Category 4 Steel Imports: Tariff-free Quotas

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to set out details of changes to tariff-free quotas for category 4 galvanised steel imports and; what assessment they have made of the impact of those changes on (1) domestic steel production, (2) employment, (3) investment and (4) supply chains.

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

My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord’s Question, I first want to say that in the last couple of weeks, we have been seeing each other across the Dispatch Box quite regularly, and it is arousing some suspicion from my wife.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the noble Lord’s question. On 1 July 2026, the steel trade measure came into force, and I presented the details to this House on 30 June. The measure limits tariff-free steel imports, including for category 4, and reduces overall quota volumes by 51%, compared to the expired steel safeguard, to 3.2 million tonnes. Any imports above these levels will face a 50% tariff. The details of this measure have not changed since my Statement on 30 June.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we should not have had to read in the Financial Times earlier this week that the Government had made specific changes to the steel tariff regime for a particular country, India, following negotiations over one of the United Kingdom’s most important trade agreements. I welcome the opening words of the Minister, and I always enjoy exchanges with him in this Chamber. But Parliament should surely not be learning from the media that the Government have made specific changes to the steel tariff regime for any particular country following negotiations over one of the United Kingdom’s most important trade agreements.

The Ministerial Code is clear that major policy announcements should be made first to Parliament when Parliament is in session. Will the Minister explain why Parliament was not told the full details of any further India-related changes before the tariff regime came into force on 1 July, and will the Government now commit to making a Statement while your Lordships’ House is in session, setting out what changed, why it changed, and what assessment was made of the impact of these changes on domestic steel producers, downstream sectors, exporters, supply chains, investment and jobs?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just say to the noble Lord that it was a pretty good try. First, there has been no change to India’s category 4 quota compared to the provisional quota published in April 2026. We did not negotiate quotas with any countries apart from our agreed outcome with the EU. We have been engaging with India on steel, as we have all our trading partners. Overall, quotas reflect the need to balance stronger protection for UK producers with continued access to critical inputs for downstream sectors and critical national infrastructure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, as it stands, the Government fully recognise the importance of ensuring that businesses can obtain the materials they require. That is the principal objective for this category of steel. For noble Lords who do not know what category 4 galvanised steel is, it is the steel that is mainly used for generic purposes such as steel automotives. The revised quota system seeks to balance the needs of downstream users with the need to protect the UK steel industry from unfair trading practices. We have to bear in mind that there is an oversupply of steel in the market, but we have to protect it in order to protect our local manufacturers and downstream users.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. He is in effect saying that there were no changes. Therefore, can he share with the House, in a full statement before we rise, exactly what tariff-free quota changes were made for category 4 galvanised steel products? That should include the quota granted to India, the basis on which it was calculated, any consequential changes for other countries and the assessment made of the impact on domestic steel production. I think we are entitled to that statement, if he could make it in due course.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I will try to provide—I hope—a more robust and comprehensive response to the noble Lord. As I said earlier, there is no change to the quota on steel imported from India, as far as I am aware. On the assessment, we have laid two pieces of legislation setting out how this measure will impact different types of businesses. Bearing in mind that these measures just came in on 1 July—it has been only 21 days—we should give it some time before we see how it will impact the sector and industry. As I said, we constantly monitor the situation, and my ministerial colleagues have regular conversations with steel manufacturers and downstream users. I am really pleased that my colleague Chris McDonald has been reappointed as Minister of State—I congratulate him on that—and he has regular contact with the steel sector. We work very closely with the sector, and if there are any changes, we will address them accordingly.

Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Fortunately, this is a short speech so I can lengthen it by repeating that.

This amendment would confirm on the face of the Bill

“that the Act does not apply to contracts principally for the licence or assignment of copyright or rights in performances, so that royalties, advances and residuals under publishing, music, screen and similar agreements fall outside the late payment regime”

as envisioned by the Bill. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that this amendment has been supported by Creative UK, PRS for Music, which is UK Music, and the Publishers Association. It would insert a new clause after Clause 8—which we have now agreed—and seeks to make a clear distinction between contractual remuneration and royalties.

I know that the Minister has been in discussion with the publishing industry and that, given his business background, he is clear on this issue. However, I do not think the Bill is as clear as the Minister is on this, so it would be very helpful for him to set out in detail these distinctions, effectively putting royalties outside the scope of the Bill. I would prefer an agreed amendment to come forward on Report but, at the very least, some clear Pepper v Hart-style assurances need to be made from the Dispatch Box. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for tabling Amendment 37, which seeks clarity on this important issue. As he explained, this amendment would confirm in the Bill that the Act-to-be

“does not apply to contracts principally for the licence or assignment of copyright or rights in performances, so that royalties, advances and residuals under publishing, music, screen and similar agreements fall outside the late payment regime”.

But it also opens the debate to raise some interesting questions on whether the Bill should be sector-indiscriminate or whether there are certain industries for which regulations regarding late payment must be more bespoke. There may be strong reasons for stipulating that publishing, music and screen agreements fall outside the late payment regime. We look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s position on that specific question.

However, if that is the case, noble Lords must ask two questions: first, whether these reasons could equally apply to other industries that should therefore also be exempted; and, secondly, whether there exist other distinct but legitimate reasons for different industries to be exempted. Even if there are good reasons for exempting certain industries, we must be wary of opening the floodgates such that this late payment regulation loses its practical force. Again, we all look forward to hearing the Minister detail the Government’s stance on this important issue.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his Amendment 37, and I thank the Publishers Association for meeting with me. I can be very clear and confirm that the Bill does not substantially alter the contracts in scope of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. Where this is the case, the protections offered by that Act will apply to a contract, and where they do not, they will not. The Bill does not alter the effect of existing case law in scope of the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998 where it is found that the mere licence of copyright was not within scope.

Performers, authors, musicians and other creators are often freelancers or very small businesses. They may have limited bargaining power and may depend on timely payment for work created, delivered or licensed. During the Government’s consultation, we heard from authors and musicians who were waiting for many months to be paid. That is precisely the kind of poor payment practice that the Bill is designed to address. Where relevant contracts entered into by small businesses, freelancers or individual creators are for the supply of goods and services, the Bill will ensure that payment is made within the statutory maximum period of 60 days from the agreed trigger point.

However, there may be agreements involving intellectual property rights that are not properly characterised as contracts for the supply of goods or services. Some arrangements may concern the assignment, licensing or exploitation of intellectual property in ways that fall outside the late payment framework. The Government’s position is therefore clear: creators and freelancers should be paid on time where their contracts fall within the commercial payments regime.

Amendment 37 risks blurring established distinctions in contract and intellectual property law and would create uncertainty about which agreements are covered. For that reason, while I understand and sympathise with the intention behind this amendment, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate. Consequently, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw Amendment 37.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Before the Minister sits down, can he address the two questions I raised? Are there other industries that might similarly be affected? If so, how do the Government intend to reach an end conclusion?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As far as the Bill is concerned, we are not providing any particular exemption to any particular sector. As far as intellectual property law is concerned, there were concerns from the various trade organisations that the Bill may also include the licensing of copyright. That is not the case, because that has been decided by case law under the earlier legislation I mentioned. If a contract says that someone has been contracted to write a particular book, novel or whatever, then that falls within scope of the Bill, but copyright contracts do not.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

55: Clause 18, page 21, line 23, leave out “(but no other type of person)” and insert “or consumer”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment, and another in the name of Lord Hunt, is intended to probe the Government’s reasoning for restricting the adjudication scheme solely to disputes involving small businesses as claimants.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we now move to a very important part of the Bill, namely Part 2, on the Small Business Commissioner. I praise all those involved in the build-up to the Enterprise Act 2016. After a lengthy period of consultation, in which I was privileged to participate, the Conservative Government set up the role of the Small Business Commissioner. Its purpose was to tackle overdue payments and unfavourable payment practices. So it is a pleasure to open this debate by moving Amendment 55 and speaking to the others in this group in my name and that of my noble friend, because we now seek to expand the role of the Small Business Commissioner. I am pleased to start by saying that His Majesty’s Opposition support these changes. Our many amendments to this group are simply to clarify or build on the Government’s already solid proposals.

Amendments 55 to 57 probe the reasoning behind limiting the scope of the commissioner’s powers to disputes between small and larger businesses. I understand the argument that small businesses or consumers are more likely to be bankrupted by dispute proceedings, but the same cannot be said of small businesses on the receiving end of poor payment practices. I wonder whether the Minister can outline the rationale for expanding the commissioner’s powers to include these size-adjacent disputes.

