Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Fortunately, this is a short speech so I can lengthen it by repeating that.

This amendment would confirm on the face of the Bill

“that the Act does not apply to contracts principally for the licence or assignment of copyright or rights in performances, so that royalties, advances and residuals under publishing, music, screen and similar agreements fall outside the late payment regime”

as envisioned by the Bill. Noble Lords will not be surprised to learn that this amendment has been supported by Creative UK, PRS for Music, which is UK Music, and the Publishers Association. It would insert a new clause after Clause 8—which we have now agreed—and seeks to make a clear distinction between contractual remuneration and royalties.

I know that the Minister has been in discussion with the publishing industry and that, given his business background, he is clear on this issue. However, I do not think the Bill is as clear as the Minister is on this, so it would be very helpful for him to set out in detail these distinctions, effectively putting royalties outside the scope of the Bill. I would prefer an agreed amendment to come forward on Report but, at the very least, some clear Pepper v Hart-style assurances need to be made from the Dispatch Box. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for tabling Amendment 37, which seeks clarity on this important issue. As he explained, this amendment would confirm in the Bill that the Act-to-be

“does not apply to contracts principally for the licence or assignment of copyright or rights in performances, so that royalties, advances and residuals under publishing, music, screen and similar agreements fall outside the late payment regime”.

But it also opens the debate to raise some interesting questions on whether the Bill should be sector-indiscriminate or whether there are certain industries for which regulations regarding late payment must be more bespoke. There may be strong reasons for stipulating that publishing, music and screen agreements fall outside the late payment regime. We look forward to hearing the Minister outline the Government’s position on that specific question.

However, if that is the case, noble Lords must ask two questions: first, whether these reasons could equally apply to other industries that should therefore also be exempted; and, secondly, whether there exist other distinct but legitimate reasons for different industries to be exempted. Even if there are good reasons for exempting certain industries, we must be wary of opening the floodgates such that this late payment regulation loses its practical force. Again, we all look forward to hearing the Minister detail the Government’s stance on this important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, we now move to a very important part of the Bill, namely Part 2, on the Small Business Commissioner. I praise all those involved in the build-up to the Enterprise Act 2016. After a lengthy period of consultation, in which I was privileged to participate, the Conservative Government set up the role of the Small Business Commissioner. Its purpose was to tackle overdue payments and unfavourable payment practices. So it is a pleasure to open this debate by moving Amendment 55 and speaking to the others in this group in my name and that of my noble friend, because we now seek to expand the role of the Small Business Commissioner. I am pleased to start by saying that His Majesty’s Opposition support these changes. Our many amendments to this group are simply to clarify or build on the Government’s already solid proposals.

Amendments 55 to 57 probe the reasoning behind limiting the scope of the commissioner’s powers to disputes between small and larger businesses. I understand the argument that small businesses or consumers are more likely to be bankrupted by dispute proceedings, but the same cannot be said of small businesses on the receiving end of poor payment practices. I wonder whether the Minister can outline the rationale for expanding the commissioner’s powers to include these size-adjacent disputes.

Amendments 64 and 65 probe what additional grounds may be included in the reasons for declining to adjudicate disputes and which additional disputes may be exempted from adjudication. These powers have the potential to be used both widely and arbitrarily, which is why we have tabled Amendment 72, which would require both Houses of Parliament to approve any new regulations. In general, if the Minister could anticipate what these powers might be used for, I think we would all find that extremely helpful.

Similarly, Amendment 62 from my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley would require a reason to be given for declining to adjudicate a dispute. I think this is a courteous, low-cost measure that would do much to increase the transparency of the commissioner’s office.

Amendment 71 in my name and Amendment 59 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, aim to set a timeline for resolving disputes. I am conscious that the cases brought to the commissioner may differ greatly, both in scope and resolution and in the amount of time required. As such, I am aware that any timeline could create a bottleneck. That being said, I believe that some expectation should be placed on the commissioner’s office to resolve disputes in a timely manner. So, if the Minister cannot agree with either of these terms, I hope he will be able at least to suggest another solution in his response.

