Trade Unions (Permissible Means of Voting) and Employment Rights (Unfair Dismissal) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

At end to insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Order introduces electronic and workplace voting for statutory trade union ballots which risks making industrial action easier to authorise without sufficient safeguards for ballot integrity; that it does not provide adequate assurances for cyber-security, verification, auditability and resilience against interference for electronic voting; and that its workplace-voting provisions do not address employer consent, operational disruption, cost, privacy or security.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining and introducing the statutory instruments, to the first of which, as he has noted, I have tabled a regret amendment. The instruments risk making it easier, quicker and cheaper for unions to secure a mandate for strike action, while leaving too many questions unanswered about ballot integrity, cyber security, workplace disruption, employer costs and the ability of employers to challenge defects in the process.

I want to start by asking the Minister a number of very specific questions. First, paragraph 5.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum sets out the Government’s reasoning against piloting electronic balloting. Whether or not one accepts that reasoning, at least the Government have attempted to explain their approach. However, I do not see the equivalent justification for workplace balloting. Workplace balloting is an entirely new voting method for industrial action ballots. It creates practical questions for employers about space, security, access, staff release, supervision, privacy, CCTV, safeguarding, operational disruption and cost—I could go on. Yet, as I understand it, the impact assessment does not even cost workplace voting, nor has there been a pilot to test how it would operate in real workplaces, particularly not in complex environments such as hospitals, schools, care settings, secure sites, manufacturing sites, multisite operations and shift-based workplaces. Can the Minister therefore explain why the Government are introducing workplace voting without a pilot and costed evidence of the likely impact on employers?

The impact assessment also states that the policy is expected to deliver net benefits overall, primarily through reduced costs to trade unions from the use of electronic balloting compared with postal methods, with estimated annual savings of between £2 million and £8.2 million. Why is reducing the administrative costs of trade unions now a priority for the Government? What is a small business meant to think when it reads that its margins are being squeezed by higher taxes and employment costs, regulation and endless compliance burdens yet it never sees this level of ministerial enthusiasm for reducing its costs? However, when it comes to trade unions, the Government appear willing to redesign statutory balloting rules to save them money and make industrial action easier to organise. That says a great deal about the priorities behind this order.

Secondly, the instrument designates the trade union itself as the responsible person for determining which voting method or methods are used for its own statutory ballots. The union has an obvious interest in the outcome of the ballot. Can the Minister therefore explain why the trade union rather than the independent scrutineer has been designated as the responsible person for determining the means of voting, and how they intend to avoid a conflict between the union’s interest in securing a mandate and its judgment on the practicality, accessibility, security and integrity of the voting method that has been selected?

Thirdly, who is responsible for enforcing the required cyber security standard? What happens if a system is compromised during a ballot and what information will employers be given if they are expected to assess whether a ballot mandate is valid? Paragraph 38 of the code of practice says only that the union “may want”—I stress, “may want”—

“to appoint the independent scrutineer as a first step”,

so that the scrutineer can advise on the balloting plan. That is not a hard-edged safeguard. It still leaves the initial strategic decision on whether to use electronic, hybrid or workplace voting with the union itself.

Paragraphs 39 to 41 are similarly weak on cyber security. They acknowledge that some ballots may be more sensitive, including where there is a risk of attempted interference, hacking or even hostile state activity. Yet the code says only that the union and the scrutineer “may want”—that phrase again—to seek advice from the National Cyber Security Centre. If the Government are serious about the integrity of electronic strike ballots, why is that advice optional rather than mandatory in sensitive ballots, in particular those affecting critical public services? Public sector employers have particular reason to be concerned. In hospitals, care settings, schools and other essential public services, the concern is whether staff can be released safely, whether patient, pupil or service user care is affected and whether safeguarding arrangements are maintained.

These instruments form part of the Government’s wider Employment Rights Act package. That package reduces the notice employers receive before industrial action, extends the life of mandates, removes previous restrictions and strengthens union access to the workplace, as well, of course, as adding billions in administrative costs. Taken together, these measures reduce employer flexibility and tilt the balance of power further away from employers, who are trying to maintain services, productivity and investment.

It is also striking that paragraph 9.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum says that these measures

“may improve participation and the representativeness of ballot outcomes”.

But this is in contrast with what Jonathan Reynolds said last year, which was that aligning the removal of the 50% turnout threshold with the introduction of e-balloting would

“ensure that industrial action mandates will have demonstrably broad support”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/25; col. 13WS.]

The removal of the 50% ballot threshold was set to happen in April this year, but it has not yet happened. I hope that is because even the Treasury has begun to understand the consequences that repeated militant strike action in critical public services would have for taxpayers, who would be forced to fork out millions for pay rises for the public sector—indeed, they already have. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government still intend to remove the 50% strike threshold, and if so, on what date will Section 68 be commenced? If Ministers cannot give a date, is that because they are concerned that removing the threshold, alongside electronic voting, would increase the likelihood of industrial action in schools and other public services?

The Government seem to have discovered a very selective enthusiasm for technology. Technology to help unions secure strike mandates is called “modernising industrial relations”, yet, according to recent reports, the new Prime Minister is considering scrapping Palantir’s work with the NHS, despite the fact that better data and technology are exactly what the NHS needs to improve efficiency, productivity and patient care, and in spite of the fact that it is widely reported to be working. At a time when critical public services, especially the NHS, need reform, investment and innovation, the Government should be backing technology that helps patients and taxpayers, not prioritising cartel behaviour from the BMA, which has warned that it will behave more militantly in the future. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am enormously grateful to the Minister, who actually answered my questions. I hope that that is not a bad sign. Is that a bad sign? I think that we should be told.

That was a spirited and enjoyable debate, and I thank everybody who took part in it. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, because he said that the Liberal Democrats believed in free association. I am delighted to hear that they believe in something; it is a first. The noble Lord also made parts of my arguments for me. I will not labour the point, but he referred to the consideration of various safeguards, as opposed to the enactment of them. That was precisely the point I was making and I am very grateful to the noble Lord for reiterating it.

I thank my noble friend Lord Balfe for his insights on the unions. I am particularly intrigued by the free legal advice, which I fear I may need fairly soon if I carry on like this. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, made some excellent points about historical context, and we should pay attention to him. The Minister did not say whether he had been given pause for thought, but perhaps we can discuss that outside the Chamber.

One thing that seemed to be said on the other side of the House about this side of the House is that in some way we are against the exercise of democratic rights and that we are interested in making life tough for people who are in unions. I assure the House that that is not the case; what we are pro is making jobs and, unfortunately, a lot of the activities that this Government have put through have made that very difficult. This point was made very clearly by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, perhaps inadvertently. The fact is that the 44% of employees who are experiencing discontent are the lucky ones—they have jobs. Let us not forget the 14.8% of NEETs whom we heard about yesterday in the latest statistics.

Finally, I and the noble Baroness, Lady O’Grady, found common cause in two areas. She can probably think of only one, which was Section 68. I am very pleased that she agrees with me on that and am grateful to the Minister for his answer. I think he said we will hear more about this in the second half of 2027: if I am wrong, perhaps he could correct me. The other area the noble Baroness and I agreed on was how important democracy is—which is why it is such a shame the new Prime Minister has taken power after a bloodless coup.

It is very late. I do not see the point in having a vote. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 10 in my name. Before that, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on Amendments 1 and 9. These seem to be eminently sensible suggestions. I wonder whether, if the Small Business Commissioner makes very clear their view on when the clock starts ticking, that would make it very clear should any dispute become necessary. At the very least, there needs to be clarity from the Small Business Commissioner if these amendments are not accepted.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Leigh, for their support of Amendment 10. The intention of the amendment is clear. Increasingly, economic activity is switching from familiar structures and supply chains to one where businesses market their goods and services via third-party marketplaces and intermediaries, and where the subsequent payment goes back through those intermediaries. The amendment would bring such marketplaces and intermediaries into the context of the Bill by providing that payment is not treated as made to a supplier until the supplier actually receives the money, by requiring any intermediary that collects on a supplier’s behalf to pay it within seven days, regardless of how the intermediary is legally categorised.

I think this is a fair change, though I am sure that there will be resistance from the sector. The focus may well be on the time needed by the intermediary to make the payment to the vendor. A distinction may have to be made between when an intermediary has control of the goods in a warehouse and when it is purely acting as an agent. I am happy to have a discussion and debate about this, and there may be ways in which this can be dealt with. However, it would be very remiss for the legislation to leave your Lordships’ House without any provision, either primary or secondary, for the Small Business Commissioner to have or take the power to bring intermediaries into the remit of the Bill.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for introducing this debate. I welcome all noble Lords back for what will, I am sure, be a productive Committee stage.

I shall begin with Amendment 1. I understand the principle behind my noble friend’s approach. The Bill performs a balancing act, relatively successfully, between good payment practice and regulation. In achieving the former, we have to be careful not to overstep into the latter. It is my interpretation that new Section 2B, to be inserted by Clause 1, already succeeds in ensuring that both parties to a contract are made aware of the payment terms in the four cases that are accounted for. For that reason, I am hesitant to support requiring the purchaser to give instruction on how a payment notice should be given. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I ask the Minister first to outline what the Government regard as best practice for issuing notices under the Bill, which may very well include the Small Business Commissioner making it extremely clear what they think are the right best practice terms for issuing these notices.

I am much more supportive of my noble friend’s Amendment 9, which would prohibit the increasing of a verification period after the day on which the Bill is passed. The Bill is about increasing payment efficiency; ensuring that the verification of a payment does not take longer than was previously necessary is obviously a core part of achieving that.

Alongside my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Leigh of Hurley, I have added my name to Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It is eminently sensible that an intermediary should not be used to delay or circumvent payment terms; in other words, an intermediary should be used as an intermediary. Ensuring that payments go through third parties swiftly and efficiently, and that the payment is not treated as complete until it reaches its final destination, is surely the key to improving payment practice. I hope that the Minister will agree in his response.

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

My Lords, first, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate; I thank in particular the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Fox, for their Amendments 1, 9 and 10. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for all his work in the area of AI and digital technology, which we welcome. I recognise that these amendments were tabled in a constructive spirit, seeking to ensure that suppliers are paid promptly, with which we do not disagree; to ensure that payment processes are clear; and to ensure that purchasers cannot use contractual mechanisms to delay payment unjustly. Those are their aims, which the Government share.

Amendment 10 would create a new legal requirement for intermediaries, including online marketplaces, to send payments to a supplier within certain time limits. I understand the concern underlying the amendment. Where a small business sells through a platform or marketplace, it is important that the money due to that business is not held unnecessarily. However, that is neither the purpose nor the structure of the Bill. The Bill focuses on late payments under commercial contracts for the supply of goods and services. It strengthens the consequences that arise where qualifying commercial debt has been created and where payment is overdue. It sets clear limits on payment terms between suppliers and purchasers, and strengthens the framework for interest enforcement and accountability. Those protections already apply where there is a relevant commercial contract between a supplier and a purchaser, including where the supplier is ultimately paid via an intermediary.

