Steel Industry

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, it is fair to say that the steel industry has been in special measures for some time. The noble Lord has just referred to the acquisition that was made in 2020. Indeed, the last Government made sure that Scunthorpe did not close, and there was only one private investor prepared to invest in British Steel. I am conscious that the last Government nationalised another steel producer, Sheffield Forgemasters, again recognising how important that was to the needs of national security.

The strategy put out for consultation less than two months ago recognises that primary steel is still important, but the end is nigh for this blast furnace way of producing it. I am concerned that, on the one hand, we now seem to be in a temporary situation: let us recognise that the technology is not around the corner; it will be a long time before we are able to produce primary steel in a more environmentally friendly way. At the same time, it is concerning that Scunthorpe is close to its life end. I want to understand from the Minister whether she has asked the HSE for its view on the lifetime of these assets and the cost of repair. I am not suggesting that the Government should shy away from seeking to extend its life, but it is important to understand the amount of money being invested.

The other issue is the supply of coke. As has just been explained, that is the only way that steel can be produced with a blast furnace today. Yet, within a week of taking office, the Government decided to pull out of the legal case concerning the coke mine in Cumbria. I would like to understand from the Government whether they will revisit this, recognising that, at the moment, they are trying to source coal from around the world.

Thinking further about the issues with the Bill, the sunset clause has already been mentioned. With candour to the House, I can see these powers probably being used for at least 10 years. In taking charge of effectively nationalising British Steel, the Government have made a commercial decision. On Clause 7, I therefore want to clarify the following: while the regulations will not be available and will be done by negative resolution, is it the Minister’s expectation that there will be a 100% reimbursement to the owners of British Steel?

On thinking ahead, the steel strategy very clearly talks about the electric arc furnace. I am conscious that the Government had the deal in Port Talbot to make that transition, and I expect that they will want to make that transition in Scunthorpe in due course. However, there seems to be one part of the country where there is a site ready, with planning permission already granted and connections already sorted with the national grid and where there is already the political will locally, but it seems there is very clearly not the political will nationally. I am sorry: it feels, just because the voters of Teesside decided to vote for my noble friend Lord Houchen of High Leven, that, where there is an open deal to be done—it is my understanding from speaking to my noble friend that the owners of British Steel are keen to invest in Teesside—the Government have indicated that there is no way that they will help British Steel to do that. Thinking just about political back and forth is not—dare I say it—a grown-up way. We should be looking to the future, to have a comprehensive steel strategy, and to make sure that the political colour of who represents people locally does not matter or determine whether there will be good green electric arc furnaces producing steel in the future, which are necessary for the expansion of many industries. Living in Suffolk, not far away from the nuclear power station but also very close to where a significant number of wind farms are being or will be constructed, I am conscious that we need to try to increase the amount of production of those turbines onshore with green energy.

I am conscious that this Bill will sail through today and that the Act will be in place for a long time, but we need to make sure that, while steel is produced domestically, it covers all the sectors heading forward, as well as those that we are trying to rescue today.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Saturday 12th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

My Lords, I rise on the back of that very interesting amendment to take the brief opportunity to ask again the question that I asked when we debated the Bill earlier today, which relates to the same clause of the Bill—namely, when the Bill says that the Secretary of State has the power to exercise force on entering premises, which force in practice would he intend to use? The Bill gives him no power to direct chief constables; it would be practically, and probably constitutionally, improper for him to send civil servants from his department to force entry into premises. There is also no provision in the Bill allowing him to seek a warrant that would result in bailiffs being able to enter the premises.

I genuinely want to know how, in practice, the Secretary of State would exercise force. When I asked that question in today’s earlier debate, I did not get a satisfactory answer—or, indeed, any real answer at all. I have no doubt that, now that the Minister has had the opportunity to discuss it with the Attorney-General, who is sitting next to her, it may be possible that she can answer me in her response to this debate.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment tabled in my name. I am conscious of the extraordinary powers that are being granted to the Secretary of State today.

I will briefly speak in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. It is my understanding, having been in government, that anything in the name of the Secretary of State can be automatically delegated to a civil servant, but it cannot go beyond that. As we have seen in a number of cases, civil servants already have some powers to gain entry, but only in relation to specific Acts of Parliament—so perhaps this amendment would give a wide-ranging element.

This is clearly not an occasion to use the Civil Contingencies Act, but something that surprises me about this Bill is that the powers being given to the Government and the Secretary of State today are extraordinary and go way beyond what happened with the Coronavirus Act 2020. The inspiration for my amendment comes from the Bill that was presented to Parliament then. It set out that, to have scrutiny, a report would be put forward by the Secretary of State—over several periods, not just a year—and that there would be a debate on that report. Having a report matters because it would bring together how the powers have been used: have they been used in the way that both Houses anticipated? It may even extend to the provision of how the finances would be distributed for the regulations we have yet to see.

Overall, it is important that, when we give these powers for just one industry—I guess that if we were to name the company it would end up being a hybrid Bill, so that has been deliberately avoided to make sure that it covers the entire steel industry—we should be able to have regular discussions, not simply because this is the steel industry but due to the scale of the powers being granted. To that end, that is why I have literally lifted, with a bit of adjusting, what happened in the Coronavirus Act. Frankly, for something that took over our country in such an unprecedented way, I hope that the Government would concede to think carefully about how they will report back to this House and how this House can be involved.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Brinton.