I also consider Amendment 75, tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh, to be very important. Currently, under the Bill, a larger business may be investigated should it persistently engage in poor payment practices, with “persistently” being defined as an equally vague “sufficient” number of times. Businesses deserve to know what this means, if for no other reason than so that they can avoid it. Discretion should not be introduced where it does not need to be, so I hope the Minister can put a number on what exactly constitutes “persistently”.

However, these amendments are ultimately fruitless if they are not taken in conjunction with Amendments 69 and 93. The amendments in this group aim to increase the efficiency and transparency of the Small Business Commissioner’s office, which is now rightly having its powers greatly expanded—though the funds and resources the office will receive to carry them out remain very vague and opaque, so we seek more clarity from the Minister. Last year, the Small Business Commissioner had a net operating expenditure of just under £1.1 million. It was not allowed to hire permanent staff members and handled a total of 591 inquiries—not disputes.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say that extra resources will still be available, as he did at Second Reading, but not to give any further details. The time has come when we need to have a very clear steer on exactly what this budget will include and amount to. This is a root and branch reform that will not just completely change the nature of the commissioner’s office but have ramifications for businesses up and down the country. It must have a clear funding plan laid out. That is why we support Amendment 93 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. It would ensure that the commissioner’s new functions would not be commenced until a funding plan has been laid before and debated by Parliament. This is the bare minimum, surely, for a reform of this kind.

Both the commissioner’s office and the businesses that will rely on it need to know that they will be adequately provided for. One cannot instil institutional trust in a reform if it appears that it is being underfunded. I hope the Minister can now commit to a funding plan. If there is no clear plan, neither I nor the noble Lord, Lord Fox, will be satisfied and we will return to the matter on Report. The Minister has a real opportunity now to answer all these questions; let us get ahead with this very important reform. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, given his continued involvement with the Small Business Commissioner. There are a lot of amendments in this group. In order not to overstay my welcome, I will not speak to his amendments—but I am broadly in agreement with everything he has just said.

I have a number of amendments in this group. Amendment 59 would require payment disputes referred to the adjudication scheme to be resolved within 60 days, unless the Small Business Commissioner considers a longer period reasonable. The Bill creates a 60-day limit by which private organisations must pay back small businesses. However, although in the case of a dispute there is a time limit for the dispute to be raised, there is no time limit for the case to be resolved. This means that large companies could in effect raise a dispute and delay resolution, putting pressure on the SMEs to settle.

As can be seen from the amendment, it calls for the adjudicator to

“reach a decision determining a relevant payment dispute before the end of the period of 60 days beginning with the day on which the dispute is referred to adjudication under the scheme”.

To facilitate this, the adjudicator must

“compel parties to share relevant information with itself, if the sharing of such information is necessary for the fulfilment of the duty”.

However, where necessary, the commissioner may extend the period to resolve a particular issue, having regard to the complexity of a dispute and the conduct of the parties. The commissioner must set out reasons for any extension. This amendment addresses this, and it is an issue to which we attach quite a lot of importance.

As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just said, Amendment 71 looks at a 28-day limit. Separately, Amendment 79 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, looks at 12 months for an investigation. That is a very long time, but I look forward to what he has to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for taking part in what has been a very important debate. I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I warmly applaud what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said about the critical need for clarity—as my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond emphasised, not just clarity but precision. We believe that these elements are essential, particularly on resources. It is all well and good passing legislation—ground-breaking legislation, to some extent—but, if there are no resources behind that change in legislative structures, the ultimate objective will not be achieved.