However, where a platform or marketplace is merely holding, processing or transmitting funds between others, the Bill is not intended to regulate the wider intermediary relationship. Accepting this amendment would, therefore, move the Bill into a different area of regulation. It would establish a new statutory regime for online marketplaces and payment intermediaries, rather than maintaining the Bill’s clear focus on commercial payment practices between suppliers and purchasers. As such, although I respect the intention behind Amendment 10, I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate legislative vehicle for it.

Amendment 1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, seeks to ensure that purchasers provide suppliers with greater clarity on how notices under the new Section 2B are to be served. I understand the practical purpose of the amendment. Suppliers need to know when they have properly notified a purchaser of the amount that is due. Purchasers also need clarity so that payment processes are efficient and unnecessary disputes are avoided. However, I hope to reassure noble Lords that the Bill is already sufficiently clear on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

If we really want to support the small businesses that are the backbone of the economy, we must stop asking them to act as the interest-free bank for big business. If large contractors employed their own staff, they would not be able to delay paying those salaries for months on end, so why should they be allowed, effectively, to do that to their suppliers? I do not claim my amendment is perfect. In reality, I am being generous to large undertakings. The ultimate standard should be the monthly invoicing cycle we see in Section 109 of the construction Act 1996. My proposal is a modest, pragmatic bridge towards that standard—noble Lords might note my 45 days is half way between the 60 days and the standard of the construction Act. It would close a loophole that would otherwise render the 60-day cap toothless in many circumstances.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will begin by picking up where I left off in group 1, by briefly touching upon Amendment 7 in the name of my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond. Just as we should not define a payment as complete until it has passed through an intermediary and reached its final recipient, nor should it be considered complete until the supplier has received all owed funds. I therefore support my noble friend’s amendment.

I completely understand the strength of the arguments that were made just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, on her Amendment 52. In particular, she raised a very interesting point about the likely deterrent effect on small businesses bidding for some of these longer-duration contracts. I suspect that more work needs to be done on that very subject to find out exactly what the scale of the problem might be. For now, while we think we should, of course, pay due regard to the ability of small businesses to make payments, we do not think they should come at the expense of other businesses receiving them. Making payments, of course, may create cash-flow issues, but exactly the same can be said about not receiving them or receiving them in instalments, as this amendment suggests. We therefore prefer the blanket payment period regardless of business size, as the Bill already suggests, while also acknowledging, as I have said, that we should be looking into this in more detail.

Moving on to the actual length of payment periods, I suspect that the argument for shorter payment periods will continue to rear its head through the passage of the Bill. I will therefore begin by making His Majesty’s Opposition’s position clear. We would like to see a move to shorter terms but, given the fact that businesses have been told that a 60-day limit will be implemented and have begun to prepare for that, that is what we plan to support. For that reason, I cannot support my noble friend’s Amendment 2. Although a shorter payment term is desirable, it would currently be too much of a jump to reduce this to 30 days immediately. The impact assessment suggests that the difference between SMEs using 60-day and 45-day payment terms is roughly 360,000 businesses. I suspect that this number would be significantly larger for those using 30-day terms. These businesses need time to transition, which is why I support the principle behind Amendment 11 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would require the transition to a 45-day term over a five-year period.

We can debate the exact number of days and the length of the transition period, but I expect that we all want this to move in the same direction. For that reason, I hope the Minister can commit to, at a minimum, reviewing the length of private sector payment terms over a set number of years.

Amendments 3, 5 and 25 in my name all probe the same point. What is the status of a payment that is delayed past the maximum threshold, not due to a fault of the purchaser? My amendments offer two examples. First, it is not uncommon for businesses to make their payment runs at the end of the month. These are often then processed over the next few working days, meaning that they are received several days after month end. This is a scenario that Amendments 3 and 5 account for. We do not want to see the payment terms increased, but we also do not want businesses sacrificing efficiency and shunning payment runs because there is a chance that banks will be slow in processing them and the purchaser will be charged interest. Can the Minister confirm that interest will not apply in such cases? Amendment 25 offers another example: that of delays due to public holidays. Can the Minister also assure the Committee that such delays pushing payments over the 30 or 60-day period will not be subject to statutory interest?

Amendments 4 and 8 are also in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Leigh of Hurley. They seek to probe the status of nationalised bodies simply to seek clarification as to which entity status they will fall under—private or public bodies. Given the pertinence of British Steel, and potentially now Thames Water and whichever other companies the new Prime Minister takes a disliking to, I hope the Minister can provide an answer at the Dispatch Box today.

Speaking of Thames Water, Amendments 42, 43 and 100 raise an issue regarding businesses placed under special administration regimes and similar statutory moratoria. I very much thank the Lanes Group for highlighting this for us. Supply made after a special administrator’s appointment is ordinarily payable as an expense, but no provision currently requires payment within any defined period. Suppliers to SA regimes cannot terminate for the insolvency and cannot make continued supply conditional on payment of arrears, so it is unclear whether the payment terms in the Bill survive such a moratorium. Amendment 42 would ensure that such provisions continue past entering administration.

Amendment 43 is based on much the same premise: suppliers cannot make continued supply conditional on the payment of arrears, and payment protection under the Insolvency Act 1986 applies only prospectively. This amendment would ensure that the receivable’s ability to withdraw supply is once again protected. The sums owed would be restricted to undisputed sums and could be subject to caps and eligibility limits set by regulations.

Amendment 100 would require a review of this process as a whole. It is apt, when we have been considering the nationalisation of certain companies and will soon be considering placing others under special administration, that there should be a review of how associated businesses are impacted by these measures and how the system operates as a whole. I hope the Minister agrees that now is a good time to undertake such a review.

Finally, Amendment 51 would prevent a party to a contract forcing another party to use payment methods other than those that are contractually specified. My noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley has done much to highlight this, but we do not want to see smaller businesses bullied into using cryptocurrency—the example that my noble friend gave—just because it suits a larger business partner. I hope the Minister will agree with this and the many other points raised.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Your Lordships have shown a degree of creativity on this group. We have talked about end-of-month processing, public holidays and the effect on privatisation, nationalisation or special administration, and we have just heard about crypto payments. Of those four, I ask that the Minister focuses first on the special administration point made by the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Sharpe. I think we will be moving into that very quickly, so I urge some action. The two issues that we have talked about more are the maximum time and stage payments.

When I was in my first proper job, I was sent to the national oil company of a very hot foreign country to try to get paid. At that time, the days receivable was 645—and I failed. In that context, a 60-day maximum looks like a step forward. But, on the point that my noble friend Lady Bowles made, if it actually sticks to 60 days, small companies would really be subsidising the free cash or cash flow of their customers. That is why Amendment 52 seeks to put on statute a way of materially helping small businesses where cash flow is an existential concern. My noble friend set that out with her usual precision, and we look forward to the Minister’s response.

On the 60-day limit, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his encouragement of my Amendment 11. What I have tried to do with that is to square the circle. As the noble Lord set out, businesses are set up for a 60-day limit at the moment; however, much of the consultation process proposed a 45-day limit, which goes much further than 60 days. We have heard various arguments in either direction. My Amendment 11 is a way of pointing to a direction of travel and putting down a marker. I am very happy to discuss different ways of doing that. It would require the Secretary of State, within five years, either to lay draft legislation reducing the maximum period from 60 to 45 days or to explain to Parliament why it is not 45 days. That would make it very clear to business and all sides of the supply chain where this is headed. Some of the technology about which the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, talked very eloquently will then be in place, and rapid payments will be available. So I think there are some important bones for the Minister to pick through in this group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Leong, for his clear exposition of his collection of amendments. This might seem like a lot of government amendments to those who are not veterans of the previous Parliament, but I remember when the noble Lord, Lord True, brought 250 amendments on the first day in Committee on the Procurement Bill, so this rather pales into insignificance. However, it begs the question: at what point did it dawn on the Government that they needed to align across the legislative process? That strikes me as something that should have been in the original document. I am glad that we have caught it, but it seems to be a problem that we did not get it in there earlier. It all seems sensible, as far as I can see. I had to go back over the horrors of the Procurement Bill and reread bits of it, so reliving those moments all over again, but from our perspective, this seems to be okay.

On Amendment 77, I offer my support for the legislative back-up for the Small Business Commissioner to exercise the right to recover costs. I would have hoped that this was there anyway, but it is good to have the legislative back-up. Similarly, Amendment 82 will enable the Government to leverage the practical experience of the Small Business Commissioner. I would have hoped that the Government would have been leveraging the experience of the SBC, but again, this dots an “i” and crosses a “t”. From these Benches, we are happy to accept the Government’s amendments.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am also grateful to the Minister for his comprehensive explanation. I am pleased that this tidying-up exercise, if you will, around existing legislation is happening, because that forms the basis of all the amendments in the group that we are about to debate, which are all mine, which I am now very confident the Minister will accept.

I have two brief questions. New Section 68B, to be inserted by Amendment 41, provides for an appropriate authority to make regulations altering the maximum payment term. It would be useful to know why the Government believe that power to be necessary and in which circumstances they might use that power.

I have further questions about Amendment 102, which permits the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to make consequential amendments by regulations, as well as the Secretary of State. For what purpose have the Government made that amendment? Why does the Cabinet Office need to be able to make such amendments? Is it not sufficient for the Secretary of State at the department for business and whatever else it is called these days to make such regulations? I will be grateful to the Minister for answers.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, for their contribution on these amendments in my name. It is best that we get any legislation right in the first place, and I appreciate the support given to the Government on these amendments. There is a lot of tidying up and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, it is best that we address it now, which we are doing.

The noble Lord made a point about the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Procurement falls within the Cabinet Office, so the responsibility lies with the Cabinet Office. I will need to get back to him on his earlier question about the public authority.

The amendments reinforce the principle that the public sector should lead by example in prompt payments, provide much needed clarity on construction contracts within the scope of the Procurement Act and make a number of minor but important improvements to the Small Business Commissioner provisions. Taken together, they enhance the effectiveness of the Bill, improve consistency across related legislative frameworks and provide greater certainty for businesses and public authorities alike.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

18: Clause 3, page 7, leave out lines 3 to 16
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to probe the scope and impact of exempting upwards payments from the restriction on payment terms, given the fact that many of the suppliers will still be small or medium businesses.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to introduce group 4, which primarily covers the important issue of the definitions of different sized businesses. Before I open that debate, I will touch on the other amendments in this group.

