Steel Industry

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by echoing the words of the Government Chief Whip: I thank all the staff of Parliament for their tremendous efforts in facilitating this recall today. It is no small task to bring us all together at short notice, and their dedication to the democratic process is deserving of recognition.

At its heart, this debate is about whether we have a steel sector in this country at all, and whether it is run in the national interest. Earlier today, the Government confirmed that they will take control of British Steel, following the collapse of negotiations with its Chinese owners. This is a pivotal moment, not just for the future of British steel-making but for the future of Britain’s industrial base itself.

Before I go any further, perhaps I may say that our thoughts today must be with the steel-workers, their families, their suppliers and the communities whose futures now hang in the balance. They deserve better than uncertainty and neglect, and they must certainly have a Government who are on their side.

This the first time that Parliament has been recalled to sit on a Saturday since I was sitting in the other place in 1982, after the Falklands war began. It is only the sixth occasion since the end of the Second World War—and for a Bill published just two hours ago. There has been no respect for Parliament whatever. I really must say that this is not the way in which to treat this precious institution.

The Bill itself grants far-reaching powers to the Secretary of State. The Government will argue that this is necessary because of the emergency we face. However, just now, in the other place, the Secretary of State said:

“I do not want these powers a minute more than necessary”.


So where is the sunset clause in this Bill? How can we be assured that these extraordinary powers will not be abused or extended indefinitely? The Government have to make clear the precise timeframe for these powers and, more importantly, they must demonstrate how they intend to ensure that public and Parliament are not left in the dark once this emergency has passed.

The choice before Ministers should never have become this stark. Faced with the collapse of British Steel, the Government had little option but to intervene. Let us be clear: nationalisation is not a triumph but a last resort made necessary by failure. Without it, Britain would indeed have become the only G7 country without primary steel-making capacity. However, today’s events are not simply the result of forces beyond the Government’s control. The truth is that nationalisation must be a platform for urgent and permanent modernisation, not a short-term bailout or a delaying tactic. Without decisive action, Britain’s steel industry will wither under the combined pressures of global competition, green regulation and technological change.

It is essential that we consider the effect and impact of green targets, which have placed immense strain on our industries. The policies driving us towards net zero by 2050 have hit our industries hard, especially energy-intensive sectors such as steel. Energy costs in the UK are now the highest in Europe, and four times those in the United States, and the current trajectory of green regulation is making it harder, not easier, for our industries to compete internationally.

We just need to ensure that our environmental goals do not come at the cost of our industrial base. The Government must urgently review their net-zero policies to ensure that they support, and do not strangle, British industry. If we do not strike the right balance, we will continue to see industries such as steel driven offshore, taking with them not only jobs and investment but the very emissions targets we champion. We cannot allow this to happen.

Let us remember that, just a few months ago, Ed Miliband banned coal and coke production in the UK and boasted about sending a signal to the world. Yet today, as we heard in the other place, the Government are going around the world with a begging bowl, trying to find enough coal to keep the last blast furnaces running. Could British Steel survive today if access to coal was not artificially restricted? Possibly, but we are in this mess because decisions such as this have been made in pursuit of political point-scoring by this Government, with no thought for the long-term health of our core industries.

How is it possible that no one in the Government saw this crisis coming? How could they have been so unprepared? The warning signs have been flashing for months: ageing infrastructure, soaring energy prices and growing global competition. We debated in this Chamber just a short time ago the fact that there had been no serious contingency planning, as yet no coherent industrial strategy and certainly no sense of urgency. Instead, the Government are now scrambling to nationalise British Steel as a last resort. That is not leadership; it is crisis management at its worst.

On 31 March, the Minister stated that

“we will be producing a steel strategy very soon”.—[Official Report, 31/3/25; col. 18.]

Following the events of the last 24 hours, and now that the Government have found time to lay an emergency Bill, it is surely time for them to publish an emergency steel strategy too. Where is it? The Secretary of State in the other place just referred to quotations from the steel strategy, so it must exist in draft. Should this House not be given a copy? Steel-workers and their families, and the taxpayer, need more than vague assurances—they need clear timelines—so when will this strategy be published? Will it commit to the urgent modernisation that our steel sector desperately needs? Will it address the crippling energy costs faced by our steel-makers? Will it set a clear and credible path to return British Steel to private ownership?

