Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 June be approved.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 30 June.

Motion agreed

Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, these regulations will make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the operation and transparency of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE. They will also correct a technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, which I will refer to as LLPs.

The Government remain committed to improving the transparency of beneficial ownership as part of our efforts to tackle economic crime while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards for sensitive personal information. Noble Lords will be aware that the ROE, established by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, is a key part of that framework. It is a public register requiring overseas entities that own or purchase land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers to Companies House.

The register plays an important role in exposing ownership structures and supporting efforts to combat illicit activity. Information on the ROE has been used by law enforcement agencies, journalists and others investigating corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals. Last year, the Government increased public access to trust information on the ROE through the launch of the trust disclosure service on 31 August. The service allows members of the public to apply to Companies House for access to trust information held on the register. Applicants must provide their own details, together with the overseas entity’s name and identification number. While this information is publicly available, applicants must also provide the name of the trust they wish to investigate. However, the trust’s name is not publicly available on the register.

In addition, where an application relates to trust information involving a person under the age of 18, the applicant must demonstrate a legitimate interest. This requires evidence that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions breaches. Where legitimate interest cannot be demonstrated, all associated trust information is withheld, including information relating to adults. These requirements can create barriers to access and limit the effectiveness of the service. This instrument will therefore make two targeted changes to improve public access to trust information and ensure that the service operates as intended.

First, it will remove the requirement for applicants to provide the trust name when requesting information. This addresses a significant barrier, as many applicants are unlikely to know that information, resulting in applications being rejected. Secondly, the instrument will change how information is held where a trust involves a person under the age of 18. Where legitimate interest is not demonstrated, Companies House will be able to disclose trust information relating to adults while continuing to withhold information relating to the individual under 18. This will ensure that access is not unnecessarily restricted simply because a minor is connected to the trust. Information relating to those under 18 will continue to require a legitimate interest before it can be disclosed. Taken together, these changes will increase transparency and public scrutiny while maintaining appropriate protections for minors.

The instrument will also make targeted improvements to the ROE protection regime by simplifying the process for removing a residential address from the public register. Currently, individuals may apply to Companies House to have their home address removed, but they must provide supporting evidence. This protection regime helps safeguard individuals who may face the risk of violence or intimidation if their personal information is publicly available.

These regulations will remove the requirement to submit supporting evidence when applying to remove a home address from a public ROE. In most cases, the register can already verify whether an address is residential. The change therefore removes an unnecessary administrative burden. The regulations will also require applicants to provide a replacement service address for publication on the register, except in limited circumstances.

Finally, the instrument will make a limited technical correction to the LLP framework. A requirement to provide additional address information was inadvertently introduced ahead of schedule; these regulations remove that requirement for now. It will be reinstated once the necessary systems are in place for both companies and LLPs. Work to achieve that is already under way. In the meantime, other address information will remain publicly available.

Taken together, these are sensible and proportionate amendments. They improve the transparency and operation of the ROE while making a necessary technical correction to the LLP framework. I thank noble Lords in advance for their contributions and will endeavour to address in my concluding remarks the points that they may raise. I am grateful for the support shown across the House for these regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to these regulations, which form part of the ongoing work to strengthen and refine the register of overseas entities, a register introduced by the Conservative Government to bring greater transparency to overseas ownership of UK land and to protect our economy from illicit finance. The instrument before us makes targeted and practical improvements to ensure that the register continues to operate effectively, balancing transparency with the proper protection of personal and sensitive information. These are measured and proportionate adjustments that respond to operational experience and ensure that the system remains robust, fair and fit for purpose.

As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of the register is to increase transparency around the beneficial ownership of overseas entities that hold land in the United Kingdom and to strengthen the UK’s defence against illicit finance. The framework for the register, including the treatment of trust information, was designed to balance two important principles: first, transparency, to ensure that overseas ownership structures cannot be used to conceal criminal activity; and secondly, privacy and proportionality, particularly in relation to sensitive trust data and information involving minors.

Since the register came into force, operational experience has highlighted several areas where the legislation could be improved to ensure that the system functions as intended. These include: first, the requirement to provide the name of the trust when applying for trust information, which in some cases risked revealing personal or sensitive details; secondly, the rules governing access to trust information where minors are involved, which were found to be overly restrictive; and thirdly, the administrative burden placed on individuals seeking to remove their home address from the public register, even where Companies House could verify the information internally.

The regulations before the Grand Committee today are intended to address these practical issues. They refine the balance between transparency and privacy; ensure that sensitive information, particularly relating to children, is handled appropriately; and streamline processes where the register already has the means to verify information. Taken together, these amendments represent a continuation of the work begun when the register was created, strengthening its operation, improving its accuracy and ensuring that it remains a robust tool within the UK’s wider economic crime framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, to his new role and congratulate him on it, and I thank both noble Lords for the points raised during this very short debate. I start by saying that the UK’s approach to the ROE is way ahead of international standards in this area. The Government are continuing efforts to enhance transparency and support greater scrutiny of trusts’ information, where appropriate and proportionate, monitoring the impact of reforms and engaging with stakeholders to ensure that the register remains effective. Part of that effort is the asset ownership review, led by my noble friend Lady Hodge, announced in the Government’s anti-corruption strategy. This will, among other things, consider the approach to trust transparency across government.

I just touch on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I have been told that the technology and systems in Companies House are holding back the required updating of information, but I have been informed that work to improve them is ongoing at pace, and a requirement for both LLPs and companies will, hopefully, be commenced very soon once that is completed. I do not have details at hand on when that will be completed, but I will get officials to find out from Companies House when it will be done.

The noble Lord made the point that a regular review and update from Companies House is well overdue. I will ensure that my officials reach out to Companies House to perhaps organise a drop-in session with interested Peers in this area, so at least we can ask officials from Companies House the questions that the noble Lord posed in respect of the timeframe, the technology system and, more importantly, the enforcement unit—where the resources have been allocated to make it effective. It is good having all this on the statute book and in legislation but, if enforcement is ineffective, it means nothing, so we must ensure that that is done as well. I am very grateful for the support across the Committee for these regulations.

Motion agreed.

Steel Trade Measure

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Dealing with the whole question of energy costs—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me that the announcement made today was essential. The Government would have come in for criticism had they not put forward such a Statement.

