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.

Trade Act 2021 (Power to Implement International Trade Agreements) (Extension to Expiry) Regulations 2025

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about not being obtuse, it is compulsory to be obtuse on this subject.

I again welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box, with him having made a very accomplished maiden speech on the previous occasion which I boldly attempted to interrupt. This job may not have taken much selling to him by the Government, but I hope they told him, as I said to his predecessor, “What you’re really going to have to do is statutory instruments with a group of people who contracted Stockholm syndrome having been in the same room with the Conservative Front Bench literally for weeks”. I congratulate him and welcome him to his first statutory instrument on this.

As we have heard, the purpose here is to continue to extend the powers of the Trade Act 2021 beyond the end of the year. Why would you let a power lapse when you could keep it going? The answer I would infer is “just in case”. I am sure that no government would accidentally let go of powers, so that is perhaps the motivation. However, it is with these powers that the Executive partially exercise the royal prerogative which they use to maintain control over trade deals—what we sign, what they contain and how they are implemented.

Having happily spotted that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, would speak, I did not prepare a whole bunch of detailed questions on this statutory instrument. I did, however, prepare a broader critique of the scrutiny process that exists for trade deals and their like.

As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith KC, who chairs the International Agreements Committee, remarked in the front piece of a recent report on trade scrutiny,

“Treaties have the potential to raise matters of very great public importance”,


including trade agreements, but also other treaties such as the Rwanda treaty and the Chagos Islands agreement. He went on:

“Government has the power to negotiate and conclude treaties but it is important that Parliament can hold it to account effectively for its actions”.


That is where I am going to focus my speech; I am not going to challenge the validity of this statutory instrument, but I want to look at the scrutiny gap a little more, because it is a way of welcoming the Trade Minister to a really important matter. I hope that he will see the need for helping to improve Parliament’s grasp on what is happening.

When this statutory instrument was debated in the Commons, my friend the MP for Richmond Park—that is the Richmond in Surrey—Sarah Olney, gave the process a clinical demolition. She noted up front:

“The Liberal Democrats strongly opposed the Trade Act 2021, as it failed to provide sufficient parliamentary scrutiny of future trade agreements and risked weakening the UK’s high standards on health, food, labour and the environment”,—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 4/11/25; col. 5.]


and we heard a little of that just now.

The then Bill passed through the House of Commons in 2020 without amendment, despite cross-party efforts to introduce greater transparency and accountability. I tabled quite a few amendments in the Lords, as did others, but Sarah tabled amendments requiring transparent investment courts for investor disputes. This was to ensure human rights considerations in trade negotiations and to mandate assessment of trade agreements. Those, along with other opposition amendments—such as protections for the NHS and food standards—were voted down by the then Government.

We believe that trade deals have been weaker without these imperatives. We warned that the omission could lead to deals that lower standards or allow foreign influence over our public services. Now, as then, we believe that the 2021 Act grants excessive powers to Ministers, excluding MPs and your Lordships from meaningful involvement. It also provides no guarantee that UK standards, public services or democratic accountability will be protected.

The Lib Dems are not unique in calling for greater scrutiny. The most recent report from your Lordships’ International Agreements Committee—the one on which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, commented —is entitled Treaty Scrutiny in Westminster: Addressing the Accountability Gap. The news release for the report states that it

“concludes that the current statutory process for parliamentary scrutiny of treaties under Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010”—

or CRaG, as it is affectionately known by its devotees—

“is a weak and insufficient mechanism for securing meaningful accountability. The process has not changed significantly since the 1920s”.

Indeed, the Grimstone undertaking is about the most significant change that has happened since 1920. That is not hyperbole; it is a fact. Of course, in the 1920s, treaties had rather less impact on domestic affairs—they did not reach into public services or domestic standards in the way they do now—so we believe that too much discretion is given to the Government to act in ways that enable them to evade detailed scrutiny.

The news release further states that the report

“acknowledges that there is a balance to be struck between the flexibility the Government needs to negotiate and conclude treaties in the national interest and the transparency and scrutiny which the public interest requires. However, while the treaty scrutiny procedure codified in the 2010 Act”—

that is, CRaG—

“places some limits on the autonomy which the Government enjoys in international relations, the legislation tilts the balance too far in the Government’s favour. The report finds that the UK scrutiny process is weak in comparison with most other countries … The report concludes there is a powerful case for legislative reform and calls on the Government to engage seriously in a dialogue with Parliament … about this. Recognizing that legislative reform will take time, however, the report also recommends steps to make scrutiny under the current framework more effective provided the Government shows sufficient … will”.

I commend the report to the Minister; he should have a look at it because it is, obviously, very important to the portfolio that he now holds.

