connected the living environment, history and the places I live, and the somewhat mythical River Effra came to mind. Its course traced many of the places I have walked with our dog and family and, though now enclosed, it feeds into the Thames close to my cycle route to work.
I extend a warm welcome to my noble friend Lord Stockwood, who will also give his maiden speech today. He brings extensive practical business experience to the House. Together, we serve a Government who recognise that a strong economy must rest on strong foundations, whether that is our defence capability, energy security or domestic steel capacity, which we are discussing today.
That is why, earlier this year, when the future of British Steel was in jeopardy, we took decisive action to support continued steel production at Scunthorpe. We said that we could not and would not let the fires in the blast furnaces be extinguished, and we protected the 2,700 employees whose jobs were at immediate risk: the steel-making communities whose future depends on British Steel’s success.
We have stayed true to our word. Since our intervention in April, we have worked tirelessly to secure raw materials and avoid the blast furnaces having to close prematurely due to insufficient supplies. We have made available roughly £270 million as working capital for British Steel. That predominantly covers raw materials, salaries and invoices from SMEs in the supply chain—in other words, essential expenditure. Keeping workers safe and protected is our number one priority: indeed, the Government have spent almost £4 million on safety-critical matters at British Steel since April. This expenditure will form part of the overall cost of the intervention and be included in the Department for Business and Trade’s accounts for 2025-26.
British Steel has been working hard to reverse declining production and, in recent months, the company, with government funding, has been hiring new staff, including apprentices, to ensure the safe and continued operation of the blast furnaces. Our focus now is on working with Jingye to find a pragmatic and realistic solution for the future of the company. Once that solution is found, we can terminate the directions issued to British Steel and make a statement on the need to retain or repeal the special measures Act. Our ambition is to secure the long-term viability of steel-making at Scunthorpe and, indeed, the UK steel sector as a whole.
That is why, over the past few months, we have been putting in the hard work to set this key industry up for long-term success. That very much includes the economic prosperity deal we secured with the United States. As a result of that deal, the UK is the only country in the world to benefit from a preferential 25% rate on steel and aluminium exports to the US. This gives companies such as British Steel a 25% advantage over the competition and it strengthens our reputation as a trusted supplier of high-quality steel and aluminium for global markets.
Of course, we know that one of the principal reasons why our steel industry has struggled these past few years is global excess capacity—countries choosing to flood the market with cheap steel in a bid to quash healthy competition. We are calling that practice out. Indeed, earlier this month I joined Ministers from partner countries at the global forum on steel excess capacity in South Africa. The UK has lobbied hard to develop a comprehensive framework for joint action to address global steel excess capacity by June next year, and that is something my ministerial counterparts have agreed to. We must continue to act multilaterally.
On 7 October, the European Commission proposed a new steel trade measure on imports to replace its current steel safeguard. It will need to take this proposal through its legislative processes and member states, and through engagement with the WTO and with its free trade agreement partners, including the UK. I wish to reassure Members of the House, the sector and steel communities that we are taking this matter extremely seriously and are determined to find a solution. We will always defend our critical steel industry and have already engaged the EU at ministerial and official level to understand the details of this proposal. It is vital that we protect trade flows between the UK and the EU, and we hope there is a way to work with our closest allies to address global challenges, rather than adding to our industry’s woes. We reserve the right to take any action in response to any changes to our trading relationships. The Minister for Industry spoke to representatives of the steel industry on 9 October to listen to their concerns, and reconfirmed that we will do everything in our power to support a resilient and forward-looking steel sector.
Closer to home, we have been creating the right conditions for the UK steel sector to thrive. We are reducing electricity costs for steel producers by increasing network charge discounts through the British industry supercharger. We are strengthening current steel safeguard measures to support our producers, while ensuring that the UK maintains a steady and reliable supply. We are fulfilling our promise to create a pipeline of big infrastructure projects, such as the third runway at Heathrow. This will demand at least 400,000 tonnes of steel, primarily to reinforce concrete beneath tarmac. That is eight times the amount of steel used in the Sydney Harbour Bridge.
I know the House will agree that, when construction firms are building roads, runways and railways here in Britain, they should make full use of British steel wherever they can. Indeed, that is why we have changed government procurement rules. Our new steel public procurement notice will ensure that UK-made steel is considered for all public projects, and we are building on this momentum. We intend to publish a new steel strategy for the UK. The industry will require investment, modernisation and decarbonisation in order to compete in the global economy.
To that end, we accept the need to look seriously at options for primary steel-making in the UK. Late last year, we asked independent experts from the Materials Processing Institute to conduct a review into the viability of future primary steel-making technologies. Their findings and recommendations will also be published soon. It goes without saying that we would want to retain this capability here in the UK, but we have to be realistic. There has to be a strong business case, with the private sector, not British taxpayers, leading the charge. Our steel strategy will cover this and the additional steps we intend to take in creating the pro-growth business environment for UK steel.
We do not underestimate the scale of the challenges facing the steel sector today—whether that is in costs, competition or climate change. We cannot promise to solve all these challenges overnight, but equally, this Government will never watch from the sidelines; we will always be on the pitch. We have shown that in our intervention at British Steel. We have shown it in the actions we are supporting with Speciality Steels UK, where we are supporting the official receiver to find the right buyer who can offer the right support for the workforce and the company. We have shown it too in the much-improved deal we have secured for workers at Port Talbot, a deal delivered alongside £500 million of investment from the Government to support the transition to a low-carbon electric arc furnace.
With a Government committed to fixing the foundations of our economy, we will ensure that our steel sector plays a vital role in Britain’s future. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Congratulations to the noble Baroness on her maiden speech.