Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, this instrument makes consequential amendments to the Investigatory Powers Act 2016 following Parliament’s decision in the Employment Rights Act 2025 to create the Fair Work Agency, and brings together the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and HMRC’s national minimum wage enforcement teams. It ensures that officers performing the same GLAA-derived criminal enforcement functions will continue to have access to the same investigatory tools under the same statutory thresholds and safeguards once they sit within the new agency.

Where the GLAA is currently named in the Investigatory Powers Act, these regulations update that reference so that the Department for Business and Trade, in so far as it relates to the Fair Work Agency, is listed instead. All of the underlying safeguards in the IPA, including the statutory requiring purpose, the minimum 12-month sentence threshold and the requirement for necessity and proportionality, remain exactly as Parliament originally set them.

I fully appreciate that the powers to acquire communications data are intrusive and must be used only when necessary and proportionate. These powers concern the who, when and where of a communication—that is, subscriber details, timings and location data—but not the content of any call, message or email. They do not reveal what a person said or wrote. They remain significantly less intrusive than interception, yet they are vital tools in tackling the most serious forms of labour exploitation, where victims are often too frightened, too isolated or too controlled to come forward with evidence.

It may help the Committee if I explain the scope of these powers. Under the Investigatory Powers Act, communications data authorisations will be able to be given to the FWA only for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime. This is defined in primary legislation, and one of the key elements is that the offence must carry a sentence of at least 12 months’ imprisonment; that statutory threshold remains unchanged. We need to ensure that the Fair Work Agency can continue to investigate the same serious exploitation offences, including unlicensed gangmastering and modern slavery, that the GLAA handles today. Those offences already meet the existing statutory definition of serious crime, and therefore fall within the same communications data authorisation framework, applying the same necessity and proportionality tests and the same independent scrutiny as before. The threshold, authorisation process and full oversight of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner remain exactly the same.

In transferring these functions to the Fair Work Agency, we have ensured that the safeguards that apply under the Investigatory Powers Act will continue in full. Communications data applications will remain subject to independent scrutiny by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, including routine inspections and case sampling. The established single-point-of-contact system will continue to play its gatekeeping role, with an accredited specialist assessing every request to ensure that it meets the statutory crime purpose and satisfies the stringent tests of necessity and proportionality. Requests will still require authorisation by a designated senior officer at the appropriate grade and will continue to be submitted for approval by the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office, with only limited provision for urgent internal authorisation.

The Fair Work Agency will operate in full compliance with the communications data code of practice, ensuring that standards of record-keeping, error reporting and handling of sensitive material remain exactly as they are today. In short, the framework of safeguards that Parliament has already put in place remains completely unchanged. The change made by this statutory instrument is the updating of the public authority’s name, ensuring continuity of capability following Parliament’s decision to transfer the GLAA’s enforcement functions to the Fair Work Agency.

The GLAA has always used these powers sparingly. Historically, the number of communications data applications has been modest and focused on a small number of the most serious investigations, often concerning organised criminal exploitation, threats of harm or potential trafficking. That discipline of “last resort” use and that culture of necessity and proportionality will continue in the Fair Work Agency.

On implementation, the Fair Work Agency will bring together three regulators into a single recognisable body, making the system easier for workers to navigate and clearer for responsible businesses. This consolidation will not dilute expertise. Existing GLAA specialists will continue to carry out GLAA-derived criminal enforcement with the same training, oversight and legal powers. Early operational arrangements, including access controls and internal governance structures, will ensure that only appropriate officers can apply for or authorise investigatory activity.

On transparency, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner will continue to report annually on the use of these powers, providing Parliament with a clear overview of how these powers are exercised. In addition, I can confirm to the Committee today that the Fair Work Agency will report on its use of the Investigatory Powers Act powers in its annual report. This will allow Parliament to see clearly that use continues to be confined to GLAA-derived criminal investigations, just as today. We will reflect this commitment in the Fair Work Agency’s framework agreement and in its enforcement policy statement, in line with good practice.

This statutory instrument is essential housekeeping. It prevents an unintended and undesirable drop in capability during a period of organisational transition and ensures continuity in tackling serious labour exploitation while keeping all of the guardrails that Parliament put in place firmly intact.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the instrument before us is, on the face of it, a technical one. As the Minister explained, it ensures that enforcement officers of the new Fair Work Agency inherit the same communications data powers, under the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, that officers of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority held before them. However, the creation of the Fair Work Agency is the moment at which this Committee confers covert investigatory powers on a body whose structure, resourcing and operating principles remain, to a troubling degree, undefined.

