Budget: Small and Medium-sized Businesses

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for what he says about the action we took to help scale-up businesses in the UK. As many noble Lords will know, the UK is already a great place to start a business, but our companies are not scaling at the same rate as their US peers and raising less at later-stage investment. As a result, UK companies are either acquired, fail, or choose to go abroad to raise that investment. We will change that and make the UK the best place to start, scale and stay, because today’s fast-growing firms are tomorrow’s engine of jobs and growth. We are doubling the eligibility of our enterprise tax incentives, investing billions of pounds in public capital and delivering reforms to boost the attractiveness of the UK markets, making sure that those companies can access the capital and the talent that they need to succeed in the long term.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am sure the Minister and I will agree that the best way of helping businesses of all sizes is for there to be growth—meaningful growth—over the period. Given the words of the OBR boss, Richard Hughes, this morning on the “Today” programme that none of the measures in this Budget will lead to growth, it is very clear that the OBR does not rate the trade deals, investments in Heathrow or any of the measures as delivering growth over the period covered by the Budget. Where will the growth come from?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The OBR has upgraded Britain’s growth forecast for this year from 1% to 1.5%, reaching the same conclusion as the IMF, the OECD and the Bank of England, which have already upgraded their growth forecasts. We were the fastest-growing economy in the G7 for the first half of this year, and we are on course to be the second fastest for the year as a whole. He is right that the OBR has looked back at the previous decade and concluded that policies such as austerity and Brexit have weakened the economy more than previously thought, and that assessment then directly impacts its view of GDP for the remainder of the forecast period, but the past does not have to determine the future, and we will go further and faster with our growth mission. We are cutting inflation and cutting borrowing every year of the forecast so that interest rates can keep falling, giving businesses the confidence to invest; we are maintaining public investment to build critical infrastructure; and we are backing our fastest-growing companies. We beat the growth forecasts this year, and we will beat them again.

Forthcoming Fiscal Changes

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 25th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I 100% agree with my noble friend. Defence spending and growth go hand in hand. We will see far higher levels of growth in our economy as a result of the investment we are putting into our defence industry and increasing the security of our country.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, looking back rather than forward, it is quite clear that UK business cannot take another Budget like the last one. I was reminded by the introduction of our new and very welcome Peer of the apocryphal medical ethical oath. Could the Minister please carry back to the Chancellor one thing: do no harm?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for that. As he knows, I am not going to comment on specific measures or any speculation ahead of the Budget. I have set out clearly what our priorities are for tomorrow’s Budget; he will just have to wait a few more hours until he finds out for himself.

Cryptocurrencies: US Regulation

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her question. As she knows, the Bank of England is the independent regulator for systemic stablecoin and will design its regime as necessary to manage the associated risks. On 10 November, just earlier this week, the Bank of England launched a consultation to seek industry feedback on its systemic stablecoin regime, building on the initial proposals set out in its 2023 discussion paper. This includes up to 60% of backing assets to be held in short-term sterling-denominated UK Government debt securities, consistent with emerging regulatory regimes internationally, and the proposed cap of between £10,000 to £20,000 for individuals and £10 million for businesses applying for systemic stablecoins and only after consultation. The Treasury and the Bank of England are maintaining a close and ongoing dialogue on the legal and regulatory treatment of stablecoins in support of the Government’s objective to make the UK a global destination for digital assets. In terms of any wider discussion paper, I am very happy to continue discussing that point.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, my question concerns the Bank of England’s control over money supply. At what point, when the public are adopting cryptocurrencies, does the Bank lose control of the money supply? What calculation has the Treasury done, or has the Treasury done in conjunction with the Bank of England, to maintain national control over our money supply?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. The Bank of England’s Financial Policy Committee and the multilateral Financial Stability Board currently agree that crypto asset markets do not currently pose material risk to financial stability in the way the noble Lord describes but that stability risk may grow as connections between the traditional financial services sector and crypto markets increase. International and UK financial authorities have been working through the Financial Stability Board to assess and develop supervisory and regulatory approaches to address global financial stability risks posed by crypto assets and global stablecoins.