Speaking on behalf of all those who have spoken, I believe that it is the intention of all of us that the expanded Small Business Commissioner’s office should work as the Government intend it to work. The amendments in this group simply represent different views on how best to achieve this. I warmly applaud my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley, who always gives us the correct feedback from the world of business. He did so again just a few moments ago. His remarks about giving the cold shoulder have been proved with the effectiveness of the takeover code. We have to isolate—perhaps we have not had enough discussion about this—those companies that have poor payment practices and get through to them that, across all parties, we condemn such action, in particular when it has such a dramatic impact on small and medium-sized enterprises.

I understand that the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would include overseas turnover when calculating a company’s turnover. We need to discuss that further. We need to get UK tax law right.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Simple—have a flat tax.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Anyway, that is a debate for another occasion.

The Committee has made it clear that we support the prohibition of new regulations without what they might be used for being outlined or without them being approved by both Houses of Parliament. I have also set out our position on the timeline for the adjudication of disputes. It is an argument that I believe has some merit and would benefit from at least some guidance from the Minister, but I warmly applaud the consensus across the Committee that the question of funding must be answered before the Bill passes. As I outlined at the start of this debate, businesses must be able to trust the office for it to function as intended, and trust includes knowing that it has the means to deal with the disputes with which it has been tasked by this legislation. I understand that the Minister cannot commit today to a set amount or a timeline, but I hope that, over the summer, he and his officials will come to a solution on this issue—perhaps with the support of a rejuvenated Treasury.

I look forward to revisiting this debate. On behalf of all those who are interested, I accept the Minister’s offer of a meeting with the Small Business Commissioner and her team, which I think would greatly enhance our ability to understand some of the issues involved. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, these amendments are very much of the style that I had expected, knowing that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, was involved in the Bill, and he certainly made his arguments. To some extent I think there is a mixed thing here, with some of it mandating tools that the SBC could or should use. I do not think we need primary legislation to mandate that at all. I think the point that the noble and learned Lord made on Amendment 78 was slightly different from the one that the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, made. I may have misunderstood. But it is very important to know where AI is being used for decision-making and resolution. I think that was the point that the noble and learned Lord was making, and there I have complete agreement.

The use of distributed ledger is probably a very good idea. Do we need primary legislation to make or advise the SBC to use it? I am not sure. There is a mixed bag here, but the important element is that technology will change how the commissioner will approach her job and she needs to be financially and technically resourced in order to be able to address those changes and, I hope, to be one step ahead of them.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

We are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, not only for his amendments in this group but for his wise words. I also commend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on their points.

Amendment 73 would require the Small Business Commissioner

“to provide a plain-language digital pathway into the SBC adjudication scheme, including an eligibility checker, interest calculator, and guided referral process”.

I believe there is a lot of common sense behind this amendment, and I suppose I declare an interest having been UK chair of the English-Speaking Union and global chair for a number of years. Placing a statutory duty on the commissioner to provide a digital service would ensure that small businesses could more easily get the essential and relevant information about the scheme. The inclusion of a plain language eligibility checker would mean that small businesses could determine whether they are entitled to refer a relevant payment dispute to the scheme. This would not only benefit the taxpayer, as time and expense will not have to be expended sifting through ineligible applications, but would also benefit small businesses that may otherwise have to spend money on legal fees and advice.

Amendment 78 would establish

“an algorithmic accountability framework for any AI or automated tool used by the Commissioner. It requires transparency, regular bias audits, human oversight, and a right of explanation for businesses selected for investigation”.

There is clear reasoning behind this amendment. If a business is put under investigation, it should be entitled, upon request, to understand the factors that led to the initial decision to investigate. Not only will this provide transparency and act as a safeguard against particular businesses being targeted, it will mean that businesses are able to reflect on their existing practices and amend them as necessary.

I turn to what my noble friend described as one of the most important amendments, Amendment 92, as well as Amendment 94. Amendment 92 would require the Secretary of State

“to commission an AI-assisted payment monitoring tool for the Small Business Commissioner”.

Amendment 94 would require the Secretary of State

“to establish an open, machine-readable register of payment practice reports”.