We have to learn from industry. The last time steel was nationalised, back in the 1960s, the results were disastrous. I will cite figures from Hansard. Grants and loans to the British Steel Corporation between 1967 and 31 March 1980 totalled £4,925 million, and the net total loss for BSC since 1967 has been £1,552 million. Rather than revitalising the industry, nationalisation led to bureaucratic inefficiencies, losses, a decline in productivity and widespread industrial action.

The Government’s approach to the steel sector is compounded by the broader challenges they face and are imposing on employers right across the country. The Government increased employers’ national insurance contributions and they are rushing through the unemployment Bill, which, in its current form, will add further strain to the already fragile labour market. It is difficult to see how these measures align with any credible strategy to attract private investment. Surely the Minister must acknowledge that the Government’s policies have made it more difficult to deliver the investment that the steel industry so desperately needs. If they are serious about a future where British Steel is returned to private hands, they must urgently reconsider their policies. We agree that uncertainty has to end, so will the Government confirm today that, should nationalisation be pursued, it will be only a temporary measure? Will they clearly set out the timeline for that transition to private ownership?

We cannot afford to hear again the standard vagueness of “all options are on the table”. This does not provide the certainty that workers, who deserve clarity about their future, need. It does not provide certainty for the taxpayer, who is now footing the bill. Which brings me to my final point: can the Minister tell us what estimate the Government have reached of the cost of nationalisation to the taxpayer? This is not leadership; this is not planning; this is a crisis, and one that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I thank the noble Earl for raising that question. I am sure that we would be happy to consult with the relevant committees within your Lordships’ House as well.

A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the cost of providing these safeguards. We are directing British Steel to act in a way that safeguards its assets, and this funding should be provided by the company. If the Government need to spend money, we will look to recover that from the company if we can and where reasonable. We have committed up to £2.5 billion for steel, via the National Wealth Fund and other routes, and no further government borrowing is envisaged to support any intervention. The alternative would be importing steel at considerable extra cost to our economy. As noble Lords have pointed out, we would then be the only country in the G20 without domestic steel production. There is a cost either way, and we must balance those costs when we make decisions going forward.

The noble Lord, Lord Sikka, asked what was happening in Port Talbot and whether we are nationalising British Steel in response to this situation. As I made clear in my opening comments, we are not nationalising anything. We have put forward a Bill to ensure the continued safe operation of the blast furnaces. Without swift intervention, there was a risk of accelerated closure, jeopardising the safety and production outcomes of British Steel.

Tata Steel decided to close the blast furnaces at Port Talbot in January 2024 under the previous Government, and the decision to provide a grant agreement towards Port Talbot’s transition project was made by the previous Government. This transition was already well under way by the time we came into office. This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies, made. However, I say to the House that we negotiated an improved deal with Tata, after just 10 weeks in office, with better terms for workers, future investment opportunities for the area and the highest voluntary redundancy package Tata has ever offered. Since then, we have provided more than £50 million directly to the local community, from the £80 million available from the UK Government to help people learn new skills, to support the supply chain and to protect people’s mental health.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and others asked about the endgame for British Steel. Our long-term aspiration for British Steel remains a co-investment agreement with a private sector partner to secure a long-term transformation. We are determined to see a bright and profitable future for steel-making in this country.

A number of noble Lords asked about energy prices and the cost of energy. The Government are committed to tackling high industrial prices in the UK. The British industry supercharger package of measures for energy-intensive industries came into force in April 2024 and brings energy costs for strategically important UK industries, including steel, closer in line with other major economies around the world, so that they remain competitive on the world stage. Once fully implemented in April 2025, the measures will save eligible businesses on average £24 to £31 per megawatt hour on their electricity costs. The total value of reduced electricity prices is estimated to be between £320 million and £410 million in 2025 and around £5.1 billion over 10 years. This will help keep business energy costs down.

