Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 October be approved.

Considered in Grand Committee on 19 November.

Motion agreed.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is quite clearly a blow for the area of Fife, and especially for the direct and indirect workers of the plant. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, our thoughts go to them and their families as they seek to find ways of coming to terms with the blow.

The closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. The company has talked about supporting its employers and possible relocation available for some, but what about contractors and the wider supply chain? As far as I am aware, no task force has yet been set up to manage this, so can the Minister please update your Lordships’ House on how the wider workforce will be helped as this crisis bites? It is reported that only around 50 staff are being offered jobs, and nearly 500 miles away in Hampshire. Can the Minister confirm how many have actually agreed to relocate? What are the Government doing to protect and create highly skilled, high-quality jobs located for those who cannot move far from their homes, their communities and their wider family? More generally, much is made of the transition to net zero, which we wholeheartedly support, but there is a danger of the old jobs disappearing more quickly than the new ones are being created, and this mismatch will make growth very difficult, if not impossible.

There has, not unexpectedly, been some finger-pointing—indeed, we just saw some—trying to work out who is to blame for this. But we should understand that this plant has been in trouble and making a loss for five years. If economic and trading environments are causing the closure, both this Government and the last Government are culpable. But I also point to Brexit. All the products made at Mossmorran are exported to the EU. Can the Minister outline how much Brexit contributed to the plant’s demise? Given that there will no longer be these exports from the plant, what is the effect on our balance of trade?

This is, of course, a further blow for the Scottish economy and UK-wide manufacturing, and it comes fast on the heels of other company closures. The common denominator seems to be a combination of long-standing depressed demand alongside the policy environment—and the overwhelming issue, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is the cost of energy. Energy was a problem when the noble Lord was in government and it remains a problem now. This is not to downplay today’s news confirming the £420 million a year committed to reduce electricity costs for the UK’s most energy-intensive industries—but that is jam tomorrow; it does not start until 2027.

There is a desperate need for further and more rapid intervention, as many UK chemicals operations face risk of closure before the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as it is called, comes into effect the year after next. There also remains considerable uncertainty about which businesses will benefit from this new support. Can the Minister fill us in on what the process will be for deciding which businesses and sectors qualify for this subsidy? What specific steps are the Government taking for the here and now? We understand what is happening in 2027, and we have seen the long look into the future that is called the industrial strategy, but what is happening now? We need to find a way of making sure that there is long-term investment in our manufacturing and chemicals industry.

The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs in Scotland, so why is there no meaningful mention of them in the Statement? Will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government and when, and how the Minister sees the role of the Scottish Government going forward?

To conclude, energy-intensive industries are in decline across the UK. Every chemical business across the UK is paying more for its energy than competitors elsewhere, as was the case under the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as much as 400% higher than in America. Closures at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost. Britain’s once dominant chemical industry is continuing to suffer. The UK’s chemical output has reached its lowest level for a decade. The latest business survey of members of the Chemical Industries Association shows that 60% of chemical businesses report falling sales with a further 20% seeing no growth. More worryingly, many report strategic reviews.

Closures reduce our already dwindling industrial capacity and reduce our ability to deliver essential materials for our country’s critical national infrastructure, be it health, energy, food or defence. If the Government want to continue to have a chemical industry, then we need much more action to address these unsustainable costs.

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

I thank the noble Lords for their statements today, and I entirely agree that our thoughts are with the workers and the families of those affected by the closure.

While this Government inherited a precarious economic position from the previous Administration, it is imperative that we continue to move forward and pursue the right pro-innovation, pro-business policies which generate growth. We were disappointed to learn of Exxon’s announcement of the closure of its Fife ethylene plant. This follows months of engagement with the company and a commitment to explore all the opportunities to retain the site’s operations. However, it is my understanding that there was no credible buyer for the plant. Of course, if there are potential purchasers who wish to explore what is possible, the Government would be happy to work with them. We would be happy to find a solution, whether that is the ongoing operation of the plant or repurposing the site for new uses.

As noble Lords will know, the Government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment around the plant since April, and officials endeavoured to meet Exxon every week since August. Last weekend, Ministers from across government were in contact with the company to discuss this decision, and I expect there will be further conversations over the coming months. The Minister for Industry was clear that the Government are prepared to step in and support industry where it is feasible to do so, as we did with Harland & Wolff, Tata Steel and most recently British Steel. Sadly, in this instance, the Government are not able to provide support without a fundamentally sound business proposition. No intervention would represent value for money without one.