Amendment 18, which was signed by my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Holmes of Richmond, probes the expected impact of exempting upward payments from the new payment terms. As a preliminary question, what economic impact do the Government specifically consider new Section 2E(2) will have? The Government’s argument is that the Bill will prevent the late payments that cost the United Kingdom £11 billion and cost small businesses almost eight days a year in chasing overdue invoices, yet they are exempting upward payments, including those from micro and sole undertakings, to small businesses. I understand that smaller businesses often appear more vulnerable and will often have tighter margins and a smaller cash flow, but that does not mean that the supplier, especially if it is also a small business, can necessarily take the hit of an indefinite or delayed payment term.

More broadly, the purchaser almost always has the power in a contractual agreement. They are the ones who hold the capital. Exempting upward payments merely because the purchaser is smaller will exempt contracts that really should fall under the scope of the Bill.

That brings me to the most long-standing issue this group addresses, which is the definition of businesses. There are currently at least six different definitions in law of business sizes. There are the Companies Act 2006, the Enterprise Act 2016, and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015. Standard settlers use the definition “less complex entities”, while this Bill uses the Procurement Act 2023, alongside giving the Secretary of State powers to make definitions.

We are not arguing that discretion is not needed in separate areas of policy, but it is widely thought that we have reached the point of confusion. At the very least, any new definition created under this Bill should not differ from any pre-established definition; that is the argument that Amendment 22 is attempting to make.

In a more ideal scenario, Amendments 20, 21, 23 and 101 attempt to offer a new standardised definition of business sizes that we believe more accurately represents the nature of today’s economy. Currently, the most used definitions in the Companies Act use a numerical number of employees as a factor in defining the size of a business. The amendments in my name, alongside those of my noble friends Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Holmes of Richmond, aim to replace this nominal headcount with a full-time equivalent number of employees.

I offer just one important example of the importance of this change. In doing so, I thank UKHospitality for its campaign on this issue. Members of the hospitality industry often hire more than the threshold 50 or 250 employees at their venues or events, but do so on shorter, low-hours contracts. While they may therefore have an employee count well over the threshold, it often does not reflect the amount of work that is being done by these employees. We believe that the Government should be able to offer a more nuanced system that more accurately reflects the amount of labour that a business employs.

Finally, exacerbating this amalgam of definitions is the lack of public information about which business falls where. Restricting the definitions of businesses is important, but I pre-empt that the Minister will argue that this Bill is not the vehicle for that discussion. In a sense, he is quite right. Under new subsection (7) in Clause 3, the Secretary of State could define small businesses as those with £100 million turnover. It would not matter if businesses did not know which partners fell under this definition. This is hyperbole, but it illustrates the point that, without some form of database through which businesses can see who falls under which payment term in this Bill, definitions have little meaning. At the very least, businesses will be forced to complete the administrative work themselves.

In speaking to industry representatives in preparation for this Bill, there has been general consensus that Companies House is not fulfilling this role. The Bill aims to create more symmetry between different-sized businesses, yet that cannot be achieved if there is obscure or asymmetrical information. Can the Minister confirm today that he will look into the efficacy of Companies House and, if need be, provide additional support for businesses so they do not have the burden of defining businesses themselves placed upon them? I beg to move.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Sharpe, having signed all the amendments in his name. There are two key principles at stake here, as he eloquently set out: first, not to introduce yet another definition and, secondly, to take the opportunity to bring some clarity, consistency and coherence of definition. This would not just be beneficial for this Bill but have benefits far beyond it. As he rightly set out, this Bill may not be the place for that second objective. It is obviously the place for the first but, if it is not the place for the second, it would certainly seem to provide the right level of focus and spotlight to enable the department to look at this and bring forward plans to have definitions and classifications that are clear and consistent but also provide what anybody in whatever size of business they are involved with needs. So those definitions are useful.

--- Later in debate ---

For those reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment is withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation and for the context around some of the amendments that he has provided. I thank all noble Lords who spoke in the debate, especially my noble friend Lord Holmes. I will be brief in response.

I totally accept that the Government do not want to use this Bill, which they rightly want to get through the House quickly, for a protracted debate about business definitions, which obviously would spill across several different pieces of legislation. However, I hope that the Government at least accept or acknowledge that this is becoming a growing concern. It is a confusing picture, as I think all noble Lords would acknowledge. I urge the Government and the Minister to at least consider Amendment 22, which would ensure that this problem was not made worse by this otherwise very sensible legislation.

I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. We are trying not to propose solutions but to probe the Government’s intentions, and the Minister has gone some way to setting those out. We are also trying to highlight the fact that the nature of employment and small businesses is in itself changing, and therefore some of the more rigid and perhaps elderly definitions are no longer necessarily fit for purpose.

I appreciate the Minister’s responses regarding the exemption on upward payments and a business database. The context there was useful. On that, I would greatly appreciate it, if he has any information regarding the projected economic impact of this policy, if he was willing to write to me about it.

I hope the Minister will take our suggestion away before Report. As I outlined in my opening speech, this is a good opportunity to use data that is already held by the Government to help businesses be more efficient and competitive. I hope that after the Recess we can reconvene and take this issue further and continue our discussions.

It was remiss of me not to thank the Minister for his offer of the Companies House meeting, which he made the other day in private. I meant to do that but totally forgot. I thank him, and yes please. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, this would seem to be the perfect amendment for the Minister to accept. As pointed out, it signals an innovative forward direction for the new department, it utilises complex legislation that has already happened, it does not cost anything, and nothing will happen for two years—perfect.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, for introducing his amendment. I cannot really improve on what has already been said, except to say that this issue has been raised with His Majesty’s Opposition in the run-up to this Committee stage. It is right that, should technology permit it, import and export trade contracts should be treated the same as domestic documents. That may not be feasible now, but the noble and learned Lord’s amendment provides what seems to me a reasonable timeline to get to that point.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, for tabling Amendment 19, and acknowledge his advocacy in relation to e-invoicing and electronic trade documents. However, the intention to exempt imports and exports from maximum payment terms through secondary legislation is crucial to supporting UK businesses. Whether helping British manufacturers import materials and parts or allowing British exporters to compete in overseas markets where longer payment terms are common, we do not want to undermine the ability of UK businesses to trade competitively by limiting this potential exemption through Amendment 19.

The delegated power in new Section 2E(4) allows Ministers to make exemptions where payment practices vary across sectors and to respond to changing market conditions. It will be used sparingly in a targeted and evidence-based way and ensures that the regime can adapt, while still improving payment practices and protecting smaller suppliers. Removing or unduly constraining the flexibility would risk unintended consequences for businesses, particularly in sectors with more complex supply chains or commercial arrangements where longer payment terms can be mutually beneficial. Retaining this power ensures that the regime can be adapted where necessary while still delivering the Bill’s core objective of improving payment practices and protecting smaller suppliers.

The Government want to tackle and end scenarios where businesses unfairly use their larger size and power to impose unfair payment terms on smaller businesses. In the limited circumstances covered by the exemption, we do not consider that such imbalance leads to unfair outcomes, and an exemption from maximum payment terms could benefit the purchaser and the supplier.

I remember the days when I worked in my dad’s import and export business, the days when you used trust receipts and bills of lading—I am sure noble Lords will remember those—and let us not forget telex machines either. We have come a long way. I remember also the days when you had to write up or type up your invoices and send them to your suppliers by post. These days we have platforms that do a lot of invoicing electronically. One has also to appreciate that businesses come in all shapes and sizes and while bigger companies have more sophisticated systems in place, smaller businesses may not. We need to be respectful of some businesses that may not have sophisticated systems.

As noble Lords will know, the Government are moving towards e-invoicing and, I hope, over time more and more business will be conducted electronically and we will not really need the noble and learned Lord’s amendment. For this reason, I ask him to withdraw Amendment 19.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

My Lords, I look forward to the debate on this group. Amendment 24 is incredibly straightforward. It requires that the purchaser calculates the interest and makes the payment in all circumstances because they have the means and the resources and are in the position to do such. In doing that, it does not just lead to an efficient process; crucially, it means that the relationship between the parties is maintained and not adversely affected as a consequence of these provisions. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond for this amendment. I am sorry that noble Lords have caught me eating a toffee, which was a terrible error.

The ability to charge statutory interest on late payments was established by the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. That Act, however, introduced that right only as a right to charge, which many businesses may choose not to exercise out of fear of damaging commercial relationships or losing out on contracts. With this Bill, statutory interest becomes an implied mandatory term of a commercial contract. Therefore, the interest will accrue automatically on overdue payments and the burden will not fall on the suppliers to claim that interest.

The amendment from my noble friend seeks to ensure that late payment interest is paid to a supplier within five working days. It further provides that where statutory interest is not paid within that timeframe, the unpaid interest will itself form a part of the qualifying debt and therefore be liable to a further charge of statutory interest. While we support this policy, we must ensure that businesses, particularly SMEs, are given adequate time to adapt to the new regulations.

The impact assessment recognises that small and medium-sized businesses will shoulder

“a higher proportion of net costs”

associated with this policy. It further states:

“The policy does not create specific mitigations for SMEs, rather information will be provided to all business, to support their understanding and complying with the new policy requirements, in line with previous guidance issued on statutory interest”.


Those words might not be particularly comforting for many small businesses that are already struggling. Might I suggest that the Government do a little more to explain precisely how they will support those businesses? What kinds of information will they provide?

I have tabled an amendment to the commencement clause of the Bill, to be debated later, which would prevent that clause being brought into force for one year. That is the kind of measure that will give businesses the time to adapt, understand the new guidance and prepare for the new regime. I hope that when we come to debate that amendment, the Minister will give it serious consideration.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, for this amendment. I understand the concern that statutory interest is not always claimed or paid in practice, and I agree that it is important to find ways to make the systems work better for suppliers. However, the Bill already strikes the right balance. It strengthens the existing framework by making the right to statutory interest universal, ensuring it cannot be contracted out of, and underpinning it with significantly stronger enforcement and transparency. This signifies a significant advancement, transitioning from a system where the right exists, but remains underutilised, to one where all suppliers are explicitly entitled to it and are supported in its enforcement.

This amendment would go further by introducing rigid and prescriptive requirements that risk undermining the balanced approach. A fixed five-day deadline for the payment of interest does not accurately reflect the practical realities of commercial and accounting practices and processes; it may pose a risk of technical breach to businesses that are otherwise compliant. The proposed definition of payment as an

“unequivocal and unencumbered use of cleared funds”

could lead to legal and operational uncertainties, diverting attention from timely payment to technical disagreements over banking procedures.

Additionally, classifying unpaid interest as new qualifying debt, which then accumulates more interest, risks creating disproportionately large and growing liabilities. The obligation for directors to report instances of non-payment to the Small Business Commissioner would also introduce supplementary administrative burdens, without a distinct enforcement advantage beyond the provisions already established in the Bill.