Public and Private Sector Productivity Trends

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is correct to say that public sector productivity is a major issue. I know that it is something she cares about deeply. Obviously, she will be aware that the Government inherited a situation where public sector productivity was 7.2% below pre-pandemic levels; that is obviously and clearly unacceptable. She said that pay rises were awarded without any link to productivity. That is factually incorrect. At the spending review, the Government established a programme of public sector service reform to drive greater productivity. Every department has committed to at least 5% savings and efficiencies over the spending review period, with the Office for Value for Money working closely with departments to agree bespoke targets. This will result in savings and efficiencies equivalent to nearly £14 billion a year by 2028-29, and public sector productivity has already risen by 1.5% since the election.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in 1964 the then Labour Government sought to separate the Treasury into two pieces: one to look after the short-term fiscal tax-raising element and one to look at economic development. The same tension exists today. Can the Minister tell your Lordships how the Treasury is balancing them? At the moment, it looks as if short-term fiscal concerns are outweighing long-term economic needs.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I disagree with the noble Lord. I do not think that there is any tension between economic stability and economic growth. As I say, under the Liz Truss mini-Budget we saw the damage that grotesque economic instability did to business confidence and business investment in this country. Maintaining stability—that starts with stability in the public finances—is why our fiscal rules are so important to our growth mission. Stability is the precondition for economic growth in this country, so the two go very much hand in hand.

GDP Per Capita

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

Clearly, we need to make sure that we retain top talent in this country, as the previous questioner asked me about, but we also need to make sure that we increase the living standards right across the income distribution, and particularly for working people. My noble friend will know that wages continue to grow and that in the first 10 months of this Government, real wages rose more than in the first 10 years of the previous Government.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, one of the problems facing the Treasury and the Bank of England is the quality, or lack of it, of workforce data. Can the Minister tell us what progress is being made with the ONS to improve the quality of the data that the Government have to make their decisions?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely correct. That is currently a significant issue. As I understand it, the ONS is reviewing that data, and that review is ongoing.

Economic Growth

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his question and for his thoughts on growing the economy. After his success in advocating for a Brexit deal that reduced GDP by 4%, it is always very helpful to get his advice on economic growth.

The noble Lord mentioned the monthly growth figures. I do not know whether he is an avid reader of the Office for National Statistics blog posts, but he may have seen that the ONS announced this week that it will be reverting to leading with the three-monthly growth figures, which are less volatile and provide a clearer picture of underlying economic momentum. He may therefore have seen that UK GDP increased in the three months to July. In that data released, we can see that the Government’s action to turn around the legacy of underinvestment from his Government, opposed now by the party opposite, is having an effect, and construction output increased by 0.6%, driven by 2.1% growth in new infrastructure work.

The noble Lord may also have seen that exports to the US increased in July. He may have seen that the UK economy grew by 1% in the first half of this year, and that as a result, the UK is the fastest-growing economy in the G7. He may have seen Lloyds Bank’s latest business barometer, which shows that business confidence rose for the fourth consecutive month to its highest level in 10 years.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, 50% of the economy is small and medium-sized businesses. In its commentary on today’s rise in unemployment and fall in vacancies, the British Chambers of Commerce highlighted employment costs; in particular, it singled out the hike in employers’ national insurance. Earlier today, those noble Lords who were in Prayers prayed for the wealth and tranquillity of our nation. Rather than wait for divine intervention, can the Minister now admit that the national insurance rise was wrong, and it is contributing to neither wealth nor tranquillity in this country?

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

It is a welcome return for the noble Lord and a pleasure to be asked a question by him again after a somewhat lengthy absence. The answer to his question is no. We heard from the Liberal Democrat Benches strong support for the investment we announced in the spending review. They supported— I think—every single piece of regional, transport, health, and education investment right across the board. Not a single piece of investment that we announced did they oppose, but they are now saying that they oppose the way in which we raise that money. That, I am afraid, is something we see on many Liberal Democrat leaflets across the country. It is also the route that led to the Liz Truss mini-Budget, wanting to support outcomes but not supporting the difficult measures to support those outcomes.

The noble Lord mentioned small business. We set out a very clear small business strategy to support small businesses in this country.

British Steel

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to return to the subject of Scunthorpe and British Steel. I start by saying once again, as I said on the last occasion, that our thoughts today must be with the steel-workers, their families, the suppliers and the communities whose future hangs in the balance in what is a very difficult and challenging situation.

We welcome the news that British Steel’s redundancy plans have been halted. This will be a relief to the workers and their families who have endured months of uncertainty because, when one looks at the background to this whole situation, one sees that the Government have just not had any plan at all for British Steel. As was said when we met on Saturday 12 April, during the Recess, this situation should never have been allowed to reach this point. The closure of the Stellantis plant in Luton—as long ago as 29 November last year—was a stark warning, yet still the Government failed to act in time. So, although today’s Statement brings some short-term reassurance, it is by no means a resolution. This is only the beginning. I say to the Minister that we now need urgent clarity. We need to understand how the Government plan to secure the future of the British steel industry.