We Liberal Democrats will not vote against this draft statutory instrument, of course, but we will continue to call for reforms to ensure transparency and fairness in, and public scrutiny of, future trade policy. I look forward to the Minister’s reflections, as a newcomer, on trade policy and its scrutiny.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join noble Lords in welcoming the Minister. I too participated in the debate on the steel industry, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, where we had the benefit of two maiden speeches from the two new Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, and the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood. Looking back, that was a really good, wide-ranging debate. I thought this would be a very narrow, rather simple statutory instrument to deal with, having looked at it—until my noble friend Lord Lansley got up. It may be that it applies only to continuity agreements, but thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, we have entered a much wider debate. If I were the Minister, I would welcome that, because it gives him an opportunity to set the framework in the ways that my colleagues have outlined.

Having said all that, this instrument merely seeks to extend for a further five years the power under the Trade Act 2021. This power enables Ministers, including those in devolved Governments, to make regulations to implement the non-tariff provisions of continuity trade agreements with so-called partner countries—those that had agreements with the European Union before the UK’s exit. This instrument does not change the substance of the policy; it merely extends the time within which that power may be used from December 2025 to December 2030.

The rationale is that it will bring legal certainty and flexibility to implement existing and future agreements. I understood that it is particularly directed to those agreements under discussion with Switzerland and Turkey. I hope the Minister will be able to explain the context and answer the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Lansley. I would also like to know what has happened concerning the agreement under discussion with the Republic of Korea; the Minister may well be able to explain why he omitted to mention it.

Continuity and predictability in our trading relationships are indeed important for British businesses and exporters, particularly small and medium-sized operations. It is also sensible that the devolved Administrations can continue to use this power where matters fall within their competence. From paragraph 6.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum, on the legislative and legal context, I understood that the devolved Governments had been asked and were consulted on the power in Section 2(1). What happened in those consultations and what responses were received from the devolved Governments?

Then we have the whole question of parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements, which has been raised in this debate. It would be very helpful if the Minister could give us some outline of what his approach will be and the approach of his department. I would also like to press him on several points of oversight and accountability.

First, the powers granted under Section 2(1) must always be exercised within the statutory protections set out in the Trade Act. I instance employment rights; environmental standards, already referred to; animal welfare; data protection; and the integrity of our publicly funded healthcare services. It would be really helpful if the Minister could give us assurances on those points. Secondly, I would like him to give us a little more context about how this five-year period has been calculated. It must be used wisely. The power was always intended to be a transitional mechanism following EU exit. From looking back at those debates, already referred to, it was never seen as a permanent feature of trade policy. We therefore expect the Department for Business and Trade to report in due course on how frequently the power has been used and whether a further extension beyond 2030 will genuinely be necessary.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025

Lord Hunt of Wirral Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise swiftly to join the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, on a magnificent maiden speech, if I am allowed to say that. I will return to the content in a few moments. It gives me an opportunity to join the noble Baroness in praising the Government Chief Whip for having agreed to this debate. It is important to remind ourselves of how this all happened and evolved.

I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd of Effra, that she has an impressive record of service and, in particular, a great deal of knowledge about the issues she will face in office. She has an unrivalled opportunity to bring substance to the promises made at the last election. I think everyone will wish her well in fulfilling the destiny that the noble Baroness, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, prophesied for her, although I am not sure that she will be happy with one or two of the other comments that the noble Baroness mentioned about her background, of which I was completely unaware. But I loved her tribute to the river network that London is proud to have. They will be raising a glass in the Effra in Brixton tonight to praise her outstanding contribution to this debate.

Going back to where we have come from, I say to the Government Chief Whip that, when we look back at what happened on that Saturday 12 April, when the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and I wound up a debate—I moved an amendment for a sunset clause and the noble Lord moved an amendment to have a debate in both Houses of Parliament—I praise the Government Chief Whip. The House of Lords was at its best that Saturday, responding so positively to the fact that we need this debate. I am just sad that the other place is not having what would have been—had the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, been accepted—a debate on this subject.

We really could not envisage that so little would have happened to bring about the steel strategy, referred to by the noble Baroness. In a way, this debate is not well timed—although we all thought it would be—because we have yet to receive the steel strategy. Where is it? It was referred to as a concept by the noble Baroness in her speech, but it is now over six months since we last debated the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill, which became an Act that very day. There have been six months of delay, drift and indecision, which I believe is a direct result of the Government’s inability to get a firm grip on a serious situation. So where is the plan?

We have been promised and promised again a comprehensive steel strategy, and yet we are still waiting. So let us briefly go through the timeline. In December 2024, the then Secretary of State for Business, Jonathan Reynolds, told us that the Government would publish a steel strategy by spring this year. It would, he said,

“look seriously at the options to improve steel capabilities across the whole supply chain, including for primary steelmaking in the UK”.—[Official Report, Commons, 11/9/24; col. 40WS.]

As a result, when we came to debate this emergency legislation on 12 April, we tabled that sunset clause, and we were told by the then Secretary of State that it was unnecessary. He said that

“I do not want these powers a minute longer than is necessary”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/25; col. 841.]

Well, it is now October, and I must ask: when precisely will these powers cease to be necessary?