I turn first to what I regard as the most fundamental concern: the departure from the settled policy of targeted, sector-specific enforcement. The GLAA was created for a reason. It was designed to address the specific and acute vulnerabilities of workers in agriculture, food processing, shellfish gathering and related sectors—industries where the risk of exploitation and labour abuse was demonstrably high and where ordinary enforcement mechanisms were plainly insufficient.

The Fair Work Agency sweeps that away. It appears that it will have a broad mandate to inspect any business in any sector at any time. That is a significant departure; we were given no adequate explanation for it during Committee or Report on the Employment Rights Act 2025. On what evidential basis have the Government decided that the enforcement problems, which were previously confined to high-risk sectors, now require a body with universal reach? What assessment has been made of the risk that this broader mandate will dilute the quality and focus of enforcement, rather than improving it? The Minister just mentioned a framework agreement, but am I not right in saying that this Committee has not yet seen even a draft of it? Perhaps the Minister will clarify that aspect.

This matters acutely for small and medium-sized enterprises, which are already facing more than £600 million in costs flowing from the Employment Rights Act—costs that are, in large part, administrative in nature, such as in record-keeping, compliance processes and reporting obligations. These activities will now fall within the Fair Work Agency’s line of sight. These businesses, many of which are without dedicated human resources functions or legal support, will be exposed to an agency that is armed with powers of entry, powers to seize documents and electronic records, and now, through this instrument, powers to obtain communications data covertly. What guidance will be issued to ensure that enforcement action against small businesses is proportionate? What safeguards exist to distinguish a genuine, minor administrative error from deliberate wrongdoing? Will businesses that make honest mistakes face the prospect of document seizure, substantial financial penalties and the full weight of this agency’s investigatory apparatus?

Businesses have said that they want any action taken against them to be proportionate, and that the Fair Work Agency should function primarily as a compliance partner, not as a punitive instrument. The Minister has said that she shares that aspiration, and I invite her to say how that aspiration will be given legal and operational effect.

British Business Bank

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The Government’s statement of strategic priorities had as its first objective to support our most promising businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors, and the digital and technologies sector is among the industrial sectors identified. When the next annual report comes out in a year, we will be able to tell exactly how successful that has been. However, we have seen, in the light of some of the direct investments made, that the British Business Bank has taken seriously the mandate to invest directly and is pursuing that pathway.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree with me how grateful we are to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, for introducing the subject of the British Business Bank, particularly at such a key time? Does she agree that, rather than setting demographic targets for investment, we and the British Business Bank should be focusing on backing the most investable opportunities in order to maximise productivity growth and returns for the taxpayer?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I could not agree more with the noble Lord’s first point: my noble friend has given us a good opportunity to talk about this important institution. The new mission set by the British Business Bank is to drive economic growth by helping smaller businesses to get the finance they need to start, scale and stay in the UK. That is how we will grow a more productive economy here in the United Kingdom.

UK-India: Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Grand Committee

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I pay special tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his pioneering work in chairing the International Agreements Committee. Several speakers have paid tribute to that work, but it goes far beyond this debate, although we are very grateful to him for moving the Motion that started it—and what an amazing debate it has been. There has been a great deal of passion.

I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Sahota, who talked about deepening the links between the Republic of India and the United Kingdom, and to the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, who ended by saying that this could be the start of something that grows and grows. That was the general atmosphere of this debate. We even had time to hear from my noble friend Lord Bates on the amazing character Dr Dilip Mahalanabis, the Indian paediatrician who pioneered the use of oral rehydration therapy and saved so many lives. We have had a wide-ranging debate highlighting the successes of our partnership with India.

But we also look to the future. Several speakers tried to catch the attention of my noble friend Lord Johnson, who has taken over the chair, in trying to widen the scrutiny of Parliament over treaties such as this. That is not for this debate; there will be a debate on that shortly. However, I certainly benefited from what almost every speaker has highlighted as one of the best reports of its type that they have had the privilege of reading. My noble friend Lord Howell said that. I always respect the views of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, and have done for decades, as he knows, and he thought it was the best report he had ever read. Several others also paid tribute. I hope the message gets through to those who were responsible for this report that it has been so welcomed in this debate.