Is it consistent with the contents of the steel Bill, for which we have done the first day of Committee and are about to have day 2. I am assuming that everything that has been said today is consistent with the Bill that is going through. Clearly, there will have to be other announcements made as and when we see what is needed to support the industries. There must be some unknowns in all of this. If the Minister has any indication of when we might know the end of the passing of the steel Bill, that would be helpful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for those points. First, let me say something about the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill that is going through this House. That Bill gives us a framework to acquire any steel undertaking in the public interest. Once we do acquire, in the public interest, that aligns with our overall steel strategy, which is to support our domestic supply of steel. That is precisely what we are doing, to increase domestic supply, which is currently 30%, to as much as 50%.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, we are now on the Back-Bench section of questions to the Minister on the Statement. As there do not seem to be any more Back-Benchers wishing to ask questions, and we are still waiting for the full complement of Front-Benchers to continue with next business, I suggest we adjourn briefly to a time to be announced on the annunciator.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, his team, the department and the two experts who came all the way from Coventry in 35-degree temperatures to educate the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and me on the technology of steel. It has been very co-operative and I thank them.

I am slightly confused by how narrowing these words are: “of or including” versus “predominantly”. What is predominantly? Is it 60:40? Is it 55? I do not know. You have to look upon it with the body language of the Government. The Government have shown no tendency to go on a nationalisation rampage through all businesses that have ever touched a piece of steel. It is very clearly focused in one area, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, alluded to. Also, I remind noble Lords that there is a sunset clause in here which closes it after two years. So the talk of subsequent Governments does not have particular purchase and I am much more relaxed than the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on this.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement in advance of Committee, and for all the amendments and valuable contributions that they will make during it.

Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seeks to introduce a narrow definition of a “steel undertaking”. I fully understand the purpose of the amendment, but the Government have no desire for these powers to extend beyond what is necessary. They are exceptional powers for exceptional circumstances and should be exercised only where Parliament intends.

I respectfully suggest that the amendment would not provide greater certainty; instead, it risks introducing greater ambiguity into the Bill. The proposed test, that a business must be “predominantly” involved in steel, immediately raises difficult questions, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on how “predominantly” is measured. Is it turnover, assets, employees, production, profit or some combination of these? The amendment provides no answer. That uncertainty would inevitably invite legal challenge, precisely when swift and decisive action may be required. Businesses with significant steel operations could argue that they fall outside the definition, because steel is not their primary activity. Equally, complex corporate structures could be organised to make the test easier to avoid altogether. In seeking to narrow the definition, the amendment risks creating loopholes that undermine the legislation’s very purpose. The Government’s drafting avoids these difficulties; it provides a clear and workable definition that gives legal certainty, while ensuring that powers are used only when genuinely needed to protect the public interest.

For those reasons, while I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was tabled, I cannot agree that it improves the Bill. I know this is not what the noble Lords intended and I can accept that the current drafting is broad, but this definition follows closely that used in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act and it ensures that there can be no disputes about its meaning. In practice, we do not expect many companies to fall within the current definition, so the amendment would have minimal effect.

I will repeat the Government’s position expressed throughout the Bill’s passage so far: we are strongly minded to use the powers to acquire British Steel if it is in the public interest to do so, and we do not have any plans to acquire any other steel undertakings. It is therefore very unlikely that this would be used for any other company, let alone one that is engaged primarily in non-steel activity. I hope this helps clarify the matter and respectfully request that the amendment is withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It was remiss of me not also to thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement on the Bill.

This amendment is simple. I am afraid that I do not agree with the Minister’s comments or those from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This is very straightforward. In fact, I refer noble Lords to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which says that the word “predominantly”, in formal or technical usage, can denote a precise majority, such as more than 50%, or an even higher threshold, such as 60% to 80%, depending on jurisdiction. I am not an expert on which jurisdiction we are in, but it clearly means north of 50%. The way the Bill is written, as I pointed out, could allow for as little as 1%.

I have listened to the Minister’s objections to the wording of the amendment and am very happy to work on tightening it up, if he thinks that would help. The amendment is simple: it would confine the powers in the Bill to genuine steel businesses—that is, undertakings

“consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel, or iron for the purposes or in connection with the manufacture of steel”.

I think that answers most of the Minister’s objections, which, frankly, if they are relevant to my wording, are also relevant to the wording currently in the Bill, so I do not really believe in the ambiguity argument.

Businesses with a limited connection to steel production should not face uncertainty about whether they fall within the reach of these nationalisation powers. The present drafting does not provide that reassurance; it permits powers to apply to an undertaking that merely includes steel-making or related iron production, as I have already pointed out. I will not press the amendment for now, but I would like further discussions with the Minister, if he is amenable, to see whether we can find a way to tighten up the language so that it both suits the Government’s purposes and makes it clearer for all those undertakings that we are discussing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things that the briefing from the high value catapult team confirmed is the enormous difficulty there will be in creating a viable business from what His Majesty’s Government intend to take control of in Scunthorpe. There is the age of its blast furnace, the potential cost of any replacement of a blast furnace, the expense of conversion to an electric arc furnace—if that is what is intended—and the hugely competitive landscape of the global steel markets. These are just the headlines of the complexity, but the choices go beyond blast furnace or arc furnace.

If investment is found to install a new electric arc furnace, what will it produce? Will it aim to produce the full range of steels that we need—longs, flats, rebar—or will it specialise in particular steels that perhaps are more strategic and less easy to source? If it goes down the specialisation route, the UK will probably need access to much more direct reduced iron, or DRI. It is likely that this would have to be imported, and these would be very high CO₂ emission imports from most countries, because making our own DRI would need a whole new bit of kit which is very pricey. Choices and making the right calls will determine whether Scunthorpe has a long-term future and what that future looks like. It will determine whether it is indeed an investable prospect and whether it can attract the private sector.

When the Government begin—assuming this Bill becomes an Act—to use the terms of the Act to take ownership of this plant, that will change the focus of these choices. Of course, there will be a new board and management to run the plant, but the cost of the choices will rest with UK taxpayers, at least at first. We will be providing the capital. As we have heard, we have already made available £555 million in working capital, but clearly these sums could increase massively at scale. It is the scale of risk that the Government are taking on that is guiding my approach and our approach, because this Bill needs more scrutiny from Parliament at all levels. From these Benches, we will be pushing those buttons.

These three amendments start at least to open up that point around accountability. I am a bit intrigued because while I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he is normally internally consistent. However, the noble Lord started out by saying there should be no expansion of the terms of Clause 2 and then put forward two pretty reasonable ones about growth and expanding the economy. I have one that I think the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, would agree with, which is cost. We should have a clear understanding of the cost before the public interest test. I completely disagree with Amendment 2 because there needs to be a broader discussion around “public interest”. We need to understand the numbers around it, otherwise we do not know whether it is interesting to the public. I do not agree with Amendment 2. I have some sympathy with the other two amendments, and I am sure we will talk more about public interest tests as we deal with other groups.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Redwood and Lord Fox, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for their contributions to this group. There are several amendments to the articulation of the public interest test in Clause 2. This is a key clause in the Bill; it is a necessary safeguard to ensure that the powers are used proportionately in response to a clear need.