That includes a clear strategy to boost domestic steel production, a credible plan to attract and sustain private sector investment, and an assurance that the broad powers that the Government have taken will genuinely be temporary. Although we are told that these powers will not be held

“for a minute more than is necessary”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/25; col. 843.]

the Government’s recent approach with delegated powers and Henry VIII clauses is precisely why this House called for a sunset clause. Parliament was just not given sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly, and the Government should have taken that opportunity to come back to Parliament with improved proposals that had not been rushed through. Sadly, that proposal was rejected. We now have a commitment that the Secretary of State will provide updates every four weeks, and we are going to have a debate in this House, in September or October, on the future of British steel. This is very much what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and many of us called for on the last occasion, but the House really now needs to hear a commitment from the Minister that this will be a substantive debate. On the last occasion, the Minister said:

“I can confirm that my noble friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the Act”.—[Official Report, 12/4/25; col. 534.]


I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity of talking to her colleague, but we really would like some further detail, because this House must be given the opportunity to scrutinise and influence the direction of policy in a substantive debate. Can we please have that assurance?

We must of course also address the cost to the taxpayer. Have the Government provided any form of estimated assessment of the public cost so far? Looking ahead, where will the ongoing costs land, especially if the government intervention continues or escalates? On that point, the Business Secretary has now said repeatedly that nationalisation is likely. Can the Minister confirm that any move towards nationalisation will not be rushed through at the last minute via emergency legislation? If it is indeed the Government’s intention to nationalise, they should make that clear today and bring forward legislation without delay. This House must be given the opportunity properly to debate and scrutinise such a significant move. What happened during the Recess is not acceptable and should not be repeated, because it was an appalling way for Ministers to treat Parliament. The Government should act in a timely way to prevent unnecessary uncertainty and strain on our steel sector workers and their families.

Then to the matter of the Government’s long-promised steel strategy: we are told that this will be laid before us very soon. Can the Minister give us an idea of what it will contain? Specifically, will the Government consider, or reconsider, opening coking coal mines in the UK? On the last occasion we debated this, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, asked the Minister:

“Will the Government reconsider the decision not to support the Cumbrian mine, which can produce high quality coking coal?”.—[Official Report, 12/4/25; col. 517.]


There was no indication of an answer to her noble friend’s question in that debate, and we would love to hear an answer from the Minister today. I realise that there is a sulphur problem, but it is long standing and can be overcome. Can we please reconsider opening coking coal mines in the UK? It is patently absurd to reject domestic coking coal on environmental grounds, only to import it from thousands of miles away at a greater environmental and financial cost.

Secondly, the Government have committed £2.5 billion in investment in steel. Will the Minister clarify for what this funding is intended? Is it going to cover running costs? If not, who will? Are we expecting the taxpayer to carry that burden as well?

Finally, I have a broader question. Will the Government now reconsider elements of their environmental policy and regulatory framework that have at times actively harmed UK industry? Of course we must stay committed to our environmental obligations, but surely that must be balanced with industrial viability, energy, security and economic growth. Can the Minister confirm whether such a review is under active consideration?

The British steel industry is a strategic national asset. It surely deserves better than piecemeal interventions and opaque announcements. I ask again: can we please be provided with the clarity, detail and honesty that this House, the other place and the thousands of workers and communities relying on us rightly demand now?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when we debated the fate of British Steel on 12 April, the sense of urgency from the Government was palpable. As subsequent events played out, that sense of urgency was fully justified. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would say it was timely legislation that Parliament moved effectively to deliver. That is why the contents of this Statement—as far as it goes—which sets out how both blast furnaces have been secured and the redundancy process has been ended, are good news. Everyone involved should be congratulated on pulling together and working so effectively to do that.

However, the haste of the legislation and the need for quick action leave a lot of open questions. I will ask a few more nitty-gritty questions. First, what about Port Talbot? I cannot help thinking the Welsh will be looking eastward and wondering where they fit into this programme. Have the Government had discussions with Tata Steel? How do the Government see the whole picture of steel in the United Kingdom, and how will they set that picture out to your Lordships?

Secondly, what is Jingye’s current status, in respect of British Steel but also the other steel-related businesses that it holds in the UK? Given the fractious nature of the past 10 days, how are the Government relating tousb the Chinese business that it still owns the site? What is the point of contact? Is it operational or departmental? Is it governmental, or is there no contact at all between Jingye and the people now running the plant? Can the Minister confirm whether there have been government-to-government discussions about this between the UK and the People’s Republic of China?

Thirdly, following some discussion during the take-note debate last week, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, who was present on the Front Bench at the time, asking them to clarify the basis of international law that the Government are using, at WTO, EU and domestic legislative levels, to justify subsidising the operational functions of a business that they do not own? Perhaps the Minister could alert her officials to the existence of that letter and chivvy along the response.

In the Statement, in answer to the rhetorical question “What next?”, the Secretary of State said that

“All options are on the table”.