It falls to me to speak from these Benches on behalf of His Majesty’s Official Opposition. I do so with a mixture of genuine welcome and profound disappointment: welcome because this agreement represents the fruits of seeds planted by the previous Conservative Government—it was good to hear from my noble friends Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon and Lord Johnson of Lainston that they started this whole process—but disappointment because what has been harvested falls considerably short of what British businesses, farmers, lawyers and investors deserved and had every right to expect.

One sentence, which several speakers have referred to, was very revealing. As a committee, the report said,

“we highlight the need for the UK-India trade agreement to be a living instrument, rather than a static one”.

I hope the Minister will take that, as he responds to the many questions which have been posed to him, as his soundtrack for demonstrating that this is just the start. There is so much else still to be done.

It was of course His Majesty’s Official Opposition who laid the foundations on which this agreement rests. I put this to the Committee with the greatest seriousness: we have to ask ourselves whether this deal will prove to be an exception rather than a template. While the Government stand at this Dispatch Box and trumpet the virtues of free trade with India, they simultaneously pursue, with quiet but unmistakeable determination, a path of ever closer alignment with the European Union.

The noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Fox, and my noble friend Lord Frost referred to the fact that we now have two deals. I think we need an analysis, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, just asked for, of the differences between the trade deal that has just been negotiated by the Republic of India with the European Union and this international UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. I am sure that, although we will give the Minister as much time as he needs, there is probably not time to set out all the differences. I can readily appreciate that there will be areas that concerned the European Union which we would not be that concerned about—certain products and services—but certainly, so far as our financial, professional and legal services are concerned, we really need to know why this agreement is such a disappointment.

As all speakers have agreed, India is the United Kingdom’s 11th-largest trading partner. It is a nation that represents probably one of the most significant consumer opportunities available to British exporters anywhere in the world. My noble friend Lord Ahmad, after his 10 years as a Minister, highlighted that India is a nation that represents one of the most significant opportunities available to us anywhere on the planet. Yet, under this agreement, 99% of Indian goods imported into the United Kingdom become tariff free. Immediately, from day one, Indian exporters will gain full, immediate and essentially unimpeded access to British consumers and markets. Meanwhile, UK exporters will not receive that treatment, and we need to know why. My noble friend Lord Dundee posed these questions. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s answers because he must explain to this Committee why British exporters were placed at this disadvantage. What was the strategic rationale? What concession did we extract in return?

Several noble Lords mentioned the whisky industry, which provides a vivid illustration of the broader picture. A tariff of 150% is reduced to 75% on day one and will be reduced to 40% only by year 10. The Scotch whisky industry, one of Britain’s great export success stories, one of the jewels of our manufacturing and agricultural heritage, must wait a decade to see tariffs reduced to a level that is, let us be frank about it, still remarkably high. Our competitors will not be standing still in the meantime.

I turn to probably the significant omission, speaking now as a practising solicitor, still. The omission in this agreement that I regard as one of its most serious and damaging failures is the treatment, or rather the non-treatment, of legal services—as the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, services represent virtually 80% of our economy—and the missed opportunities. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, I cannot quite understand why they have received this treatment. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, the Law Society and the Bar Council have described this deal as a missed opportunity. The very practitioners who would have benefited most directly from meaningful market access provisions for legal services have looked at this agreement and concluded that it falls far short of what should have been achieved.

I suppose in many ways our own International Agreements Committee has gone further still, describing the exclusion of legal services as a strategic error and noting that legal services do not merely serve their own sector but actively support and facilitate trade across virtually every other sector of the economy. Data from the Law Society shows that in London, 83% of lawyers working in the largest 50 international law firms are UK-qualified. This shows that international firms overwhelmingly create employment for local lawyers, rather than importing lawyers from overseas. I feel that an open legal services market creates high-skilled employment, particularly for young professionals. At a time when youth unemployment in the UK is higher than anywhere in the EU, expanding opportunities in globally competitive sectors such as legal services should be a government priority. I would love to hear from the Minister that it is.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, with all her experience in the European Parliament, reminded us of the importance of SMEs. My noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford gave us the statistic that small businesses—those with between nought and 49 employees—make up 99.18% of the total. What a shattering statistic that is. What is going to happen so far as SMEs are concerned? The noble Baroness pointed out that they need extensive support. I think her phrase was “targeted facilitation”; I hope we will hear from the Minister that he is determined to provide that.