Both these amendments rest on the principles that technology and data, when used in a constructive way, can yield more effective and efficient outcomes. An AI-assisted payment monitoring tool could be used by the Small Business Commissioner to cross-reference data that companies are required to publish with other government databases to identify businesses whose reported payment performance is incompatible with other available financial and legal data. Such a tool would provide the commissioner with more accurate and robust data, which could be considered before the launching of a potential investigation.

Similarly, an open payment data register would enable analysis by sector, business size and payment performance over time. If this register were publicly accessible and machine readable, third parties would also have the ability to deploy their own large language models to gain insights into the sector, as well as potential businesses that must be referred for investigation. Crucially, by making the register public, large businesses may be further incentivised to ensure that they are complying with existing payment practices and regulations. I look forward to the Minister’s response on these matters.

Amendment 95 would require

“a pilot of distributed ledger technology for construction retention records during the transition period”,

while Amendment 96 would require

“post-quantum cryptographic standards for all digital infrastructure supporting the Commissioner’s functions”.

These are technical amendments which require careful consideration.

In the absence of a clear cyber strategy, which the Government have promised would be released—they have promised it again and again—it remains unclear how the digital infrastructure supporting the commissioner’s functions remains shielded from cyber threats. I hope that the Minister will be able to inform us all of when such a strategy will be published.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Report stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 8, 10, 12 to 14 and 40, standing in my name and that of my noble friend. I thank the Minister for working constructively with us on Amendments 12 and 13. It is vital that where the Bill confers regulation-making powers of real consequence, the default should be the affirmative procedure. Amendments 8 and 10 would apply that principle to the core transfer powers, regulations transferring securities, and regulations transferring property rights and liabilities. We understand the Minister’s argument that in exceptional cases powers may need to be exercised.

Turning to Amendment 40, I ask the Minister for a clear assurance that a thorough impact assessment will be brought before both Houses of Parliament after the various powers in the Bill have been used. Given the potential effect on taxpayers, workers, investment and the wider steel industry, they must assess whether these exceptional powers have delivered the outcomes claimed for them.

Finally, Amendment 14 would remove Clause 50. The Constitution Committee was clear that the broad power allowing the Secretary of State to modify the law in relation to a share or property transfer

“should either be removed or significantly tightened”.

That is a serious recommendation from an important committee of this House. The Government should either accept the committee’s recommendation or make much clearer in the Bill the limited circumstances in which such a power may be used. I look forward, therefore, to the Minister providing some assurance on Amendment 40 and on the Henry VIII powers. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 15 and 16 in my name, but first I speak in support of Amendments 12 and 13 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, which I have co-signed. Importantly, these would add necessary additional parliamentary control over continuity obligations and property transfer regulations. We moved similar amendments in the Commons that failed to attract sufficient support there.

Regarding Amendment 10, the Minister has convinced me that the need to quickly transfer property rights transcends the necessity of moving to an affirmative form of approval from a negative regulation. That is why I have not co-signed Amendment 10.

I tabled Amendments 15 and 16 as it is important that Parliament must be kept informed once any nationalisation is effected. Amendment 15 would create a new clause causing there to be a report on principal transfer powers from the point at which those powers are exercised under the Act. It says that the Secretary of State must

“make a written statement to each House of Parliament setting out … the progress, and the operational and financial performance, of the steel undertaking in respect of which a transfer power has been exercised, and … the impact of this Act, including (so far as it is possible to assess) its effects on the steel industry in the United Kingdom, on employment and on the public finances”,

and that this duty

“continues until no steel undertaking remains in public ownership”.

I hope the Minister has something positive to say on this, which includes reflecting on how the communities and skills requirements are being met in whichever part of the UK is affected by any nationalisation and subsequent changes.

It is a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Empey, was not with us in Committee, because he would have participated in a debate on an amendment that was very similar to Amendment 15, which covers not only the territory of Northern Ireland but the whole of the United Kingdom. I feel that the noble Lord’s point is important, but if it is important for Northern Ireland then it is important for the rest of the UK. I think he will see that Amendment 15 seeks to bring that across our entire country.