To reiterate the point about future scrutiny of the implementation of the Bill, as the Secretary of State said in the other place, we are happy to engage with relevant committees, and I am happy to keep the House updated on these matters. We will continue to update the House every four sitting weeks on the use of these powers.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Can I just say to the Minister how grateful we are that she understands the House’s concern about the use of these powers? As I understand it, she has told the House that she will return every four weeks to update the House on the use of the powers. However, she was intervened on by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, to suggest that she might go a little further than that and have a clear debate after six months. I still think that this whole question of a sunset clause is very relevant indeed. Can the Minister expand on what she said earlier—that she believes that a fixed sunset clause would not be workable or acceptable? Why not? It is generally accepted in this House that powers of this nature should have a sunset clause. Can she perhaps expand on that and give a little more detail before we consider whether to table such an amendment?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thought I had answered that point. The Bill, as it stands here, is to deal with one emergency. As we know, it is a volatile sector and we might need to use those powers at other times. We will use them judiciously and with care, and, as I keep saying, we will continue to update the House as to the use of those powers. We do not feel that a sunset clause is necessary or desirable in this Bill. To clarify, my general comment to the noble Lord was that we would continue to engage with the Lords committees to make sure that they are fully updated with progress going forward.

In concluding this debate, I convey my thanks to all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions and for helping us to pass this legislation so that we can retain steel-making capacity in the UK—for British workers’ security, for British industry’s future and for the future of British Steel workers and their families. That is our priority and that is how we intend to go forward.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral)]

1: Clause 2, page 1, line 6, after “undertaking” insert “within a period ending one year after the passing of this Act”

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, as I indicated earlier today, in this House we have a responsibility to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised and debated, and that it does not give unlimited powers to the Executive without the essential checks and balances that are largely portrayed in the work in depth of this House, in particular.

My noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie reminded us that, in its report, Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards, the Constitution Committee stated that

“whenever possible sunset clauses should be incorporated into emergency legislation particularly in relation to legislation that impacts upon civil liberties”.

It continued,

“emergency legislation should automatically be subject to post-legislative review”.

A number of us have had a chance to reflect not only on the debate we have just had but on the words of the Minister, who, in her closing speech, said that she would regularly update the House every four weeks. Reflecting, though, on what the Constitution Committee said, we do not believe that that goes far enough. That is why my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and I have tabled this amendment, to ensure that there is a sunset clause. We look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether or not she accepts the need for some check on the power of the Executive.

A number of noble Lords quoted from the Bill, which we have, of course, seen for the first time only today. One such quotation was the unfortunate wording in Clause 3 that:

“The Secretary of State may do anything for the purpose of securing the continued and safe use of the specified assets”.


It is essential that that power is there available for the sake of the future of the Scunthorpe steelworks, but should it be there available in perpetuity? That is the key question that this Chamber must now decide.

The fact that the Government are saying that they may need to return to Parliament to extend these powers is not, as they seem to believe, an argument against a sunset clause. I believe that it is imperative that emergency powers are subjected to constant oversight, and I hope that the House will agree with me. These amendments that we are proposing would simply allow Parliament to do its job. Emergency powers should never be allowed to become permanent by default. Surely, they have to be justified continually, not assumed indefinitely.

We recall the Coronavirus Act, as my noble friend pointed out. That was a piece of emergency legislation containing a sunset clause. That was in recognition of the fact that the Bill provided extraordinary powers—it was not power that should ever be delegated to the Government indefinitely. What we are now proposing has a strong precedent, and we would strongly encourage the Government to adopt this. If these are emergency powers designed to allow the Government to intervene in Scunthorpe’s steelworks in the short term, why would the Government resist a sunset clause? Indeed, in the debate in the other place, the Secretary of State said in response to an intervention that these are short-term measures to deal with an emergency situation, and he used “temporary” in opening. Why can the Government not accept that these are temporary but necessary powers?

I suppose there is also the argument that there is greater certainty if we know exactly where we are so far as the powers devolved to the Government are concerned. Earlier today, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in calling for a sunset clause, and heard his further comment that a debate might perhaps help to focus attention in a way that would then enable Parliament to understand the motivation behind it. I am slightly nervous at that. There is no substitute for an out-and-out sunset clause, which I believe is the right thing to do in these circumstances. I hope that the Minister, particularly accompanied by the wording of the Bingham lecturer, the person sitting alongside her—with which I agreed and have quoted on many occasions—agrees that it is time for a reset between Parliament and the Executive. This is the time. I beg to move.