Perhaps in summary, we just need to know from the Minister what representations were made to the Indian Government on the inclusion of legal services. What was the response? What is the concrete, timetable-specific plan to address this omission in future negotiations? What assessment have the Government made of the implications for UK legal services exports and the economic impact of the absence of provisions on market access in the UK-India trade agreement?

Like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I share the concerns raised by the National Farmers’ Union and Dairy UK. Their analysis shows that British dairy exporters gain no meaningful reciprocal access to the Indian market. We open our doors; they just do not open theirs. Several speakers have asked that we should now look into the extent to which British dairy farmers, already under enormous pressure and struggling with cumulative costs of this Government’s policy choices, surely cannot be told just to get on with it. There has to be some recognition of their concerns.

I suppose this is not an isolated concern. As several of my colleagues have pointed out, it is part of a pattern because every time this Government have a serious opportunity to achieve meaningful economic growth, stand before the British people and the British business community with the tools genuinely to empower enterprise, to unleash the productive potential of this economy against protectionism, and to demonstrate that a Labour Government can be a friend to business, they fall short. The Minister has the chance to put that right.

The Government have an opportunity to demonstrate how this agreement can be the living instrument that your Lordships’ committee described. As my noble friend Lord Johnson of Lainston reminded us, the Conservative Party is the party of free trade. We will continue to hold this Government to the highest standards in their trading ambitions because British businesses, workers and consumers deserve nothing less.

Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Grand Committee

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

My Lords, in moving these regulations, which were laid on 13 January, I will speak also to the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Adoptions from Overseas) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 and the Employment Rights Act 1996 (Application of Section 80B to Parental Order Cases) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

First, let me express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent for successfully steering the Private Member’s Bill through this House to Royal Assent in 2024. I also thank the honourable Member for Bridgend, who was instrumental in guiding the Bill through the other place. I pay particular tribute to Aaron Horsey, who has campaigned with remarkable dedication on behalf of bereaved fathers following the tragic loss of his wife Bernadette shortly after the birth of their son, Tim; Aaron joins us here today.

The Parental Leave (Bereavement) Act 2024 established a new statutory entitlement to bereaved partner’s paternity leave of up to 52 weeks for employed fathers and partners if the mother or primary adopter dies in the first year of a child’s life or adoption. The Bereaved Partner’s Paternity Leave Regulations 2026 outline the details of this entitlement. The further two sets of regulations ensure that those having a baby through international adoption or surrogacy arrangements are in scope for leave.

Currently, fathers and partners in these tragic circumstances who do not qualify for paternity leave or shared parental leave must rely on the compassion of their employers to take adequate time off work to care for their child. Although the Employment Rights Act removes the continuity of service requirements for paternity leave, fathers and partners remain limited to a maximum of two weeks’ statutory leave. Bereaved partner’s paternity leave will plug this gap to ensure that bereaved partners are guaranteed a longer period off work to care for their child.

Thankfully, the number of people who face this situation is low. Each year, there are around 180 maternal deaths within 12 months of childbirth. We estimate that around half of those eligible will take up this leave, meaning that these regulations are likely to support about 90 bereaved partners each year. Some partners may be eligible for shared parental leave, which accounts for the reduced figure.

Bereaved partner’s paternity leave is a day one right, meaning that there is no continuity of service requirement. Bereaved fathers and partners will be able to start taking leave from the day after the death of the mother or primary adopter. The leave must end on the child’s first birthday or the first anniversary of their adoption, unless it is necessary to go beyond this date to ensure that an employee is always entitled to at least two weeks of leave.

To be eligible, the bereaved partner must be an employee rather than a worker or self-employed. They must be the child’s father or the mother’s or adopter’s spouse, civil partner or partner at the time of the mother’s or adopter’s death. They must also have main responsibility for the child’s upbringing and be taking the leave for the purpose of caring for the child. Together, these regulations will ensure that employees who lose their partner in the time surrounding childbirth or adoption will have access to a guaranteed period of leave to care for a new child.

The notice requirements reflect that an individual will be in a devastating and unforeseeable situation immediately after their partner’s death. Therefore, to start the leave in the first eight weeks after their partner’s death, they can give notice informally, any time before they are due to start work on their first day of absence. This could, for example, be a text message or a phone call to their employer. To take more than eight weeks after their partner has died, an employee must give one week’s notice in writing. This longer and more formal notice period balances the needs of employers with the flexibility needed by employees in these tragic circumstances.

