Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Grand Committee

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for telling me about my noble friend’s disqualification from speaking; I will now speak to his Amendment 101. I find that it would be a useful addition to Clause 20, by imposing some modest requirements such as making the reports comparable with previous reports and covering things such as the cumulative cost of regulation and an explanation of how proportionality has been applied, including for SMEs. I do not think that any part of this amendment should be controversial, and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I thank my noble friend.

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My last amendment in this group, Amendment 102, is also about the secondary competitiveness and growth objective, but, this time, for the Financial Market Infrastructure Committee of the Bank of England. The FMIC was set up with a secondary innovation objective, and there is clearly a link between innovation and growth and competitiveness—but they are not synonymous. I am not sure why the FMIC was set up with innovation objectives rather than full competitiveness and growth objectives, and I do not recall a substantive debate on that during the passage of the 2023 Act.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

2: Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out “includes (but is not limited to)” and insert “means”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to limit the public interest test to the areas set out in subsections (a) to (c).

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 2, 3 and 8.

Amendment 2 limits the public interest test to the specific factors listed in Clause 2. On first reading, the test looks robust: national security, the economy and

“the construction, maintenance and operation of critical infrastructure”.

These are serious criteria that one might think provide a meaningful check on the exercise of what are very significant powers. However, when one reads on, Clause 2(2) says that the test

“includes (but is not limited to)”

those grounds. I contend that, with those five words, the floor falls away. If the test includes but is not limited to the listed grounds, surely, in practice, there is no test at all. Any Secretary of State of any political persuasion at any time can conjure a reason and call it the public interest.

The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom would remove those words and make the listed grounds exhaustive. It would ensure that when Ministers say that these are exceptional powers subject to a robust public interest test, it is actually true—not merely true for now with this Secretary of State in these circumstances but true in the legislation for every Secretary of State who follows.

The Government may say that there need to be other grounds, beyond national security, the economy and critical infrastructure. I would genuinely like to know what they are. What situation could possibly arise that those three criteria do not already cover? If the Government can answer that question, let them do so today. Let them set out on the record what additional circumstances they have in mind. If they cannot, these words should not be in the Bill.

We have a Bill that, as we just discussed in the first group, can capture businesses with only a peripheral connection to steel. We now have a public interest test with no effective limit. Will the Minister confirm that the powers in the Bill cannot be triggered simply because of industrial pressure; for example, because a trade union decides that the answer to a dispute is public ownership? Will he rule that out?

On Amendment 3, the Government’s impact assessment describes the difficult environment in which the steel sector operates, including high domestic operating costs and a lack of long-term investment. It recognises that these pressures bear directly on the ability of UK steel producers to compete. Yet Clause 2 refers only in the broadest terms to “supporting the economy”. That phrase could cover almost any intervention; it does not require Ministers to demonstrate that the intervention will leave the United Kingdom with a stronger, more productive or more internationally competitive steel sector.

There is a difference between preserving an undertaking for the moment and putting it on a sustainable footing for the future. Nationalisation may avert an immediate crisis, but it should not become a means simply of transferring losses, risks and difficult decisions from a company to the taxpayer. The question must be whether public ownership can help to secure the investment, modernisation, productivity and commercial resilience needed for this sector to compete successfully.

There is also a point of consistency with the Government’s own drafting. The Bill makes clear that the public interest test is not intended to be limited to the matters specifically listed. It says that the test includes but is not limited to national security, critical infrastructure and the economy, as I said earlier, so the Government have already chosen not to confine the public interest test. In those circumstances, why would they resist including economic growth and international competitiveness expressly within it? Growth is the Government’s stated number one priority. International competitiveness is plainly fundamental to the future of a sector exposed to intense overseas competition and high energy costs. If the Government consider national security and critical infrastructure important enough to name in the Bill, surely growth and competitiveness should also be named. I invite the Minister to explain why those two objectives do not appear in the Bill. How will the Government assess whether an intervention is likely to strengthen competitiveness? Will that assessment include energy costs, investment, productivity, output, technological modernisation, export potential and the undertaking’s ability to operate sustainably without indefinite support from the taxpayer?