It would help your Lordships’ House if the Minister could explain what is meant by “all options”. More than this, I suggest that, to properly decide what should happen, the Government should have a very clear-eyed sense of their industrial strategy. We should not delude ourselves: the UK steel industry has been in a tough place for a very long time, and Saturday 12 April did not change that. For UK steel to flourish, it needs to be within an industrial strategy and within a defence industrial strategy. We are waiting for these, and the need for these anchoring strategies is ever more present. So, I ask the Minister: when will the industrial strategy be published?

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the Stellantis closure, which was announced on 29 November. This was surprising, because I would ask him: who was in government at the time that announcement was made? However, he said that steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, and we agree with that.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The noble Lord has got the dates wrong.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

In that case, I withdraw the point.

To make the statement true, the industrial strategy should explain how it is going to build the steel industry, what steels are needed and what processes can deliver them. I have an outstanding question on the different sorts of steels that can be delivered by blast furnace and electric arc furnace; that question still has not been answered. It is my contention that many of the specialist steels we require, particularly for our defence industry, cannot be produced via current electric arc technology. I would like an answer to that question. It should explain how the demand for UK-made steels will be stimulated and grown, and it should devise an ownership structure that actually fits in with that strategy. At the moment, we are looking at ownership before we look at what we want the industry to do. I suggest that we should be looking at this the other way around.

Finally, unless the Government deal with the high cost of energy—which they did inherit from the Conservative Government—it is hard to see how any of this works. So, can the Minister at least acknowledge the problems faced by the whole manufacturing sector by disproportionately high energy costs, and can the Minister suggest how the Government are going to address that absolutely key issue?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right. Today’s world feels like it is changing from a Monday to a Tuesday. We must not forget that in all of this, we should have that north star—what are those assets that we have within the UK and those industries that we see encouraging all our future growth, and how can we support them? The purpose of the Government’s industrial strategy is to illuminate exactly that: how do we identify those key sectors and what are the facets that we need to intervene in to be able to support the growth? A key aspect of that is energy costs, which is why things such as the supercharger scheme is so important. They need to be targeted at those sectors that we see as really essential to the UK.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I ask the Minister to reaffirm that the steel strategy is not mutually exclusive of the net-zero strategy but central to it going forward. There is an unfortunate tendency to think you can have one and not the other. Can the Minister confirm that the aim is to deliver one through the other?

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I confirm exactly that: energy is going to be such an important growth driver across all our sectors, and a key one that we are talking about today is the steel strategy. For us to grow a sustainable and powerful industry within the UK, we need a sustainable and powerful source of energy that is generated here and that we can rely on. That is why the two go hand in hand.

Spring Statement

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

The noble Lord is quite right to focus on trade and the importance of trade to growth. I think he is wrong to say that neither the Budget nor the Spring Statement mentioned trade; I think both did, because clearly trade is a big part of our growth strategy. We want to increase our trade flows with our nearest neighbours and biggest trading partner, the European Union, through our reset of our relationship with the EU. The Chancellor has been to visit China, the third largest economy in the world, which I think the previous Government had not engaged with it at all since 2019. We are engaged in trade negotiations with India and the GCC, and we have just acceded to the CPTPP, so trade is absolutely at the heart of it. Of course, many of the conversations already have revolved around our trading relationship with the United States, which again is a very incredibly important trading relationship to us. On digitising and streamlining trade, he is absolutely right. The Government have an agenda in that respect, but it is very expensive and we need to move ahead when fiscal conditions allow.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when I was sponsoring the Carer’s Leave Bill through your Lordships’ House, I saw how much unpaid carers benefit our economy, providing free services that would otherwise cost the state. That is why I was disappointed that the spending review will leave many unpaid carers struggling with financial hardship and increased care-giving demands without adequate support. Does the Minister not recognise that this is a false economy? These people give to the community their services. If they do not, and they are not adequately supported, those services will end up costing us.

[Lord Livermore (Lab)]

I agree with much of what the noble Lord says: supporting carers is very important. He talked about the spending review leaving them unsupported. Of course, the spending review has not yet taken place; it will take place in June of this year, and I think perhaps we should wait until the spending review reports to see what it has to say.

National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Jones (Lab)]

My Lords, it is instructive to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who has a professorial exactitude that excites considerable interest in someone such as me. I thank the Minister for the precision, cogency and persuasiveness of her introduction. I rise on the principle that the Executive should be challenged and questioned. That is what a Parliament is for, and the Westminster Parliament will always acknowledge the need to challenge the Executive.