Amendment 2 would limit the public interest factors that the Secretary of State may consider to those set out in the Bill. The Government agree that the three factors of national security, critical national infrastructure and support for the economy are likely to be the most relevant to the steel sector. Accordingly, the current approach ensures that they are given particular weight when assessing whether to pursue an intervention. However, circumstances may arise in which a case for intervention may not be clearly made on the basis of these three factors, yet it would clearly be in the public interest to take action. It is therefore pragmatic to build some flexibility into the Bill to address this issue.

I turn to Amendment 3. It has been suggested that the third public interest factor should refer specifically to

“economic growth and international competitiveness”,

rather than “supporting the economy”. With respect, this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. It is largely a matter of drafting rather than substance. The phrase “supporting the economy” is deliberately broad. It clearly encompasses economic growth and international competitiveness but also recognises that the economy is more than growth figures alone. It includes strengthening economic resilience, protecting strategically important industries, supporting employment, safeguarding supply chains, encouraging investment and ensuring the long-term productive capacity of the United Kingdom. By contrast, narrowing the text to

“economic growth and international competitiveness”

could unintentionally exclude other legitimate public interest considerations that any responsible Government should be able to take into account.

There may be circumstances where intervention is necessary to preserve critical industrial capability or economic resilience, even where the immediate effect on growth or competitiveness is less direct. The Government’s intention is to provide Ministers with a sufficiently broad framework to consider the full range of economic factors that may arise. The existing wording achieves precisely that: it is flexible, comprehensive and future-proofed, while fully capturing the objectives that the amendment seeks to emphasise. For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendment would improve the Bill. The Government believe that protecting our sovereign capability in what is a foundational sector for the economy will help to underpin our resilience and leave us less exposed to volatile international trading conditions. The Government therefore cannot support the amendment.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. In different ways, all three noble Lords seek to require the Secretary of State to consider value for money or the impact on the public finances before exercising the principal transfer powers.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My amendment?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am referring to the noble Lord’s later amendment.

I fully agree with the principle that taxpayers’ money must be spent wisely. Any decision to bring a steel undertaking into public ownership would be among the most significant interventions that a Government could make. Such a decision should never be taken lightly, and it would not be. However, these amendments seek to place into statute an obligation that already exists as a fundamental principle of government. Every significant spending decision is subject to the rigorous disciplines of managing public money—as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—Treasury approval where appropriate, and the established accounting officer framework. Ministers are already required to demonstrate that public money is being used properly, proportionately and with due regard to value for money.

The question, therefore, is not whether value for money should be considered—it absolutely should—but whether it is necessary to restate an existing, well-established constitutional obligation in the Bill. I do not believe it is. Doing so would add no new safeguard, create no new accountability and impose no duty that does not already exist. More importantly, this legislation is intended to ensure that, where a vital national interest is at stake, the Government can act decisively. Decisions of this nature will always involve weighing immediate fiscal costs against the far greater economic and strategic costs of inaction. The loss of sovereign steel-making capability, thousands of skilled jobs and critical supply chains, and industrial resilience could ultimately impose a far greater burden on the taxpayer than timely intervention would. The Government will continue to ensure that every decision made under the Bill is subject to the highest standards of financial discipline and accountability. Those safeguards already exist; they are robust and will continue to apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have raised a number of amendments to ensure that there is a level playing field across the steel industry. I thank noble Lords for their commitment to ensuring that the Bill positively impacts the UK steel industry. A number of amendments have been tabled on this topic so, with this in mind, I will address those before turning to the new clauses proposed for the Bill. I will consider Amendments 29 to 31 together, as I believe they are intended to have the same effect.

Amendment 29 seeks to specify that compensation regulations under Clause 54(4)(b) allow the independent valuer to take into account external tariffs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and the carbon border adjustment mechanism when valuing the steel undertaking, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Meanwhile, Amendment 30 seeks to require that any valuation of a steel undertaking takes into account the steel import quota and tariff measure that is due to take effect from 1 July 2026. Amendment 31 would require any valuation to consider the anticipated effects of electricity prices.

I am sympathetic to concerns about the impact that these trade-related measures and electricity costs may have on steel undertakings, and therefore on any compensation determinations made by an independent valuer in relation to them under any compensation scheme regulations. However, I emphasise that the Government consider it unnecessary to add these amendments to the non-exhaustive list of examples of matters for a valuer to take into account under any compensation regulations. Any valuation would reflect the wider economic and market context, including the trading environment in which the steel undertaking operates, with or without tariffs, without the need to single out specific factors in primary legislation. This means that the valuer will ultimately have discretion to determine what they consider to be the relevant factors in making their determination.

Valuing a steel undertaking would be complex. The independent valuer would necessarily have, or be advised by those who have, expertise and experience in this area and would be well equipped to make informed decisions on their approach to valuation. For this reason, the Government do not consider these amendments necessary.

I turn to Amendment 43, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact that any nationalisation of a steel undertaking would have on inward investment in the UK. I emphasise the commitments the Government have already made to support investment in the steel sector. The Government’s steel strategy set out commitments to removing barriers to investment and creating a more supportive business environment so that steel companies are better able to compete, are protected from carbon leakage and unfair trading practices, and have greater security and certainty. The Government welcome new entrants to the UK steel industry, which would foster a more competitive business environment. Government funding is available to support this.

I reassure noble Lords that the impact of nationalisation would be taken into account in any impact assessment on the use of transfer powers. This is the most appropriate mechanism for reporting on any expected impact on the economy. Given the complexity, interlinking and scale of investment trends, it would be difficult to report further on the exact impact of a single intervention. It is for this reason that we ask for this amendment not to be pressed.

Amendment 44 seeks to ensure that the powers in the Bill do not confer any advantage on publicly-owned steel undertakings which could distort competition and trade. I understand the concerns from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that the Bill may unfairly distort competition and investment across the steel sector. However, I reassure your Lordships that this is not the Government’s intention. Any financial assistance provided to publicly-owned steel undertakings will be time-limited, targeted and proportionate. Furthermore, we will continue to comply with domestic and international subsidy control obligations to avoid market distortions. I hope this clarifies that the Government are committed to ensuring a level playing field between state and privately-owned steel companies. This amendment is therefore not required.