On Amendment 8, the Government have confirmed that they have already provided approximately £555 million to British Steel for working capital, including raw materials and salaries. The National Audit Office reported that, as at 31 January this year, the Department for Business and Trade had spent £377 million on its intervention. At the then current rate of spending, total costs were expected to exceed £642 million by the end of this month. More importantly, the National Audit Office warned that if spending continued at the then current rate, costs could exceed £1.5 billion by 2028—and that figure was before any potential transformation of the business, compensation to the current owner or the eventual costs of exit. The NAO also found that the intervention has

“no clear end date … has not stabilised the company’s finances”

and began

“without a clear exit strategy”.

This Bill is not simply emergency legislation to keep the furnaces operating over a weekend. It creates enduring powers to transfer businesses, assets, rights and liabilities into public ownership. Before those powers are exercised, the Government must be able to demonstrate that the proposed course represents value for money.

The facts since the emergency intervention underline why this matters. We are told that the business in its present form is structurally unprofitable. We know that substantial decisions remain to be made on its future, including any transition in production technology, the cost of investment, the length of any transition period and the eventual route to a viable and sustainable business. The taxpayer needs protection against an open-ended commitment.

The Government may argue that the Treasury’s Managing Public Money framework already requires departments to consider value for money. I suppose I could look forward to the day when there is some evidence of the Treasury acting responsibly in this way. Can the Minister tell us what value-for-money assessment will be undertaken before a principal transfer power is exercised? Will it include the expected costs of compensation, operating losses, capital investment, decommissioning, restructuring and any eventual exit?

This amendment would not frustrate the Government’s ability to act where action is genuinely justified. It would simply ensure that before nationalisation takes place, the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is a responsible use of taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 would replace

“includes (but is not limited to)”

with the word “means” so that we knew what we were describing. The worry is that leaving it as it is could create a public interest so large that there was a mission creep that I do not think should be in the Bill, which is trying to nationalise steel. We need to be slightly more economical in the words we are using, so that we need not fear that on another day, if another public interest was being taken into account, the definition would prove far too loose. The word “means” does the job: we know exactly what one is talking about, and it lists the three elements. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wanted to include two other areas but, for me, limiting it to those three objects seems to be where we should stop. The word “means” would stop mission creep.

--- Later in debate ---

I turn to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Fox, about turning British Steel around. Should we decide in the public interest to transfer British Steel into public ownership, we will act swiftly to put in place a new board to provide leadership to the organisation and to be responsible for continuing work to drive improvements in health and safety performance and to stabilise operations and manage costs. The board would explore the options for the long-term viability of decarbonised steel-making at Scunthorpe and develop transformation plans in a way that manages the impact of that transition of the workforce in the local area. We will be debating this more in groups 10 and 13 in day 2 of Committee. For those reasons, I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and to the Minister for his response. I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said earlier about the way in which the Minister has given us every opportunity to think ahead into the future and to receive expert advice as to the way ahead.

To summarise these three amendments, they do not sit easily together, as has been pointed out, but they have provoked a widespread debate. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, was absolutely right to point out that mission creep should stop here. There should not be ways that the Minister could include all sorts of other reasons. In Amendment 3, I suggested two reasons, but the Minister carefully responded by not ruling them out and not ruling anything else in. It seems that either the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is right, or the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right or the Committee is confused. It has considered all the various options, but it would be useful, as my noble friend Lord Redwood said, to have greater clarity in the form of some draft business plan that could look to the future and work out the way ahead. Value for money, as my noble friend said, sums it all up. Although the Minister thought that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, had signed Amendment 8, either it has not come to my attention that he has or he has not signed it. It may be a later amendment which suggests that value for money is required.

I remain far from convinced by the Government’s case. These amendments address three basic questions which ought to be answered before the state is given a power of this significance. First, in what circumstances will the power be used? Secondly, what is it intended to achieve? Thirdly, as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, how will the taxpayer be protected? The Government’s response seems to be that Ministers will behave reasonably, that the powers will be used sparingly and that the existing public interest test provides sufficient protection.