The whole House heard my contribution during the take-note debate, and I am grateful for the subsequent supportive comments that noble Lords made to me afterwards. Amendment 5 reflects that contribution. As noble Lords can see, it calls for a debate in Parliament after six months. That would be a substantive debate on which the House could vote if it so decided.

The whole House also heard me pledge to work constructively with the Government to get a solution to the question of giving Parliament an opportunity to debate a possible continuation or cessation of these emergency powers. I hope that the constructive discussions we have had over the past hour or so will bear fruit and that the Minister will be able to accept the spirit, if not the letter, of Amendment 5 from her Dispatch Box. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we too have, in a sense, lifted experience from Covid, but—with all due respect to her—we believe that Amendment 5 offers more flexibility to the Government while also giving the oversight that Parliament needs at a level that is not overbearing.

These are emergency powers and periodic debate is essential. Equally, the Minister called for sufficient flexibility for the power to be either kept or discarded. We should recognise that there will be times when this may need to be turned on and turned off, and the process I propose would allow that happen. Our amendment provides for that flexibility while also somewhat enhancing parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships that she agrees with us.

Employment Rights Bill: Productivity

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

Monday 31st March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

I am grateful to my noble friend for making these points. I should reiterate that Britain’s working people and businesses will be the driving force of the UK economy, but the current labour market is not delivering for either. The productivity gap with France, Germany and the US has doubled since 2008; average salaries have barely increased from where they were 15 years ago; and the average worker would be more than 40% better off if wages had continued to grow as they did leading into the 2008 financial crisis.

A final point: alongside its productivity performance, the UK lags the OECD average on most employment protections. We inherited an economy that was in decline, with poor productivity, and we intend to fix that.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, Jonathan Reynolds rightly met Rupert Soames, the chairman of the CBI, to listen to its concerns about the reference period for seasonal-hour workers. Will the Minister undertake to meet the FSB, which is looking for a rebate of statutory sick pay? The Government should consider this, at least for days 1 to 3.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, of course I am happy to meet with all the stakeholders. No doubt a programme will be put together to do just that.

Employment Rights Bill

Baroness Coffey Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 27th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friends. I will start with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, who I have known for 35 years from when we were students together. She was elegant and eloquent then, and that will continue. I am also looking forward to my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, as I am sure he will spice things up if we are to judge by some of his past publications. I extend my congratulations to the noble Baronesses, Lady Berger and Lady Gray of Tottenham. Without destroying their reputations in this House, I consider them to be friends, having come into the House together with them and worked with the noble Baroness, Lady Gray, in government too. I am sure that they will continue to staunchly uphold their principles as well as contributing to national debate.

In terms of national debate, this Employment Rights Bill entered the other House 100 days into this Government with 149 pages. After Committee in the other place, there were 191 pages, and now there are 299 pages, which it will be generous to get through in seven days of Committee consideration. Today, I want to focus on just a handful.

On Clause 59 relating to union finances, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burns. I do not understand the trend, with all the consumer and legislation protection that we put in place, for encouraging people to have to opt in to contractual arrangements. The default now by and large is that you are automatically opted out. I believe that should be continued, especially when there is a section in the legislation which suggests that union members who have not opted out should be reminded only every 10 years that they have the opportunity to do so.

On small businesses, I know the FSB is particularly concerned about two matters: the day-one risk of taking people on with there being no statutory probation period yet in law, and statutory sick pay. It used to be the case that SSP was rebated to all employers. I know that because when I worked at Mars, I used to fill out the forms every year to get the refund. However, that got taken away, recognising some of the improvements to be made in occupational health. It is important that the Government reconsider that with this shift to day-one rights, or at least produce an impact assessment.

On getting automatic rights on day one of employment and unfair dismissal, this already applies through the Equality Act. There is consideration of people with disabilities and other protected characteristics. I support the Government’s measures for a right to try in getting people a job, but perhaps the same should apply to employers. They have a right to try out employees and the statutory notice period should be put in the Bill and not left to regulations.

It is important that we continue the work of the occupational health task force to make sure that we have positive arrangements in place so that people can start, stay and succeed in work, but we need to remove the uncertainty, because I fear that companies will simply choose not to grow. I know that from my experience in Suffolk and some of the flexible working practices there. I understand why the Labour Government have chosen to put even more controls on them, but without the support of small businesses we will not get growth in productivity and, indeed, economic growth more generally.

On the fair work agency, I welcome the construction of this combination of regulators—it is a sensible approach—but I consider Clause 113 to be novel. When I asked the Minister in the other House, Justin Madders, he seemed to suggest that the EHRC had similar powers. The Equality Act actually gives the same powers as Clause 114, under which legal assistance can be provided, including advice, representation and other forms of assistance, but not the situation where the fair work agency could take a case on behalf of a worker, or somebody who has applied for a job and is not even a worker. Subsection (6) removes any liability from the Secretary of State towards that same worker. Of course there will be a need to recover legal costs from the worker. I understand that, if there is a big payout, the Government may want to recover the funds that they have given out, but the regulations need to change to the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. In Clause 114, who will get the money to take people’s cases to court? Will it be the unions or a bunch of law firms? That does not feel like the approach we should be taking with taxpayers’ money, although it admittedly strengthens rights.

I should say to the Government that I have nothing against trade unions; I actively encourage people to join them. They can play a valuable role. I have never felt the need to join one myself, although it is in my blood: I looked at the 1921 census and my grandfather was an apprentice shipbuilder. It was also noted in the census that he was on strike, so it certainly runs through the Coffey veins. Indeed, other people were trade union organisers. But we need to be careful that we do not end up destroying growth rather than promoting it.