Amendments 4 and 36 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who has raised concerns about what he considers to be the potential adverse impact of the Bill on local communities in steel-making areas. Amendment 4 would create an additional public interest factor for a Secretary of State to consider ahead of exercising the principal transfer power. This would be to support the local economy of any steel-making location adversely affected by the Bill.

The Government have introduced the Bill to support domestic steel-making, not to threaten it. Additionally, one of the three factors set out under the public interest test in Clause 2 is supporting the economy, including any part of the UK economy. The same applies to Amendment 36, which would allow financial assistance to be provided to compensate communities adversely affected by the Bill. I do not expect the Bill to have any adverse impacts on local communities, so I do not consider this amendment appropriate.

I emphasise to the noble Lord that the steel industry in Wales is the only part of the industry with a ring-fenced fund: £500 million for Port Talbot to transform the steelworks and secure steel production at that site and to secure the future of the south Wales steel industry. This is a significant investment that will benefit the local community in that area for years to come. This demonstrates the Government’s confidence in the Welsh steel community and the crucial role that Tata plays in it.

I understand the objective of Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We all want to ensure that any publicly owned steel undertaking can operate effectively, maintain production and continue to serve the national interest. On that objective I do not believe there is any disagreement within the Committee; where we differ is on the means of achieving it. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to prohibit or restrict industrial action where it is considered to pose a sufficient risk to the public interest.

The Government do not believe that curtailing workforce rights is either necessary or the right way to secure a successful and resilient steel industry. The people who work in our steel plants are not an obstacle to operational success; they are the reason it is possible. Their skills, commitment and professionalism keep furnaces running, fulfil customer orders and sustain a strategic industry on which our economy and national security depend. The long-term success of a publicly owned steel undertaking will be built on partnership with this workforce, not on restricting their rights.

Moreover, good industrial relations are an asset in themselves. Constructive engagement with employees and their trade unions is far more likely to ensure stable operations than legislation that risks damaging trust and co-operation. Indeed, imposing additional restrictions could prove counterproductive, making disputes harder rather than easier to resolve. The Government have established constructive relationships with the trade unions representing workers at British Steel and across the wider steel sector. We value the role they play in representing their members and in helping secure the future for this vital industry.

Existing industrial relations legislation already provides the legal framework for industrial action. The Government see no justification for establishing a separate and more restrictive regime merely because an undertaking has entered public ownership. Public ownership should not mean fewer workers’ rights; it should mean responsible stewardship of a strategically important industry, working with the skilled men and women whose expertise will determine its success.

I thank all noble Lords for their amendments, which aim to ensure that the Bill does not distort the market to create inequality between public and private sector steel companies. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that the Government remain committed to revitalising the steel sector, which should be achieved through co-investment from the private and public sectors. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response on the whole range of diverse amendments we have before us. No doubt the Opposition Front Bench will have their own opinion on which ones of these they may want to return to on Report, because there are important issues that undoubtedly have arisen from those amendments.

Amendment 4 seeks to support

“the local economy of any steel-making location which may be adversely affected by this Act”.

I noted the Minister’s response, that this may be taken to be covered by other words in this subsection and in other parts of the Bill. But, with respect, words such as

“supporting the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”,

are so general that they do not actually address the point we are specifically addressing in Amendment 4, which is the impact on local communities of steel-making locations which may be adversely affected by the Act. It may well be that some such locations are not adversely affected by the Act—they may not be helped by the Act, but they may be able to get on with it—but some almost certainly will be, and there should be express and specific provision to ensure that the needs of those areas are on the face of the Bill.

In Committee, we are quite clearly only probing these matters. But I ask the Minister whether, between now and Report, he will come back and consider that. This is because the reaction against the Act will not be from the generality of the UK economy, or regional economies; it will be from specific places that are in danger of losing out because of the changes, some of which are perhaps inevitable, but which need to take place in order to facilitate the general objective of the legislation. Therefore, in begging the leave of the House to withdraw Amendment 4, I ask the Minister to consider that specific aspect between now and Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to be the bringer of bad news to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, but I suspect that it is pretty clear that the condition of the blast furnaces is poor and whatever happens, either to reinstate them to the level that would take them forward or to invest in electric arc, will take a lot of money. That is the point that we are focusing in on, and that is why we are focusing in on the public interest test. We have not yet gotten past Clause 2 yet, because this is the crunch.

I have a group of amendments in the next group, so I will reserve almost everything I have to say. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already disobeyed his Amendment 2, because we are seeking to broaden the scope of the public interest test. With respect to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, there is such a number of issues that have to be addressed within the particular field of potential investment that the public interest really requires focus. I will leave it at that for this group and then come back to these in the next group.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing forward these amendments. As he has observed, there are similarities with some amendments of ours and we are happy to work together to clarify them. He could also have said that Parliament will be acting at speed tomorrow on the National Security (State Threats) Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson—so it can be done.

We have already raised significant concerns about the breadth of the public interest test in Clause 2. The amendments in this group go directly to those concerns. The noble Lord is quite right that, before such exceptional powers are used, Parliament should be told why nationalisation is considered necessary. It is also right that the Government should have to consider the effect on the public finances and whether the undertaking has any credible short-term and long-term prospect of being investable. A business may be capable of being kept open in the short term, but that is not the same as being viable, competitive or capable of attracting the investment needed for its future. The public interest also cannot be assessed without proper regard to the liabilities and continuing costs that may fall on taxpayers.

The Government’s approach so far has relied heavily on broad discretion and ministerial assurance. These noble Lord’s amendments would introduce greater transparency, discipline and realism into that process. For those reasons, we support them.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, for their contributions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive engagement over the past few weeks. I understand that he is trying to support the steel sector and the Bill while ensuring value for money, which is the Government’s objective as well.

Amendment 10 would require the Secretary of State to take into account the impact on the public finances when applying the public interest test. Of course, any decision to nationalise a steel undertaking should not be taken lightly, given the significant costs that could be incurred. However, the principle of securing value for money for the taxpayer is already well established and embedded in government decision-making, as I said on an earlier group. Any decision to exercise the powers in the Bill is subject to the usual Managing Public Money governance and the framework of accounting officer checks, which includes consideration of the impact on the public finances. I therefore respectfully suggest that incorporating the amendment into statute would not serve any particular purpose, but we are mindful of ensuring that costs associated with the Bill are well managed.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also proposes, in Amendment 11, that the Secretary of State should take into account the short-term and long-term investability of a steel undertaking when considering whether to intervene in the public interest. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but I do not think that investability should directly inform the public interest test.