I greatly welcome the regulations. Anyone who offers a 6% or more increase must be acknowledged and thanked. I must say that the complexity of the regulations is considerable, and the weight of the document is evidence of that. Each year these regulations present themselves, but the data changes. I am grateful for the helpfulness of the Explanatory Memorandum. I know that a lot of work goes into the presentation of it and the regulations by the Minister’s departmental officials.

Can the Minister indicate how many people in Wales are on the national minimum wage? Is there a figure for the number of apprentices in Wales on the national minimum wage?

There is a need to consider the context to these regulations. The Explanatory Memorandum says that the legislation went forward and got parliamentary approval in 1998. I was present in the other place Her Majesty’s Government made those proposals, and I recollect the intensity of the determination of Prime Minister Blair and Chancellor of the Exchequer Brown. But we also experienced the angry and persistent opposition to these proposals in the other place. There was a considerable amount of anger, but now everyone would agree, I think, that it was a measure of social justice that was overdue, bearing in mind that unemployment was considerably high in the 1980s—indeed, there was mass unemployment. The memory of those tumultuous times enabled the Opposition of the day to include a national minimum wage in their manifesto and, when elected in 1997, to proceed to organise legislation.

I would like to point to paragraph 5.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. In reading it, I acknowledge that this is a noble objective. It says:

“The Government has set a policy aim to deliver a genuine living wage for every adult worker, and the increases to the rates this year are intended to make progress towards that, both by increasing the headline NLW rate and narrowing the gap between the 18-20 NMW rate and the full adult rate”.


That has to be really good news and it deserves commendation. It is also worthwhile indicating that in paragraph 9.2 there is a reference to employers:

“These costs to employers represent a transfer to low-paid workers, and include the estimated cost on employers in the public sector. Over 3 million workers are estimated to receive a direct pay rise due to the increase to the NMW and NLW in April 2025”.


These regulations must be welcomed, and the Minister commended for her introduction.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we have heard two spirited supporters of this statutory instrument. I will add my spirits to the support of these regulations.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, observed, many millions of workers have suffered a severe fallback in their living conditions as a result of a variety of measures, not least inflation, energy costs and the like. This has happened to a great degree over the past few years. Therefore, to some degree, this instrument is getting them back to a place they have slipped from. It is debatable whether it is protecting millions of workers, as the noble Baroness said, or helping ameliorate some of the problems they have. On that basis, we should be welcoming it.

In her speech, the Minister talked about the fair work agency, which will be enforcing this. It would be useful for us to find out what will be different. What will the fair work agency be doing that has not been done before? Quite clearly, this provision has been on the statute before and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, pointed out, there have been many businesses that do not uphold it. How will the fair work agency be any different? What will it be doing to achieve that?

We have to put this into context. The noble Lord, Lord Jones, spoke about the aim to create a genuine living wage for everyone. To do that, we have to have businesses that are profitable and workers that have the skills to earn those wages. This measure cannot be taken in isolation. For business, there is not just this instrument, which I think most good businesses will welcome. Most good businesses are paying more than these wages already, but the cumulative effect on our businesses is already rolling up. It is the perception of that roll up that is causing the problems for the Chancellor at the moment, with very low growth and investment falling back.

I think we all welcome this measure but then we have the employers’ national insurance contribution, which we do not welcome. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I will be in the same camp on this. There is then the non-domestic rate rises for businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, which are the businesses most likely to be paying the minimum wage. They will have a huge increase in their rates, notwithstanding the small variations that can happen. The loss of the Covid reliefs will leave them paying two or three times the non-domestic rate that they are currently pay. These are the businesses that will be laying off workers because they cannot afford to pay them even the current minimum wage. There is a big discontinuity in government policy at this point.

Finally, the noble Baroness mentioned the Employment Rights Bill. There are good and bad things in that Bill; there are puts and takes. Contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, only four pages of these documents are the statutory instrument. The rest is an Explanatory Memorandum, which is an example of what we want from those and from impact assessments. It is a comprehensive and well-prepared document. I hope the noble Baroness will pass that on to all her colleagues.

On page 13, the impact assessment says that the aim—the Government’s preferred option—has been to minimise “administrative and compliance costs”. When we come to the Employment Rights Bill, the minimising of administration and compliance costs should be their preferred option for those rights. The little work I have already done on that Bill indicates that it is complicating things and making things harder for businesses to comply. Even where we agree with the measures in that Bill, the legalistic approach through which they will be brought about will not meet the Government’s objective, which, quite rightly, was applied to this legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

Before the Division, I was about to turn to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the first of which was about the impact on SMEs and businesses. I remind noble Lords that we have accepted in full the recommendations of the Low Pay Commission. We are confident that these increases will help millions of families across the country without placing excessive burdens on businesses. The remit of the LPC asks it to take into account the impact on businesses, including SMEs, competitiveness, the labour market and the wider economy. The LPC draws on extensive labour market and pay analysis and stakeholder evidence when recommending rates.