As my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom said in the previous group, this Bill sends a message well beyond the immediate circumstances of British steel. Investors considering whether to commit capital to the United Kingdom will examine not simply what Ministers say today but what the legislation permits tomorrow. The Government say those risks are mitigated by a clear public interest test. But the reality is there is no actual test. There is much in this debate for the Government to consider, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

5: Clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power unless the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent assessment of whether the exercise of the power is in the public interest, and that assessment has demonstrated that it is in the public interest.(2B) The Secretary of State may appoint such independent person as the Secretary of State thinks fit to carry out an independent assessment under subsection (2A), and may pay remuneration and allowances to that person.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an independent assessment of whether the public interest test had been met before the Secretary of State could exercise the principal transfer powers.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendments 5, 6 and 42, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, go to three basic questions which ought to be answered before the Government exercise powers of this scale. They are: on what evidence is nationalisation justified, by what criteria will Ministers make that judgment, and what will be the financial and economic consequences?

Amendment 5 would require an independent assessment before a principal transfer power is exercised, establishing that the proposed transfer is in the public interest. That is not an attempt to prevent the Government acting in a genuine emergency. It is an attempt to ensure that before private assets are transferred into public ownership, there is an objective check that the case has been made.

The sums involved may be very substantial. Once the state acquires a business, it may assume not only its assets but its liabilities, its working capital requirements, its investment needs, and the risks of continuing operating losses. These may be decisions with billions of pounds at stake. They should be based on evidence, not merely urgency or political pressure.

Amendment 6 is the natural counterpart. It would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the full criteria by which the public interest test has been judged. The Bill currently gives Ministers a broad discretion. I believe that Parliament is entitled to know how that discretion has been exercised before a transfer takes place. What precisely has been considered? How have national security, economic consequences, competition, costs to the taxpayer and the future viability of the undertaking been weighed? Those are not matters which should be left to assertion after the event.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Redwood, Lord Fox and Lord Hunt, for their contributions.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, tabled Amendments 5, 6, and 42 to provide for an independent person to assess the public interest. Further amendments tabled by the noble Lords would require the Government to publish both the criteria used to assess the public interest and their assessment on how those criteria are met, before exercising the principal transfer power. Amendment 42 would require an impact assessment to be published before any intervention or the exercise of any power under the Bill. As these amendments deal with similar issues, I will address them together.

I start by saying that I understand and sympathise with the desire for the greatest parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of a decision to intervene under the powers in the Bill. Stakeholder engagement is a key part of the Government’s policy approach to the sector, with Ministers regularly meeting key industry groups and representatives through the steel council and other forums. The Government have published an impact assessment alongside the Bill, explaining how the public interest test will be considered. A further impact assessment will be published alongside any secondary legislation exercising the transfer of power.

The framework for decisions to intervene will stem from what has been included in Clause 2, with regard to the three public interest factors. There is no attempt on our part to obfuscate or hide the criteria that will be applied in practice. The Government will not only consider whether a steel undertaking is engaged in activity that serves the public interest; they will also consider whether the activity is at risk of not receiving government intervention.

The Government cannot support these amendments as each would create additional hurdles and process pre-intervention. In the kinds of situations that the Bill envisages, speed will be crucial. Likewise, commercial and market sensitivities mean that swift action will, in most circumstances, be necessary to avoid uncertainty.

None the less, I am aware that there are strongly held concerns about this issue, and I can confirm that the Government will consider options for Parliament to scrutinise decisions taken either at the time of or after the exercise of the transfer of powers ahead of Report stage. I hope that this offers some reassurance to noble Lords, and I look forward to continuing further conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, ahead of Report. With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response, particularly his closing words. My hopes were raised when he started by saying that he understood everything that I had said and was sympathetic. Then the situation clouded a little as he said that these amendments would present additional hurdles at a time when speed would be essential, but then he said that the Government would consider options between now and Report—and that is what I was seeking to hear.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Redwood for putting it all in the historical context. It is easy to forget the pace at which we entered this debate, by being summoned to Parliament in April of last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, reminded us, Clause 2 is the crunch. It is a key part of this Bill. To remind colleagues, Amendment 5 would require an independent assessment confirming that nationalisation is in the public interest before transfer powers could be used. Therefore, as we approach that amendment, I obviously cannot press the Minister on the options that the Government will consider, but it would be a way forward if we could find a solution comparable to that in Amendment 6, requiring the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the criteria used to assess the public interest before using transfer powers—and then Amendment 42, which would require an impact assessment.