Amendments 64 and 65 probe what additional grounds may be included in the reasons for declining to adjudicate disputes and which additional disputes may be exempted from adjudication. These powers have the potential to be used both widely and arbitrarily, which is why we have tabled Amendment 72, which would require both Houses of Parliament to approve any new regulations. In general, if the Minister could anticipate what these powers might be used for, I think we would all find that extremely helpful.

Similarly, Amendment 62 from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley would require a reason to be given for declining to adjudicate a dispute. I think this is a courteous, low-cost measure that would do much to increase the transparency of the commissioner’s office.

Amendment 71 in my name and Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, aim to set a timeline for resolving disputes. I am conscious that the cases brought to the commissioner may differ greatly, both in scope and resolution and in the amount of time required. As such, I am aware that any timeline could create a bottleneck. That being said, I believe that some expectation should be placed on the commissioner’s office to resolve disputes in a timely manner. So, if the Minister cannot agree with either of these terms, I hope he will be able at least to suggest another solution in his response.

I also consider Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh, to be very important. Currently, under the Bill, a larger business may be investigated should it persistently engage in poor payment practices, with “persistently” being defined as an equally vague “sufficient” number of times. Businesses deserve to know what this means, if for no other reason than so that they can avoid it. Discretion should not be introduced where it does not need to be, so I hope the Minister can put a number on what exactly constitutes “persistently”.

However, these amendments are ultimately fruitless if they are not taken in conjunction with Amendments 69 and 93. The amendments in this group aim to increase the efficiency and transparency of the Small Business Commissioner’s office, which is now rightly having its powers greatly expanded—though the funds and resources the office will receive to carry them out remain very vague and opaque, so we seek more clarity from the Minister. Last year, the Small Business Commissioner had a net operating expenditure of just under £1.1 million. It was not allowed to hire permanent staff members and handled a total of 591 inquiries—not disputes.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that extra resources will still be available, as he did at Second Reading, but not to give any further details. The time has come when we need to have a very clear steer on exactly what this budget will include and amount to. This is a root and branch reform that will not just completely change the nature of the commissioner’s office but have ramifications for businesses up and down the country. It must have a clear funding plan laid out. That is why we support Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It would ensure that the commissioner’s new functions would not be commenced until a funding plan has been laid before and debated by Parliament. This is the bare minimum, surely, for a reform of this kind.

Both the commissioner’s office and the businesses that will rely on it need to know that they will be adequately provided for. One cannot instil institutional trust in a reform if it appears that it is being underfunded. I hope the Minister can now commit to a funding plan. If there is no clear plan, neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will be satisfied and we will return to the matter on Report. The Minister has a real opportunity now to answer all these questions; let us get ahead with this very important reform. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, given his continued involvement with the Small Business Commissioner. There are a lot of amendments in this group. In order not to overstay my welcome, I will not speak to his amendments—but I am broadly in agreement with everything he has just said.

I have a number of amendments in this group. Amendment 59 would require payment disputes referred to the adjudication scheme to be resolved within 60 days, unless the Small Business Commissioner considers a longer period reasonable. The Bill creates a 60-day limit by which private organisations must pay back small businesses. However, although in the case of a dispute there is a time limit for the dispute to be raised, there is no time limit for the case to be resolved. This means that large companies could in effect raise a dispute and delay resolution, putting pressure on the SMEs to settle.

As can be seen from the amendment, it calls for the adjudicator to

“reach a decision determining a relevant payment dispute before the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the dispute is referred to adjudication under the scheme”.

To facilitate this, the adjudicator must

“compel parties to share relevant information with itself, if the sharing of such information is necessary for the fulfilment of the duty”.

However, where necessary, the commissioner may extend the period to resolve a particular issue, having regard to the complexity of a dispute and the conduct of the parties. The commissioner must set out reasons for any extension. This amendment addresses this, and it is an issue to which we attach quite a lot of importance.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just said, Amendment 71 looks at a 28-day limit. Separately, Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, looks at 12 months for an investigation. That is a very long time, but I look forward to what he has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

As I said earlier, we need to have further conversations on that, which I would welcome.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in what has been a very important debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I warmly applaud what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said about the critical need for clarity—as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond emphasised, not just clarity but precision. We believe that these elements are essential, particularly on resources. It is all well and good passing legislation—ground-breaking legislation, to some extent—but, if there are no resources behind that change in legislative structures, the ultimate objective will not be achieved.

Speaking on behalf of all those who have spoken, I believe that it is the intention of all of us that the expanded Small Business Commissioner’s office should work as the Government intend it to work. The amendments in this group simply represent different views on how best to achieve this. I warmly applaud my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who always gives us the correct feedback from the world of business. He did so again just a few moments ago. His remarks about giving the cold shoulder have been proved with the effectiveness of the takeover code. We have to isolate—perhaps we have not had enough discussion about this—those companies that have poor payment practices and get through to them that, across all parties, we condemn such action, in particular when it has such a dramatic impact on small and medium-sized enterprises.

I understand that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would include overseas turnover when calculating a company’s turnover. We need to discuss that further. We need to get UK tax law right.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Simple—have a flat tax.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Anyway, that is a debate for another occasion.

The Committee has made it clear that we support the prohibition of new regulations without what they might be used for being outlined or without them being approved by both Houses of Parliament. I have also set out our position on the timeline for the adjudication of disputes. It is an argument that I believe has some merit and would benefit from at least some guidance from the Minister, but I warmly applaud the consensus across the Committee that the question of funding must be answered before the Bill passes. As I outlined at the start of this debate, businesses must be able to trust the office for it to function as intended, and trust includes knowing that it has the means to deal with the disputes with which it has been tasked by this legislation. I understand that the Minister cannot commit today to a set amount or a timeline, but I hope that, over the summer, he and his officials will come to a solution on this issue—perhaps with the support of a rejuvenated Treasury.

I look forward to revisiting this debate. On behalf of all those who are interested, I accept the Minister’s offer of a meeting with the Small Business Commissioner and her team, which I think would greatly enhance our ability to understand some of the issues involved. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 55 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Declare yourself.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

As the Minister has just suggested, I should declare my interest as a practising solicitor in the City of London. I acknowledge the words of the former Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. We do need access to justice; I just happen to believe that it is best achieved by using lawyers. But I recognise the validity of what he just said and we need to reflect on that, just as we need to reflect on what was said by my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond on using plain English that people can understand.

In trying to create another dispute resolution system, as we discovered with the Financial Ombudsman Service—the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, will know this from sitting in on the debates on the Financial Services and Markets Bill—allowing the Financial Ombudsman to decide what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances, and not to have to rely on the common law, creates a difficult adjudicatory system. At the end of the day, we want right to succeed, and it can do so only if everyone understands what the law is and it is not left to the discretion of some intermediary.

Having now pleaded the case for the lawyers, I thank my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley for introducing what has been a very important debate. I acknowledge the fight of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, for the Cabinet Office to take a role in any whistleblowing regime. I hope she will understand that I am nervous about establishing another office within the Office of the Small Business Commissioner, but we look forward to hearing what the Minister says about that.

Amendments 86 and 87 are in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Holmes of Richmond. The Bill represents a shift in the Government’s policy, in that it favours small and medium-sized businesses. Payment terms and retention contracts will do much to prevent exploitative counterparts, while increasing the powers of the Small Business Commissioner will introduce another layer of protection.

However, I call it a “shift” because it is antithetical to the road that the Government have pursued until now, which has placed businesses, both small and large, under ever more regulatory and financial burdens. I am of course referring to the Employment Rights Act of last year. It seems unfair that businesses should be expected to comply with new payment practices that reduce cash-flow flexibility while the Government are simultaneously doing the same with their policies. The worst provisions of that Act have not even been implemented yet but are expected to cost an additional £1,000 million at a minimum. This will undoubtedly have an impact on the ability of businesses, especially smaller businesses with tighter margins, to pay back the debt that they owe within the allotted time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments are very much of the style that I had expected, knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, was involved in the Bill, and he certainly made his arguments. To some extent I think there is a mixed thing here, with some of it mandating tools that the SBC could or should use. I do not think we need primary legislation to mandate that at all. I think the point that the noble and learned Lord made on Amendment 78 was slightly different from the one that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made. I may have misunderstood. But it is very important to know where AI is being used for decision-making and resolution. I think that was the point that the noble and learned Lord was making, and there I have complete agreement.

The use of distributed ledger is probably a very good idea. Do we need primary legislation to make or advise the SBC to use it? I am not sure. There is a mixed bag here, but the important element is that technology will change how the commissioner will approach her job and she needs to be financially and technically resourced in order to be able to address those changes and, I hope, to be one step ahead of them.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

We are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, not only for his amendments in this group but for his wise words. I also commend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on their points.