[Baroness Freeman of Steventon (CB)]

My Lords, I speak very briefly to my Amendment 2. Clause 3(4) makes it clear that the Secretary of State has power to enter premises and make orders on the premises, but the wording in subsection (4)(a), in which it says that

“the Secretary of State may … be accompanied by any person”

could be read to imply that the powers are invested in the Secretary of State in person—that is, that the Secretary of State themselves would need to be present on the premises. After speaking to the Public Bill Office, I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to clarify that a designated representative of the Secretary of State would be imbued with these same powers, so that any intransigent company could not seek to delay government action by demanding that the Secretary of State was present in person.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, I am sure that by now noble Lords will be more than familiar with what the Government are seeking to do with this legislation. It will allow us to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. As such, I will turn swiftly to the amendments at hand.

Noble Lords across the House have raised a number of important issues relating to the parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill. I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government take these concerns very seriously. With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that seeks to add a sunset clause to the Bill, I will reiterate what I said earlier: because of the speed at which this legislation has been drafted and the uncertainty of the situation, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to set a timeline on those specific interventions. As noble Lords are keenly aware, the current international situation is unpredictable. A fixed sunset clause would not be practical and would cause an unacceptable amount of uncertainty if a solution to the issue at hand became protracted. In those circumstances, we might have to come back to Parliament and go over this whole process again.

We can revoke directions given to a particular steel company at any time once the need for intervention has passed. As I have said, we would welcome working with the Business and Trade Select Committee in the other place and relevant committees of your Lordships’ House, to make sure that we work with your Lordships and Members of the other place and keep everyone updated, so that these powers are not in place any longer than is absolutely necessary.

I was clear in the debate earlier today that the Government will provide an update to Parliament every four sitting weeks, as well as providing information to relevant Select Committees. I do not want to pre-empt discussions in the usual channels across both Houses about the nature of these updates, but it is our intention that the first instance will be an Oral Statement and that subsequent updates will be made in an appropriate manner. What this means in practice will be subject to further discussion but could, for example, be determined by the reality on the ground at that time.

Given the interest in both the steel sector and the use of powers in this Bill, 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. This will take place within six months, with exact details to be subject to further discussion in the usual channels. In addition, as stated in the Government’s letter to all Peers this morning, we intend to publish our steel strategy in the spring. We will continue other related work, such as on our modern industrial strategy, and we will of course update noble Lords on that as well. All of these moments will allow scrutiny of the Government’s use of the powers in this Bill and of our wider efforts to support the vitally important steel industry.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, draws attention to Clause 3(2) and his concern about the words that the Secretary of State can do “anything”. I have to say to him that those words need to be read in conjunction with the rest of that sentence, which limits them to anything that a

“relevant person in relation to that undertaking could do”.

It is for only a very specific purpose. I hope that this commitment satisfies the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey.

I underline that a sunset clause would create further uncertainty for thousands of workers, who need to know that their jobs are secure on a long-term basis. Inserting a sunset clause would create an arbitrary deadline by which the long-term future of that plant would need to be settled. As I said before, nothing is off the table in our response to securing the future of steel in this country. We should send a strong message today to those whose livelihoods depend on the steel sector that this Parliament stands behind them.

The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, seeks to add to Clause 3(2), after “the Secretary of State”, the words,

“or a responsible person they designate”.

I can confirm that Clause 3(2) entitles the Secretary of State to do

“anything … that the steel undertaking, or any relevant person … could do”.

So officials can act in the name of the Secretary of State.

Regarding the question of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about using force if necessary, this will be a statutory power to be carried out by those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Officials or their agents could use force to enter the premises, but this would have to be lawful force; therefore, they could not assault anyone, and there would have to be clear barriers on their actions. It is up to police judgment as to whether they would intervene, based on usual policing principles.

I hope I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters. I therefore respectfully ask that all the amendments in this group are not pressed.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the Minister in wanting to send a strong message from Parliament to all those involved in the Scunthorpe steelworks that we are solidly in support of them, and that everything we do today is directed to that end.