If a steel undertaking is an investible prospect in the short term, it is unlikely that there would be a case for government intervention, as the need could be met by the private sector. The intention behind the Bill is not to crowd out private investment but to act where private ownership has failed. Whether a steel undertaking is investible in the longer term is highly speculative, so I do not think it would be particularly helpful for it to form part of the statutory framework for the decision. By intervening, the Government would hope to turn a steel undertaking that is not investible into something that may become investible. To the extent that this is what the noble Lord hopes to achieve, we share his ambition, but I do not think that the amendment is workable.

Amendment 7 would prevent the Secretary of State exercising the principal transfer powers until a statement explaining how the public interest test is met has been provided to Parliament. I am sympathetic to the desire for greater parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of any decision to intervene under the powers in the Bill.

As I said previously, the Government have published an impact assessment alongside the Bill, explaining how the public interest test will be considered. Any further impact assessment would be published alongside any secondary legislation exercising the transfer powers. The framework for the decision to intervene will stem from the three public interest factors included in Clause 2. The Government will consider not only whether a steel undertaking is engaged in activity that serves the public interest but whether that activity is at risk without government intervention.

The Government cannot support this amendment, as it would create additional hurdles and processes pre-intervention. In the kinds of situations that the Bill envisages, speed will be crucial, as I said previously. Likewise, commercial and market sensitivities mean that swift action will, in most circumstances, be necessary to avoid uncertainty; I take note of what noble Lords said about speed. None the less, I am aware that there are strongly held concerns about this issue and I confirm that, ahead of Report, the Government will consider options for Parliament to scrutinise decisions taken either at the time of or after the exercise of the transfer powers. I hope that this of some reassurance to the noble Lord and ask that his amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his support for these amendments and I was pleased to hear the closing part of the Minister’s statement. We all want the costs of any nationalisation to be well managed; we are looking for those costs to be well understood in advance of any commitment by the Government on behalf of the people of this country. We look forward to those discussions and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, in this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has raised important concerns about the ways in which the Bill includes the Welsh Government and legislature in decision making. Amendment 9 would amend Clause 2 on the public interest so that the Secretary of State would be required to consult the First Minister of Wales before exercising the principal transfer power in relation to an undertaking located in Wales.

The Government have been keen to engage closely with the devolved Governments throughout the passage of the Bill, and I am grateful for the approach taken by all parties in that engagement. I am delighted to inform your Lordships that the Scottish Parliament granted its legislative consent to the Bill on 23 June. I record my thanks to Ministers and officials who worked swiftly to complete the legislative consent process ahead of the Scottish Parliament’s Summer Recess.

I am happy to confirm that the Government will ordinarily consult the relevant devolved Ministers if it is likely that the principal transfer power will be used in relation to a steel undertaking with its principal place of business in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. If this is not possible because swift action in the public interest is required, Ministers will engage with their ministerial counterparts at the earliest opportunity following the exercise of the principal transfer power. I also understand that my colleagues, Ministers and the Secretary of State for Wales will meet their counterparts in the Welsh Government tomorrow to discuss the Bill further.

Amendment 19 would require the Senedd to give approval to any proposed use of the modification power that would relate to devolved regulations. Again, I am sympathetic to the sentiment of this amendment and reassure the noble Lord that the modification power in Clause 50 is targeted and limited to applications necessary to ensure that transfer powers can be exercised effectively. It is not a general power to amend legislation. The drafting does not permit any changes to other laws unless they are for the purpose of ensuring that the powers in the Bill can be exercised effectively.

Although I cannot agree with these amendments, I reiterate the Government’s desire to continue engaging closely with our partners in the devolved Governments. In particular, the Government are continuing to discuss the Bill with the Welsh Government, and I hope to be able to provide noble Lords with further updates later in the Bill’s passage. However, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Well, well, well—I thank noble Lords for their positive responses. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hunt, and indeed the Minister, for the tone and content of their support for the principles here, if not the exact wording on the Order Paper. I noted with interest the ongoing discussions with colleagues in Cardiff and that there are further discussions about to take place. If, arising from those discussions, the Government feel it is appropriate to tweak the Bill to cover those points, I am sure that would be widely welcomed all round. On the basis of this general positive approach, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has made, and I commend him for getting past this amendment before 9.21 pm, which is of course sunset.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. I note the Constitution Committee’s comments on this clause in its recently published report on the Bill. The inclusion of the sunset provision demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that powers remain on the statute book for as long as necessary to serve their purpose. Ultimately, we want to see the domestic steel sector return to a more sustainable and stable state in which government intervention is unnecessary.

As we have said, we do not currently see another use case beyond the possibility of British Steel. Therefore, we hope that noble Lords get their wish and there is no need to extend the sunset period. However, the current geopolitical landscape creates a volatile backdrop for this sector, making it difficult to anticipate what may transpire in the coming months and years. We have therefore built in some flexibility to extend or shorten the two-year sunset timetable if circumstances change. We consider this a reasonable precaution to take.

The drafting ensures that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny of any change to the sunset period through the affirmative procedure, meaning that parliamentarians will be able to test and debate any regulations brought by the Government to extend the sunset period. We anticipate needing to use this extension power only in extenuating circumstances. I therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, that was a very brief debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. The Government say they want to secure a sustainable private sector-led future for British Steel. But a power capable of being extended repeatedly without any final statutory limit sends exactly the opposite signal. It risks making investors more, not less, cautious about committing capital to the sector. There must be a reasonable period that the Minister can identify and put in the Bill. If the Government genuinely regard these as exceptional and temporary powers, they should be willing to set out a clear limit.

The noble Lord cannot realistically blame external circumstances. There are always external circumstances. This has fallen foul of the Constitution Committee for very clear reasons, which it has set out. Speaking personally and from experience, I think it is unwise to fall foul of the Constitution Committee.

We urge the Government to take seriously the recommendation of the committee and either specify the final extension period in the Bill or impose a statutory limit on each extension. I think we will have to return to this matter at a later stage, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I have to say I was a bit grumpy when the Conservative Party tabled these amendments that we had tabled in the Commons, but in retrospect I am very pleased. No joking—that was a tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This is his specialist area, and that was his best speech on Henry VIII that I have heard. All the points were points that I would have made except that I am not good enough to have made them, so in that respect I am glad that he was the person proposing this, rather than I. The only thing that stops the noble Lord from being risen to the pantheon is that, having won affirmative powers, he and his colleagues never actually exercise them through fatal Motions. Frankly, that is the only flaw in what we have just heard.