Regarding support for businesses as they adjust to these new rates, the 2025 national minimum wage and NLW rates were announced in the Autumn Budget 2024, more than five months before the rates came into effect. These timelines are consistent with previous years, providing businesses with the maximum adjustment time. Similar to previous years, the Government will undertake an extensive communications campaign to increase awareness and understanding of the changes to the rates coming into effect from 1 April 2025 and to ensure that businesses and workers are prepared. The communication campaign is expected to include targeted activities specifically to support SMEs. The Government also publish extensive guidance online to support businesses in understanding the legislation and the steps required to comply.

This Government are proud to be delivering the biggest upgrade to the rights of working people in decades. An ambitious minimum wage, backed by robust enforcement, will always be a cornerstone of a Labour Government’s employment rights framework, and we are grateful for cross-party support on this vital measure. As noted, the Government’s impact assessment, which was published alongside this legislation, estimates a direct pay rise for more than 3 million people, covering all the nations and regions of the UK and every sector of employment. It is worth repeating that a full-time worker on the national living wage will receive a gross annual pay rise on 1 April of £1,400, while an 18 to 20 year-old working full time on the national minimum wage will benefit to the tune of £2,500 a year.

I reiterate the Government’s thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the Low Pay Commission. Once a new remit is issued to the LPC, we will look forward to hearing its next recommendations later this year as we continue our path towards a genuine living wage for all adults. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

May I just take the Minister back to before the Division, when we were starting to talk about the fair work agency? Either she has nothing more to tell us or it somehow got lost in the wash. Her response was somewhat thematic but really short on process. It is not clear to me how the fair work agency will be juxtaposed with other enforcement activities. In her answer to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, the Minister talked about the role of HMRC. Will HMRC no longer have that role? If not, will the fair work agency have access to the data that HMRC has in order to make its prosecutions? That is just one of the outstanding queries about how this new agency will operate in the context of enforcing this important change.

[Baroness Gustafsson (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I talked about the additional rights and enforcing the wider roles and rules of the domestic agency, but on how that will be impacted operationally, as well as the interface with HMRC, I will write to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, with some details on exactly how that will be undertaken.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2025

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and Treasury (Baroness Gustafsson) (Lab)]

My Lords, this instrument was laid before the House on 18 December 2024 and relates to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024—the DMCC Act—which received Royal Assent in May 2024. The instrument makes amendments to legislation in consequence of Parts 3 and 4, and Chapter 2 of Part 5, of the Act.

Part 3 updates and strengthens enforcement of consumer protection law. Part 4 updates the legislative framework of consumer protections against unfair trading, introduces substantive new consumer rights in relation to subscriptions contracts and consumer savings schemes, and introduces reforms to alternative dispute resolution. Chapter 2 of Part 5 allows UK regulators to provide investigative assistance to overseas regulators in relation to competition, consumer protection and digital markets.

Many noble Lords contributed to this legislation through their scrutiny of it during its parliamentary passage, but I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, who made the recommendations that led to the granting of the CMA’s new enforcement powers, and the noble Lord, Lord Offord of Garvel, who took the Bill, as it was then, through this House.

To ensure the provisions of the Act take effect as Parliament intended, it is necessary to make consequential amendments to the enactments listed in the Schedule to the regulations. These are relatively minor changes that do not materially alter policy but are needed to ensure the seamless functioning of consumer protection law and enforcement.

The amendments within the instrument fall into three broad categories. The first extends the application of legislative provisions that permit public authorities to share certain information with consumer enforcers. At present, persons or bodies that gather information using powers under certain statutes may share that information to facilitate consumer enforcement, consumer protection or overseas investigatory assistance, in certain circumstances.

This sharing is permitted by sections of the relevant statutes, which I will refer to as information gateways. These information gateways list the consumer protection legislation in relation to which information may be shared. For example, where Ofcom gathers information using powers in the Telecommunications Act 1984, the information gateway in Section 101 of that Act permits it to share that information with the Competition and Markets Authority for the purpose of enforcement of, among other things, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

As I have already said, the DMCC Act introduces a new consumer enforcement framework, new and updated consumer protections, and new provisions on investigative assistance to overseas regulators. It is therefore necessary to add references to these provisions to the information gateways in various statutes. Were these provisions not to be updated, the current approach, whereby public authorities may share information gathered under statutory powers to facilitate consumer enforcement, consumer protection or overseas investigatory assistance, would be unavailable. This would compromise consumer protection, which could lead to consumer harm.