Taking bereaved partner’s paternity leave will not affect a parent’s ability to take any other family leave entitlements they qualify for, such as shared parental leave. However, the entitlement must be taken in one continuous block. If an employee takes bereaved partner’s paternity leave to care for a child, and the child sadly passes away or an adoption placement ends, the bereaved partner will still be entitled to eight weeks of leave. This reflects that the leave is designed to support care responsibilities during an exceptionally difficult time. This approach is consistent with other forms of parental leave, such as adoption leave, helping to maintain a clear and coherent framework across family related entitlements.

Employees on bereaved partner’s paternity leave will be entitled to redundancy protections while on leave, regardless of how much leave they take. They will also be protected for 18 months from the birth or placement for adoption if they take six weeks or more continuous leave. This is equivalent to the protections given to those who take shared parental leave and neonatal care leave.

The Government have assessed the impact of bereaved partner’s paternity leave on businesses and found it to be minimal. We estimate an annual cost of approximately £0.9 million to businesses, mainly from reorganising work during employee absence. As the entitlement is unpaid, the cost is limited, and we considered the measures necessary and proportionate, given the tragic circumstances in which they will apply.

The Government appreciate the challenges businesses face in fulfilling their duties towards their employees. My officials are working with ACAS to ensure that guidance is available. The Government will also publish this guidance on 6 April on GOV.UK.

I take this moment to thank all those who have been involved in the development of the bereaved partner’s paternity leave. I hope they are as proud as I am of the difference this will make to families in one of the darkest periods of their lives.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, these Benches offer our wholehearted support for these regulations, and I know our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, if he were not involved in the Chamber on the Crime and Policing Bill, would join me in supporting them.

The sort of circumstances we are speaking of can be some of the most devastating circumstances and experiences. This is the sort of grief that does not pause, that does not observe working hours and that demands time, space and the presence of everyone in support. At least, then, the grief can be borne. I pay tribute, as has the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, to those who have secured—

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal)]

My Lords, the Committee stands adjourned and will resume at 5.53 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I pay tribute, as did the Minister, to those who have secured this important step forward. Of course, we on these Benches know this terrain. It was His Majesty’s Official Opposition when in government who laid the foundation upon which these regulations rest. The Parental Bereavement (Leave and Pay) Act 2018 was a measure of which I and my party are proud. It was one of the most humane pieces of legislation of recent decades; a recognition by the state that the law must sometimes speak not in the language of productivity or commerce but in the language of compassion. Fathers must not be left behind, and these regulations are a welcome step forwards to ensure they are not.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, for his compassion and understanding of the issue and his support for the regulations. They represent an important step forward and will ensure that fathers and partners who experience this unimaginable loss are afforded the protection, stability and support they need in an exceptionally difficult and unforeseeable period in their lives. I commend the instrument to the Committee.

US Tariffs

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 23rd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

At the moment, these are bilateral conversations. We are acting in good faith and hope that they will come to a successful resolution.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are trying to reassure the nation that they do not expect the ruling to affect the majority of trade under the economic prosperity deal, but as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, pointed out, there is huge uncertainty. Can the Minister clarify precisely what proportion of UK exports to the United States that represents and which sectors now fall outside that protection?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The confidence that I am trying to relay is not unfounded. As we saw from last week’s announcements, part of the macroeconomic situation that we are trying to turn around has seen inflation fall and the largest recorded government surplus since the 1990s. That is the overall message that we are trying to relay. In terms of specific industries, the negotiations are ongoing. I do not have the specific numbers to hand, but I remind the House that, globally, we have the most preferential deal with the rates that we have secured for industries, and we will continue to fight on behalf of British business.

Post Office Capture and Horizon Scandals

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I share and acknowledge the noble Lord’s passion for the subject. Accountability for Fujitsu will be rooted in evidence and due process. Wyn Williams’ inquiry is the proper mechanism for establishing what went wrong and who is responsible, and for the financial commitment. Fujitsu has acknowledged a moral responsibility to contribute to the costs of that redress, and Minister McDougall met with the European CEO in December last year and, in the recent Select Committee, the CEO confirmed the commitment to follow that moral responsibility with financial responsibility.