Amendment 73 would require the Small Business Commissioner

“to provide a plain-language digital pathway into the SBC adjudication scheme, including an eligibility checker, interest calculator, and guided referral process”.

I believe there is a lot of common sense behind this amendment, and I suppose I declare an interest having been UK chair of the English-Speaking Union and global chair for a number of years. Placing a statutory duty on the commissioner to provide a digital service would ensure that small businesses could more easily get the essential and relevant information about the scheme. The inclusion of a plain language eligibility checker would mean that small businesses could determine whether they are entitled to refer a relevant payment dispute to the scheme. This would not only benefit the taxpayer, as time and expense will not have to be expended sifting through ineligible applications, but would also benefit small businesses that may otherwise have to spend money on legal fees and advice.

Amendment 78 would establish

“an algorithmic accountability framework for any AI or automated tool used by the Commissioner. It requires transparency, regular bias audits, human oversight, and a right of explanation for businesses selected for investigation”.

There is clear reasoning behind this amendment. If a business is put under investigation, it should be entitled, upon request, to understand the factors that led to the initial decision to investigate. Not only will this provide transparency and act as a safeguard against particular businesses being targeted, it will mean that businesses are able to reflect on their existing practices and amend them as necessary.

I turn to what my noble friend described as one of the most important amendments, Amendment 92, as well as Amendment 94. Amendment 92 would require the Secretary of State

“to commission an AI-assisted payment monitoring tool for the Small Business Commissioner”.

Amendment 94 would require the Secretary of State

“to establish an open, machine-readable register of payment practice reports”.

Both these amendments rest on the principles that technology and data, when used in a constructive way, can yield more effective and efficient outcomes. An AI-assisted payment monitoring tool could be used by the Small Business Commissioner to cross-reference data that companies are required to publish with other government databases to identify businesses whose reported payment performance is incompatible with other available financial and legal data. Such a tool would provide the commissioner with more accurate and robust data, which could be considered before the launching of a potential investigation.

Similarly, an open payment data register would enable analysis by sector, business size and payment performance over time. If this register were publicly accessible and machine readable, third parties would also have the ability to deploy their own large language models to gain insights into the sector, as well as potential businesses that must be referred for investigation. Crucially, by making the register public, large businesses may be further incentivised to ensure that they are complying with existing payment practices and regulations. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters.

Amendment 95 would require

“a pilot of distributed ledger technology for construction retention records during the transition period”,

while Amendment 96 would require

“post-quantum cryptographic standards for all digital infrastructure supporting the Commissioner’s functions”.

These are technical amendments which require careful consideration.

In the absence of a clear cyber strategy, which the Government have promised would be released—they have promised it again and again—it remains unclear how the digital infrastructure supporting the commissioner’s functions remains shielded from cyber threats. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform us all of when such a strategy will be published.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

103: Clause 31, page 41, line 34, at end insert—
“(2A) Section 4 comes into force on the day after the last day of the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to provide a one year transitional period before statutory interest payments come into force, so as to allow businesses to implement the underpinning technology and deal with the incoming regulation.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 103 would delay commencement of the statutory interest provisions by one year to allow businesses time to prepare. As we are on the final group of the day, I will seek to keep my remarks brief.

My noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond made the point with Amendment 24 that statutory interest should be calculated and remitted promptly, within five days, which is a sentiment that we agree with, but that amendment also highlights that businesses will need to take on new administrative burdens to carry out this new duty. Obviously, we want to encourage people to pay on time, but businesses who have previously had payment terms of 90 or 120 days will need time to adapt. That is why Amendment 103, in the names also of my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Holmes of Richmond, would delay the commencement of statutory interest by a year. It acknowledges that underpinning technology will likely be necessary, especially for large multinationals with immensely complex payment systems. I hope that the Minister will be able to agree. I beg to move.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, for this amendment and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his contribution. The Bill will strengthen an existing right that suppliers who are paid interest late enjoy, through Clauses 5 and 6. These clauses will simplify the law on when statutory interest runs and remove the ability for contracts to use an alternative remedy to statutory interest. Clause 4, which this amendment relates to, preserves the effect of Section 1 of the existing Commercial Payments and Interest on Late Payment Act 1998 and implies statutory interest into all contracts to which the Act applies. The amendment brought forward by the noble Lord to require Clause 4 to be commenced within 12 months would not delay the right to statutory interest, as it is already in legislation. I can reassure him that we have considered the impact that strengthening of interest rights will have, as set out in Clauses 5 and 6, and that there will be sufficient time for businesses to adapt their processes before these provisions are commenced. I hope I have reassured the noble Lord and that he will withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I may take this opportunity of thanking the Minister for the way he has approached the Bill. He has certainly given us all an opportunity to scrutinise it line by line, but he has also made a number of offers, which we have accepted, of further meetings, which we hope will take place as soon as possible—perhaps giving a little time for a short recess. I commend his approach, which is an example to all his colleagues, and I thank him for his reply on this amendment. The Bill has to be able to balance encouraging good payment practice alongside regulatory burdens. Statutory interest achieves the former yet has the potential to increase the latter. I hope that when we come to Report, the Minister will be able to bring forward a solution that addresses this issue, but until then, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 103 withdrawn.

Supply of Machinery (Safety) (Amendment etc.) and the EU Machinery Regulation (Enforcement etc. in Northern Ireland) Regulations 2026

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, for giving us this opportunity.

The origins of the Windsor Framework lay in the desire of the previous Government to address the consequences of what was a deeply flawed protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland, negotiated in October 2019. Within a short time of the protocol coming into force in January 2021, those consequences had become all too apparent. It disrupted trade, damaged businesses and imposed additional costs and inconvenience on customers and consumers. The Windsor Framework was a serious and, in my view, valiant attempt by the Government led by the former Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, to address those problems. It was motivated by a desire to reduce significantly the checks on goods introduced by the protocol, to protect Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom internal market and to reinforce Northern Ireland’s position as an integral part of the United Kingdom.

Taken together with the January 2024 Command Paper, Safeguarding the Union, the framework ameliorated some of the worst effects of the protocol. It facilitated a freer flow of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and contributed to the restoration of devolved government at Stormont in February 2024. We should not lose sight of the importance of either achievement. However, acknowledging those achievements does not require us to pretend that every underlying problem was resolved. Significant difficulties remain, including regulatory divergence, trade diversion and, as several speakers have pointed out, the imposition on Northern Ireland businesses of laws made outside the United Kingdom’s democratic institutions.

The regulations before us demonstrate precisely why those unresolved issues still matter. As has been explained, they give domestic enforcement effect in Northern Ireland to regulation (EU) 2023/1230. Northern Ireland manufacturers will be legally required to comply with that regulation, while equivalent businesses in Great Britain will not necessarily be subject to the same legal obligations. That raises both an economic and a democratic concern. Northern Ireland businesses may face higher costs when manufacturing goods for sale in their principal market in Great Britain. At the same time, they will be bound by rules that neither this Parliament nor the Northern Ireland Assembly made, can amend or can repeal. They are being made rule-takers, not rule-makers.

The central question for the Minister is therefore whether the requirements being enforced by these regulations will significantly increase the costs of production in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. If they do, Northern Ireland goods could become less competitive in the Great Britain market, despite enjoying formal unfettered access to it.

Legal access is not the same as commercial competitiveness. A Northern Ireland manufacturer may retain the right to place a product on the Great Britain market, but that right is of limited value if the cost of conformity assessment, certification, technical documentation, product labelling and continuing compliance makes that product more expensive than an equivalent manufactured in Great Britain. We therefore look forward to the Minister’s explanation. Can he shed some light on this important area? What assessment has been made of the cumulative costs that regulation (EU) 2023/1230 will impose on Northern Ireland manufacturers? How do those costs compare with those faced by equivalent firms in Great Britain? How many affected businesses are small or medium-sized enterprises? Above all, what steps will the Government take if this new regulatory divergence makes Northern Ireland goods less competitive within their own United Kingdom internal market?

As virtually every speaker has set out, this is a magnificent and welcome opportunity for the Government to set out a clear policy in this area and make the Windsor Framework even more relevant today than it was when it was thought through by the Rishi Sunak Government.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, steel has shaped our nation’s history. It has built railways, bridges, factories, ships, homes, energy infrastructure and defence capability. It remains essential to our future—to growth, resilience, national security and the critical infrastructure on which our country depends. This legislation is one part of the Government’s wider commitment to the steel sector. It gives us the tools to act decisively if strategic steel-making capability is at risk. It supports our objective of restoring confidence, protecting jobs, strengthening domestic capability and securing a sustainable future for UK steel.