Turning to my amendment and the debate we have just had, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, made a very important point about civil servants being able to act in the name of the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lady Coffey confirmed that that was the case, so at least we know where we are.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, very much indeed. He and I have been working together on this as hard as we possibly can to find a way through, because we do not want to stop this action in its tracks—far from it. We just feel that Parliament—in particular, the House of Lords—and the words of our Constitution Committee should not be disregarded. The committee has a right to stress the importance of sunset clauses.

However, having heard this debate, I am quite happy, following discussions through the usual channels, to indicate that such a debate could be postponed until we know a little more clearly where we are. In six months’ time, if we are to have—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have suggested—what he referred to as a substantive debate, and, as the Minister said, further debate on the operation of this legislation, we have made a great deal of progress. The voice of this Chamber has been heard, and I am very pleased to have been able to speak in this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Moylan that he and I still await the reply to the question that he posed, but no doubt the Minister will write.

I do not think that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has had an answer to her point about force. That is something that we will have to leave for another day, but it is a very important issue. We should not be giving powers in this Parliament to individuals to use force without clarifying exactly the circumstances in which they can be used.

All in all, we have reached a reasonable conclusion, and I am very grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and taken to heart the concerns of this Chamber about the need for this legislation to have an end date. We will return to that in the debate that we will have in October on a substantive Motion, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Employment Rights Bill: Productivity

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how the Employment Rights Bill will “support the Government’s mission to increase productivity”, as stated in their factsheet for the bill, and what evidence they have to suggest that it will increase productivity.

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

My Lords, last year we published a comprehensive package of analysis showing how the Bill could increase productivity. Evidence included in that impact assessment shows that making workers happier and healthier helps boost productivity. This analysis draws on the best available evidence and consultation with external experts and stakeholders. For example, research from the University of Cambridge shows:

“The consensus on the economic impacts of labour laws is that, far from being harmful to growth, they contribute positively to productivity”.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that small and medium-sized enterprises are the lifeblood of our economy. What analysis have she and her colleagues in Government carried out of the effect on small and medium-sized enterprises of day one rights?

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will of course be aware that there would be severe economic and social implications if these blast furnaces are closed, but does she acknowledge there would be vitally important national security concerns as well? Will she ensure that such concerns are taken fully into account right across the Government?

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we should all just reflect for a moment on the agonies that so many families who are so deeply involved in this crisis must be going through. Following the remarks that the Minister has just made, can she give us some idea of the timescale to which the Government are working? She has made much of the fact that a generous offer has been made and, obviously, there are so many different interests to balance. However, returning to the point I made at the start of this short exchange, there are, above all, huge areas of national security here. Will she ensure that, within a limited timescale, all the Government, in particular the Ministry of Defence, are involved in reaching the decisions that must be made?

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

First, the noble Lord is absolutely right that this is a very worrying time for British Steel’s workers and all those who are affected. First and foremost, we are thinking of them. The negotiations are live and continuing. We will continue to negotiate for as long as we can. There is certainly no deadline in our mind. We will continue to keep that pressure up. We want this matter to be resolved. We feel we have made a good offer and very much hope that those negotiations will be fruitful and that we can find a package with British Steel that is acceptable.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by drawing attention to my interests as detailed in the register, in particular as a practising solicitor and partner at DAC Beachcroft.

I thank the Minister for opening the debate and we look forward to the maiden speeches of my noble friends Lady Cash and Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray of Tottenham.

I have always believed fervently in workers’ rights and trade unions. Indeed, as a young solicitor, I often acted for the Transport and General Workers’ Union in a wide variety of cases. By the late 1970s, however, by which time I was a Member of Parliament, it had become abundantly clear that something had gone seriously awry with the trade union movement. The unions seemed to be abusing their powers, pursuing not only the legitimate interests of their members but an overtly political agenda.

I remember being in the House of Commons when, in the final year of the Callaghan Government, the unions all but brought the country to its knees. A new settlement was needed. Successive Conservative Governments, between 1979 and 1997, gradually changed the nature of the social contract between employers, employees and the unions. Days lost to strikes tumbled from tens of millions a year to a tiny fraction of what they had been. Thanks to the more flexible labour market we had created, renewed economic growth brought a dividend of rising employment and falling unemployment far more quickly than anyone expected. That was not the Wild West. Indeed, workers’ rights and protections were often extended, not diminished.