I countersigned Amendments 13 to 15 and 18 but my pen ran out when we got to Clause 50 stand part. All the points that the noble Lord made are valid. I hope the Government are able to take on board both what he said and what your Lordships’ committees have said about the shortcomings in this draft.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to the amendments in this group, I thank the members of the Select Committee on the Constitution for their report on the Bill, which relates to this grouping. The report recommended that in Clause 47 the provisions for dispute settlement should be set out more fully in the Bill. The approach to drafting here is in line with existing precedent under the Banking Act 2009 and reflects the approach taken for similar powers, such as enforcement powers. We think it is appropriate to provide for dispute settlement on a case-by-case basis through regulations.

Noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments relating to parliamentary scrutiny of and procedure on the transfer regulations. In particular, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have tabled amendments which would change the parliamentary procedure for the principal share and property transfer powers, continuity obligations and enforcement powers from negative to affirmative. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lords. From the outset, I reassure all noble Lords that the Government take parliamentary scrutiny extremely seriously. For that reason, we have ensured that a number of substantial powers in the Bill, such as the compensation and tax powers, are subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the Government consider that changes to the procedure for transferring powers would adversely affect the Government’s ability to effect a smooth transfer where necessary in the public interest.

Steel is fundamental to the UK’s industrial base and our national resilience, making it critical to secure supply. Any delays, especially in a non-consensual transfer, would prevent the transfer from taking place, particularly if the transferer was unco-operative. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the recently published report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which did not raise any cause for concern about these powers, including the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached.

To set out the necessity for the negative procedure for these powers, I will discuss them in turn. I will address Amendments 13 and 14 together as they seek to amend the procedures for the share and property transfer powers respectively. It is important that the principal transfer powers can be exercised with speed and operational and legal certainty. The Government expect that, if these powers were exercised, it would be in a fast-moving, commercially sensitive situation. The affirmative procedure would introduce a substantial delay, creating a vacuum in ownership. Such uncertainty would significantly affect the business, particularly the supply chains and third-party contracts.

Amendment 15 seeks to amend the procedure for continuity obligations. The continuity obligations in the Bill are essential to ensure that the company continues to operate as normal following the transfer, minimising disruption and maintaining operations at the steel undertaking. This is achieved by imposing obligations on residual steel undertakings and their group companies to ensure that all services and facilities required by the transferred business continue to operate as normal. Any changes to the procedure would affect the effectiveness of the transfer. The Government’s primary objective with this provision is to ensure a smooth transfer of ownership. As I have set out, it is imperative that there be no delay to any transfer of a steel undertaking into public ownership.

Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, aims to amend the procedure for enforcement regulation. Clause 45 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision in regulations for the enforcement of obligations under the share and property transfer regulations. As with the other amendments, if the Government consider it necessary to enforce obligations, they must do so at pace. Any delay in using these powers risks interrupting the transfer process and reducing its effectiveness.

For those reasons, the Government do not consider these amendments necessary. However, I have reflected on the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. While it is critical that the Government are able to preserve their ability to enforce as necessary, there is a reasonable rationale for further parliamentary scrutiny. I cannot accept this amendment but I will consider this issue further, ahead of Report.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have given notice indicating their intention to oppose Clause 50 standing part of the Bill. That would remove the modification power in Clause 50. This power is not taken lightly, but it is a necessary measure to ensure that the transfer powers under the Bill can be used effectively. The clause has precedent because the same power was used in the Banking Act 2009 to resolve complex companies in the financial sector. Given that the transfer powers would be used only in circumstances where a public interest test was met, it is crucial that the Government have the necessary tools to ensure that any such transfers can be implemented effectively to deliver the intended outcome.

The powers in Part 1 of the Bill interact with commercial, company and insolvency law. This is the law that normally governs the consensual acquisition of companies or of their businesses. The legislative environment is therefore varied and complex and, because general legislation was not designed with compulsory transfers in mind, as the Bill envisages, there will be some tension between applying the Bill’s powers to a steel undertaking and the highly complex private law that it will inevitably cut across. The clause therefore provides a necessary power to modify other laws that may ordinarily interact with a transaction of this nature in order to integrate the Bill’s powers into the existing legislative and commercial landscape.

The use of the modification power is limited to the purpose of enabling the transfer powers to be used effectively. It is not a general power to amend legislation; it is targeted and limited. It cannot be used in isolation from the use of powers in respect of a particular steel undertaking to amend or disapply laws, and it cannot be used to amend the Bill—or Act—itself. In the absence of these powers, there is a real and significant risk that the Secretary of State could not fully and effectively implement a transfer. This could result in an ineffective or incomplete transfer to public ownership, affecting a company’s ability to continue operation. If a smooth transfer is not achieved, the public interest aims could be undermined.

I turn to the potential retrospective effect of the power. The Bill permits it to be applied retrospectively but does not require it. Preserving the possibility of applying this power retrospectively anticipates circumstances in which the transfer powers may need to be exercised at pace and in which there may be limits on the ability to conduct the level of due diligence necessary to support acquisition. Similarly, it may not be possible to identify all legislative interactions in the transfer scenario before making a transfer. This may mean that any secondary legislation made under the transfer powers may not fully affect the transfer that was intended. In such circumstances, it would be necessary to address this through the modification power, with the modification backdated to the time of transfer. The use of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure unless there are particular circumstances that justify the Secretary of State proceeding on an affirmative basis, likely due to time pressures.

I hope that I have provided some clarity on the need to include the provision, and its retrospective effect. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

On a number of occasions, the Minister has painted a picture of a breathless process, where all the organs of government have to operate at breakneck speed. Taking the Government at face value, we are talking largely about a particular asset that we have been talking about for around 15 months, since the discussion at Easter last year. At some point, perhaps not at the Dispatch Box but when we are having our meetings, the Minister will explain why there is this predisposition to putting everything in place to have things moving at the speed of light when, in reality, they have been moving relatively slowly.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

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

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

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

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

Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 28 April be approved.

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 April be approved.

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

My Lords, before I kick off, I am sure all noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the England team good luck and all the very best wishes for tonight’s match.

I note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I will address the points that he has raised. For context, these instruments were laid before Parliament on 28 April and approved by the other place today. Their purpose is straightforward: to extend the time for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from three to six months.

The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 apply across Great Britain. The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 applies to England and Wales. Subject to the approval of this House, both instruments will come into force on 1 October this year.