I express my sincere gratitude to noble Lords from across the House who have contributed to the scrutiny of the Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox, for the constructive, professional and friendly way in which they have engaged throughout. I am genuinely grateful. I also thank other noble Lords who have spoken with deep knowledge of industry, constitutional practice, devolution, public finance, workers’ interests and the wider economy; their contribution has helped ensure that this House has done its job properly. Finally, I thank the Bill team, my private office, officials from across government, the devolved Government officials who have engaged with us, parliamentary counsel and the House authorities for their work in supporting the passage of this legislation at pace and under considerable pressure.

This House has sent a clear message. The United Kingdom must be able to act when a strategic industry is at risk. We must protect steel-making capability, support workers and communities, and safeguard the critical supply chains on which our national resilience depends. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Redwood, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their considerable contributions and the expertise they have demonstrated throughout our consideration of the Bill. I also pay tribute to the two committees of this House that have contributed so much to our understanding of this urgent matter in their excellent reports—the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

I also extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Leong, the Minister, who has taken a very close interest throughout not only in the case for the Government taking the action that they have but in understanding our concern on a number of aspects. I thank his officials and the Bill team for all their hard work. Although significant differences remain between us, the Minister has always engaged constructively with concerns raised on all sides of the House, and I believe that the Bill has been improved as a result of that engagement.

Working together, we have secured a more credible sunset mechanism: any extension of the principal transfer powers will be limited to two years and will require the affirmative approval of both Houses. We have secured provisions requiring the Secretary of State to consider the likely costs before exercising the share transfer power or the property transfer power. We have also ensured that the relevant environmental, pension, and health and safety liabilities must be properly reflected in the independent valuation process.

We particularly welcome the greater parliamentary controls secured in Clauses 39 and 45: regulations under Clause 39 concerning the consideration and terms attached to continuity obligations will be subject to the affirmative or “made affirmative” procedure; regulations under Clause 45 concerning the enforcement of obligations arising from share or property transfers will be subject to the “made affirmative” procedure rather than the negative procedure originally proposed.

The Minister’s commitment to debates in both Houses on the steel strategy and the impact of this legislation is also very welcome, as are his assurances that any exercise of transfer powers will require an impact assessment and that quarterly Written Ministerial Statements will be provided for at least the first year in which a steel undertaking remains in public ownership. Those Statements will give Parliament the information that it needs to scrutinise operational performance, public expenditure and the consequences for workers, communities and the wider steel industry.

Nevertheless, a great deal of work remains to be done. Nationalisation may provide the Government with an emergency power, but it is not an industrial strategy. It cannot substitute for commercially viable businesses; for competent, market-aware management; and, above all, for sustained private sector investment. I came into the House 50 years ago, and we had experience of state ownership in the 1970s. I must tell the House that that provides no grounds for confidence or complacency. We must not allow what is intended to be temporary public ownership to default into an expensive and permanent arrangement. The long-term future of British steel depends on the United Kingdom once again becoming an attractive and affordable place in which to invest, to produce and to employ people. That requires us to confront the fundamental barriers facing steel and other energy-intensive industries.

Ministers have to address our internationally uncompetitive industrial electricity prices. They must examine the cumulative burden of the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism. They must consider the costs imposed by their employment policies as well as the ever-expanding burden of regulation, reporting and compliance. Unless those underlying problems are addressed, nationalisation will merely transfer the consequences of an uncompetitive business environment from private shareholders to the taxpayer; it will not resolve them.

Our objectives must therefore be clear: to secure the private investment that the steel industry desperately needs to preserve strategic domestic steel-making capacity and skilled employment, but also to minimise the exposure to the taxpayer. We welcome the improvements made to the Bill and the assurances placed on the record by the Minister. However, we will continue to scrutinise closely the use of these exceptional powers, the costs that arise from them and the Government’s progress in returning any nationalised undertaking to an investable, competitive and commercially viable future.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 8th July 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 would limit the public interest test to the areas set out in paragraphs (a) to (c).

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I have no wish to repeat at length the arguments made in Committee, but I feel that the Government should be clearer about the public interest test that lies at the heart of these powers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. Noble Lords have highlighted that the public interest test in Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill and I very much agree. It is important that we get it right. Noble Lords have tabled several amendments to this clause and we have had fruitful discussions on them at previous stages, but I am happy to return to them.

Amendment 2, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would limit the public interest factors that could be considered by the Secretary of State to those explicitly set out in statute in Clause 2. As I have set out previously, the Government agree that these are likely to be the most pertinent issues in relation to an intervention in the steel sector. We have sought to strike a balance in the Bill between minimising the scope as far as possible and ensuring that we can adapt to evolving circumstances. That is why we think it is necessary to retain some flexibility to consider other factors that may be relevant to a particular case, which may be difficult to anticipate.

Let me be clear that the legal test in this clause places particular emphasis on the factors that are explicitly set out. Where the Government seek to rely on other factors, they will need to be satisfied that those factors mean that an exercise of the powers is necessary in the public interest. I therefore do not consider the amendment necessary and respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.

Amendments 3 and 5, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would create procedural steps that would need to be fulfilled before the transfer powers are exercised. Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent assessment of whether the public interest test has been met and for that assessment to be met prior to using the powers. Amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to provide details of the criteria used to demonstrate the public interest. Both are difficult to reconcile with the likely circumstances under which the powers could be exercised. The Government will likely need to act at pace to deliver an effective transfer. However, the Government will commit to publishing a Written Ministerial Statement following an exercise of the principal transfer powers, which would include details of how the public interest test has been met. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Lords, even if we cannot meet the full ambition of their amendments.

Finally, Amendment 4, also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the exercise of the transfer powers would represent value for money for taxpayers. The Government are mindful of the potential costs that could be incurred in relation to the nationalisation of a steel company. This consideration is already taken into account in government decision-making under the usual public spending processes, as I have set out previously.

Additionally, as we discussed in the previous grouping, the Government are supportive of Amendments 7 and 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would require the Secretary of State to consider costs prior to the exercise of the principal transfer of powers. These amendments go some way to addressing the concerns raised by the noble Lord Hunt, and I hope that will provide some reassurance.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Redwood and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their comments. I am grateful indeed to the Minister for his reassurances and the commitment that he has given, which meet many of the concerns I expressed earlier. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 2 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

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

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 8, 10, 12 to 14 and 40, standing in my name and that of my noble friend. I thank the Minister for working constructively with us on Amendments 12 and 13. It is vital that where the Bill confers regulation-making powers of real consequence, the default should be the affirmative procedure. Amendments 8 and 10 would apply that principle to the core transfer powers, regulations transferring securities, and regulations transferring property rights and liabilities. We understand the Minister’s argument that in exceptional cases powers may need to be exercised.

Turning to Amendment 40, I ask the Minister for a clear assurance that a thorough impact assessment will be brought before both Houses of Parliament after the various powers in the Bill have been used. Given the potential effect on taxpayers, workers, investment and the wider steel industry, they must assess whether these exceptional powers have delivered the outcomes claimed for them.

Finally, Amendment 14 would remove Clause 50. The Constitution Committee was clear that the broad power allowing the Secretary of State to modify the law in relation to a share or property transfer

“should either be removed or significantly tightened”.

That is a serious recommendation from an important committee of this House. The Government should either accept the committee’s recommendation or make much clearer in the Bill the limited circumstances in which such a power may be used. I look forward, therefore, to the Minister providing some assurance on Amendment 40 and on the Henry VIII powers. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 15 and 16 in my name, but first I speak in support of Amendments 12 and 13 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, which I have co-signed. Importantly, these would add necessary additional parliamentary control over continuity obligations and property transfer regulations. We moved similar amendments in the Commons that failed to attract sufficient support there.

Regarding Amendment 10, the Minister has convinced me that the need to quickly transfer property rights transcends the necessity of moving to an affirmative form of approval from a negative regulation. That is why I have not co-signed Amendment 10.

I tabled Amendments 15 and 16 as it is important that Parliament must be kept informed once any nationalisation is effected. Amendment 15 would create a new clause causing there to be a report on principal transfer powers from the point at which those powers are exercised under the Act. It says that the Secretary of State must

“make a written statement to each House of Parliament setting out … the progress, and the operational and financial performance, of the steel undertaking in respect of which a transfer power has been exercised, and … the impact of this Act, including (so far as it is possible to assess) its effects on the steel industry in the United Kingdom, on employment and on the public finances”,

and that this duty

“continues until no steel undertaking remains in public ownership”.

I hope the Minister has something positive to say on this, which includes reflecting on how the communities and skills requirements are being met in whichever part of the UK is affected by any nationalisation and subsequent changes.

