Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Thursday 23rd October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

I join in the general congratulations of the House to the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, on her new appointment and what was an excellent maiden speech. I have known Liz for some 30 years. I remember her coming as a bright young thing—she is still a bright young thing, of course—to our house in Kennington for a great party, with a lot of the young people who were part of the Blair and Brown project and eagerly preparing for that Government. I worked for seven and a half years in No. 10 Downing Street as a special adviser. For quite a lot of them I was sitting opposite the noble Baroness, Lady Lloyd, when she was working on international development questions and I was working on Europe and defence. She has got a great background and I am sure she is going to be a tremendous success in this House.

I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood. He is a successful businessman who has been a great philanthropist. The one thing I know about him—at least, I hope I am right—is that he has a great attachment to the town of Grimsby. I have been to Grimsby only once. The reason I went there was because I have a great attachment to its former Member of Parliament, the right honourable Tony Crosland. I went to Grimsby for the only time in my life to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the publication of his The Future of Socialism, at which Ed Miliband was the guest lecturer. Anyone with associations with Grimsby, a community that has suffered from the loss of its main industry in deep-sea fishing a long time ago, will know the commitment of the noble Lord, Lord Stockwood, to community development there—one of our young MPs, Keir Mather, told me all about it. He is an excellent addition to our House.

On the subject of this debate, steel is a sovereign capability that we have to retain. I would like to see a public/private partnership developed, but if the only way of retaining this sovereign capability is public ownership then I would be prepared, in exceptional circumstances, to support that. I am not a passionate public ownership man by nature, but I think this would be essential.

Several Members have talked about the need for a plan for steel and I agree—I like the idea of plans—but it is extremely difficult to do that at the moment because of the global crisis in which steel is inevitably wrapped up. It is not just a crisis to do with the steel industry; like the car industry, it is to do with manufacturing. It is the outcome of the tariff war in the world that President Trump has engaged in, with very high tariffs on exports to the United States for some countries, particularly China. We have, in any event, a surplus capacity of steel in the world. I remember that when the European Community faced this problem some 30 or 40 years ago, there was the Davignon plan, which was quite successful in reducing overcapacity. But whereas we could have a Davignon plan for Europe, I somehow doubt we could have one for the world that is likely to have much chance of success. What is happening is that people are imposing tariffs in Europe because they fear a flood of imports which could have gone to the United States coming to Europe—particularly in steel but also in wider industrial sectors.

I consulted Community, the trade union of the steel industry, and it sent me a briefing on what is now going on. I will read out what it said, so that everybody is clear:

“The new measures proposed by the EC would halve the overall quotas and double the import tariffs on steel outside of these quotas to 50%. In addition, the EC plans stricter traceability requirements to specifically target those countries that are producing too much steel and undercutting EU producers”,


which may be a problem. It goes on:

“These measures will significantly reduce the UK’s access to the single market”,


which is, I emphasise,

“by far our largest export market for steel, accounting for almost 80% of exports”.

That puts in context the success of the bilateral agreement that we made with the United States. That addresses part of our export problem, but this is the central question as far as steel exports are concerned. It goes on to say:

“This will undercut UK businesses and cause further damage to our steel industry”.


We have the potential situation in Britain where we are pouring in millions of pounds in support of a steel industry that finds its global markets severely blocked. That is not a very sensible position; we have to find some way through this.

Obviously, the best thing to do is to negotiate a good arrangement with the EU. Having worked in Brussels for three years of my life and got to know intimately the tough types who run EU trade policy and who put the interests of the Union before everything else—quite properly—I suggest that they will say, “Unless you adopt the same measures as we are adopting, of 50% tariffs on imports from the rest of the world, why should we make any change in our policy?” Therefore, what do our Ministers see as the perspective for these discussions with the European Union? How do they see them going?

I make one other point, which perhaps people would expect me to make, given my background. It seems to me that we face what is potentially an economic emergency on tariffs. Why do we not just think about rejoining the European customs union? It is the most obvious thing to do to protect our position. I know we are very proud of the trade agreements that we have negotiated, but I would like to see a cost-benefit analysis carried out in the next month or two about whether the benefits of an independent trade policy outweigh the losses we risk suffering, of which steel is a prime example, by not being members of the EU customs union.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 2nd June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Freyberg (CB)]

My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and I declare my interest as an artist member of DACS. In the United States, a revealing battle is under way, not only about competing with China but about whose interests AI regulation should serve. Thirty-one US states have passed AI laws. They understand that transparency does not stifle innovation; it enables it by providing certainty and accountability. So fierce is federal resistance that House Republicans now seek to roll back state AI laws entirely, imposing a decade-long moratorium. AI experts call this an abdication of responsibility, yet the states persist, introducing 550 new Bills this year alone.