I turn first to the regret amendment. It raises concerns about the current capacity of the employment tribunal system and the possibility that a longer claims window could place further pressure on it. I assure the noble Lord that these issues have been carefully considered. We fully recognise the pressures faced by the employment tribunal system and the wider dispute resolution framework, including a growing case load. That is why we are working across government to ensure that the system is resilient and able to support the effective enforcement of measures introduced under the Employment Rights Act.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have established a dispute resolution task force. It brings together representatives from business, trade unions, the legal profession and the third sector. We are pursuing a combination of immediate targeted measures and longer-term reforms. Together, these are intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We are taking a phased approach, with several measures already under way. This programme of reform will continue at pace to ensure that the employment tribunal system has the capacity that it needs for the future.

The noble Lord raised concerns that a longer claims window could prolong disputes and put greater pressure on the system. The current three-month limit was originally introduced when employment tribunals were intended to offer a quicker, more informal route to resolving workplace disputes. However, demand has increased significantly. Experience has shown that three months is often insufficient for claimants to prepare a robust case, a point that the Law Commission recognised in 2020. Extending the time limit to six months strikes a better balance. It preserves the principle of timely resolution while providing claimants with a realistic opportunity to prepare their case. Better prepared claims should improve the quality of proceedings, reduce the need for applications to extend time limits and allow judicial resources to be focused more effectively on delivering justice.

I turn now to the instruments. First, the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 extend the time limit from three months to six months for a range of workplace rights. These include rights for part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation representatives, negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists, and certain NHS-related protections. The regulations will apply where the relevant workplace issue arises on or after 1 October 2026. If the issue arose before that date, the existing three-month time limit will continue to apply.

Secondly, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims for breach of contract or sums due under a contract of employment from three months to six months. This order applies only to England and Wales. It does not extend to Scotland because the power to amend the equivalent Scottish legislation rests with Scottish Ministers, not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government to secure a corresponding change in Scotland. We expect the change to take effect in mid-November 2026. Clear guidance will be issued to ensure that individuals and employers in Scotland understand the temporary difference in time limits.

The order will apply where the termination giving rise to the breach of contract claim occurs on or after 1 October 2026. Where the contract was terminated before that date, the current three-month time limit will continue to apply. These instruments are necessary to ensure consistency with the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. They also align these claims with the existing six-month limits that apply to statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. Without these changes, the system would become unnecessarily complex for employees and employers alike and would create additional administrative burdens.

In closing, these measures will give both employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally, to engage in conciliation, and to properly consider the merits of bringing a claim. This is particularly important in sensitive cases where individuals may need extra time before deciding how to proceed. By encouraging better preparation and greater use of early resolution processes, these changes may help ease pressure on the employment tribunal system. I hope noble Lords will support these instruments and the wider programme of reform that sits behind them. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be speedy. First, I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, which I respect. I will address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about the review of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we are committed to reviewing Section 10. I am sure that we will update the House on that in due course, but I cannot say more at this stage.

On the dispute resolution task force, the Government are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient. The expertise of the task force—which, as I mentioned earlier, will be made up of representatives from across the various stakeholders—will help inform the Government’s development of these reform measures. We are working on a mix of both more immediate targeted measures intended to reduce the current pressures and longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We intend to use a phased approach, rather than doing everything in one go, and we will work on some of the measures already in train, such as targeted awareness-raising to reduce workplace conflict.

The Government are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges who will add capacity from 2027. In addition, recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, so we are adding capacity and recruiting as things stand today. For 2026-27, the employment tribunal has been funded for 34,590 sitting days, which is more than has been utilised in each of the last 12 financial years up to 2024-25. Remote hearings are expanding through virtual means, enabling around something like 20,000 sitting days annually without geographical limits.

As noble Lords know, one of the key points of the Employment Rights Act is the establishment of the Fair Work Agency, which will now enforce rights including the national minimum wage. In time, it will enforce additional rights, including holiday pay, and ease pressure on employment tribunals. From 2027, the Fair Work Agency will enforce key rights—as I said earlier, holiday pay and statutory sick pay—to make enforcement faster and more accessible for workers. We are working on a mix of both immediate targeted measures intended to reduce current pressures and more targeted, longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The Government’s longer-term view includes looking at opportunities for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement where that would help workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to the employment tribunal. With all this in place, we hope to see a reduction in some of the caseload that we currently experience.

In closing, I reiterate the positive impact that these regulations will have for employees and employers and commend our ongoing reforms of the employment tribunal system so that it is more resilient to any future changes.

Steel Tariffs

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in responding to the last point made by the noble Lord, today I forwarded to the Minister a very detailed list of the categorisations of steel that will not be available in the UK but which will be subject to tariffs, and I would appreciate a response on that. Further, he mentioned 1 July. Most of the steel under consideration is imported from the EU, and negotiations are under way with the EU around a mutual tariff system. It is unlikely that those negotiations will be concluded before 1 July. It makes no sense to implement a tariff regime and then come to an agreement with the EU which will necessarily change that regime, so will the Minister go back to his colleagues and suggest that no change is made to the UK tariff regime until the EU agreement has been concluded?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the noble Lord’s first point. Following extensive engagement with downstream importers, we have introduced a transitional arrangement, as the noble Lord knows, so that the new tariff will not apply to goods contracted before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September of this year. Quotas will be administered quarterly, with unused allocations carried forward within a quota year to provide greater flexibility.

To address the point about the EU, the United Kingdom and the European Union share a unique trading relationship, with highly integrated steel supply chains that support jobs and industry on both sides. We are, as all noble Lords know, engaging closely with the European Commission to secure a solution that protects the vital EU-UK steel trade. While I cannot comment on live discussions, we have made it clear that restricting UK access to the EU market would disrupt supply chains, increase costs and harm businesses in both the UK and the EU.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I note and welcome the recent agreement reached by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of India, on the FTA and its commencement date in July. However, there is another issue on the horizon when it comes to steel tariffs, which is the imposition from 1 January next year of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, particularly on steel which is imported into the country, and which relies on coal. Bearing in mind India’s heavy burden on coal manufacturing, will we need to look at the FTA again?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Lord for all his work when he was a Minister in having conversations with the Indian Government. We should be celebrating and we should all be delighted that the landmark UK-India trade deal will now finally take effect from 15 July, delivering benefits for businesses and working people across the United Kingdom. This agreement, which is the most comprehensive India has ever concluded, is expected to boost UK GDP by £4.8 billion, increase bilateral trade by around £25.5 billion annually and raise real wages by £2.2 billion. Key sectors will benefit from this substantial tariff reduction, including exports of whisky, automotive products and cosmetics. I will write to the noble Lord on CBAM.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are consulting on this, and therefore that some of the suggestions made in this House and in the other place can be taken into account by the Government and amendments made? Can he also tell us—despite the rather theatrical intervention from the Front Bench opposite—what would have been the state of the British steel industry if the Government opposite had continued?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I always agree with my noble friend. We have listened carefully to downstream steel users and designed these measures to balance manufacturers’ needs with the imperative to protect domestic steel production. Imports will continue to play an important role, and transitional arrangements will provide flexibility for some of the contracts that I have identified earlier. Delaying implementation would leave the UK exposed to damaging global overcapacity while our international partners act. We will continue to engage closely with the European Union as discussions progress.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the French economist Frédéric Bastiat said that the distinguishing feature of a good economist is looking beyond the visible and seeing the secondary consequences. There are some 34,000 people employed in the steel sector in this country; one can argue about whether protectionism will help even them. Let us look at the numbers in the steel-using industries: 183,000 people work in the automotive sector, 452,000 in agriculture and 2.8 million in construction. These sectors either cannot buy the kind of steel they need other than through imports, or cannot get the volume from the UK alone. Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of pushing up the cost of these imports, especially in the north-east and the West Midlands, which are hubs for the aeronautic and automotive sectors?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that the steel sector is a very important part of our industrial strategy. That is why the Government are taking steps to protect the steel industry. It is not just another commodity; it underpins everything we do, including in the defence, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy sectors. We are intervening to protect our domestic production and we are protecting jobs up and down the country; whether it is in the Midlands or elsewhere, we are doing what is required of a Government to protect jobs.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