It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was not with us in Committee, because he would have participated in a debate on an amendment that was very similar to Amendment 15, which covers not only the territory of Northern Ireland but the whole of the United Kingdom. I feel that the noble Lord’s point is important, but if it is important for Northern Ireland then it is important for the rest of the UK. I think he will see that Amendment 15 seeks to bring that across our entire country.

Amendment 16 seeks to create a stakeholder advisory committee. I will not repeat my speech from Committee, but its aim is to have stronger input into the steel strategy from steel users. The Minister responded with news that the steel council may be augmented by additional new members. I hope he can elaborate some more on how the voice of steel users is reflected more effectively in order for the Government to avoid such issues as those that have been created by the steel tariffs.

--- Later in debate ---

Finally, I thank all noble Lords across the House for their commitment to ensuring that parliamentarians have the appropriate powers to scrutinise the Bill. I hope my comments reassure all noble Lords.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this has been an important debate. I pay tribute to the Minister. His approach to the Bill has been exemplary. We may disagree, and we do disagree, but the Minister has set an example that will be difficult for his ministerial colleagues to follow. He has listened and cared deeply about all the points we have raised. I am sure I speak for the noble Lord, Lord Fox, as well as for my noble friend and friends across the House, when I say that the Minister has not only listened to us but responded in positive terms, and, where he has not been able to agree, he has explained why he cannot agree.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for making sure that we do not forget the vitally important Welsh dimension. I thank my noble friend Lord Redwood for always scrutinising the public expenditure side of the Bill.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that, with him, I believe we have now received from the Minister a series of comprehensive assurances, particularly on the impact assessment, which will enable us to proceed in a positive way.

The noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Elliott of Ballinamallard, have raised issues that—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out—do not fall directly within scope, but they do fall within the impact assessment. That is why it was important that those points were raised.

The Minister will argue that there is a case for a Henry VIII power in an emergency Bill of this kind. We remain concerned about the breadth of Clause 50 and the precedent it may set, but I am grateful to the Minister for his engagement with this debate, and I thank him. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 8.

Amendment 8 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

31: Clause 58, page 39, line 5, after “assistance” insert “of a total value of no more than £2.5 billion in the period ending on 15 August 2029”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the financial assistance that can be provided under the Act.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 31 I will also speak to Amendments 32, 33, 35 and 36 standing in my name and that of my noble friend. I support the similar sentiments and approach expressed in Amendment 37.

I do not wish to repeat the arguments made in Committee, but on these Benches we remain gravely concerned by the open-ended cost to the taxpayer that the Bill potentially permits. The Government have already announced £2.5 billion of taxpayer funding for the steel sector. That is the figure that Ministers have chosen to present as a demonstration of their commitment to rebuilding and modernising British Steel and the steel sector. Yet in this Bill they seek an unlimited power to provide financial assistance with no statutory ceiling whatever. I believe this is bad economics, bad politics and, unless some clarity is forthcoming, quite possibly bad faith too. If £2.5 billion is not enough, how much is? Is there any maximum figure at all that Ministers are prepared to put before us and then stand behind?

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords on the amendments in this group, which I will not support.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, in particular for those additional comments. I and my noble friend Lord Sharpe—as well as, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Fox—have been reassured by how the Minister has termed the positive future that we all want to see. However, as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, the Government have still not provided Parliament with a clear limit on the potential exposure facing taxpayers. I do not know whether the Minister has any aspiration to become a Treasury Minister. To become one, you have to believe in caps—there is no other way to become a Treasury Minister.

I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that the Government just have to come to Parliament. If they require more money, they should ask Parliament for more money. At the moment, they have said that £2.5 billion is necessary. If there is a need for more money, it is perfectly open to the Government to come to Parliament and ask for it. Without a clear limit, there is a real risk that the cost could run into tens of billions of pounds.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

Therefore, if they can come to Parliament to ask for it, do not put the limit in the Bill. That is what the noble Lord seeks to do in his Amendment 31.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

If the noble and right reverend Lord does not support this amendment, it will be unnecessary for the Government to come and ask for more money. It is only when there is a cap that the Government have to be accountable to Parliament. For the reasons I have outlined, and because taxpayers should never be asked to sign a blank cheque, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

[Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, before we divide the House, I need to inform the House that there have been intermittent network issues on the estate. Because of the small risk that this may cause temporary disruption to the pass readers and the Division system, I have agreed with the usual channels to extend the time for Divisions from eight to 10 minutes.

I ask all noble Lords to ensure they firmly tap their pass on the pass reader. If in doubt, they should tap their pass a second time. The system will only record a vote once. If we all remember that beep means you have voted and no beep means no vote, we will all be fine.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

41: After Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—
“Exemption of iron and steel carbon border adjustment mechanism goods(1) Section 143 of the Finance Act 2026 (charge to carbon border adjustment mechanism) does not apply to emissions embodied in a CBAM good which is an iron and steel good for the purposes of Schedule 16 to that Act where the good is imported by a transferred steel undertaking for use in connection with the carrying on of its business.(2) In subsection (1), “transferred steel undertaking” means a steel undertaking in respect of which the Secretary of State has exercised a principal transfer power.” Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would exempt iron and steel CBAM goods imported for use by a steel undertaking brought into public ownership under this Act from the carbon border adjustment mechanism.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will also speak to Amendments 42 and 43 standing in my name and that of my noble friend.

As we stated in Committee, the carbon border adjustment mechanism and emissions trading scheme will have a material effect on the domestic steel sector. The Government will no doubt argue that the CBAM and ETS are necessary to meet their net-zero objectives and that they will not harm British industry. We may have significant disagreements on that point. However, what cannot be disputed is that these measures will affect steel undertakings in this country. The question is whether that effect will be positive or negative on costs, production, exports and international competitiveness.

In Committee, Ministers suggested that the business environment, including the ETS and CBAM, would be relevant to valuation. But that is not the same as a clear assessment of the practical effect of these policies on the future of domestic steel-making. I therefore invite the Minister to confirm that the future impact assessment to which the Government have referred will include a full assessment of the effects of the CBAM and ETS on the domestic steel sector.

If the Government are right that these measures will protect industry, support investment and improve competitiveness, they should have no difficulty at all in providing that assurance. If, however, that assessment shows that these measures are damaging production, exports, investment or competitiveness, that would also give the Government the evidence needed to change course, and that is why I wish to move this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful that my noble friend has raised this important point. We would probably not be having these big debates about steel nationalisation if the United Kingdom in recent years had had competitive energy pricing, and if it had not gone in for carbon pricing and carbon taxes that can have an adverse bearing on energy-using industries. However, we are where we are, and so my noble friend is right to ask the Minister to give some reassurances. We seem to be involved in overtaxing carbon and then having to subsidise those businesses that suffer as a result.

Of course, the CBAM is an EU-designed scheme which we are copying, to try to offset the impact that very high carbon and energy costs have on domestic economies and industries, by imposing a similar tax or tariff on the imported goods from countries that do not impose such carbon taxes and carbon additions to the energy they are using in industrial plant. That does help in some way for the domestic steel-producing industry; it becomes a problem for the domestic steel-using industry where it is having to import steel beyond the tariff-free quota provided under the CBAM. We note that the tariff-free quota is skewed to favour European producers, rather than other producers around the world who might be otherwise cheaper or more advantageous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which I will refer to as CBAM, and their impacts on the steel sector.

Notably, these amendments seek to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from both these environmental measures, thereby undermining the level playing field that the noble Lord mentioned in the previous group. At the outset, I emphasise the Government’s commitment to their industrial decarbonisation policies and to moving towards a green, decarbonised steel sector. Although I appreciate that there may be differing views on this issue, these amendments would completely undermine the Government’s objectives for these measures.

These commitments build on the statutory reporting requirement on financial assistance in Clause 59, the company’s annual report and accounts, and the quarterly Written Ministerial Statements, which I have already set out. Any nationalised steel undertaking would not be exempt from the corporate reporting requirements set out in the Companies Act 2006. That Act contains various reporting requirements, which vary depending on the size of the entity. Where relevant or material, our Written Ministerial Statements may refer to any wider contextual or regulatory impacts. In addition, as previously mentioned, the Secretary of State would have the ability, if needed, to request an interim report on a particular issue.

Amendment 41 seeks to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from CBAM. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord; however, I emphasise that CBAM’s purpose is to ensure that imported carbon-intensive goods face comparable carbon prices to those of domestically produced goods. It gives industry confidence to invest in the UK, knowing that its decarbonisation efforts will not be undermined. CBAM makes no exemptions for particular UK firms. Its intent is to target the problem of carbon leakage and ensure that highly traded, carbon-intensive goods from overseas, including steel, pay a comparable carbon price to that paid by UK manufacturers.