Taken together, these provisions risk creating complexity and uncertainty, rather than improving payment outcomes in practice. The Bill aims to enhance behaviour by establishing clear rights, enforceability and robust oversight, rather than specifying detailed operational rules in primary legislation. I therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

It would make very good sense if, at the same time as Ministers implemented the ban on retention payments through this legislation, they also brought forward regulations rapidly to commence the provisions of Sections 136 to 140 of the Building Safety Act— I hope they can do all this in the course of this year, rather than, as I think is intended, well into next year—and implemented the tender to procure the new homes ombudsman scheme and the code of practice. If we are proceeding with a full ban on retention payments, that would be an extremely good complement to that, because it would provide purchasers with a scheme designed to ensure that the homes being built for them are of the quality they expect. I beg to move Amendment 44.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lansley for speaking in this debate and introducing his amendments. Banning retention payments is one of the key changes that this Bill will introduce, but it is also one of the most contested, so I will begin by outlining our general position on these Benches.

We do not in principle oppose this step by the Government. To outline the scale of this issue, which I am sure the Minister will reiterate: 65% of retentions are not released on time and 20% are never recovered. Estimates of retentions lost due to insolvencies range from £0.25 billion to over £1 billion, and one need only look at the scale of the Carillion collapse to see that this is unsustainable. But, past the losses, retentions have been used for means other than what they were intended for. They are now widely used to retain cash flow and, in doing so, they transfer risk and reduce the margins of smaller subcontractors. So change is evidently needed.

While we therefore support the Government, we still must not lose sight of the intended use of retentions. They are supposed to act as insurance against defective work. If they are to be scrapped, we think that something must replace them. As my noble friend Lord Lansley argued persuasively, they provide qualitative assurance. I appreciate that the Government are discussing this with industry and that that they expect the market to find a suitable alternative, but some clarity about what they have in mind would be helpful.

Amendments 46 and 49, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt, seek to probe two potential alternatives: escrow and staging payments. Most importantly, the Government’s consultation on retention suggested a ban or something very similar to an escrow-type arrangement. Given that they went with the former, can the Minister confirm today at the Dispatch Box that escrows will not be banned by the backdoor?

Amendment 47, also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt, seeks to probe what the Government are doing to speed up their own transition away from retention payments. Public contracts make up roughly one-third of withheld retention payments, so it is only right that the Government lead from the front and demonstrate that they are driving this change.

Amendment 50 would exempt resident-run and resident-owned property companies from the ban on retention payments. I hope the Minister can confirm that this is already the case, but it is worth reiterating that residents should not fall under this ban on specific construction contracts.

I understand the principle behind the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Lansley. On Amendment 44, I will, however, make the same argument my noble friend made earlier about exempting SMEs from payment terms. Just because a small business is more vulnerable to retention payments, it does not follow that there is no risk involved for other businesses. We are therefore not in favour of specific commercial exemptions.

I am sympathetic to Amendment 48, but I would like to hear what the Minister has to say regarding alternatives before we consider watered-down forms of amendments. I hope that he will confirm in his reply that serious alternatives are being considered and that they are sufficient.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has said in the past that there may be other means to ensure the necessary delivery of projects without retention, and this group is designed to probe those other means. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, who set out the reasons why we too support the need for change, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, who points out the need for ensuring quality of delivery. It is a difficult conundrum that faces the Minister.

Amendment 46, from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Sharpe and Lord Holmes, sets out the possibility of escrow and whether that remains legal. I would add bonds and insurance solutions, which may be solutions to a similar delivery problem, or the nature of certification, which is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made. Either way, there is an issue around staging payments, which we see in Amendment 49 and discussed in a different vein in Amendment 52 from my noble friend. There comes a point when we have to ask: when is a staging payment a retention and when is it not? We start to have this grey area.

The Minister has a difficult job, but it is an important part of the Bill to get that right. Like other noble Lords, we are available to have those discussions, but, when we get to Report, there needs to be a way of squaring the issue of the abuse of retention with the need for delivery.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I totally understand where the noble Lord is coming from, of course, and I think we have indicated already that we are broadly supportive of the direction of travel. What he is in effect saying is that the suppliers have to behave better, reduce defects and do all sorts of other good stuff, all of which is admirable and worthy, but what are the incentives to ensure that they do? I am sure the noble Lord is familiar with the famous saying of Charlie Munger, who was Warren Buffett’s partner: “If you show me the incentives, I’ll tell you the outcomes”. At the moment there are no incentives, so the outcomes will not be good.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I think the mere incentive of getting the money earlier will ensure that the service and the quality of work will be done to specification. Otherwise, the claim for compensation will come in, so the whole incentive is to get the work done properly in the first place.

British Steel

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

I reiterate the Government’s thanks to parliamentarians on all sides for their constructive approach during passage of the Act. Today’s decisive action secures British Steel’s immediate future, secures steel-making in support of our steel strategy, and supports the jobs and steel-making communities that have underpinned the business for decades”.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s record on steel over the past two years has, I am afraid, been disastrous. Due to their tax, energy and regulatory policies, they have failed to secure a viable private sector future for British Steel, and taxpayers are now on the hook through nationalisation. British Steel itself has warned that the shortfall between its emissions and its free UK emissions trading scheme allowances is an ongoing liability that threatens the viability of domestic steel-making. Yet, from 2027, the Government intend progressively to withdraw those free allowances as the carbon border adjustment mechanism is introduced. Does the Minister accept that imposing ever-higher carbon costs on one of the last primary steel-makers is incompatible with reindustrialising Britain? Will the new Prime Minister therefore abolish the UK emissions trading scheme and scrap the carbon border adjustment mechanism so that Britain can reindustrialise at pace?

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

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord remembers that we discussed this at length during the passage of the Bill; I am sure he would not want me to reopen the debate. We are where we are with British Steel. I totally understand the need for transparency on costs, including carbon costs. As it stands, we will abide by our international obligations on CBAM; that stands as our policy and the noble Lord knows full well that that is the Government’s position. Having said that, any financial assistance to British Steel will be reported in the ordinary way. The Government will publish quarterly Written Ministerial Statements for at least the first year, giving contemporary information on the support provided. Ministers must also comply with Managing Public Money, Treasury controls and accounting officer duties. We will protect taxpayers while ensuring that British Steel has the stability needed to continue operating.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 11 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. It is vital, as we have said throughout our consideration of this Bill, that there is clarity about the liabilities which may be acquired when the Government exercise a principal transfer power. That is particularly important in relation to environmental liabilities. Steelworks are substantial and long-standing industrial sites and any environmental liabilities associated with the transfer could represent a significant future cost to the taxpayer.

I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendments in this group, which rightly focus on the need to consider the public finances. We have consistently raised the issue of the costs associated with share and property transfers and pension liabilities when compensation is assessed. I thank the Minister and the Government for their engagement on these amendments, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say and hope that at least some of these amendments will be accepted.

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

My Lords, before turning to the amendments before us, I begin by placing on record my sincere thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, for the constructive and collegiate way in which they have engaged throughout the passage of this Bill. We have not agreed on every point, but their contributions have been thoughtful, serious and rooted in a shared recognition of the importance of the UK steel industry. I am grateful for the time they have taken to meet with me to test the Government’s position and, for raising their concerns in such a fair and friendly spirit.

Responding to the points raised in this group, I will speak first to Amendments 7 and 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Over the course of this Bill’s passage, I have had ongoing and constructive conversations with the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, about the cost of nationalisation and the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Lords and I agreed that the Government must consider the costs of any nationalisation before exercising the powers. As I have stated to this House previously, existing public spending governance controls provide for this, with cost and value-for-money considerations embedded in the Managing Public Money principles and the well-established process of accounting officer tests.

However, the noble Lords have sought a statutory requirement on the face of this Bill. Through our conversations, I have been persuaded by their arguments, and I am pleased to say that the Government will support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which requires the Secretary of State to consider costs before exercising the share or property transfer powers in Clauses 4 and 15. We hope the House will agree. Our agreement on this issue reflects the commitment of noble Lords to ensure that this Bill is as comprehensive and effective as possible. It is an excellent representation of this House’s ability to work collaboratively, and I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for their engagement on this issue.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has also put forward Amendment 1, which would require the Secretary of State to have regard to the public finances when considering exercising the principal transfer powers. Given that the purpose of this amendment is achieved through Amendments 7 and 9, I do not think this is necessary in addition.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, have tabled Amendment 11, which would require the Government to provide a statement to Parliament outlining the value of contingent liabilities associated with a steel undertaking, and the steps taken to minimise taxpayer exposure to them, prior to an intervention. As I have set out previously, I have concerns about creating additional hurdles that must be cleared prior to the exercise of the transfer powers, given the likely need to act at pace. There is also a practical difficulty in publishing the details of a private company’s financial information prior to a nationalisation. None the less, the Government share the desire of the noble Lords to minimise the taxpayer’s exposure to liabilities as far as possible, and that will inform our decision-making. If a steel undertaking is nationalised, we would expect its annual report to include details of its liabilities, where relevant. We will discuss liabilities again in later groups today, and I look forward to that discussion. I hope that that helps to clarify the matter and provides the noble Lords and the rest of your Lordships’ House with sufficient reassurance.

Amendment 24, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, requires that where the Government have exercised the transfer powers, the independent valuer must prepare a written estimate of a steel undertaking’s pension liabilities and provide that to the Secretary of State, who should then publish the estimate before Parliament. Pension liabilities will of course differ for different companies. If the Government were to decide that it was in the public interest to nationalise British Steel, I reassure noble Lords that our understanding is that there would not be significant pension liabilities, as the company has a defined contribution scheme and so pensions would be funded from an existing pot. In cases where pension liabilities are relevant to the value of a steel undertaking that is subject to the powers under the Bill, the independent valuer should consider that as part of their assessment. None the less, publishing this in isolation would be unhelpful without the full context. The Government have already committed to publishing the outcome of any compensation scheme. Therefore, I do not consider this amendment necessary.

I hope I have been able to reassure noble Lords, even though there are amendments in this group that I do not support.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

6: Clause 3, page 2, line 11, leave out from “regulations” to end of line 12 and insert “extend that period for a further period not exceeding two years beginning with the end of that period.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would retain the ability for the Secretary of State to extend the principal transfer powers, but only in increments of up to two years at a time and only with the approval of both Houses under the affirmative procedure.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, these amendments stand in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. As we stated in Committee, we cannot have a perpetual sunset clause. A sunset that can be extended indefinitely and for an unlimited period at a time is not a meaningful sunset at all.

I welcome the Minister’s engagement on this aspect of the Bill. The amendment would provide an important safeguard by ensuring that any extension of the principal transfer powers can be for no more than two years at a time. That would provide greater certainty for investors, greater assurance for taxpayers and a clearer expectation that these exceptional powers are not intended to become a permanent feature of the Government’s industrial policy. It is also important that we have a Government who are confident in their stated aim of securing private investment for British Steel so that it can thrive on a commercial basis. Regular parliamentary approval for any extension will help to ensure that Ministers continue to focus on that objective.