The last Labour Government, under both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, broadly accepted that renewed social contract and embraced the flexible labour market that serves both employers and employees so well. So, what has changed? Furthermore, what has changed during the passage of the Bill? It has had a brief lifetime, yet we have already had 160 government amendments in Committee in another place, including 11 new clauses and two new schedules. This farrago was followed by a further 40 new clauses and five new schedules on Report.

It was an extraordinary decision to run the progress of the Bill in parallel with a series of directly connected public consultations. As they showered us with amendments of their own, Ministers used their majority in the other place to defeat some very sensible ones from my own party and from the Liberal Democrats. More amendments are now promised—or should we say threatened? No one can convince me that there has been fair, effective and comprehensive parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation, which is scandalous when we think of the profound effects it is bound to have on British business and how our businesses operate.

To date, 11 government Bills, including this one, have included Henry VIII powers. This Bill contains 11 such powers. So great is the uncertainty this creates that a meaningful Second Reading debate is almost impossible. What, in fact, are the principles of this legislation? Whatever they are today, might they change significantly with further amendments, or when the Henry VIII powers are triggered? Ministers are, in effect, asking Parliament today to empower them to do whatever they decide to do, whenever they decide to do it.

Apparently, in total, the Bill contains 173 delegated powers. I was musing that, if Henry VIII were alive today, he might be tempted to use this kind of skeleton legislation to legalise uxoricide—but whatever. Why are Ministers so disdainful towards the concerns expressed by the Attorney-General in his Bingham lecture on the rule of law last October, when he warned that

“excessive reliance on delegated powers, Henry VIII clauses, or skeleton legislation, upsets the proper balance between Parliament and the executive”?

He recommended

“a much sharper focus on whether taking delegated powers is justified in a given case, and more careful consideration of appropriate safeguards”.

Perhaps the most chilling warning about the specific inadequacies of the Bill came from the Regulatory Policy Committee, which identified eight of the Government’s individual impact assessments as being not fit for purpose, six of which were in the highest impact measure category. Surely it is the principal responsibility of Ministers fully to think through the potential impact of legislation before unleashing it on the world. This Government have failed in that basic task.

Meanwhile, the Recruitment and Employment Confederation’s Voice of the Worker campaign vividly reminds us that temporary work is often a choice made by workers, not an enforced compromise. Its survey of temporary agency workers found that 79% of respondents appreciated the flexibility that temporary work provides, while more than two-thirds believe it affords them a better work-life balance. These values—flexibility and balance—should be celebrated and supported by us all, not jeopardised by half-baked laws. Workers should be empowered to engage in the workforce in ways that best suit their personal circumstances. We must ensure that legislation does not restrict their ability to do so.

Although the intention may be to increase security, these measures risk overregulating agency workers, who are already well provided for under the Agency Workers Regulations. Under current law, these workers are made aware of permanent vacancies and enjoy protections that balance flexibility with job security. Additional regulations could well tip this balance too far, ultimately harming the very workers who the Bill seeks to protect. I also wonder whether Ministers have fully considered the financial, economic and social impact that the measure would have on public bodies, especially in the National Health Service.

Let us consider the proposal around statutory sick pay eligibility. Reducing the eligibility criteria and requirement for SSP to just one day would increase financial pressure on employers, particularly those who employ workers on temporary contracts or in sectors that rely on flexibility. Employers now face the prospect of greater tribunal risk when managing employees’ sickness leave, which could act as a further deterrent to hiring.

Small and medium-sized enterprises are so often the driving force in our economy, delivering growth in production and jobs. They need our encouragement and support, not new burdens. They will inevitably be more hesitant about taking on new employees, if they fear facing immediate legal risks from day one. I implore Ministers always to look at proposals from the point of view of an employer making a marginal decision on whether to take on that extra employee. The proposed new union recognition rules would also hit SMEs disproportionately and, as I will argue on these Benches, unnecessarily.

I turn, as the noble Baroness did, to strikes and ballot thresholds. Under current law, unions must provide 14 days’ notice before a strike, allowing employers sufficient time to prepare contingencies and manage the potential disruption. The proposed change to reduce this notice period to just seven days raises significant concerns. Will this help to generate the much desired and much needed economic growth about which we hear—and have heard today—so much?