I understand the intention behind Amendment 42 and the desire to ensure that Parliament remains informed about the impact of carbon pricing policies on the steel sector. The Government are committed to supporting a competitive and sustainable steel industry while delivering our decarbonisation objectives. However, the UK emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism are economywide policies designed to address carbon leakage and support the transition to net zero across industry as a whole, rather than for any particular company or ownership model.

The UK ETS Authority already keeps the operation of the scheme under review. The scheme contains statutory review mechanisms. The authority has committed to continued monitoring of both free allocation policy and the interaction between ETS and CBAM. The authority has also recently confirmed the extension of the UK ETS beyond 2030 and will continue to engage with industry and consult on future scheme design, ensuring that the impacts on affected sectors are properly considered. Given these existing review mechanisms, it is not necessary to create a separate statutory requirement for a particular transferred steel undertaking.

Amendment 43 seeks to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from the emissions trading scheme. I am sympathetic to the fact that this imposes a cost on activities that have significant emissions. However, as with Amendment 41, accepting Amendment 43 would grant preferential treatment based on ownership and undermine a level playing field across the industry. The transition to low-carbon steel must be fair, credible and consistent across all operators, whether publicly or privately owned. I emphasise that the ETS includes targeted protections for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries, including steel. Further protections will be introduced through CBAM from 2027.

The Government remain firmly committed to both a competitive steel sector and our decarbonisation objectives. Exempting a publicly owned steel undertaking from ETS or CBAM would create an uneven playing field, weaken the integrity of these schemes and undermine efforts to tackle carbon leakage. Steel producers, regardless of ownership, should operate within the same fair and consistent framework. I hope that my comments reassure noble Lords.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Redwood for highlighting the importance of ETS and CBAM. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the British taxpayer has a right to know the effect of ETS and CBAM. I take his point that it would apply whether it was in the private or the public sector, but we are now dealing with a nationalised industry which is funded by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has a right to know exactly what the effect of the UK ETS and CBAM will be on the costs, production, exports and competitiveness of the transferred steel undertakings.

However, I recognise that the Minister has done much to explain the method by which the Government are approaching this situation. We will keep it under careful scrutiny but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 41 withdrawn.

Financial Services and Markets Bill [HL]

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 6th July 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Hunt of Wirral]

142A: After Clause 22, insert the following new Clause—
“FCA: wholesale markets and firms division(1) The FCA must, within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed—(a) establish and maintain a dedicated unit (a “Wholesale Markets and Firms Division”) within its organisation, and(b) appoint a Deputy Chief Executive to lead this division.(2) The FCA must ensure that its relevant functions in relation to wholesale markets and firms are exercised and discharged through a Wholesale Markets and Firms Division.(3) The FCA, in discharging its functions through a Wholesale Markets and Firms Division, must—(a) act in a way which advances the regulator’s operational objectives,(b) act, so far as reasonably possible, in a way which advances the regulator’s duties under section 1EB (competitiveness and growth objective) and section 3B (regulatory principles to be applied by both regulators) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and(c) have regard, in particular, to the desirability of—(i) reducing regulatory burdens on participants in wholesale markets,(ii) facilitating innovation in wholesale financial services, and(iii) promoting sustainable growth and international competitiveness of UK wholesale markets.(4) A Wholesale Markets and Firms Division must be responsible for—(a) the development, implementation and supervision of rules and policies relating to wholesale markets;(b) authorisation and supervision of wholesale markets and firms; (c) engagement with market participants active in wholesale markets, including international firms;(d) advising the regulator on the impact of its policies and rules on wholesale market activity, investment and competitiveness.(5) The FCA must, at least once in each calendar year, prepare and publish a report on the activities of its Wholesale Markets and Firms Division.(6) A report under subsection (5) must—(a) be provided to the Treasury, and(b) include an assessment of—(i) steps taken to reduce regulatory burdens in wholesale markets,(ii) progress in supporting innovation,(iii) the contribution of wholesale markets to investment and growth in the United Kingdom, and(iv) the extent to which the regulator has advanced its secondary competitiveness and growth objective in relation to wholesale markets.(7) In this section—“wholesale firms” means regulated firms whose customers, clients or counterparties are pre-dominantly not covered by the UK consumer duty;“wholesale markets” means such markets, activities or classes of regulated activity as may be specified for the purposes of this section by the Treasury by regulations, having regard to—(a) the nature of transactions undertaken primarily between market counterparties acting in a professional capacity;(b) existing distinctions within the FCA Handbook (including, but not limited to, provisions relating to wholesale market conduct, eligible counterparties, and professional clients);(c) the role of such markets in facilitating capital allocation, risk transfer and investment at scale.(8) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (7) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to require the FCA to develop a dedicated division to undertake their regulatory activities in regard to wholesale market participants.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 142A and speaking to the other amendments in this group, which I also support, I am asking for the FCA to be able to develop a dedicated division to undertake its regulatory activities regarding wholesale market participants.

This amendment is all about ensuring that in what is a highly competitive global marketplace the FCA can balance its priorities and resources effectively to benefit the consumer or clients who use them in those markets that the FCA regulates. The FCA’s protection of the individual consumer is rightly prominent, but businesses that are customers of wholesale markets, such as our world-leading London insurance market, require a very different level of protection. Currently, the definition used by the FCA is very unclear and does not distinguish between these two very different sets of needs.

I declare my long-standing interest in financial services Bills over the last 50 years, particularly as a practising solicitor in the City of London and a partner in the firm DAC Beachcroft LLP. I have slowly but surely seen the evolution of regulation, but I am concerned that it is now inhibiting the growth of what is for us one of the great global centres, particularly for insurance. However, the definition of wholesale does not just apply to insurance; it applies to other aspects of financial services as well. The FCA is well aware of the issue. Indeed, it has been raised actively with the FCA over the last few years and there have been commitments to action. However, sad to say, progress is not being made. The FCA appears to be struggling with the definition of a retail consumer and has not found the best way forward.

Once again, we rely on our Select Committee to highlight the issue. The cross-party Financial Services Regulation Committee identified this as an issue, finding in its report last year:

“The FCA does not do enough to distinguish between firms that cater to wholesale and retail markets in its regulation and supervision which … imposes unnecessary burdens and frictions on firms … These issues have fuelled an increase in bureaucracy and imposed significant monetary and resource demands on firms”.


Witnesses to that Select Committee gave key examples. They show that wholesale and retail markets serve fundamentally different customers. Retail regulation is designed to protect individual consumers, whereas wholesale markets are primarily used by professional investors, insurance firms, banks, pension funds and corporate entities. The London insurance market deals almost exclusively with corporate clients, but the regulations take a one-size-fits-all approach, applying consumer-focused rules to firms and activities for which they were never really intended.

We have a situation where pet insurance is essentially regulated in the same manner as marine or aviation insurance. Policies and services delivered in the London market are bespoke to the individual client or individually negotiated and tended, where there is no evidence of this type of market failure. They are not unit-based commoditised products that are offered within the retail market. The FCA’s implementation of what is described as the consumer duty has introduced considerable uncertainty for domestic and international firms operating in the London market. This uncertainty is driven by a lack of clarity on the FCA’s expectations as to how firms should comply with the consumer duty, including which markets and consumers it applies to.

I believe, therefore, that a dedicated wholesale division would help to ensure that regulation is proportionate to the sophistication of market participants. That is why I feel so strongly that this amendment and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe’s amendment should be contained in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to address this issue for the first time as a Minister on a financial services Bill, recognising that, at the moment, we are dealing with two separate markets that are merged under the consumer duty, which is wholly inappropriate. I beg to move.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as an employee of Marsh, which is an FCA-regulated firm. I shall speak to Amendment 142C in my name, which seeks, in essence, to achieve something modest but necessary: equipping the regulator with a clearer and more effective framework within which to operate.

I am—as, I suspect, other noble Lords are—unequivocal in my support for well-judged regulation. It is the foundation of consumer protection, market integrity and London’s standing as an international global financial centre, particularly in insurance, as my noble friend Lord Hunt mentioned. However, the position in which we find ourselves today is one not of insufficient regulation but of fragmentation, with a system that in parts lacks clarity and coherence.

At present, the FCA operates without a clear statutory distinction between retail and wholesale clients. The distinction between wholesale and retail markets is not academic; it is fundamental, particularly in insurance. Retail regulation exists to protect individuals and small businesses. Wholesale markets are, by contrast, the domain of larger and corporate entities. These participants are not passive consumers. They are typically active, informed buyers engaging in complex and often bespoke transactions, as I said on Monday last week. This is very much in line with my noble friend Lord Hunt’s Amendment 142A, to which I have added my name.