I thank the Government for recognising these concerns and for working constructively with us to ensure that this amendment can be accepted. I beg to move.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, two years is quite enough for these powers, and it is generous of my noble friend to suggest allowing another two-year extension. As I understand it, these steel matters are being considered under a £2.5 billion multiyear estimate, which was meant to be for the modernisation of the steel industry. When it was originally agreed, people had in mind that this was going to be grant aid for new electric arc furnaces and other such investments—not to pay continuous and high losses on an older technology plant that may not have the long future we would like.

To get into better order with the Treasury, the Government might want to have some self-imposed restraint on the duration of this. We have been led to believe that the rate of loss is at least £500 million a year on the two blast furnace activities that are currently under the Government’s control but not in their ownership. That would be a totally unacceptable continuing rate of loss and would eat into what should be modernisation money. That would mean they would get to the end of this Parliament with very little improvement to show.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

6A: Clause 3, page 2, line 13, at end insert “, but may not be exercised so as to substitute a period that ends more than 2 years after the end of the period for the time being specified in subsection (1).”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, where the Secretary of State extends the period during which a principal transfer power may be exercised, the extension may not be for more than two years.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

12: Clause 39, page 25, line 32, leave out “the negative procedure” and insert “—
(a) the affirmative procedure, or(b) if the Secretary of State thinks it necessary to make regulations without using the affirmative procedure, the made affirmative procedure.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would upgrade, from negative to affirmative or in some cases made affirmative (see clause 61), the procedure for regulations about consideration and terms for the performance of continuity obligations (see clauses 33 to 38).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

13: Clause 45, page 28, line 37, leave out “negative” and insert “made affirmative”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would upgrade, from negative to made affirmative (see clause 61), the procedure for regulations about the enforcement of obligations under share transfer or property transfer regulations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, that was a very positive response from the Minister, and I thank him and his team for really listening to what we have been saying. Amendment 17 is an important step forward and I am pleased that he has tabled it. Amendment 21, as the Minister pointed out, makes something that might happen mandatory, taking on board fully the issues raised on another group by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and absolutely taking on board the issues I raised in Committee. I thank the Minister for his enthusiasm and look forward to this being added to the Bill.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I echo my noble friend Lord Hunt’s comments on the previous group. I thank the Minister for his engagement, and the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their amendments in this group. Amendment 17 is very welcome. It ensures that compensation regulations must provide for valuations to be carried out by an independent valuer rather than leaving that as an optional feature of the scheme.

I also welcome the Government’s work with opposition parties to ensure that relevant liabilities are properly reflected in the valuation process. In particular, Amendment 21 ensures that environmental and health and safety liabilities must be taken into account, as my noble friend Lord Redwood powerfully articulated on an earlier group.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I too welcome this from the Government. I think they will find it very helpful because, should we move on to the full acquisition of British Steel at Scunthorpe, there remain, as I understand it, financial issues outstanding with the current Chinese owners. It will be very important to have an accurate and full account of all these long, deep-rooted and sometimes very expensive liabilities to provide some counter to what we read in the press is their rather extravagant idea of how much they ought to be paid.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

38: After Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United KingdomWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed and every subsequent six months, the Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament which sets out the impact that nationalisation of any steel undertaking under this Act has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact any nationalisation of steel undertakings has had on inward investment to the United Kingdom.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 38 and 39, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. On Amendment 38, I hope that the Minister can give a clear assurance that the future impact assessment will include an assessment of the effect of nationalisation on investment in the domestic steel sector.

On Amendment 39, the Minister gave assurances in Committee that financial assistance would comply with domestic and international subsidy control rules. I would be very grateful if he could put that reassurance more clearly on the record. Could he please confirm that the Government have assessed whether any proposed support could give rise to concerns under the domestic subsidy control regime, including any conversations that they have had with the Competition and Markets Authority? Could he also confirm that Ministers are satisfied that the proposed support will comply with the World Trade Organization’s subsidy rules? I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in this group address inward investment and a level playing field. I emphasise at the outset that the Government are committed to ensuring that any publicly owned steel undertaking is subject to the same requirements and standards as any privately owned steel undertaking.

Amendment 38, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact of any nationalisation of a steel undertaking on inward investment in the UK. I reassure your Lordships that the Government are committed to revitalising the steel sector and to establishing an investible and competitive business environment. To date, we have had positive feedback from industry on the Bill and the Government’s approach to nationalisation.

To be clear, public ownership is not an end in itself; it is a means of safeguarding our strategic domestic capability in exceptional circumstances. Our intention behind any intervention would be to make the changes necessary to put the steel undertaking on a sure footing and, where possible, return it to a position where it could attract private investment.

As I have set out previously, any use of the transfer powers would require an impact assessment. This would set out the impact of a nationalisation on the economy and, where appropriate, the Government would undertake post-implementation reviews. As I have confirmed, the Government will ensure that a debate on the steel strategy and the impact of the Bill takes place in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords within 12 months of Royal Assent.

Amendment 39, again in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seeks to require the Secretary of State to maintain a level playing field between publicly and privately owned steel companies. I sympathise with the concern expressed by the noble Lords and want to make it clear that the governance and regulatory treatment of any nationalised steel company will seek to ensure a level playing field.

To emphasise this, I state that any financial assistance would be time-limited, targeted and proportionate to avoid market distortions. The provision of any funding would comply with domestic and international subsidy control obligations. I hope this reassures noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that any publicly owned steel undertakings will not be unfairly advantaged.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his remarks. It was particularly pleasing to hear that the Government have received positive feedback from the industry. It is not for now, but I wondered whether the Minister might be in a position to be a little bit more specific and perhaps write to noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, outlining some of those positive comments. That would help to contextualise our future debates. I am also pleased, as we have discussed in earlier groups, that we will deal with post-implementation reviews and that there will be a debate within 12 months in both Houses. That is a very welcome development.

As regards Amendment 39, I listened to what the Minister said. I am particularly pleased that he assured us that the Government will seek to pursue a level playing field quite explicitly and to avoid market distortion. Those are incredibly important things for so many reasons, particularly when it comes to encouraging inward investment and ensuring that existing operations are not disadvantaged by anything that the Government do on behalf of the taxpayer. In the light of those assurances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 38 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

44: After Clause 60, insert the following new Clause—
“Industrial action affecting a transferred steel undertaking(1) Where the Secretary of State has exercised a principal transfer power in respect of a steel undertaking, the Secretary of State may prohibit or restrict industrial action affecting that undertaking if the Secretary of State considers that the industrial action creates, or is likely to create, a sufficient risk to the public interest in respect of which the principal transfer power was exercised.(2) An act done in contravention of a prohibition or restriction under subsection (1) is not protected by section 219 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 (protection from certain tort liabilities).(3) Industrial action in contravention of a prohibition or restriction under subsection (1) is not protected industrial action for the purposes of section 238A (participation in official industrial action) of that Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would enable the Secretary of State, following the exercise of a principal transfer power, to prohibit or restrict industrial action only where it creates a sufficient risk to the public interest grounds on which the steel undertaking was brought into public ownership.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, when we debated this amendment in Committee, the Minister suggested that it was somehow about industrial relations. It is not. This amendment is about our national security. The Prime Minister himself has warned the House and the country that we may face aggression from Putin’s war machine against a NATO ally before the decade is out. Let that sink in. It is not “if” but a real and growing risk, on our watch, in this decade.

What is the Government’s answer when it comes to the very steel from which we forge our warships and our defences? Their answer, apparently, is that production could grind to a halt whenever a strike is called—no matter the stakes, no matter the moment, no matter who benefits from Britain’s weakness. This amendment does not abolish the right to strike. Let no one on the Benches opposite pretend otherwise. It says something far narrower and far more reasonable: that, where the Secretary of State has taken a steel undertaking into public ownership precisely because of its importance to the public interest, industrial action which threatens that public interest cannot simply proceed as though nothing were at stake. Where the risk is sufficient and where the ground for public ownership was the public interest itself, the Secretary of State may act to protect it.

We are told again and again that this Bill is about safeguarding a strategic national asset. Very well, we accept those arguments—but let us mean them. You cannot claim with one hand that steel production is too vital to be left to the market and with the other hand leave that same production exposed to disruption whenever it suits a dispute wholly unconnected to the nation’s defence. You cannot have it both ways.

If a strike stopped the plates and the girders needed for a Royal Navy hull at the very moment that the Prime Minister’s own warning came to pass, would the Government stand by, hands tied by statute, and watch it happen? If the answer is no, the Government should accept this amendment today rather than legislate the problem into existence and hope it never arrives.

In an earlier group, the Minister used as a defence how difficult the industry is and the massive external pressures that it faces. This is an issue that is within the Government’s potential control. They should accept this amendment. We on these Benches are not afraid to say what needs to be said. In an uncertain and dangerous world, national security must remain a priority. I urge the Government, in the interests of national security, to accept this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, raises a serious issue. There was a moment when I thought I had passed through the looking glass. Your Lordships on that side of the House were sitting on this side, and those Lordships who were here were sitting on that side of the House. The only thing that broke me from that reverie, far from it being the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, at the Dispatch Box, was the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. He was proposing the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, with which the Government of the day sought to do exactly as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, seeks with this amendment.

I ask the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, how many times that Act was applied. How effective was it? The issue that he raises is important. Of course the security of the country is important, but this is not the way to ensure the security of our country. Having a proper partnership with the workers in the industry is the way in which you secure the security of this country.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for those words. As this is the last group of amendments, I thank all noble Lords for their constructive approach to the scrutiny of this Bill. In particular, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, for taking the time to meet me over the last few weeks. The way in which we have been able to collaborative to refine and improve the Bill truly shows your Lordships’ House at its very best.

Amendment 44 is in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. Before I speak to it, I state that the Government take national security seriously; it is a priority. The amendment seeks to prohibit or restrict industrial action where there is a sufficient risk to the public interest grounds on which the steel undertaking is brought into public ownership. I understand that the intent of this provision is to ensure that any publicly owned steel undertaking can operate effectively without delay.

However, this is not the appropriate means to achieve this goal. I emphasise the absolute importance of workers’ rights. The steel workforce is the backbone of this industry. This Government are committed to protecting their rights and working with the trade unions and the workforce to ensure that operations are as effective and secure as possible. Noble Lords will know that I was closely involved in the delivery of the Employment Rights Act. Workers’ rights is an issue that is close to my heart. While political differences remain, we are not in the business of counterproductive approaches to industrial relations. As part of delivering the Employment Rights Act, our plan to make work pay, we are continuing to consult with businesses, trade unions and civil society to make sure we get the detail right. Several consultations are still live, including on reforms to zero-hours and similar contracts. This amendment is neither necessary nor appropriate to ensure that a publicly owned steel undertaking can operate effectively.