The second group of amendments is to Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015. These amendments ensure the CMA can use relevant investigatory powers in respect of its new direct enforcement powers. This will enable the CMA to monitor compliance with its direct enforcement notices as it currently can in relation to court enforcement orders. For example, at present, the CMA can require a person to provide information for the purposes of ascertaining whether a person is complying with a court enforcement order against them. This enables the CMA to ensure the enforcement orders are being complied with, and therefore that enforcement proceedings are having the desired effect. Under the DMCC Act, the CMA will also be able to use investigatory powers to monitor compliance with certain of its direct enforcement functions.

The DMCC Act introduces a new power for the CMA to give final enforcement notices for failing to respond to an information notice alongside its other direct enforcement powers. The amendments in these regulations are necessary to ensure that the CMA is empowered to monitor compliance with this new power in the same way as in relation to the rest of the court-based and direct enforcement regime.

Finally, this instrument updates references to consumer laws that have been repealed and replaced by the Act with references to the relevant new provisions introduced. These amendments do not materially change the policy or effect of the underlying law; they simply keep the statute book up to date in the usual way. As I hope is clear from my remarks, the intention of these regulations is to update and maintain the frameworks that underpin consumer law and its enforcement to ensure that the DMCC’s consumer reforms can be introduced seamlessly, with no inadvertent detriment to consumers.

I invite noble Lords to support the passage of this instrument. I commend these regulations to the Committee.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the shocking thing is that it was only in May of last year that we were working on the then DMCC Bill. It feels, frankly, a great deal longer ago; an awful lot has happened and a lot has changed. Some of the substantive aspects of what I will ask the Minister include getting some sense of how the tone has changed in our relationship with digital issues; and a question to get some sense of how the Government see things now, rather than how the previous Government saw things when we initially debated some of these issues.

As the Minister ably and clearly set out, this statutory instrument deals with three areas: consumer protection and law enforcement; unfair commercial practice and consumer rights; and international co-operation. On the latter, the measures facilitate Chapter 2 of Part 5 of the Act, which allows UK regulators to assist overseas regulators in matters related to competition, consumer protection and digital markets. This involves updating information gateways to permit the sharing of relevant information for investigative purposes.

That is really important when we look both to the west and to the east—that is, to the United States and to the European Union—because that bridge between our three data regimes is vital to the commercial future of this country. Although, when we were discussing the then Bill, there was relative harmony between the European Union and the United States in establishing their own data bridge, which underpins many of the issues that this part of the statutory instrument could change, I would suggest that that relationship is at best taut, if not snapped. We have yet to see the consequences of that snapping but, at some point, it will happen. Our relationship is almost literally sitting in the middle: we have an equivalence relationship with the European Union, and our data relationship with the United States rides on the back of the European Union’s data bridge. So a huge political issue is welling up here. I would like the Minister to tell your Lordships that the department is aware of it and is doing work; there is as much diplomatic work as data protection work to be done here because, in the end, it will be crucial to our service industries that we get this right, and calling it is going to be no easy measure. That is my first point.

Secondly, the Minister will be aware that there have been discussions about the Act’s scope—or, indeed, the lack of it. Some issues, such as secondary ticketing and greenwashing, have not been addressed by the Act; that is still seen as a limitation by stakeholders. As the Minister knows, a secondary ticketing review is going on. It would be useful if she could update your Lordships on where we are with that and when we might see some resolution. Also, how might any recommendations of that review find their way into statute, given that the Bill has already passed?

There is a general issue I would like to address before I address a specific one. We have heard a lot in the last week or two about bonfires of quangos. We have also seen a regime change in the CMA. I think it would be helpful for the Minister to set out that we will not see a stepping back by the CMA in doing its job, which is enabled through this Act. In her speech, she made clear the central role of the CMA, but it has to have the support of the Government to go after these sorts of things. We need to know that the Government still support the CMA in these kinds of activities.

One further point is that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, asked His Majesty’s Government

“when they plan to make regulations under Schedule 7 to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 to provide limited exemptions for permissible investment funds associated with foreign powers”,

such as sovereign wealth or public sector pension funds, to invest in UK newspapers and news magazines. This was an important point, which has been debated at length. Section 130 of the DMCC Act introduced Schedule 7, which makes provisions for the purposes of preventing foreign powers from gaining control or influence over newspaper enterprises. There is more that I will not go into, but there is also a debate around particular exemptions that might or might not exist—a state-owned investor exemption and a diversified business exemption.

All of these are still in the wash. The UK Government announced plans to commence parts of the Act, including those related to competition reforms, in December 2024 or January 2025. A technical consultation, which included draft secondary legislation that also debated the threshold points I just mentioned, was launched in mid-2024 to gather feedback before the implementation of these additional statutory instruments. These are expected to be laid before Parliament for scrutiny before entering into force. However, the Library tells us that this has not yet happened, nor has DCMS published a formal response to that consultation. It is high time that we knew where we are on this and that these statutory instruments see the light of day.