This situation leads to a consequence: a degree of inconsistency that is, frankly, difficult to justify. Businesses of broadly similar scale and sophistication can find themselves subject to different regulatory treatments depending on the regime applied or the particular lens through which they are viewed. That uncertainty serves no one well. It imposes a cost on, first, firms, which must devote increasing resource to navigating overlapping and at times contradictory interpretations, and, ultimately, on consumers and smaller businesses, which bear that burden through higher costs and reduced access to services.

There is, however, a straightforward solution. Where my amendment takes that further than my noble friend’s is as follows. A turnover threshold of £6.5 million already exists in statute and is used by the Financial Ombudsman Service to reflect the size of companies. It reflects a determination made by Parliament of the point at which a business can reasonably be expected to possess a degree of financial sophistication and resource, and it could easily be adopted by the FCA.

My amendment does not seek to innovate for innovation’s sake; rather, it seeks to bring coherence by anchoring the distinction between retail and wholesale clients to that already established threshold. In doing so, it would provide the regulator with a clear statutory direction. It would also introduce a necessary discipline: that retail-style protections should not be applied to wholesale clients unless there is a demonstrable and proportionate case for doing so.

This is not about weakening regulation; it is about smart regulation. It is a call for regulation that is properly targeted and grounded in the realities of the market. This matters because we must allow the FCA to focus its efforts where they are most needed, which is on genuine customer protection for individuals—you and me when we are purchasing insurance, for example—rather than dispersing them across forms of compliance that add bureaucracy cost without delivering commensurate benefit.

There is a genuine competitive point here too. Post Brexit, we have the chance to move faster than Europe, but we can do that only if the industry has certainty. Businesses need to know where they stand. They cannot plan investment or hire teams based on regulatory guidance that shifts depending on whom you talk to and when. They need law. My amendment offers a measure of that certainty. It would reduce unnecessary friction and support the FCA in meeting its secondary objectives of growth and competitiveness, and it would do so without in any way diminishing the protection afforded to those who genuinely require it. This is a measured and pragmatic proposal that respects the importance of regulation while seeking to improve its application. I support the other amendments in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, what an important debate this has been. It has highlighted some of the difficulties facing the FCA in its wide remit, covering both wholesale and retail markets. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashcombe; as he pointed out, industry needs certainty. I warmly welcome the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, with all her knowledge of this area. She readily reminded us that the FCA acknowledges overreach. So the problem is there, but what is happening about it?

I am delighted to hear from the Minister that all these workstreams are progressing. But from talking to those outside—the London Market Group, for instance—they point out that the UK has to compete with New York, Singapore, Bermuda, Hong Kong and the EU financial centres, and it just cannot do that with the system of regulation that we have at the moment governing the wholesale markets.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden: it is all about proportionality. If I can pick up one point that the Minister made, it is to stress the need for proportionality or, as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond called it, applicability. I just think that there is a way through here. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe talked about the overlap between wholesale and retail. There must be a solution if we are to continue to be the global centre that we always have been.

At the moment, bearing in mind the growth and competitiveness objectives, and regarding a move by the FCA suddenly to take out wholesale, I would site it in Canary Wharf. That would send a message across the world that the UK really means to grow and be internationally competitive in this vital marketplace. We are bound to return to this on Report but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 142A withdrawn.

Steel Trade Measure

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

I would especially like to thank my officials, including Beth Sedgwick, Malte Werner and Chris Taylor, and the wonderful Lola Oates in my private office, for all the work they have done on this. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this episode says a great deal about the attention the Government pay to the business community. For months now, manufacturers, fabricators, construction firms and businesses in aerospace, automotive and defence have warned about the consequences of the Government’s original proposals, yet meaningful changes have come only at the 11th hour, just days before the new regime is due to take effect.

Now, we warmly welcome the partial changes that have been announced. It is right that the Government have increased the overall tariff-free quota, that they have reduced the proposed reduction in quota volumes from 60% to 51%, and that they have removed 11 product codes where there is no UK production. But the core problem remains. The Government have left untouched the 50% tariff once a quota is exhausted. This will be passed through supply chains into downstream sectors and ultimately into higher prices for British consumers.

Additionally, the Government themselves accept that some commodity codes contain both UK-produced and non-UK-produced grades and sizes. This poses grave problems for UK importing businesses which depend on specialist steel products, alloys and certified grades not readily available from domestic suppliers. There is therefore no genuine case-by-case exemption for specialist steel unavailable from a UK mill. There is only a quota. That is particularly worrying for smaller, high-value manufacturers—specialist firms which import smaller volumes but depend on particular grades—which have no realistic option but to pay the tariff. This will inevitably damage the competitiveness of our downstream sectors.

The Government have offered only a three-month transitional period, covering goods contracted before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September. However, industrial supply agreements, particularly for specialist steel, can run for years. Firms that entered into good faith long-term contracts may still face a 50% tariff, simply because delivery falls outside an arbitrary three-month window. The Minister may say that there was no choice; that the existing safeguard expires today, 30 June; and that delay would expose British steelmakers to global overcapacity and subsidised imports. That is precisely why the Government should have brought forward a credible long-term plan earlier, rather than arriving at the deadline with an emergency measure which has needed significant revision in its final days.

The Government’s own strategy recognises the central problem of industrial electricity costs. Steel is energy intensive. If Britain wants a strong domestic steel industry, it needs electricity prices that allow British producers to compete, not merely survive behind a tariff wall. Will the Minister explain what further action the Government will take to bring industrial electricity costs down for steelmakers and steel users alike? Will the Government scrap the carbon price burden on energy-intensive industry, rather than allowing firms to face ever more complex costs through the UK emissions trading scheme and the future carbon border adjustment mechanism? Will the Minister also address the growing regulatory burden? Will the Government at last repeal burdensome ESG reporting requirements, including those requiring businesses to report on greenhouse gas emissions, non-financial information and sustainability statements?

Can the Minister also answer the following questions? First, the Government’s exclusions rest on a test of “no production, or production paused”. How does the Minister justify keeping specialist grades in scope when there is no UK-produced equivalent that can realistically be used, particularly in aerospace and defence, in which supplier certification takes years? Secondly, will the Government consider creating an expedited exemption or review process for businesses which can demonstrate that a product is unavailable from a UK producer in the required grade, form, quantity or certification standard? Thirdly, when will we see a genuinely durable steel strategy, one which addresses energy and carbon costs, investment, planning delays and regulatory burdens?

Finally, earlier today, there was an Urgent Question in the other place on the impacts of the steel tariffs on businesses in Northern Ireland. There is no domestic steel-making capacity in Northern Ireland, which means that many in Northern Ireland will feel they are being penalised without the benefits of protecting their own steel industry. Can the Minister confirm how affordable steel will continue to flow into Northern Ireland under these arrangements?

In summary, Britain needs a strong steel industry, but it also needs strong manufacturers, strong construction firms, strong defence supply chains and competitive exporters. The task for the Government is not to choose between upstream steel producers and downstream steel users—it is surely to ensure that both can survive.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, as someone who has spent most of his life in Sheffield and South Yorkshire, I know that this issue is not an abstract discussion about tariffs and trade policies; it is about the future of communities that have made steel, engineering and manufacturing part of their identity for generations.

South Yorkshire has always been more than a producer of steel; it has been the place of innovation. Today, alongside our proud steel heritage, we are home to one of Europe’s leading advanced manufacturing clusters. The work taking place at Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, around the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, demonstrates what modern British manufacturing can achieve. Global companies such as Rolls-Royce, Boeing, McLaren and many others have chosen to invest there because of the extraordinary skills, research and engineering excellence that exists in our region. That is precisely why getting these measures right matters.

I welcome the Government’s Statement and in particular the improvements they have made following engagement with the industry, as we heard earlier. Increasing tariff-free quota volumes and removing product codes where there is no domestic production are sensible changes, and Ministers deserve credit for listening. We on these Benches have consistently supported action to strengthen British steel-making. A resilient domestic steel industry is essential for our economy, our nation’s security and our industrial future.

We also recognise the pressures created by global overcapacity and unfair competition. But if there is one lesson that Sheffield has taught us all over the decades, it is that our steel industry and our manufacturing succeed together. One cannot thrive if the other is weakened. The difficulty with these measures is the question of domestic non-availability. Many manufacturers in aerospace, defence, energy and precision engineering require highly specialised grades of stainless bar and cold finished bars that are simply not produced in the United Kingdom at the required grades, specifications, dimensions and commercially viable volumes. These businesses are not choosing to import because they are cheaper; they are importing because no British alternative is available.