I hope I have convinced noble Lords of the reasons why the Government cannot support this amendment. I therefore respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response and, in particular, for the recognition of the central importance of national security in this matter. That is very welcome, but recognition is not the same as resolve. If the Minister truly accepts the force of the argument, the surest way to demonstrate that is not warm words at the Dispatch Box but acceptance of the amendment. I gently say to him that he could have strengthened his own case considerably by doing just that.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for pointing out my party’s admirable consistency, which sometimes we are criticised for. I suggest that nothing in this amendment would prevent any sort of proper partnership—to use the noble Lord’s words—with the workforce, which of course we would approve of and endorse as a first and foremost. The simple fact of the matter is that this is a different set of circumstances. We are talking here about the national interest and national security. They are of fundamental importance as regards this entire Bill, and that is why we have proposed this amendment.

To finish there would be to finish on a slightly discordant note, and I do not wish to. I am enormously grateful to the Minister for all his engagement and for accepting so many of our arguments. We are very grateful for the reassurances we have received from the Dispatch Box and the acceptance of some of our amendments, and we wish the Minister well in his future endeavours. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 44 withdrawn.

Unpaid Carers

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I totally agree with my noble friend that supporting unpaid carers is both a moral and economic imperative. When experienced people are forced to leave work, we lose their skills, productivity and contribution to our economy. That is why we are reviewing employment rights for unpaid carers, including paid leave and wider workplace support. But this goes beyond employment rights. We must also consider how healthcare, social care and employers can better support carers to remain in work.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is quite right that this goes beyond employment rights. The chief executive of Care England, Professor Martin Green, warned that the Government’s changes to employer national insurance contributions would leave many care organisations

“on the brink of bankruptcy”.

During the passage of the national insurance contributions Bill, His Majesty’s Official Opposition pressed the Government to exempt adult social care from these damaging provisions, but the Government rejected that exemption for no good reason. Will they now think again and exempt adult social care providers from these employer national insurance changes before more essential care provision—provision on which so many vulnerable people so desperately depend—is lost?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I hear what the noble Lord says about national insurance, but let me say this. There is a moral imperative on employers to play their part in supporting unpaid carers. There are fantastic employers up and down this country that are doing fantastic things to support carers. I shall give an example: Centrica estimates savings of £1.5 million last year in reduced absence costs alone, achieved through support measures for unpaid carers, with further savings on retention. So these measures result in improved retention, better productivity and reduced absence from work.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “of or including” and insert “predominantly of”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to narrow the definition of a steel undertaking so that it had to be a business consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel, or iron for the purposes or in connection with the manufacture of steel.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 1, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, is very simple. It seeks to confine the powers in this Bill to genuine steel businesses. Those are undertakings consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel—or iron for the purposes of steel manufacture.

As drafted, the definition catches any business which merely includes steel-making as part of its operations. That is a very broad formulation. It could, in principle, sweep up a diversified business in which steel was only a minor part of what it does. Businesses with a limited connection to steel production should not face uncertainty about whether it falls within the reach of these nationalisation powers.

When this point was pressed in the other place, the Secretary of State was asked whether a business with only 1% of its operations in steel would be caught by Clause 1. He did not say that it would not be. However, a statement of intent is not a limit on the face of the Bill, and future Governments are not bound by the assurances of this one. The Government say that these powers are intended for British Steel, and British Steel is obviously and predominantly a steel business. Therefore, this amendment should create no difficulty for that purpose. If the Government’s intention is genuinely not to use these powers against businesses with only a peripheral connection to steel, they should have no difficulty in accepting this amendment. I beg to move.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I fully support this amendment and hope that it will tease out from the Minister a little more about what the underlying purpose of the general legislation is, as I am not too enamoured of this becoming a fully nationalised industry with the ability to acquire all sorts of other steel interests.

I felt that the Government’s policy arose out of the circumstances of British Steel at Scunthorpe and the question of blast furnace-produced steel, where we are down to our last two blast furnaces. I did not think that the intention was to build an electric arc furnace set of businesses when progress has already been made in establishing these in the private sector and where there are plans in certain cases for government grant aid to achieve an electric arc steel additional business by that combination of subsidy assistance and private capital.

I hope that the Government will accept this quite substantial narrowing of such a broad piece of legislation, because there are many with general interests in steel whom we would not like to get caught up in this. I would also like clarification on whether there is any possibility that the Government might want to build a nationalised electric arc steel set of businesses. This would be an expensive and difficult proposition.

[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.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 30, 31, 43, 44 and 46 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wigley—who I thought made a very powerful case—and Lord Fox, for their previous speeches.

Amendment 30 goes to the valuation of a steel undertaking and the need for that valuation to reflect the real commercial environment in which the undertaking will operate. That environment is not fixed; it is being shaped directly by government policy and, in particular, by the new steel trade measure coming into effect from 1 July. Only days ago, the Government changed the detail of that policy, relaxing the original proposals somewhat, with tariff-free quota reductions pulled back from the level first proposed. We will no doubt discuss that in more detail when the Statement is taken tomorrow, and I do not intend to rehearse that debate now.

However, the fact is that the Government’s choices on trade policy will have a material effect on the commercial position, and therefore the value of any steel undertaking. A tighter quota and a higher above-quota tariff will limit import competition. The way quotas are set will affect downstream industries, supply chains, customer relationships and the availability of particular steel products. The Government cannot, on the one hand, present their trade policy as central to the future of UK steel and, on the other hand, resist any requirement for that policy to be factored into what a steel undertaking is actually worth.

The need for clarity is made more acute by the uncertainty of recent weeks. Businesses have been trying to understand what the new quota levels will be, how quickly quotas may be exhausted, which products will be covered and what the practical effect will be for producers and steel-consuming industries alike. Do the Government accept that the new steel trade measure will affect the value of steel undertakings? If so, why should the independent valuer not be required to consider it?

On Amendment 31, electricity costs are among the central determinants of the viability, competitiveness and future value of steel. The position facing British industry is stark. The United Kingdom has had some of the highest industrial electricity prices in the developed world. UK industrial users pay substantially more than competitors in France and Germany, and—on the most widely cited international comparison—around four times as much as businesses in the United States.

For steel-makers, the gap remains significant. That is particularly serious as the sector moves towards more electricity-intensive production methods, including electric arc furnaces. A business may have the workforce, the plant, the orders and the ambition to modernise, but it cannot compete indefinitely if one of its principal inputs costs materially more than it does for its overseas competitors. These costs, I am afraid, reflect recent policy choices by the Government. The fact that the Government provided some limited relief from network charges to eligible energy-intensive industries rather demonstrates the point.

The Government now say that further measures will bring prices closer to those in competitor countries, but closer is not the same as competitive—and nor is a future scheme with questions of timing and eligibility still to be resolved an adequate basis on which to value a business today. This amendment would require the valuer to consider the prices paid by UK steel producers, the disparity with comparator countries and the effect of any support intended to reduce energy costs, including both the costs after existing reliefs and the risk that relief may be time-limited, incomplete or dependent on eligibility. It should also include a clear comparison with major competitor countries.

Is the Government’s objective genuine parity in industrial electricity prices with our principal competitors? If not, what continuing cost disadvantage do the Government consider acceptable for a strategic trade-exposed industry? How will the valuer assess the effect of support, which is prospective rather than guaranteed, particularly where broader measures are not expected to operate fully until 2027? The Government’s own impact assessment accepts the seriousness of this problem. It states that energy costs threaten the sector’s long-term viability and its ability to compete. It also acknowledges that UK steel producers face higher electricity prices than comparable countries, and that contributes to the uncompetitive production costs and pressure on margins.

On Amendment 43, as we raised at Second Reading, the Government’s impact assessment recognises the risk of a chilling effect on investment if businesses and investors perceive a greater risk of state intervention—a point very well made by my noble friend Lord Redwood in the last group. The United Kingdom has long depended on its reputation as a stable, predictable and rules-based place in which to invest. The risk is greater in the current climate. Steel businesses are already dealing with high electricity costs, rapidly changing trade policy and significant regulatory burdens. Adding an open-ended power of nationalisation can only increase the sense of risk for those considering whether to invest in the United Kingdom. If the Government are confident that their actions will strengthen confidence and attract private capital, they should have nothing to fear from transparency.

Amendment 44 addresses a basic point of fairness. If the Government take a steel undertaking into public ownership, that business must not receive selective advantages which place comparable privately owned steel businesses at an artificial disadvantage. Without this safeguard, there is a clear risk of distortion through subsidies, preferential access to public contracts, more favourable regulatory treatment or other support unavailable to private companies. The Minister in the other place stressed the need for flexibility and for the Government to act quickly, but flexibility need not mean unfairness. It is entirely possible to support a strategic undertaking in exceptional circumstances while maintaining a level playing field for the wider sector.

On Amendment 46, if we accept the Government’s central argument that British Steel is critical national infrastructure and that domestic steel production is essential to our national security and without it we cannot build our Navy, jets or submarines, they must accept the logic of what follows from that argument: you cannot declare something critical to national security then leave it defenceless. Amendment 46 states that, where the Secretary of State has exercised a principal transfer power where steel has been brought into public ownership precisely because it is in the public interest, the Secretary of State must have the power to prevent industrial action destroying the very thing that public ownership was meant to protect.

We have seen what happens when Governments are all too timid to act. We have watched the railways held to ransom by the RMT, and we have seen it in healthcare where the former Health Secretary himself felt compelled to call out what he described as “cartel-like behaviour”. The Government have made themselves more vulnerable still. The Employment Rights Act 2025 stripped away strike safeguards that existed for a good reason. The ballot thresholds are gone: the Government unlocked the door and then expressed surprise when it was pushed open.

If a steel undertaking is nationalised in the name of national security and a trade union then calls a strike that shuts down production, what will the Secretary of State do? Will he stand at the Dispatch Box and explain that our defence supply chains have been severed because he did not want to upset the unions? Do the Government seriously want domestic steel production halted because a union decides the moment of public ownership is the moment to press its advantage?

The Government cannot have it both ways: they cannot argue that steel is so vital to this country that it must be brought into public ownership and simultaneously argue that, once it is in public ownership, it should be just as exposed to industrial disruption as any other business. The whole point of this public interest test, if it means anything at all, is that some things matter too much to be left to the ordinary run of commercial risk. Industrial action that threatens critical national infrastructure is precisely such a risk.

I invite the Minister to tell the House that the Government have considered the risk. I invite him to explain what powers the Secretary of State would have on the day a strike is called at a nationalised British Steel to keep the blast furnaces lit. If he cannot answer that question satisfactorily, this amendment provides exactly the answer that is needed.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the crucial issue of electricity prices. As the strategy is to convert more and more to electric arc furnaces, the price of electricity becomes the critical variant in determining how successful those businesses will be, how competitive their prices will be and whether they will generate cash and profit to reward those who ventured in them, or whether there will be problems for those businesses, just as there are problems in the British Steel carbon-based system through its blast furnaces. I hope the Minister can give us a little more background by way of reassurance, given that the steel strategy has been, and is still to be, based on electricity as the prime source of energy. There needs to be a policy that will consistently deliver competitive electricity prices because the current prices, without specific and targeted subsidy intervention, are way out of sync with the electricity prices in the more competitive world of our major competitor countries.