We face the same choice. For years, we condemned China’s intellectual property theft, the foundation of its economic rise. Now, we permit Silicon Valley the same privilege. The Government’s wait-and-see prevarication is inexplicable. This amendment demands transparency alone: no new law, no regulatory burden, simply the right to know when your work is taken. This amendment grants the Government complete discretion over enforcement and preserves their consultation. It demands only visibility. This is a test of whether we uphold the rule of law in the age of AI by giving creators the simple right to see who is taking their work. I therefore urge the House to support this amendment.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, as a member of the Labour Benches, may I say that I actually support the Government’s position on this occasion? The reason is this. The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has, with great force of personality, made a very considerable case for action needed to protect intellectual property, and I think she has won that battle. It would be impossible in future, in the coming year or so, for a Government to act in a way that did not take account of her very real concerns.

I am a massive supporter of the creative industries, which make an enormous and growing contribution to the country—and not just an economic one. They are part of the knowledge and service economy which we now are. As my noble friend Lord Bragg has often said, they offer people of all social classes the opportunity to fulfil themselves in ways that otherwise might not have been possible. So, while I am very sympathetic, I do not think that this simple amendment is the right vehicle to put in place a whole new copyright law.

[Noble Lords]

It is not a new law.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Well, I do not quite see how passing this amendment is going to solve the problem; let us put it like that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is very selectively quoting from what the Secretary of State had to say. The Secretary of State did change his position and acknowledged that existing copyright law is very certain. However, he went on to say that the law was not fit for purpose. That is an absolute giveaway in the circumstances. Whose agenda is he pursuing, in that case? Big tech’s?

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

It seems obvious that we have a technological revolution under way, and we have to consider how best we can protect the creative industries in that situation. It is a completely different world that we are now moving into. Peter Kyle is saying that AI copyright needs properly considered and enforceable legislation, drafted with the inclusion, involvement and experience of both creatives and technologists. That is what he intends to do in the coming months.

Therefore, I think the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has won on this point and we should now gracefully withdraw from further ping-pong.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, very briefly, there were two Members of your Lordships’ House who were sitting in the House of Commons a couple of weeks ago listening to the debate: the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and myself. During that brief debate—as usual, it was time-limited—there were no fewer than 13 interventions on the Secretary of State from around the House. Of the 13, nine came from Labour’s own Back Benches. Every single one of those 13 interventions expressed concern to varying degrees; not a single person said, “You have got it right, we accept all these apologies and we are going in the right direction”.

If you read some of the comments by the somewhat hirsute Vice-President of the United States at the February AI summit in Paris, it is very clear what the White House and the Trump Administration are intending to do. It is America first, America second, America third, up to the power 10. That is their very clear intent.

If you look at the comments of OpenAI and Google when they talk about their input into the consultation that is taking place with our own Government, you see that their position and intent are crystal clear; they are against transparency and are basically saying that it is too late to act on all the information they have already taken as they have the ability to use it, and in fact they want and need even more.

However, the backdrop to that—as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said—is that there is an intense debate going on in the United States about this. Two weeks ago, the US Office of Copyright—if you like, the guardian of copyright in US law—issued a report which directly challenges many of the premises that these large AI companies are putting forth about their right to rob, rape and pillage intellectual property wherever they wish in the world. They are trying to subjugate the 50 states of the union to make sure the White House can override them, and they intend to do exactly the same with any foreign jurisdiction which chooses to stand up to what the White House views as its own best interest. That is the reality.

US Steel and Aluminium Tariffs

Lord Liddle Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about our commitment to free trade. The Prime Minister has made our position absolutely clear on this matter. I am sure there are lessons from history that we can learn on all of this. We will continue to promote our policy of free trade and encourage new agreements wherever it is in our interest.

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

Does my noble friend agree that there is very little prospect of a comprehensive free trade agreement with the United States because of its stance on agricultural products, which we could not possibly accept? However, there is a real possibility of an agreement on high technology, and that is what we should aim for.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right that we are continuing to discuss with the US the possibility of a trade deal. In the economic and tech sectors, there is the possibility of agreements on the basis of mutual interest. Those discussions are ongoing, and I hope to update the House on them in due course.