To the secondary question about government contracts, Fujitsu rightly said that it will not be applying for new government contracts unless the Government ask it to, where those services are necessary. In researching this question, I imagined this would come up: the Government have 68 live contracts with Fujitsu in some critical services, which include HMRC’s self-assessment tool and the Home Office’s border control systems. Walking away from these contracts instantly would do serious damage to important public services, so this is not a viable option. However, it has committed to the new software for the Post Office being completed in the middle of next year. If we were to stop that software service today, all postmasters would have to close. That is not pragmatic, unfortunately.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will already be aware that there is considerable concern in this House, on all sides, that there are still victims who have not received financial compensation. Beyond that, what specific non-financial support is being provided to those victims who have suffered significant mental health harm, and how are the Government ensuring that appropriate psychological and restorative support will remain available?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The noble Lord reminds us all that, behind each of these numbers, there is an individual family that has suffered, as my noble friend so rightly highlighted today. The process that has been set out is careful to ensure that we are not retraumatising people going through the redress system. A new scheme called the family members redress scheme is currently in consultation with the Lost Chances group. We expect announcements shortly to ensure that the noble Lord’s question is fully answered.

Land Covenants: Supermarket Chains

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 4th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

It is important to state that the reason for some of these restrictive covenants in business is that they are commercially negotiated and should be mutually agreed in the bounds of setting up a contract. This is quite a normal course of action, so I want to make sure that I am not stood here in any way demonising the large retailers entirely. However, particularly pertinent to the point of the homes target, the Government, through the Planning and Infrastructure Act, are looking at how we streamline all our planning for homes and critical infrastructure, and I suggest that land usage by the major retailers would come within that review as well.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Watts, does the Minister share my concern that, over recent months, there is increasing evidence that delays from the Competition and Markets Authority are having a serious effect on a number of key areas? The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned the digital markets regulation side, but there are also outstanding decisions on veterinary services, cloud computing and legal services. The Minister may be aware that the authority is now looking at what it calls the four Ps project—pace, predictability, proportionality and process. Is he happy with its progress?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

In preparation for this Question, I spent a bit more time than I should have done learning about the CMA’s role. I agree that, as we look to create a regulatory framework that is both agile and appropriate, it is only right that we ask the same questions of the CMA. There is a strong strategic steer from this Government about making sure that we have the right regulation and application for growth and pace. On price, product, place and promotion, I suggest that we have to reverse that and apply it to the CMA, so I will be asking that question and will come back to the noble Lord on that.

UK Start-up Companies

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for his question. We expanded the eligibility for various schemes to support entrepreneurs and scale-up businesses such as the enterprise management incentives and the enterprise investment scheme. I will need to consult with Treasury colleagues specifically on venture capital trusts, because I believe that we increased the investment limits for venture capital trusts but the nature of his question suggests otherwise.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that an increasing number of entrepreneurs are saying that Britain is becoming an increasingly unattractive place to grow a business? Given that AI start-ups, in particular, depend on access to powerful data centres for success, the principal barrier that she could address is that we have the highest electricity prices in Europe. Will she now set out a clear strategy to reduce electricity costs so that AI companies can realistically build scale and remain in Britain?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Our approach to the AI opportunity is comprehensive. It includes the AI growth zones which are being announced and include full access to energy as part of the package as well as local skills packages of £5 million per area to ensure that local areas benefit from these AI growth zones.

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

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in welcoming the Minister to her first appearance in Grand Committee. What better example could she have of the way in which things can develop in this place where there is agreement on all sides? She may have felt on Monday that it was not possible to reach agreement on the matters before us then, when she played a prominent part. Although the House of Lords has expressed its views strongly, I still think there is room for agreement, which I very much hope will follow. Having said that, perhaps I may set an example of what can be done and say that I approach this statutory instrument in a constructive spirit because we support cybersecurity protections for consumers.

The UK consumer device security regime, which was introduced under the previous Government, set an important international benchmark. As more of our daily lives depend on connected devices, it is vital that products are secure by design and that consumers are protected from avoidable vulnerabilities. These regulations provide a practical amendment to the existing framework through recognising Singapore’s cybersecurity labelling scheme and Japan’s Japan JC-STAR STAR-1 as equivalent to our baseline. They remove unnecessary duplication for manufacturers, while at the same time maintaining consumer safety. Where trusted partners meet high standards—rooted, as the noble Baroness has just pointed out, in the same ETSI framework underpinning the UK regime—it is reasonable to avoid repeat testing and reduce barriers to trade. Therefore, we do not oppose the SI but, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I have a number of questions. I hope the Minister will be able to clarify a few points.