It is very important that this group of amendments raises the issue of tariffs. Of course, anybody valuing the assets that might be acquired under this legislation, or valuing what we already have by way of control and operating responsibility, will need to look at the impact of tariffs. It is a good idea to stress this because these are a very major change to the background for the conduct of steel businesses in this country, and we cannot be sure exactly what the impact is going to be. We have two types of impact arriving around the same time. There is the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which is, in effect, a fairly universal tariff based on the carbon content of imported material, which is clearly going to apply substantially to this industry. Then there are the specific tariffs which the Government have announced to come shortly, which target competitive steel coming into Britain with a very large increase in tariff and a rather low protected quota so that there will definitely be a substantial increase in cost for import.

You could argue, as I presume the Government do, that this is completely benign for our steel industry because it means that the combination of the immediate tariff and the soon to come CBAM tariff will make imported steel so much less competitive, and will therefore help reduce the pressures on our existing electric arc furnaces in the private sector and the two blast furnaces now, in effect, under the control—but not in the ownership—of the public sector. There will be some relief, as the policy intends. However, there can be other consequences which a valuer would have to take into account.

For example, the higher the cost of imported steel, the more difficult it will be for those many companies and industries that use and add value to steel in our wider steel-using industry. There will be limited scope for all users of imported steel to find exactly the right specifications of steel, and the right availability and pricing, from the rather limited-scale industry that the United Kingdom now has as a steel producer. There could well be financial difficulties, reductions in turnover and activity, or the collapse of steel-using businesses in the United Kingdom that face these very high tariff impositions on their main raw material. If they acquire more by way of import than at home and they cannot immediately substitute, you could have the paradoxical effect that the tariff designed to protect the British industry lost orders to the British industry as well as to the exporting industry from abroad. You could well have businesses here collapse—those that are substantial steel users but can no longer carry on the business efficiently to sustain their limited purchases from the UK, because of the cost of the expensive imports.

This needs careful policy examination. I am glad that the Government had one rethink about the tariff quota arrangements for this, but they probably need to do a bit more homework about the balance between the rather larger turnover at risk in steel-using businesses in the United Kingdom and the rather too small turnover available in steel production. They therefore probably need to consult a bit more widely over the medium- to longer-term impact on steel demand from domestic as well as imported sources.

I am interested in the proposals on impact on the economies, but I am not quite sure what is in mind and how it would work out. It is quite right, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, said, that there will have been impacts from previous closures or redundancies, and there could be future bad impacts as steel plants become more productive and need less labour, or as the final conversion is made from blast furnaces to electric arc, when there would clearly be a substantial loss of employment. There will need to be assistance and help for those who lose their jobs or have lost them in the past but still have not been able to retrain or find good alternative employment. One needs rather more by way of detail, and I am not quite sure that this Bill is the right place to do that, because it relates to a series of other government initiatives, funds and programmes that are more generally available. However, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, might be right that they need to be improved. That is a subject for another conversation on another day.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

12: Clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State extending the sunset of the principal transfer powers.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I hope that this outbreak of agreement means that the Government will accept my Amendment 12. The Government have repeatedly spoken of a long-term plan for steel—securing private investment, increasing domestic production, safeguarding jobs and creating a viable future for the industry. Against that background, Clause 3 comes as something of a surprise. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, indicated that he was somewhat reassured by its presence, but I suspect that its actual terms have escaped his usual vulpine scrutiny. A sunset clause is intended to place a clear limit on exceptional powers, but the Bill allows the Secretary of State to substitute, by regulations, a different period for the two-year limit.

Subsection (4) makes it clear that this can be done more than once. Therefore, in practice, the powers could be extended again and again, which gives no reassurance at all. Two years could become five years, 10 years or longer. That is not a meaningful sunset clause; it is a potentially perpetual sunset clause. It is an indefinitely renewable power.

What does that say about the Government’s confidence in their own ability to secure a viable private sector-led future for British Steel? If Ministers genuinely expect these powers to be exceptional and temporary, why do they require the ability to extend them without any stated final limit? This goes directly to the concerns raised throughout our debates—the risk of open-ended liabilities for taxpayers, uncertainty for investors and a lack of clarity about the Government’s intended endpoint.

The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has considered this point and has been unequivocal. It said:

“The use of delegated powers to bypass sunset clauses undermines their purpose, and sets an unusual and unwelcome precedent”.


It recommended either that the final period of extension be set out in the Bill or that there should be a statutory time limit each time the power is used. This would not prevent the Government seeking additional time when there is a compelling case, but it would require Ministers to return to Parliament with a clear final boundary rather than retaining power capable of perpetual renewal.

Will the Minister accept the Constitution Committee’s recommendations and bring forward amendments before Report? Will the Government set a final limit on these powers and demonstrate that they have genuine confidence in securing a thriving, investible and private sector-led future for British Steel? I beg to move.

[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.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Business Hiring

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 1st June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

That is a question that I personally have not put my mind to. I am happy to discuss it with my colleagues.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, 42 years on, I remind the House of my noble friend’s statistic that there are over 1 million NEETs at the moment. How depressing is that?

To follow on from my noble friend’s question, retail and hospitality are often young people’s first chance to enter the labour market, yet these are the sectors being hit hardest by the Government’s own policies. In April this year, the BRC, UKHospitality and the Food and Drink Federation, among others, sent a joint letter to Peter Kyle warning him that an inflexible guaranteed hours regime could mean an end to flexible roles altogether. They urged the Government to raise the reference period from 12 weeks to at least six months and to set the low-hours contract to eight hours. Will the Minister commit to listening to business and making these changes?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We committed during the passage of the Employment Rights Act to consult trade unions, businesses and all those affected as we take forward the other measures there, including the measures to which the noble Lord refers. At the appropriate time, we will put that out to consultation, which will be open to everyone to respond to.

On hospitality and retail, it is recognised that this is a very important first step, and that is one reason why we are expanding opportunities through the new foundation apprenticeships in hospitality and retail, launching a level 2 administrative assistance apprenticeship from August and introducing the £2,000 hiring payment for employers that recruit young apprentices.

Steel Sector

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to incentivise investment in and strengthen the long-term competitiveness of the steel sector.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business and Trade and HM Treasury (Lord Stockwood) (Lab)]

My Lords, steel is a vital component of the UK economy. That is why the Government have published their first ever steel strategy, underpinned by up to £2.5 billion of funding, to create stable, competitive conditions and to secure the long-term future of British steel-making. The strategy will attract investment to strengthen long-term competitiveness. It will also introduce a robust new trade measure to counter the damaging effects of global overcapacity, and reflect the importance of steel for critical national infrastructure and defence. It will also lower barriers to investment, through energy, grid and planning reforms, and mobilise demand for UK-made steel.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank the Minister for his Answer but, on that “robust” trade measure, can he say what proportion of UK steel imports of finished steel will be covered by the proposed reduced quotas and increased tariffs? Is it the intention to exclude Tata Steel and other finishing mills from import tariffs on their semi-finished feedstocks?

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the advanced sight of his follow-up question; I also commend the forensic, technical nature of the Question. The trade measure to which he refers covers 20 categories of steel, including all steel that is made in the UK. That includes bright bar, wire and stainless steel. Categories that were not covered in the steel safeguard are all now in scope. This means that the measure protects 100% of steel production domestically in the UK, whereas the steel safeguard protected only 96%. We engaged extensively with industry when developing this measure, and have sought to balance the need to protect the domestic steel-making industry while maintaining secure, reliable supply chains for downstream businesses. We will continue to engage closely with industry as we implement the measure, and we have committed to reviewing it in the next 12 months to ensure that it is entirely fit for purpose.

British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd April 2026 Lords Chamber

Today’s announcement of our bigger, bolder scheme is proof positive of our commitment to backing British businesses for the long term. It sits alongside our continued focus on short-term impacts, on which we will not hesitate to act where needed. We will continue using our activist industrial strategy to create the right conditions for British firms to succeed and grow. We do so because we know that when the Government and enterprise work in partnership, we can make Britain stronger, wealthier and more resilient. I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will soon trumpet the British industrial competitiveness scheme as being very good for business. But, for all the rhetoric and self-congratulation, this policy will have no meaningful impact on the overwhelming majority of British businesses. By the Government’s own figures, around 99% of firms will see no benefit whatever. So while the Government speak grandly of intervention and support, the reality for most businesses—our small manufacturers, our family firms, pubs, farmers, retailers and countless others—is unchanged. They will go on facing the crippling costs that we heard about in the previous debate, with no help at all from this announcement. Even with the reliefs that have been announced, they are staggered, and the earliest will kick in only in April 2027.

What is the wider context in which this Statement must be judged? It is one not of support for enterprise but of cost, burden and damage inflicted by this Government on British industry. Employers have been hit by increased national insurance contributions. Businesses now face the additional costs of the Employment Rights Act, which, by their own admission, run into the billions, together with the further burden of expanded trade union access to workplaces. That is something many employers will regard, in practice, not as access but as a licence to raid workplaces, disrupt operations and undermine confidence. Having said that, we must acknowledge one delicious irony of the Employment Rights Act: the Prime Minister will be seeing the first high-profile victim of an uncapped unfair dismissal award, which we on these Benches warned about.

The Government will now seek to blame the war in the Middle East, but that explanation simply will not wash. Britain’s industrial electricity prices were already among the highest in Europe and around four times those in the United States—long before this latest crisis. These are not sudden or unforeseeable problems; they are the product of policy failure. They are the result of loading electricity bills with the cost of an energy system increasingly structured around subsidising intermittent renewables, managing grid constraints and paying for mechanisms such as contracts for difference. Those costs were there before the latest conflict, and industry has been warning about them for years.

In what sort of alternative reality does it make sense to have to come up with various schemes—this, the BICS, the supercharger package, the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme, the network charging compensation scheme and all the rest, all of which are of mind-bending complexity and designed to mitigate the effect of the Government’s own policies with taxpayers’ money?

Then we come to domestic energy production. At precisely the moment when Britain should have been strengthening resilience and insulating itself from geopolitical shocks, this Government have moved in the opposite direction. They have imposed a punitive 78% tax burden on North Sea oil and gas producers—a windfall tax on windfalls that, in many cases, simply do not exist. They have halted new licences at exactly the wrong moment, when domestic production is needed most to buffer Britain from volatility abroad. The Jackdaw gas field could provide 6% of Britain’s gas needs. As my noble friend Lord Moynihan noted in the previous debate, there is no case not to do this. The result is plain to see: jobs are being exported, gas is being imported, rigs are leaving, investment is frozen, and capital is fleeing to more stable and more welcoming jurisdictions. Hundreds if not thousands of skilled jobs are being lost and Britain is becoming more, not less, exposed.