I recognise the point that the Minister has made about the practical difficulty of preparing a full assessment before the exercise of emergency powers—particularly, as he explained, where Ministers may need to act quickly to prevent serious harm. However, that cannot mean, as I believe the Minister accepts, that the financial consequences are treated lightly. The cost to the taxpayer of taking on a steel undertaking—its liabilities, its working capital needs and its future investment requirements—may be substantial. As my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, Parliament has a proper understanding and an interest in understanding those costs, the risks assumed and the basis on which the decisions have been made. Parliamentary scrutiny should not be seen as an obstacle to action. It is surely a necessary part of ensuring that exceptional powers are used responsibly and transparently.

We await the decision of the Government. I had hoped that the Minister would commit to publishing an impact assessment alongside the exercise of the power. I will examine his words carefully, because that assessment is the key. It should set out the costs incurred, the economic implications, the liabilities assumed, the anticipated future costs and the risks to the taxpayer. There is much for the Government to reflect on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 5 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will be very brief and speak with some support for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. As far as I can tell, the Bill does not require legislative consent from either Cardiff or Edinburgh. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. If it does not, the principle set out by the noble Lord, for both Wales and Scotland—I know that there may be industrial differences, but the two things apply—would be very important. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in that regard.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I very much echo what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just said, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his amendments, which raise very important points. There are considerable concerns about what is happening at steel plants in Wales and the consequences for the workers, their families and the much wider community. It is right that, where these powers may affect a Welsh steel undertaking or devolved responsibilities, Wales should be properly involved. I urge the Minister to respond positively to the concerns so rightly raised by the noble Lord.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

13: Clause 4, page 2, line 30, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require regulations transferring securities of a steel undertaking to be subject to the affirmative procedure.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 13 makes regulations transferring securities in a steel undertaking subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 14 makes regulations transferring the property rights or liabilities of a steel undertaking subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 15 makes regulations on continuity obligations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 18 in this group makes enforcement regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. I will begin by referring to those amendments but speaking to the question of whether Clause 50 should stand part of the Bill.

This clause gives the Secretary of State a very broad power to modify primary legislation, secondary legislation and common law in connection with a share or property transfer. It may be used retrospectively and, in some circumstances, before Parliament has had the opportunity to approve the regulations. These are considerable powers, particularly when we are discussing property rights, contractual rights and the compulsory transfer of businesses and their assets. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has already referred to the report of the Constitution Committee, and he speaks from personal experience of knowing the dangers of ignoring the recommendations of that committee. The committee is pretty clear about Clause 50, and I will quote from its report:

“We recommend that the broad power granted to the Secretary of State in Clause 50(1) to modify the law in relation to share or property transfer by regulations should either be removed or significantly tightened to specify the circumstances in which such law may be modified”.


I believe that the Government should take that recommendation seriously.

The Government’s delegated powers memorandum sets out at some length why Ministers believe that a broad power may be needed. It refers to the complexities of company law, insolvency law, commercial law and supply chains, and the possibility that an obstacle to a transfer may emerge unexpectedly. A compulsory transfer may well give rise to legal complications, but the memorandum does not provide concrete examples of the circumstances in which primary legislation would need to be disapplied or modified. If those circumstances can be identified, they should be placed in the Bill, or at least the power should be more tightly defined.