We know that it is a concerning time for those affected, which is why our focus is now on supporting the workforce. The Minister for Industry met Unite to explore options for supporting the affected employees, and Exxon is taking steps to mitigate the impact of its closure decision, as any responsible company would, with some employees being retained to support the decommissioning of the site and others being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets at Fawley and Southampton. Discussions about the precise allocation of those roles are ongoing and I cannot confirm at this time exactly how many people have decided to make the transition to other sites. Regrettably, this falls short of supporting the entire workforce in finding new employment, which is why the Department for Work and Pensions is engaged in supporting those impacted. Officials in the department are also in contact with representatives from Fife Council and the Scottish Government and are working together on a task force to provide further support. Today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the Scottish Government and the Fife local authority to convene the first of those discussions and will continue with that task force over the coming months.

I stress that this closure is not representative of UK industry as a whole. Through our modern industrial strategy, we are channelling support to the eight growth sectors of the economy, including clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing—all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong. Far from being uninvestable, since July, we have seen more than £250 billion of investment committed into the UK, alongside 450,000 jobs. Only recently, we have seen further investment into AI growth zones and small modular reactors.

Both noble Lords talked about energy costs. Your Lordships know that bringing down energy costs for British businesses is a key part of our industrial strategy. Although it is important to note that electricity costs were not a major factor behind this site’s closure, we are pressing ahead with unprecedented support for our energy-intensive industries so that they can properly compete and win in the global economy. Last month, we pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals; this discount will slash costs for a whole host of businesses not just in England but across the UK. We know that around 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to this one change.

To that end, our new British industrial competitiveness scheme, announced for consultation today, will reduce electricity costs for more than 7,000 eligible manufacturing businesses. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt hour, or up to 25%, from April 2027; that will cover the foundational and frontier areas, as defined in the industrial strategy. This will be subject to further consultation, as set out in the papers today.

On the point about engaging and working with the devolved Governments, the Scottish Government have been heavily involved in the ExxonMobil discussions, with meetings at the highest level. I thank my colleagues, both there and in the UK Government, who have been engaging on this issue for such a long time and trying to find a way forward. We will continue to work constructively together both to support the hard-working employees of the Fife plant and to ensure that they are fully supported over the coming weeks and months.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, last week was another sad one for the UK oil and petrochemicals industry, as well as for the company employees, contractors and those in the general supply chain who rely on it. The imminent closure of Mossmorran comes in addition to the Grangemouth and Lindsey refineries. What comes next? There is not much left.

Mr Greenwood, the chairman of ExxonMobil UK, mentioned four reasons why the plant at Mossmorran is being closed. Due to time, I will concentrate on just one: the decline in a cheap and abundant source of ethane from the North Sea. We know that there is a large untapped supply of ethane in the North Sea, but this Government have increased taxation on the producers in various ways to prohibit them making any money—making them less competitive—and have prevented any more licences being issued in this basin. This has a snowball effect of closing the North Sea down, reducing a revenue stream to the Exchequer and seeing the workforce continue to fall, as well as, by inference, increasing hydrocarbon imports from overseas where job numbers go from strength to strength.

Equally important are the significantly increasing carbon emissions on a global scale. Just because the imports arrive in the UK emissions-free does not mean that we are not responsible for the increase in emissions from our own production, which are significantly less. Production continues elsewhere in the world and its subsequent transport for our use is more emissions-intensive.

Does the Minister agree with me that this country must, therefore, ensure the continued and increased flow of North Sea hydrocarbon production, rather than having to increasingly purchase product from overseas? This would keep the significant but rapidly reducing onshore and offshore oil and gas industry alive for the foreseeable future; more importantly, it would keep the remaining jobs secure. Electricity generation, green or otherwise, will not satisfy our complete energy needs for many decades to come—if ever—so why do this Government continue to penalise this nation?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We are co-ordinating the scale-up of industries that will shape the future of the North Sea, going as far as wider offshore wind, carbon capture and storage and hydrogen. The Government have committed over £9.4 billion in investment to carbon capture, with a total of £22 billion for hydrogen and carbon capture this Parliament. That is a huge, positive step for our economy and for jobs in the North Sea.

Furthermore, the clean energy jobs plan—which has £20 million of funding from the UK and Scottish Governments—will support oil and gas workers in training to access the opportunities in clean energy to create the jobs of the future. Looking at the last few years, there was a 75% reduction in oil and gas production between 1999 and 2024. So this is a very long-term trend in the availability of carbon products from the North Sea, not something that has happened just in recent times.

[Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my registered interests. I welcome the Minister’s statement, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, about the establishment of a task force, which has happened since the Statement was made in the other place. I declare an interest as a former Industry Minister in Scotland, where there has been experience over the last 25 years of how to respond to closures such as these. Those sorts of task forces, to work well, need to be quickly established, as we have seen in this case. However, they also need to focus as broadly as possible, including on opportunities for outplacement, retraining, preferential access to local colleges, dedicated pathways into other employment opportunities and on the future of the site itself, involving remediation and the possible identification of other investors who would be interested, if not in plastics production, then in associated activity.

For all these reasons, can the Minister confirm the breadth of the scope of the task force? Can she also confirm that His Majesty’s Government will work very closely with the Scottish Government, which have their own PACE initiative—the partnership for continuing employment—in cases such as these?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend makes some very important points about the importance of swift and collaborative action, partnership with all those who can assist in supporting the workers in this situation and looking at their individual needs and the economic opportunities that are available today, and training them for the future.

She is right that the task force has been established, and my right honourable friend Douglas Alexander met with Fife Council and the Scottish Government earlier today. The Government are committed to working with them to deliver a local response and, more broadly, to mitigate the impact on workers. That will include working with the partnership action for continuing employment and looking to support the 50 employees who are going to be retained to support the decommissioning until 2028, as well as the 50 who are being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets.

My noble friend makes a very good point about looking broadly and making sure that this is in the context of the local economy.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister know any chief financial officer who talks down prospects for their company? Why does she think the Chancellor spent nine months talking down the UK economy, which has contributed to Grangemouth, Mossmorran and other factories closing down and the subsequent loss of jobs?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I do not agree with that commentary on our approach to the economy. In fact, I want to take some time to talk about the positive signs in the UK economy. The UK was the fastest-growing G7 economy over the first half of the year, with cumulative GDP growth at 0.9%. The IMF forecast the UK to be the second-fastest-growing economy in the G7 in 2025 and the third-fastest in 2026. I am sure that noble Lords frequently hear the Chancellor and the Prime Minister talking about the value of the inward investment into the United Kingdom. They have been integral to securing that inward investment, as this is an extremely investable country.

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, it is clearly a tragedy for the petrochemical industry in terms of this plant in Scotland. However, in a way, it is only a precursor for the tsunami that is about to happen to the steel industry if we are not careful. As a third country to the European Union—which we unfortunately are now, due to the Conservative Party—we will now face 50% tariffs on our steel industry, 80% of our exports of which go to the European Union. Can the Minister update us on what her department is doing to prevent that wiping out of the UK steel industry that is about to happen, given our third country status?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The steel industry is incredibly important to the Government. As noble Lords know, the Government have taken action in respect of British Steel, and, as I outlined earlier, in respect of energy costs for the industry. My department has been engaging in discussions with EU counterparts on this to ensure that we properly understand what is going on. We will always take action to protect our industry.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if no one else has another question, I will ask a very quick one. The Minister referred to £250 billion-worth of inward investment and 450,000 jobs that will be created. I do not expect her to have this information to hand, but would she be willing to commit to write to noble Lords who have participated in this debate with a list of the amounts dedicated, by whom, where and when, et cetera, particularly in reference to jobs? That is because, as we know, since the Government have taken power, 177,000 jobs have been lost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Yes, I am quite happy to write as a follow-up. I think I said £250 billion, and I originally meant to say 45,000 jobs. I apologise; that was my error—but I can follow up on that point.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Just to prolong the agony for slightly longer, when the Minister was answering the noble Lord’s question on oil and gas, she came up with a long list of very creditable investments and changes that are going on. When I was asking my question, I referred to the relative speed of creating jobs versus losing them. Does she accept that it is much easier and quicker to lose jobs than to create them? It is very important that this creative process keeps pace with the destruction process, otherwise we will lose even more skills than we are already.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

It is indeed very important that we continue to create jobs in highly productive, well-paid sectors, and that we provide the skills and training to a broad base of young and older people to take advantage of that. Whether that is through large, single-site companies or through the plethora of SMEs that can create jobs, it is important that we continue to focus on the productivity of our economy, so I agree with that point.

House adjourned at 7.59 pm.

Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2025.

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

Thank you very much. These draft regulations will be made under powers provided by the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, also known as PSTI. The world-leading PSTI regulatory regime came into force on 29 April 2024. It better protects consumers, businesses and the wider economy from the harms associated with cyberattacks on consumer connectable products, such as mobiles, smart appliances and smart cameras.