My first question is similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. How will the Government monitor ongoing equivalence? The Singaporean and Japanese schemes may evolve. If their requirements then diverge from the UK’s baseline, what mechanism will be used to reassess or revoke recognition? If they move too far in the wrong direction, what will we do? As the noble Lord pointed out, this is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises that need some certainty about the way in which these regulations will be enforced. Secondly, on enforcement, where a product enters the UK market with a foreign label, will our regulators have access to the evidence underpinning that certification? What steps will be taken if a certified product is later found to contain vulnerabilities? Finally, while the impact is assessed as below the threshold for a full assessment, can the Minister share any indicative estimates of the expected benefits to business, whether in reduced compliance costs or faster access to market?

In summary, international co-operation on cyber standards is vital and these regulations represent a sensible step in that direction. We support the intention to streamline compliance while upholding robust protections for UK consumers. However, continued oversight and clarity from the Government will be essential to ensure confidence in the system as it develops. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

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

The Minister is closely associated with Sir Tony Blair and, I believe, served on The Tony Blair Governance Initiative. Labour’s plans to strengthen workers’ rights risk harming jobs and hurting growth, as Sir Tony Blair has personally warned. His former think tank said that the controversial day one protections against unfair dismissal would make it more expensive and riskier to hire workers. The Tony Blair Institute said that the “extreme”—its word, not mine—reforms threaten to undermine the critical strength of the British economy. It says that they would erode business confidence to hire and ultimately undermine growth. It is not too late. I urge the Government to reconsider.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Motion C1—but before I do so, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that I am in complete agreement with the speech that he made on Motion A1. To recall the words that he used before, the Government were put on notice that they needed to come forward with a solution, but solution there is none. Requiring all businesses to offer guaranteed hours to every worker, including those who do not want them, imposes an unnecessary administrative burden, and one that falls, as my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has just pointed out, particularly heavily on small businesses. It also sits uneasily with the Government’s stated intention to reduce the regulatory load on businesses by 25%. Should the noble Lord, Lord Fox, choose to test the opinion of the House, he will have our support.

On Motion C1, the Government have to recognise that seasonal work is fundamentally different in nature from permanent or year-round employment, and defining it clearly in statute will ensure that this Bill, as well as any future legislation, properly reflects the realities faced by seasonal industries. Seasonal businesses operate within narrow windows of opportunity; their labour needs rise sharply and predictably at various times of the year, then fall away again. Without a clear and credible definition, there is a risk of uncertainty both for employers trying to comply with the law and for workers trying to understand their rights.

We on these Benches have spoken to many seasonal businesses, large and small, and they remain concerned about the potential impact of the Bill and the absence of a framework that recognises the specific characteristics of seasonal labour. If the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment, we will test the opinion of the House.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to the debate today. Let me start by recapping the reason for this measure.

There is a moral case to press ahead with ending exploitative zero-hour contracts. We aim to rebalance the scales so that all the risk associated with insecure work is not placed on workers. By our doing so, work will become more secure and predictable, saving workers in some of the most deprived areas up to £600 in lost income, strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy and increasing productivity, rather than the obverse.

On business engagement, we have indeed engaged with businesses and consulted them, both directly and through federations that represent a large number— hundreds and thousands—of small businesses. We will continue to do so as we implement all the measures in the Bill. We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with businesses big and small and will arrange focus sessions with SMEs specifically to look at the practical implementation, understand any challenges and make sure that we give the right guidance.

I want to reflect on the point about business regulation and the 25% target. We have established a baseline for the administrative burden; the 25% target is about ensuring that regulation is proportionate and efficient and works for business. It is not about blocking regulation that is needed to deliver the Government’s priorities. We want to implement the Bill in a way that delivers the intent as efficiently as possible. For example, the fair work agency will consolidate the functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate and the Director of Labour Market Enforcement into a single body, so we are reforming as we go ahead with all these measures, and we believe that, fundamentally, this is about balance.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the issue of seasonality. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are fully conscious of the need to take account of fluctuations in seasonal demand, while ensuring that workers are not left holding all the risk. Under the Bill, there are several ways that an employer could approach seasonal demand while upholding the new rights, depending on circumstances. I set out some of those in my opening speech, but they could be limited-term contracts or guaranteed hours in various ways, such as an annualised hours contract. We think it is important to continue to consult on seasonality.

On growth, we have seen huge progress in foreign direct investment and trade agreements. We are very keen to continue to promote the economic prospects of the country, which is fundamental to improving the productivity of the labour market. In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for their contributions today and I look forward to further discussions on these issues.