On Amendments 13 and 14, the Government’s own delegated powers memorandum confirms that the transfer powers in Clauses 4 to 29 are subject to the negative procedure. That is a very wide suite of powers. They not only concern the initial transfer of shares or property but include the legal effect of those transfers, continuity arrangements, the conversion and delisting of securities, the position of directors and senior managers, licences, termination rights, foreign property and supplemental onward, reverse and connected transfers. Amendments 13 and 14 focus on the central powers, the compulsory transfer of securities and the compulsory transfer of property rights and liabilities. Those are the acts by which the state takes control of a private business, or part of one.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am happy to give that commitment in our further conversations.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, not only for his generous praise, which I felt was completely undeserved, but for his support. At some stage, this great Chamber of ours will consider better ways to deal with secondary legislation. He will know that I gave quite a lot of support, when I chaired the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to one of his noble friends who moved that there should be a new Bill—the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill. But that is for another occasion. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord for his strong support.

There is clearly much now for the Government to consider, in particular in view of the commitments made by the Minister. How do we achieve the right balance between acting swiftly where necessary and, at the same time, ensuring that Parliament has a meaningful role in scrutinising powers, particularly where they affect property rights, liabilities and commercial arrangements? I am sure these issues will merit further discussion as the Bill progresses. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

At end insert “but this House regrets that the draft Regulations extend the time limits for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from three months to six months without sufficient regard to the present capacity of the employment tribunal system; and considers that a longer claim window may mean disputes remain live for far longer, thereby adding further pressure to already burdened tribunals.”

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I start by echoing the Minister’s wish for every possible success tonight for the English team. I also declare my own interests as set out in the register, in particular as a partner in the global commercial law firm DAC Beachcroft and an honorary bencher of the Inner Temple.

In moving the regret amendment in my name, let me explain why. The latest official statistics show that in 2025-26, employment tribunals received 50,000 single claims but disposed of only 26,000. At the end of March, there were 64,000 open single claims—a rise of 55% in a year. Behind those figures are people who have lost a job, suffered discrimination, not been paid wages or raised concerns at work. There are also employers, often small businesses left with disputes that cannot be resolved promptly and with witnesses, documents and recollections becoming less reliable as time passes. In many instances, small businesses in particular are being forced to live under the shadow of vexatious claims—claims without merit that any effective system of triage would filter out in no time at all. There is now evidence of cases in some areas being listed for hearings as late as 2030. This is a warning that in all parts of the country, access to an employment tribunal is ceasing to mean access to justice within any meaningful period.

The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House anticipated precisely this concern during consideration of the Employment Rights Bill. It noted the Government’s own assessment that there was already a backlog, with waits of about a year, and that extending time limits was uncertain but likely to add pressure. The Committee said that

“a potential increase in the number of claims seeking redress in employment tribunals combined with the extension of applicable time limits could have a significant impact on the existing backlogs in the employment tribunals and therefore on the constitutional principle of access to justice”.

That conclusion is not the view of opponents of the Government’s programme; it is the Government’s own assessment. It accepts that the effects of extending time limits are uncertain but likely to add further pressure to a system that already has waits of around a year. It estimates additional claims and recognises that, unless capacity rises, the practical benefit of these new rights will be reduced.

Why has this taken so long? Why was there no credible funded and operational plan for employment tribunal capacity before the Bill was even introduced? Why were Ministers content to legislate first and ask the most basic implementation questions later? The Government will surely point to consultation with businesses, other stakeholders and employee representatives. Of course, such engagement is welcome, but it is also revealing. When the Government are now seeking views on how to make these changes work in practice, the obvious question is: why on earth was that work not done before Parliament was asked to enact them?

The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that there was no new consultation on these regulations. The Government instead rely on a Law Commission consultation conducted in 2018 and 2019, in a different context, before the current scale of pressure on the tribunal system had emerged. So this goes to priorities. The Employment Rights Act contains a substantial programme of new rights, duties and protections for trade unions. Ministers found urgency, legislative time and administrative energy for those provisions, yet the machinery that permits an individual worker to vindicate an existing right—the tribunal system—was left without an equivalent plan for capacity, speed or access to advice.