There is an ominous feeling around this. Look at the Answer that the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, gave to an Oral Question.

“On the SI to which the noble Baroness referred”—


this is the one that the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, raised—

“there has been a general election in the interim since the legislation was passed by the previous Government. Ministers recognise the high importance of foreign states not being allowed to influence the policy of UK newspapers, but there should be a balance to encourage investment into the press sector. Therefore, we are carefully considering a response to the consultation. We hope to publish a response very soon”.—[Official Report, 5/3/25; col. 251.]

That is an ominous response given the debate that we had in May last year. I would like the Minister to put it into context.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, we will resume. By popular request, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is going to quickly repeat what he said as we adjourned for a Division in the House.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Lest you forget, my Lords. The rest of the Minister’s response to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, was:

“Ministers recognise the high importance of foreign states not being allowed to influence the policy of UK newspapers, but there should be a balance to encourage investment into the press sector. Therefore, we are carefully considering a response to the consultation. We hope to publish a response very soon and lay the SI shortly after that”.—[Official Report, 5/3/25; col. 251.]


We need to be reassured that this will not see a watering down of the intentions of the original Act.

[Viscount Camrose (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this SI and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his characteristically thought-provoking remarks, particularly those on the dynamics of data bridges between the EU and the US, which were very pertinent.

The measures in this SI are intended to facilitate the effective implementation of the DMCC Act 2024. His Majesty’s Opposition do not object to the instrument in principle, given that it implements a Bill introduced under the last Government, but we still welcome the opportunity to scrutinise its provisions carefully to ensure that they deliver the outcomes intended. In that spirit, let us consider the impact of these measures.

This SI makes amendments to existing legislation to facilitate the implementation of the DMCC Act, whose purpose is to enhance consumer protections and improve their enforcement. Part 3 strengthens the powers of regulators to investigate and enforce consumer protection laws and Part 4 introduces stronger safeguards for consumers, particularly regarding unfair commercial practices, subscription contracts and alternative dispute resolution. Chapter 2 of Part 5 enables UK regulators to assist their international counterparts in matters related to competition and consumer protection.

The amendments in this SI update existing consumer law frameworks to align with the changes introduced by the DMCC Act. These provisions enable the necessary disclosure of information for enforcement purposes and ensure consistent application of the statutory provisions across different regulatory contexts. This is particularly important, as the updated consumer protection measures require regulators to access relevant information in order effectively to carry out their functions.

The SI also ensures the continuity of consumer policy during the transition to the new framework. While Part 4 of the Act will replace existing regulations, transitional provisions are in place to allow for the continued protection of consumers’ rights to redress for unfair trading until the new regulations are fully implemented. The instrument also updates the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 to facilitate a smooth transition to the new framework and ensure that consumers’ protections remain intact during this period.

While we on these Benches broadly support the measures, I have a few questions to clarify some important aspects. First, the instrument extends the ability of regulators and public authorities to disclose information to consumer enforcers, enabling them to more effectively investigate and enforce breaches of consumer protection laws. This includes amendments to various Acts, including the Water Resources Act 1991, to allow such disclosures. Can the Minister give an overview of the safeguards in place to ensure that information shared between bodies remains secure and is handled appropriately, particularly with regard to sensitive business or personal information? While information sharing is crucial for effective enforcement, it is equally important that the privacy and confidentiality of individuals and businesses are respected.

Secondly, the instrument seeks to ensure that the protections in Part 4 of the DMCC Act, particularly around subscription contracts, prepayments to savings schemes and unfair commercial practices, are properly enforced. Subscription traps have been a long-standing concern and, while the DMCC Act aims to address this, we must consider whether the proposed changes are sufficient to prevent such practices. How will the Minister ensure that the protections in place will be fully effective in addressing subscription traps? Can she assure us that businesses will be held to account under the new regime in a way that is both transparent and fair?

Finally, this instrument updates various references across the statute book to ensure that outdated provisions are replaced with those in the DMCC Act. This helps maintain the clarity and consistency of the legal framework. However, can the Minister confirm that relevant stakeholders, including regulators and businesses, have been adequately consulted on and prepared for the transition to these new rules, especially where they replace long-standing regulations?

I acknowledge the positive steps taken by this SI, but we must ensure collectively that they meet their three goals: to protect consumers, to promote fair competition and to ensure the right balance between privacy and transparency. I look forward to the Minister’s response and to further assurances that will aid the successful implementation of these important reforms.