Between February and March this year, the Government ran a consultation on the strategy. By July, we were told that it would be published later this year. Then, in response to a Written Question on 4 September, the Government repeated the same refrain: “later in the year”. Here we are, deep into October, and no hint of any such strategy has emerged. We really need to see this strategy.

I understand from meetings we on these Benches have been holding with those affected that there was an opportunity last month for the new Secretary of State to chair the body that would evolve the steel strategy. But then, at the last moment, the meeting was postponed, and it has still to take place. I just say this: when the Conservative Party was in government, we demonstrated a clear and practical commitment to Britain’s steel industry, not through slogans or sound bites but through targeted investment and partnership. It was a Conservative Government who provided the £500 million grant to support the transition to electric arc furnace production at Port Talbot, already referred to by the two previous speakers. I believe that was a forward-looking measure designed to secure jobs and ensure that British Steel remains competitive in a constantly changing global marketplace.

The Government must surely recognise that nationalisation is simply not sustainable, especially in its current form. British Steel was losing around £700,000 every single day, and it is now the taxpayer who must shoulder that burden. According to Sky News, the cost of full nationalisation is estimated to be between £4 billion and £5 billion, an extraordinary sum by any measure. The Office for National Statistics has provided the first official assessment of the impact of this decision on public finances. Its analysis makes for grim reading. The ONS concluded that the move to nationalise British Steel will increase public sector net debt by approximately £600 million, with a further £900 million of financial pressure expected under the Government’s own preferred fiscal measure. Nationalisation is not a solution—it is a ruinously expensive illusion. It places an enormous burden on the public purse while offering no credible plan for long-term competitiveness in one of our strategic industries.

I hope that all sides of the House will agree that we want to have a strong industrial base in Britain. The strength of our industry determines the strength of our economy, our communities and indeed our nation, yet this Government’s approach since the election has shown a profound misunderstanding of what it truly means to build that strength. What the Government do is, I fear, as damaging as what they fail to do. A whole series of policies are combining to make the United Kingdom an increasingly unattractive and, frankly, unaffordable place to invest. I refer of course to the so-called job tax, the ill-conceived unemployment Bill, which we will return to next week—rejected almost universally by business—and the Government’s rigid ideological pursuit of net-zero targets, pursued without realism or regard for competitiveness.

UK Steel has stated that the UK steel industry has a hand tied behind its back as it faces electricity prices up to 25% higher than its European competitors, let alone its global counterparts. Uncompetitive power prices pose a threat to jobs and future investment and threaten to harm the Government’s own net-zero targets. Just three days ago, the United States ambassador to the United Kingdom, Warren Stephens, said he had told the Prime Minister directly that if the UK aspires to attract more foreign direct investment from the United States then we must lower our energy costs. He went on to say—and I quote him verbatim:

“When I meet with British business leaders—whether on AI, technology, agriculture, or manufacturing—the message is the same: high energy prices are holding back growth”.


We have already had reference to Sir Tony Blair, not a man who has always echoed the Conservative Party on economic matters, but today he has been quoted as urging the Government to scrap their arbitrary clean power targets—a moment of clarity that Ministers would do well to heed, in particular the noble Baroness.

We understand that there are global challenges, particularly given China’s approach of heavily subsidising its steel industry. We know that makes it difficult for British steel companies to compete. The imposition of tariffs by the European Union is also unhelpful. While we may recognise that some forms of state aid can incentivise private sector investment, Ministers must be cautious about introducing large subsidies, all paid for by the taxpayer. Subsidy, especially excessive and sustained subsidy, inevitably distorts markets and leads to misallocation of capital, as resources are lured towards the production of inherently uncompetitive goods and services.

We have already heard about the World Trade Organization. We need to know what further discussions have taken place with it since China’s trade policy review and the UK’s statement that,

“we call on China to rejoin international efforts to remove market-distorting subsidies which support excess capacity in steel making”.

We look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood. What do the Government intend to do to exert greater pressure, through the WTO, to ensure that China addresses its harmful and distorting subsidies?

The foundation of a strong industrial base, whether in steel or any other vital sector, lies in lowering the cost of production and creating the conditions in which businesses can compete and thrive. The principal challenge of our age in steel production is a technological one, but the necessary new technologies are now emerging, and we must decide whether we want to be at the forefront of them. If we want steel production, be it new steel or recycled steel, to become greener, we shall need more electric power, lots and lots of it, and at a price that is truly competitive. That will require investment and a truly national effort. Unfortunately, this Government are wilfully making the UK increasingly unattractive for both domestic and foreign investment, threatening skilled jobs across the country.

Steel is essential not only for our infrastructure and economic development but for our national defence. I am so glad that there is some form of consensus now, across the parties, that this is a question not only of emerging technologies, subsidies and tariff policy but of steel security. The Government must create an economic environment in which the steel industry—indeed, all industries—can thrive, expand and flourish, not merely hunker down and survive. The forthcoming November Budget and the long-delayed steel strategy must contain concrete measures to reduce long-term energy costs, restore our competitiveness, and give British industry the stability and confidence that it so urgently needs.