So we on these Benches remain sceptical. But let us, for the purpose of this short debate, take the Government at their word. Let us assume these measures will indeed confer genuine, valuable and much-needed protections. Even then, the Government’s case collapses unless those protections can be enforced. A right that cannot be vindicated within a reasonable time is not a right.

So I say to the Minister: we really need some answers as to what the solution should be. When the Government made these choices, why was so much effort devoted to strengthening the institutions that speak for workers, yet so little to strengthening the system through which workers actually enforce their rights? We have so many questions. We await the answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We are speaking, as we did several times during the passage of the Employment Rights Act, with one voice, and that voice tonight has met with a response from the Minister that still requires a whole range of actions to be taken. I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in recommending that everything possible should be done to resolve disputes at an earlier stage. This is the key, rather than overloading an already existing system that is creaking under pressure, although I know that tribunals are determined to try and meet the problems of overreliance and overcapacity.

I will say just two things about early resolution. I am troubled that discussions are taking place about the lack of resources for ACAS. ACAS could provide a great deal of opportunity for early resolution. I will also just say that I recall the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I think it was, or one of his colleagues, pressing for a review of Section 10, including the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. Given the pressure on the employment tribunal system, does the Minister not agree—perhaps he might write to me about this—that better support for employees at an earlier stage might prevent some workplace disputes escalating unnecessarily? Will he at least indicate to us at some stage, perhaps in correspondence, how a review of that whole mechanism could proceed? There will be lots of opportunities, I hope, to resolve this.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I was planning to write a letter on that very subject, because I felt that it was not necessarily due in this debate, so there is a letter heading in the Minister’s direction on the right to accompany. I appreciate the noble Lord raising that.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

That is another demonstration that the Opposition speak with one voice. It is now up to the Minister to answer, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Steel Tariffs

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

We are also engaging intensively with the European Commission on our respective steel measures, and are working to find a bilateral solution that protects vital UK-EU steel trade. This engagement reflects the unique structure of our trading and security relationships and the interconnectedness of our supply chains, but we need to be clear: if we do not act, we will not have steel-making in the UK. The US, Canada, the EU are all acting; we must too”.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday there was cross-party concern in the other place, including from government Back-Benchers, that these steel measures risked doing real damage to downstream businesses. Of course, we all want to protect British steel-making, but the Government have designed a regime that risks penalising British manufacturers for importing specialist steels that are not made in this country, or not made here to the grade certification or volume that is required. That is not protecting British industry; it risks pushing value-added manufacturing jobs and contracts overseas.

The Minister in the other place said that this was necessary to respond to overseas tariffs and job losses, but the Government have had plenty of time to reduce the structural costs facing steel and manufacturing businesses, from energy and carbon costs to business rates and employers’ national insurance. Will the Minister therefore accept that the Government need not only emergency tariff measures but a proper, comprehensive steel strategy? Will they now revise the proposed quotas so that specialist steel products desperately needed by downstream manufacturers can be imported tariff-free where there is no realistic UK supply?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. While calls for delay are totally understandable, our existing steel safeguard will expire and cannot be extended under WTO rules. Without replacement measures, the UK risks becoming a destination for diverted, subsidised steel, as other jurisdictions act. We have carefully designed the regime and we are consulting extensively with producers and downstream users. Ministers are considering changes based on downstream feedback. We will continue engaging with industry and finalise the measures ahead of implementation on 1 July.

Royal Mail

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 8th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

As I said in my previous answer, this was highlighted as an issue to the new investor. The Royal Mail has introduced a barcode system to optimise the delivery of NHS letters at times of local and national disruption, but it is beholden on all NHS bodies and providers to use this system. I ask all Members of the House to encourage their local NHS, where they interact with senior leadership, to take up this service. It is a technological solution that can prioritise those urgent and critical letters from the NHS, and this should provide certainty that the delivery will get there and not be in jeopardy.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I will start by congratulating the Minister on the hard work he has carried out in preparing for this Question, and in particular the discussions he has been having with Royal Mail. However, does he not accept that, by increasing national insurance contributions, which I reckon adds around £120 million to the costs of one of Britain’s largest and most labour-intensive employers, the Government have made it significantly harder for Royal Mail to restore service standards, maintain the universal service obligation and invest in those improvements that customers and businesses expect?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I appreciate the comment on my hard work—it is now noted. I cannot agree with the noble Lord on that particular point. It is unfair to think about an individual tax application on the investment in this specific case. There is £500 million of committed capital from the new investor, EP Group, and that is a non-trivial undertaking that has been committed on an £8 billion business. At the moment, we are proud, as a Labour Government, that we are shoring up the fiscal rules and the economic prospects of this country, so that we can invest in the public services that we rightly believe we need to.