The law does so by banning the use of universal default or easily guessable passwords, such as “admin123”, reducing one of the most commonly exploited vulnerabilities in connectable products. Manufacturers must also ensure that they are transparent about the minimum length of time for which they will provide the much-needed security updates that patch vulnerabilities. They must also publish information on how to report security vulnerabilities directly to them and provide status updates about the reported issues.

The PSTI Act was the world’s first legislation of its kind, but we are not alone in our commitment to improve the security of connected products. The UK advocates an industry-led, multi-stakeholder approach to standardisation, ensuring that technology and cyber standards are market driven, reflecting global best practices and delivering benefits for industry and citizens—contrasting with government-driven approaches, where standards are sometimes used to pursue political goals and ambitions.

Across the world, countries that share our values are taking action. Two such countries are Japan and Singapore. Japan’s Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry launched the Japan cyber-security technical assessment requirements labelling scheme for IoT products—JC-STAR—in March 2025. Similarly, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore launched its cybersecurity labelling scheme for consumer smart devices in March 2020. Both the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes require manufacturers to ensure that their products meet a set of baseline security requirements that are based on the global standards of the cybersecurity for consumer internet of things from the European Telecommunications Standards Institute, also known as ETSI EN 303 645. This is a standard that the UK developed in partnership with over 90 other countries and to which we aligned our own security requirements.

Officials have carefully reviewed the requirements of the schemes, and they both require unique passwords, vulnerability reporting and a period of product support. As such, products issued with a valid label under either scheme will therefore have an equivalent or greater level of cybersecurity than that required under the UK’s PSTI regime. There is, therefore, no security advantage in duplicating compliance processes for manufacturers that have already met these equivalent or higher security standards. Our focus is on removing undue burdens from businesses, reducing unnecessary costs and opening the door for UK businesses to succeed in markets around the world. Subject to the approval of this House, this draft instrument will establish two alternative routes for manufacturers of consumer connectable products to demonstrate compliance with the UK’s product security regime.

I shall move on to the amendments. Regulations 4 and 8 amend the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023 to provide for deemed compliance with the requirement, under Section 9 of the 2022 Act, that relevant connectable products must be accompanied by a statement of compliance. Under new Regulation 4A of and new Schedule 2A to the 2023 regulations, a manufacturer will be deemed to have complied with this requirement where the relevant connectable product carries a valid label under Japan’s JC-STAR STAR-1 labelling scheme or a label under any level of the Singapore cybersecurity labelling scheme. Regulations 5 to 7 amend Schedule 2 to the 2023 regulations to provide for deemed compliance with the relevant security requirements set out in Schedule 1 to those regulations, where a manufacturer’s product carries either of these labels and where that label is valid. Regulation 3 inserts definitions of the Japan JC-STAR STAR-1 scheme and the Singapore cybersecurity labelling scheme into the 2023 regulations for the purposes of these deeming provisions.

The UK’s Department for Science, Innovation and Technology signed MoUs on working towards co-operation on cybersecurity—including the possibility of mutual recognition of our respective consumer internet of things cybersecurity regimes—with Singapore and Japan, on 23 October and 5 November respectively. When both MoUs come into effect, UK businesses will benefit from streamlined access to the Japanese and Singaporean labelling schemes, boosting their product credibility and market appeal in those regions.

Cybersecurity is not just a technical issue; it is a strategic priority. By aligning with like-minded nations and reducing unnecessary barriers to trade, we are strengthening our digital resilience, supporting UK businesses and protecting consumers. The UK must continue to lead by example by championing the global adoption of cybersecurity standards and advancing mutual recognition, which are vital parts of establishing a trusted global supply chain of connected products.

This instrument will extend and apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and will have practical effect throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that the Committee will recognise the importance of these regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I have some sympathy for the Minister, with this being her first time going into something like this. This is not an area that I usually cover. Acronym hell may not be here, but you can see it from the edge of this debate.

Basically, we are talking about something that makes trade easier and compatible. The instrument talks about making sure that things are safer in the current digital age. That is all to the good, but I have a couple of questions. How are we doing ongoing equivalence and oversight? How are we looking to make sure that we stay in touch with the regimes? How much are foreign regimes being monitored to make sure that this is all ongoing and happening?