In response to the latest ONS labour market data, the Institute of Directors shared some deeply troubling data of its own. That data showed that 47% of business leaders facing higher national insurance bills plan to reduce employment as a result. Business hiring intentions over the next year remain around lows last seen at the height of the Covid-19 pandemic. Even the Government’s own rather feeble impact assessment concedes that this Bill will impose a £5,000 million cost on businesses. What did they offer in return? Unfounded, optimistic speculation that this legislation could lead to growth—with no evidence and no guarantee. Their own declared primary mission is economic growth and yet they put forward a policy that actively undermines it.

The Bill is not only anti-business but, in my view, anti-worker. If it passes in anything like its current form, it would be more appropriate to call it an unemployment Bill. The measures in the Bill will make it harder for existing businesses to thrive and near-impossible for new businesses to emerge. The result will be a stagnating economy, diminished opportunities and worse outcomes for workers right across the country. The only growth that this Bill would deliver would be growth in industrial strife, growth in administrative costs for business, growth in uncertainty, and, ultimately, growth in unemployment. Unless it can be seriously improved, on these Benches we will oppose this Bill all the way, in the best interests of the working people of this country.

Plant Oxford Site

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I start by saying how delighted we all are to see the Minister back in her place on the Front Bench. We were all appalled to hear about her sad accident and hope that her appearance today means that she is now restored to full health.

Having said all that, given BMW’s decision to review its £600 million investment in electric Mini production due to slowing EV demand, I ask the Government whether they now acknowledge that their decision not to delay the 2030 ban on internal combustion engine cars was a mistake. Will they reconsider their approach to ensure that the UK remains an attractive destination for automotive investment?

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

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

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

Watchdogs (Industry and Regulators Committee Report)

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I first draw attention to my entry in the register of interests; in particular, as chair of the financial services division of DAC Beachcroft. I welcome the opportunity to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hollick, not only to congratulate him on an important speech but to thank him and his colleagues for making such an important contribution to this debate.

This report excels particularly in its shrewd and practical analysis of the eternal tension between independence and accountability. As it states in paragraph 171:

“Regulators should be held to account for aspects of their performance by their sponsoring departments within government. Given the importance of regulatory independence, accountability cannot be left to the Government alone, and Parliament must play a critical role”.


Experience tells us that regulators have their ups and downs. In the unlikely but possible event of one going rogue—acting outwith its statutory remit, demonstrably underperforming or even failing completely—there must be some mechanism for dealing with that. Sometimes we joke that the sign of a successful regulator is to be equally unpopular with producers and consumers, and with Governments and Oppositions.

Financial regulation—the very foundation of our economic system—failed disastrously, resulting in the crash of 2008. Thereafter, the debate seemed to be between rules-based versus principles-based regulation. I say that we need proportionate, flexible and targeted regulation. There is always a risk of regulating to prevent the last catastrophe, rather than creating a system that can prevent the next one.

In May, the previous Government produced a very good White Paper, Smarter Regulation, which included the observation that

“regulation should only be used where strictly necessary, with a high bar for introducing it and laser-like focus on how it will be implemented and felt”.

Labour’s manifesto said:

“Labour will ensure economic regulation supports growth and investment, promotes competition, works for consumers, and enables innovation”.


I hope that the new Government’s policy on regulation will continue to have its roots in their oft-stated intention to promote growth. For any consensus about the future of regulation to be truly sustainable, it should be across parties and not just within them. I hope to hear from the Minister a repeated echo of the spirit of practical common sense that so characterises this report.

Adam Smith, who I suppose is the father of free market economics, famously wrote:

“People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices”.


There, in a proverbial nutshell, is the case for regulation: a totally free market might well unleash countless instances of honest entrepreneurship and public benefit, but it would also facilitate all kinds of mischiefs.

As Secretary of State for Wales in the early 1990s, much of my effort was directed towards securing inward investment. When considering where to invest, major international companies, especially those in financial services, will naturally take account of taxation rates and regimes, but they will also subject regulatory systems to formidable scrutiny—and, believe me, they really do their homework.

What attracts much-needed inward investment is a regulatory system that is stable, predictable and proportionate, not one that wastes everyone’s time and resource with pointless box-ticking and form-filling. I very much hope that we can all agree on that.