Business Hiring

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of current business hiring intentions and their implications for the wider economy.

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

The UK labour market and economy remain resilient despite geopolitical uncertainties. The UK had the fastest growing-economy in the G7 in Q1 2026. On the labour market, ONS data shows that there are 416,000 more people in work than a year ago. Its business insights survey shows that over 80% of businesses intend to either maintain or increase their staff levels in June 2026.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I greatly regret to tell the House that the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that the number of young people not in training, education or employment has exceeded 1 million. I believe we are heading to figures for 18 to 24 year-olds which have not been seen since 2008 when, under the previous Labour Government, the future looked very grim. Recent measures were introduced by the Government, including the business-busting Employment Rights Act, the national insurance contributions—the list is endless, and if noble Lords would like to read them all, they are in the report of the unemployment adviser, Mr Alan Milburn, or the essay published by the previous Prime Minister. Will the Minister wake up and do something about this?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I do not accept the characterisation presented. We recognise there is a crisis of participation, and Alan Milburn’s interim report clearly laid out many of the contributing factors in health and education, which have been there for many years. Under the previous Government between 2021 and 2024, the number of young NEETs increased by 250,000. This is an issue that we are tackling. As I mentioned, in Q1 of 2026 the economy was one of the fastest-growing in the G7. We are taking actions on youth employment, supporting young people to get into work, supporting them with work experience, training and apprenticeships. This is exactly what we need to do in these circumstances.

Processed Russian Oil Products: Sanctions

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 21st May 2026 Lords Chamber

As a result of all the measures that we have taken, there will be less Russian oil on the market, not more, Russia will be poorer, not richer, and Putin will be weaker, not stronger”.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister may not have been in the Chamber earlier, but I hope she has been made aware of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and my noble friend Lord Gove about the fact that the Government are now permitting the importation of Russian-derived oil products into the United Kingdom. I quoted the Ukraine sanctions commissioner directly. He said that, in his view, the Government’s action

“may still generate additional revenues for Russia’s war machine”.

It would be helpful to know what the Minister’s response is to that commissioner. Simultaneously, the Government are also blocking new North Sea oil and gas licences on our own doorstep. With thousands of skilled jobs, billions in tax revenues and our national security all hanging in the balance, will the Minister explain to this House why the Government’s energy policy is rendering this country more exposed, not less, to hostile foreign actors and volatile global markets?

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

My Lords, I want to make it clear that our sanctions regime against Russia is tougher today than it was last week. It is categorically not the case that we are waiving or easing sanctions. On 19 May the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office laid the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations to legislate for several key measures to continue to tighten our pressure on Putin’s regime. These regulations include a new maritime services ban on Russian liquefied natural gas, which will restrict Russia’s access to the UK’s world-leading shipping and insurance services, disrupting its ability to transport Russian LNG. It further includes export prohibitions against Russia, as well as new import prohibitions to restrict the transfer of any refined oil products derived from Russian crude oil and of the import of Russian uranium. As has regularly been the case for sanctions on Russia for several years, targeted short-term licences have been introduced for our LNG maritime services ban and the refined oil import ban in order to support flexibility in UK supply in global markets.