Also, what about the economic quantification? That is an important way of asking how practical it is, especially for smaller users and consumers in this field. Are we doing anything to make sure that it is practical and will work if you are an SME? That is very important because we may have made a wonderful thing that looks great on paper and in theory—probably on a computer screen, in this case—but how will it work in practice? How are we going to monitor that on the way through?

Of course, a degree of congratulation is in order to any Government who make trade easier. How will this measure be used to make trade easier? Can the Minister give an example of how trade will be done more easily? I am struggling for the right word, but how will we make our regime more compatible with other regimes? Our biggest trading partner is still the European Union. How will our regime be more compatible with the EU’s? These are just a few things I hope the Minister will clarify when she responds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank both noble Lords for the fact that we find ourselves in agreement on the fundamental principle underlying this SI: common cybersecurity standards that facilitate trade are a good step forward for the UK and for global cybersecurity.

I come to some of the questions raised. Regarding how this regime will be enforced, the Office for Product Safety and Standards is the regulator of the PSTI regime. It has a comprehensive set of enforcement powers and can act against any business found to be non-compliant. Only products with a valid, unexpired label, under either the Japanese or the Singaporean scheme, can be made available, and if a product is subsequently found to have a security risk, the enforcement body—the OPSS—can act in line with its published enforcement policy to ensure that consumers are protected from harm.

Equally, Japan and Singapore have regulators overseeing their regimes. The Japanese Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore are responsible for enforcing their respective labelling schemes. Although the mutual recognition pathway streamlines compliance, it does not remove accountability, and the OPSS will continue to monitor market activity and enforce if it sees any security failures. In addition, the Government will continue to engage with our international partners to ensure that the recognised schemes remain aligned with UK standards. That is part of this proposal.

In respect of the EU, ETSI EN 303 645 is the international standard for consumer devices, and EU members follow it. As noble Lords will know, the EU has the CRA, which covers more than the PSTI, some of which has not yet come into effect. We are considering how best to align with that regime, which is quite different in nature.

If the standards change fundamentally, both MoUs allow us to disengage, and the SI applies to these specific Japanese and Singaporean standards only. If they change too much, it would be invalid. That should provide some reassurance that these standards are equivalent, there are processes to ensure that they remain equivalent, and we can disengage if we need to.

On the question of business impact and how to make the most of it, it is true that the trade corridors for manufactured goods between us and Japan and Singapore are perhaps not the most active. However, the latest figures show that in 2024 approximately £183 million of exports to Japan and £442 million of imports were goods potentially within the scope of PSTI. For Singapore, those figures were £84 million of exports and £88 million of imports. We are keen to publicise and make it clear that these regimes will enable those businesses that can take advantage of them to do so, along with all our normal trade promotion activities. I hope that that addresses the questions raised by noble Lords.

To conclude: as we know, we have more connected products than ever. It is very rare to find a UK household that does not own a connected product, and this connectivity brings convenience but also risks. The cybersecurity regulatory landscape is evolving and countries around the world, such as Japan and Singapore, are introducing similar regimes. We are keen to keep our leadership in this space by co-operating with like-minded regimes.

The draft instrument we have considered today will ensure that the UK remains a global leader in product cybersecurity, while strengthening our position as an attractive destination for digital innovation and trade. We are reducing regulatory burdens and supporting UK businesses to bring compliant products to our market. This is a practical step forward in our mission to drive economic growth and build a more resilient digital economy. It complements efforts to harmonise security standards across other major economies in partnerships with, for example, Brunei, the UAE, Australia, Germany, Finland, South Korea, Canada, Japan, Singapore and Hungary via the global cybersecurity labelling initiative.

With forecasts suggesting that the global IoT market will grow to 24.1 billion devices by 2030, generating over £1 trillion of annual revenue, it is more essential than ever that we enhance the security of connected products on a global scale. This is a good step towards achieving this goal. I look forward to working further on this and commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Artificial Intelligence Legislation

Baroness Lloyd of Effra Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[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 Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1C.

1C: Because it would weaken workers’ rights to guaranteed hours.

[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)

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[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.

120C: Schedule 3, page 189, line 14, for “(3)” substitute “(6)”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 48B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 48C.

48C: Because the amendment is unnecessary.

[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)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[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.

60D: Page 60, line 23, at end insert the following new Clause—
“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.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[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.

72C: Clause 59, page 87, line 10, after “case,” insert “the earlier of—
(i) a day specified in, or determined in accordance with, the rules of the union, and
(ii)”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[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.

62C: Clause 156, page 151, line 6, at end insert—
“(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

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[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

Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[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.