This is a very large increase in costs for steel processors, so what is the Government’s estimate of the job losses and business losses that are sure to follow such a comprehensive, large increase in a major cost to these businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, we have to recognise how important steel is to thousands of workers and families and the wider supply chain. Our objective is to secure a viable long-term future for steel-making in the United Kingdom. Maintaining domestic steel capability is essential for jobs, investment and economic resilience. Whatever we do, flexibility is needed to explore future options not only for British steel but for other sectors which use steel, while safeguarding an industry that remains strategically important for the nation.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the changes

“could add millions of pounds to manufacturers’ costs”.

Why do the Government want to add more costs to UK industry, which is already reeling from the increased national insurance costs?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I do not know whether the noble Lord listened to the response that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We have been engaging extensively with downstream importers. We have introduced transitional arrangements that I set out earlier for contracts made before 14 March and for any imports between 1 July and 30 September. We are listening to end users, and we will continue to listen to end users. As I said before, Ministers are consulting with users and, if needed, changes will be made.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

2nd reading & 3rd reading & Order of Commitment discharged
Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him about SMEs?

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

I am sorry, the noble Lord should not be intervening because he is not on the speakers’ list.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The question was well made. I can tell the noble Lord that it is important and that there is a whole strategy with UKEF and the Government to ensure that the opportunity that the Bill creates is articulated to the SME community as well.

With that in mind, I thank noble Lords from across the House for this informed debate. It is with great pleasure that I beg to move.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am coming to the end.

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

Will my noble friend speak more specifically on the points raised? Perhaps he could wind up his contribution.

[Lord Hendy (Lab)]

I am coming to the conclusion. The Trade Union Act 1913 changed the definition of a trade union to allow it legitimately to spend funds on other objects beyond industrial relations and, if approved by a ballot of the members, a union could have a political fund to be used for specified political purposes. Each member had to be given the opportunity to opt out of payment of that part of the subscription earmarked for the political fund. That was the compromise. In seeking to maintain, in this Bill, the outdated compromise of 1913, the Government have gone further than they needed. What they should have done—and what they could do, if objection is still maintained—is repeal the modern form of the 1913 Act and allow unions, like all other clubs, corporations, partnerships and co-ops—

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Order. May I ask my noble friend to wind up now, please?

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, I am going to speak, in mercifully brief terms, about SMEs, but I will spare noble Lords the history of SMEs in the UK from 1910 to 2026.

My point, in relation to Motions B and B1, is that lifting the cap on unfair dismissal without warning and at this very late stage fundamentally undermines the claims of careful consultation with employers. My email inbox, like those of many others in this place, is awash with anger and indignation from SMEs in particular. The question they keep asking is: how can we trust this Government, coming as this does after punitive and disproportionate hits on employers’ national insurance contributions and inflation-busting increases in the minimum wage, who are sneaking in this clause on uncapped compensation? SMEs will not be persuaded by the data we have heard in this debate on medians and modes. Frankly, we are creating yet more uncertainty, piling up the risks of employing new staff and fuelling unemployment that much further. It is anti-entrepreneurial, anti-enterprise and, I fear, a job destroyer. In my view, it has no place in a free, growth-driven economy.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

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

60E: Clause 156, page 150, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) section (Guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways) (guidance about the employment of children on heritage railways);”

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester for their engagement on this issue.

The Government’s amendments, which were tabled in the other place, build on the previous amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, placing a statutory duty on the Office of Rail and Road and the Health and Safety Executive to produce guidance supporting 14 to 16 year-olds volunteering on heritage railways. This guidance will offer a clear benchmark for reasonable activities and assist inspectors in enforcement decisions. The Government are committed to this work, with publication targeted for 31 March 2026.

By working with the regulators, as well as heritage railways that are already operating successful volunteering programmes for children, there can be clear and practical guidance to protect the health, safety and well-being of young people interested in volunteering on heritage railways. This collaborative approach will provide practical guidance that empowers children to engage safely and meaningfully in heritage railway volunteering. In turn, it should provide the necessary bodies with reassurance.

It is of utmost importance that young people get the opportunity to learn new skills and gain confidence, as well as to help their community—all while ensuring that high-risk activities are not carried out and only appropriate activities are undertaken. I beg to move the Motion.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be very brief. The House has heard me speak on this subject a number of times over the past 10 years, ever since the counsel’s opinion came through that the engagement of young people on heritage railways and tramways was illegal under the 1920 Act. The government amendment, which bears a remarkable resemblance to the one that the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, and I discussed with Ministers during the process of the Bill’s consideration, removes that threat from heritage railways provided that they follow the guidance which the ORR and the Health and Safety Executive lay down for them. I am grateful to them for their willingness to undertake the consultation which will produce that guidance, we hope by 31 March. Meanwhile, heritage railways are now able to recruit youngsters legally and, I believe, successfully to be involved in the running of the railway, and thereby provide some certainty that the heritage railway movement will continue. I will of course support the Motion that my noble friend has moved.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I add my support and thanks to the Government for this amendment.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their very kind words. I thank my noble friend Lord Faulkner and the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for their engagement with the Government, myself and my colleagues. This amendment is good news to the thousands of volunteers working in heritage railways up and down the country, who will not have to worry about breaching any legislation. That said, let us choo-choo along and I beg to move.

Motion D agreed.