We have made it clear here, and the Minister for Trade made it clear in the House yesterday, that these licences are temporary, will be reviewed regularly and are not intended to protect Russian interests. The sanctions regime today is tougher than it was last week. In respect of the lessons of this crisis for energy security and for the UK’s reliance on foreign fossil fuels, the lesson that we are taking is that we need more homegrown renewable and nuclear energy. We need to continue the decarbonisation so that, for example, with the transition to electric vehicles, we are less reliant on overseas imports of energy.

Self-employed: Paternity Leave

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 20th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The costs of all the schemes that are being suggested and the potential expansions of rights, whether for self-employed fathers or mothers, will be considered. We have taken into account the costings that have been put to us by some of the groups that are advocating for these measures, and we are assessing the full costs of these as part of the review.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Does the Minister not accept that the real problem is that employment costs are rising to such an extent that it is now much more difficult for businesses to offer enhanced paternity leave and other support for working parents? Will she consult with her colleagues and bring forward a clear strategy to reduce business costs, so that more employers and self-employed parents have the flexibility to support families when a new child arrives?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I am pleased to take this opportunity to say that the UK had the highest growth in the G7 in the last quarter. I am also pleased to highlight the measures we are taking to reduce costs on business—for example, ending mandatory strategic reports. I am also pleased to talk about the measures we are now taking to support families with the cost of living, be it energy costs or expanding free school meals.

Steel Sector

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her question. The issue of grid connections partly sits in my department; the House might be interested to know that we have 800 gigawatts of demand in new projects to 60 gigawatts of supply. Grid connections and making sure that the grid is fit for the future will be a massive part of what we do. We also have a prioritisation process that helps prioritise the highest value projects, not just economically but socially. I would be happy to update the House on that.

As to the “Save our Steel” campaign, it is worth stating that the steel factory in Scunthorpe is close to where I grew up and I have many friends who work in the industry. I commend that organisation and the work that it does in ensuring that we do not lose sight of the fact this is not just an economic story for the UK but about real lives and communities. The work it has done has been excellent.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s steel strategy and procurement guidance require all government departments to consult UK Steel’s digital catalogue and consider whether the national security exemption in Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023 applies. However, at the same time, the Government are asking the Ministry of Defence to find £3.5 billion in savings, even as our Armed Forces are being asked to prepare for a far more dangerous world. In the circumstances, does the Minister agree that this is a wholly perverse bureaucratic requirement to place on the MoD? If the Government truly accept that national security must now come first, will they exempt the MoD from these domestic steel procurement requirements so that it can source steel rapidly?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The noble Lord raises a critical question around how we balance the national resilience of our steel industry with security concerns; that balance is paramount. We remain in conversation with the MoD about making sure that this does not have a prohibitive impact on its procurement and access to products. Equally, it is really important that we utilise the UK Government’s procurement processes to ensure that we are prioritising UK products and services to meet the demand of all our government departments. There are a number of initiatives working on procurement, but I agree that we need to make sure that that perverse incentive does not drive the wrong behaviours.

Britain’s Battery Future Report

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to highlight the importance of the EU as the largest market for UK-manufactured cars. The EU remains the UK automotive sector’s largest trading partner. We are talking closely with the EU on all aspects of regulatory developments in respect of EU battery rules, the EU digital battery passport and the “Made in Europe” content rules, because we want to continue to press the EU to avoid any detrimental impact on the UK and EU’s automotive sectors, given the integrated UK-EU supply chains.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, according to the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, the Government’s EV mandates imposed an industry-crushing £6 billion-worth of costs on manufacturers in 2024 alone. This is putting the 183,000 jobs which this sector supports at considerable risk. If the Government want the EV transition to endure, surely, they must proceed at a pace that industry can bear. Is it not now time to reverse these mandates, as the Official Opposition, I am happy to confirm, are committed to doing? Can we not now bring industrial policy back in line with economic reality?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We are monitoring the performance and efficacy of the ZEV mandate and last year we introduced additional flexibilities, providing manufacturers with more tools to decarbonise in a way that protects jobs and boosts investment. We have a large range of measures to support people to transition to zero-emission vehicles, including salary sacrifice schemes, generous company car tax rates for electric vehicles and the new electric car grant, as well as support for local EV infrastructure to support the transition.