The Government will soon blame the high international gas price, which is used to set the domestic electricity price two-thirds of the time. But, as any O-level student knows, increasing supply lowers prices. Will the Government therefore reverse the ban on these licences? Is not the simple truth that the Government have chosen to make this country more vulnerable to geopolitical shocks, including conflict in the Middle East, than it needed to be?

In the other place, the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle, said that this package would deliver for Britain’s manufacturing, but what have the Government done to British manufacturing? The manufacturing base has already been damaged by the Government’s disastrous steel strategy, which has raised the cost of both domestic and imported steel. That matters profoundly for sectors such as the automotive sector, where steel is not incidental but foundational. One cannot claim to back manufacturing on Monday while making core industrial inputs more expensive on Tuesday.

The Secretary of State also cited the support of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, but does the Minister accept that the motor industry is simultaneously being hit by other government policies that are doing real harm? The electric vehicle mandate is imposing enormous costs on manufacturers, and the industry itself has warned of a multi-billion-pound burden—around £6 billion by the SMMT’s own assessment.

The Government’s rhetoric is one thing, but the reality is quite another. They speak of backing British industry while, in practice, they are crushing parts of our industrial base under the combined weight of energy costs, regulation, mandates and taxation. Will the Government consider abolishing, or at least relaxing, the EV mandate to give much-needed relief to the British automotive sector?

Yes, we welcome the announcement that the carbon price support will be removed from April 2028, but if the Government now accept that this burden damages competitiveness, why on earth are they waiting until 2028? Why must British industry continue to suffer for another two years before any relief is given? British industry needs lower costs, a competitive tax regime and a Government who stop making this country harder in which to invest, to manufacture and to do business.

[Baroness Kramer (LD)]

My Lords, this debate picks up from the Oral Question earlier on the IMF, which warned that the global economy is losing momentum as a result of the Iran war, with the UK expected to be the hardest hit of the G7 economies. The Government need to rethink in the shadow of war, not just to watch and wait.

That brings me to BICS. We welcome plans to bring down some of the highest energy prices in the world, and we are pleased that BICS, which benefits 10,000 of the most energy-intensive businesses, will also provide a one-off payment to cover this year. However, the money will not actually come until next year, so when will those businesses, all of which have to plan ahead and need to know the details—indeed, many are negotiating a whole variety of contracts as we speak—find out exactly what they will get, including which benefits and when they will come?

Many other businesses are threatened by rising costs here and now. I am not clear that the Government have recognised the acute energy cost problems for food businesses and agribusinesses, which not only will have a huge impact on the cost of living of ordinary people but, as we are now starting to hear from some reports, might even lead in certain areas to food shortages. Surely this is a call to action, so what action can we expect?

Frankly, many SMEs, the backbone of our communities, are on the brink from many kinds of pressures, as the Government will be very much aware. SMEs are exposed to a deregulated energy market, with very little support to face it. There is widespread concern about a lack of competition, which has the effect of locking them out of good deals by which they can price energy more effectively. SMEs with more than 50 employees do not even have access to the Energy Ombudsman. The hospitality industry is an extreme case right now and, frankly, it is pretty desperate. Will the Government at the very least instruct the CMA to open an urgent investigation into the state of competition in the energy retail market for hospitality? Will they find some quick solutions for all the areas I have covered? We cannot afford for these industries to endure any more stress and potentially curtail or curb their business.

Of course SMEs need to achieve energy efficiency, but we all know that means upfront costs. Will the Government set up an energy security bank as a mechanism to provide SMEs with low-cost finance so that they can invest in energy tech? They can then repay that finance because of the savings they make, so it would be a sensible and appropriate way to generate a circle of financing. With that, we would need a real overhaul of the business rates system. At the moment, firms are penalised if they invest in productive energy saving investments made on their premises. This is surely the opposite of what the Government want. Will they take action on these fronts quickly?

Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Tuesday 21st April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as president of the Tourism Society of the United Kingdom, and all the other things I am involved in within the hospitality industry—none of which now, sadly, is remunerated. I congratulate the Minister on underlining the importance of the hospitality and tourism industry to the United Kingdom. Certainly, I believe that it is one of our great growth industries and has tremendous potential for the future.

We are supportive of these proposals, which are broadly very sensible. The travel industry and the whole way in which people book their holidays have changed dramatically in my working lifetime and particularly over the last 15 or 20 years. The 2018 regulations were an attempt to corral some of the worst practices that were going on, with the development of the internet in particular. That they have been reviewed and considered and these proposals have been brought forward is indeed welcome. Getting rid of the two types of linked package, type A and type B, with type A going into the full package and type B disappearing, will be very welcome to many SMEs in particular. Frankly, my own little business in Scotland, that was probably in B, will be a beneficiary of that.

I have spoken to as many people in the industry as I can, and there is broadly a great welcome. I ask the Minister to keep a close eye on the implementation. I am glad that the year has gone in to give people time to make the necessary changes. There are some concerns about costs. The cost to business over 10 years, which is estimated at £98 million but offset by gains of £117 million, falls on slightly different people, so there are winners and losers in this. Broadly speaking, that is not a huge factor, but I think we should keep an eye on where the costs are just to make sure that we have got that right. I ask the Minister to continue to consult with the industry, both on the implementation of these regulations and what might be done to improve them in future. With that, I welcome their introduction.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I follow the noble Viscount in agreeing that the consultation needs to be ongoing, and I will come back to that theme in a second. It is important that the Government reduce the administrative burden as well as protecting consumers, and this legislation attempts to do so. The Government say that the purpose of the package travel framework is to give consumers appropriate protections while also supporting growth, innovation and collaboration in the travel sector.

Therefore, there are parts of this instrument that we support. The removal of the confusing linked travel arrangements category and the clarification of rights around redress from third parties respond to genuine problems. The Government say that the present framework creates confusion for consumers and unnecessary complexity for businesses, and that stronger, clearer rules can support confidence and demand. But the real question for the House is whether the Government have listened carefully enough to what businesses told them in the consultation—a point I will come back to.

The Government’s own consultation response says:

“Stakeholders consistently highlighted the disproportionate compensatory obligations the regulations place on travel operators … especially in relation to being the compensator of last resort”.


It also records concern about the interaction between ATOL and the package travel regulations for firms selling both flight and non-flight products.

First, on domestic packages, the Government found that 65% of respondents supported exempting UK-only packages without passenger transport from the regulations. Accommodation providers and leisure businesses said the current rules can discourage them from offering simple bundled products. Some said the legal and insurance responsibilities attached to packaging up a stay with an activity or voucher act as a deterrent, especially for smaller operators, but the Government have ultimately decided not to proceed.

My first question to the Minister is this: if the Government accept that many domestic tourism businesses are being discouraged from innovating, what practical alternative are they offering those firms today? If they will not legislate in this area, how exactly will they help smaller domestic operators to bring new products to market?

Secondly, on insolvency protection, the Government say that trust providers supported allowing organisers to combine trust protection with bonding and that 57% of respondents said that greater flexibility would help businesses meet their obligations, but the same response also makes it clear that industry fears piecemeal reform. Businesses warned that more flexibility without clearer trust account rules, stronger insurance obligations and better oversight could actually weaken protection and widen the gap between regulatory intent and industrial reality. My second question to the Minister is: what work is the department doing to address the broader structural problems that businesses have identified on insolvency protection, rather than leaving them unresolved, and what timetable is there for that work?

Thirdly, on redress and refunds from third parties, the move to create a 14-day period for refunds of cancelled services and clarify that there is a right to redress is welcome, as far as it goes. However, there are ongoing difficulties with enforceability, especially against overseas suppliers, so my third question is: what use is a strengthened right to redress if a small or medium-sized organiser still cannot enforce it effectively against a supplier overseas, and what support enforcement mechanisms will the Government put in place?

Fourthly, on other tourist services, the consultation exposed a real problem for many smaller businesses. The Government found that 55% of respondents wanted the “significant proportion” test removed. This test is used to decide whether an added tourist service, such as an excursion, spa treatment or event ticket, is valuable enough compared with the rest of the booking to make the whole arrangement a regulated package holiday. A modest add-on can become a significant proportion simply because the room rate is low, drawing smaller firms into regulation more easily than larger ones selling the same product. So my fourth question is: what further work will the department do with industry to produce a clearer and fairer test for other tourist services, particularly for smaller operators who say the present rules can work against them?

There is a further concern that we feel Ministers have not properly answered. Under the Government’s approach, firms may no longer be fully in control of when they are selling a package. The industry’s concern is that package status could be triggered not by a deliberate commercial decision of the operator but by the behaviour of the consumer during a single online journey. That matters because full package status brings with it major legal obligations including insolvency protection, organiser liability, refund obligations and, of course, wider compliance costs. The gateway concepts on which this reform depends—the “single visit” and “facilitates”—remain undefined in legislation. Businesses are being asked to accept materially greater liability, while the key terms determining when that liability arises are still unclear.

That lack of clarity creates a risk of unintended package organisers. Hotels offering add-ons, airlines selling accommodation or car hire through third-party plug-ins, and banks, supermarkets or white-label distributors that host travel products may all find themselves pulled into package organiser status without ever having consciously chosen to enter that market. The Government say that these reforms will make the rules clearer for consumers and support compliant businesses, but many in the industry fear the opposite: that it will mean more uncertainty for firms, more complexity in compliance systems and more scope for accidental liability. Can the Minister confirm that her department will publish statutory or regulatory guidance defining “single visit” and “facilitates” before any commencement date takes effect, so that operators at least have legal certainty about the scope of the new package definition?

There is one final question that I feel obliged to ask, because the Act under which this regulation is being made, namely the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023, actually expires in June this year. What replaces it? That is a question which my noble friend Lord Moylan asked during a debate on a transport SI recently, and to which the Government have yet to provide a satisfactory answer. Could the Minister have another go now, please?

We will not oppose these regulations today. However, I hope that the Minister can answer the questions I have raised.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangements (Amendment) Regulations 2026, and for underlining the importance of the sector. I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for welcoming the measures we are putting forward today to simplify the rules. We will keep a close eye on implementation.

--- Later in debate ---

To conclude, I think we all agree that this is a very important sector, and that the package travel amendments being made today will bring simplification so that more holidays can be taken by consumers. These reforms will strengthen the sector, ensuring that consumers continue to benefit from strong protections, as well as clarifying obligations, easing burdens on business and, in turn, supporting a healthy and thriving economy.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s commitment to talk to the industry more about these regulations, but can she commit to listening to what they have to say? The reason I mention that is that the option to absorb LTA(A) into the package definition was never presented to the industry as a specific, serious or preferred option—the closest it came was as one of four multiple-choice questions. It is very important that the industry be listened to when it is airing its concerns, particularly about single visit and facilitation. I ask that of the Minister, and I apologise for delaying her.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Yes, we will.