My Lib Dem colleagues argued in the other place last week that downstream manufacturing supports around 300,000 jobs, compared to approximately 30,000 jobs in primary steel-making. We must therefore ensure that policies intended to protect one part of our industrial base do not inadvertently damage another that employs 10 times more people. In South Yorkshire, we understand those connections better than most. A component manufactured in Sheffield may end up in an aircraft engine, a Formula 1 car, a defence system or an offshore energy project. Those supply chains are complex, highly regulated and internationally integrated. Changing suppliers is not something that happens over a weekend, as we heard earlier; it requires years of qualification, testing and certification. For many firms, there is simply no immediate substitute.

I really hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that the remaining product categories, particularly categories 14 and 27, have genuinely been assessed against the reality of domestic supply, rather than simply the theoretical possibilities of production.

I also remain concerned about businesses that, as we heard earlier, entered contracts after March but before the final details were announced, only days before implementation. Manufacturers need certainty. Investment decisions are made over years and not weeks.

Finally, as the Government begin negotiations in the WTO Article 28 process, I hope they will retain a simple guiding principle: where specialist steel cannot be sourced domestically, permanent tariff barriers serve only to increase costs for British manufacturers without creating new British production. Sheffield’s history teaches us that British steel manufacturing succeeds through innovation, skills and partnership, not artificial shortages. Let us support British steel and British manufacturing, and above all, let us all ensure that industrial policy recognises that these sectors are partners in our nation’s success, not competitors for government support.

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

First, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, to his place and thank him for everything he has done so far for Sheffield Forgemasters. I thank both noble Lords for their contributions.

Let me begin with first principles. The United Kingdom needs a strong and resilient steel sector, both producers and downstream manufacturers. Steel is not simply another commodity; it is the backbone of our manufacturing economy, our defence capability, our critical national infrastructure and our economic security. A country that cannot make steel is a country that becomes increasingly dependent on others for some of its most strategic needs. Yet our steel industry faces an existential challenge. Fifty years ago, the United Kingdom produced 27 million tonnes of steel a year. Even as recently as 2010, we produced 12 million tonnes. By 2024, that had fallen to just 4 million tonnes, meeting around only 30% of our domestic demand. No responsible Government can simply stand by and accept that decline. That is why we are committed to doing two things in tandem.

First, we published our steel strategy on 19 March. It addresses the structural challenges facing the sector and is backed by up to £2.5 billion of government investment, alongside the £500 million already committed to Port Talbot, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will appreciate. In response to the noble Lord’s point about electricity, the Government also provide meaningful support through the British industry’s supercharger, helping to reduce electricity costs for this energy-intensive industry and strengthening its long-term competitiveness. Secondly, we committed to introducing robust new steel trade measures to safeguard domestic steel production and protect our ability to produce steel for defence, critical national infrastructure and the industries of the future.

Today, I have addressed that second commitment. I think every noble Lord recognises the scale of the challenge facing steel producers across the world. Global overcapacity, opaque state subsidies and artificially depressed prices mean that British steelmakers are not competing on a level playing field. For the past eight years, UK producers have benefited from the steel safeguard inherited from the European Union. That safeguard, introduced by the previous Government, provided an important degree of protection through quotas and a 25% out-quota tariff. But despite those measures, UK steel production continued to decline. We have now reached a critical point. Under WTO rules, the safeguard legally expires today and cannot be extended beyond eight years. The same rules apply to the European Union. Had we simply allowed those protections to lapse without replacement, UK steel production would have lost all meaningful protection overnight.

Doing nothing was never an option. Indeed, at precisely the moment when Canada, the United States and the European Union have all strengthened their own trade defences, failure to act would have left the United Kingdom exposed as one of the few major open markets in the world. We would quickly have become the destination of supply steel diverted from global markets. The consequences would have been profound. It would not simply have weakened our steel industry; it would have threatened its very survival.

That is why the Government have acted. From tomorrow, a new tariff rate quota regime will come into force. It introduces a 50% out-quota tariff while protecting only those categories of steel that are made or have the realistic potential to be made in the United Kingdom. We have always been clear that these measures must work not only for steel producers but for the manufacturers who rely on steel every day. That is why we have listened carefully to industry. Following extensive engagement, we have increased the volume of tariff-free quotas to 3.2 million metric tonnes—an increase of more than 560,000 tonnes compared to our provisional proposal, representing a significant 21% uplift. Nearly three-quarters of UK steel imports by value, and more than half by volume, remain outside the scope of these measures altogether.

We recognise that British manufacturers sometimes need specialist grades of steel that are simply not available from domestic producers. The quotas have therefore been carefully designed to ensure that those imports can continue without unnecessary additional costs. We have introduced transitional arrangements, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for contracts agreed before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September. We will review the operation of these measures after 12 months, monitoring their impact from day one.

We have worked intensively with the European Union. Given our deeply integrated supply chains, we have reciprocal arrangements that provide greater certainty for the UK-EU steel trade from tomorrow, while discussions continue on the longer-term partnership. We remain committed to working constructively with our international partners to address the root cause of the challenge of global overcapacity.

Some have questioned whether the measure is necessary. I simply ask them: do they believe that the United Kingdom should continue to have a sovereign steel industry? If the answer is yes, they must also explain how they would protect it from the flood of cheap, heavily subsidised steel created by global overcapacity. It is simply not credible to support British steel in principle while opposing every measure that is needed to preserve it. Our tariff and quota measures are not about protectionism; they are about fairness. They will ensure that British producers are not undercut by unfair trader imports and prevent the United Kingdom becoming a dumping ground for surplus steel.

Without action, thousands of highly skilled jobs, strategically important in the capabilities and future of steel communities across our country, would be placed at risk. There are those who argue that the market alone should decide and that we should simply buy the cheapest steel available, wherever it comes from, but we know how that story ends: we buy cheap today, domestic production declines tomorrow, the steelworks close, skills disappear and communities suffer. Then, when international markets tighten or geopolitical tensions rise, we suddenly discover that we have surrendered our sovereign capability and have nowhere else to turn. We have seen the consequences of allowing strategic industries to decline before. Communities across our country are still living with those consequences today. The Government are simply not prepared to repeat those mistakes.

The Government have made their choice: we choose to stand with British steel workers, manufacturers and communities whose livelihoods depend on this vital industry. We choose to defend our sovereign steel-making capability, because we understand that steel is not simply another sector of the economy; it is a strategic, tangible and national asset. These measures are fair, proportionate and necessary. They strike the right balance between protecting domestic producers and ensuring that downstream manufacturers have access to the steel they need to grow. Above all, they send a clear message that the Government will not allow the United Kingdom to become a dumping ground for surplus steel, nor will we stand by while our strategically important British industry is allowed to decline. We are backing British steel, protecting British jobs and safeguarding an industry that will remain fundamental to our country’s prosperity, resilience and security for generations to come.

Before I sit down, I will address the technical questions the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about how the measure will operate and the impact on sectors and businesses. Noble Lords will be aware that the measure will be reviewed in 12 months, and the Government will look at many of the issues the noble Lord raised and make necessary changes. However, I confirm that we will remain responsive to any significant changes in circumstances. While we want to provide the industry with as much predictability and certainty as possible, we reserve the right to intervene before the 12-month review if there is a serious and material change in market conditions and domestic supply.

The noble Lord also asked how the Statement will impact Northern Ireland. Specific arrangements are in place. These include specific tariff rate quotas from the EU, and facilitations to protect steel of UK origin moving within the UK from incurring duty. HMRC has confirmed these arrangements to industry, and more information will be available on GOV.UK tomorrow.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I join the Minister in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. It is so helpful to have someone with such experience of the steel industry participating in our debates.

I welcome some of the assurances that the Minister has given, but one of the questions I raised I would like him to focus on for a few moments: the growing regulatory burden faced by our steel industry. I join with him in saying that of course Britain needs a strong steel industry: it is part of our past and it must be part of our future. However, there are many signs that the growing regulatory burden is hampering growth in the sector, particularly the burdensome ESG reporting requirements, including those requiring businesses to report on greenhouse gas emissions, non-financial information and sustainability statements. He did not have time to deal with my question. Before I move on to the other questions, it would be helpful if he could address the growing regulatory burden faced by our industry.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. Ministers, colleagues and officials from the department have regular meetings with the sector, with producers and downstream users through an arrangement of sector councils and all that. We regularly get feedback from them. If any such requirements do hamper, we will take note of that, but so far, we have heard nothing from downstream users or producers. In respect of our international obligations, whether it is CBAM, ETS or whatever, we are a country that complies with international regulations. We have set out our case as far as CBAM and ETS are concerned and will continue to do so.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Dealing with the whole question of energy costs—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Sorry. I am perfectly happy to give way to Back-Benchers if anyone wishes to intervene.

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.

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.

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.