Amendment 16 seeks to create a stakeholder advisory committee. I will not repeat my speech from Committee, but its aim is to have stronger input into the steel strategy from steel users. The Minister responded with news that the steel council may be augmented by additional new members. I hope he can elaborate some more on how the voice of steel users is reflected more effectively in order for the Government to avoid such issues as those that have been created by the steel tariffs.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Wednesday 1st July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 21, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, would, ultimately, put into the Bill what the Government say is their objective. The then Secretary of State for Business and Trade said that the Government’s aspiration for British Steel was

“a co-investment agreement with a private sector partner to secure a long-term transformation”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/25; col. 841.]

The future of British Steel cannot rest indefinitely on public ownership and continuing working capital injections, together with an open-ended commitment from the taxpayer. It must be a viable, competitive and investible business able to secure private capital for the investment and the transformation that it requires. Yet that objective does not appear in the Bill. There is no statutory duty on the Secretary of State to seek a private sector purchaser, no clear exit route from public ownership and no requirement to report to Parliament on progress. Without that discipline, there is a real risk that nationalisation becomes not just a temporary intervention to stabilise and restore business but an accumulating and indefinite cost to the taxpayer. If the Government are serious about a private sector-led future for British Steel, they should have no difficulty in accepting that duty.

Amendment 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is very important indeed. It goes to the heart of concerns raised throughout these debates, including by my noble friend Lord Redwood on the first day in Committee, that the Government need a genuine business strategy for steel. Where nationalisation is contemplated, there must be a strategy for skilled employment, retraining, reskilling and local economic renewal. Workers cannot be treated as an afterthought to a transfer of assets or as a balance sheet exercise. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, Amendment 23 is in my name. I was very pleased to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, just said, because I had put in my notes that I feel that this is an important amendment. I hope it is pushing at an open door.

In the previous debate, on Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, spoke of the effect on local communities. I agreed then, and this amendment would put in place a requirement for a jobs and industrial transition strategy to follow once the Secretary of State has exercised the principal transfer power in respect of the steel undertaking. I emphasise that this would be post exercising that power.

This amendment calls for the strategy to be laid before Parliament within six months—sooner, I would hope—from the exercise of the transfer powers. This published strategy must set out the Government’s investment and transition plans to protect employment, deliver a skills and reskilling programme and, if necessary, redeployment opportunities, and deliver real economic renewal, while supporting resilience in communities that are dependent on that steel undertaking. I am happy to discuss with the Minister ways of achieving this objective, but this process is aimed at ensuring that there is an explicit plan to which Parliament will be able to hold the Government to account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thought it would be helpful, on this group, to bring together the necessary levels of scrutiny about which I have spoken on various other groups in various different ways. In moving Amendment 36A, I will speak to my Amendments 38 and 41A.

As prefaced on the previous group, Amendment 36A would require financial assistance under Clause 58 to be approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament before it may be provided. By amending Clause 58, financial assistance under the relevant subsection would have to be provided through regulations specifying the financial assistance proposed to be provided and the estimated cost to public funds of that assistance. These regulations would be subject to the affirmative procedure.

The Minister got his revenge in early on the previous group, because Amendment 38 outlines a mechanism by which parliamentary scrutiny of the public interest test and nationalisation could work. I propose a new clause after Clause 58 that would prevent financial assistance being provided until 90 days after information about the package of financial assistance has been made available to a Select Committee of the House of Commons or the House of Lords.

I take the Minister’s point about timing, but this is a useful probing amendment to look at the role of Select Committees going forward in the scrutiny of this. I hope the Minister will have something broader to say if he continues to shoot down the principle of the timing of this intervention. This amendment proposes that the Select Committee should look at

“details of the nature and amount of the financial assistance … the intended beneficiary or beneficiaries of the financial assistance … the expected purpose and effect of the financial assistance … any conditions, repayment arrangements, guarantees, indemnities or other liabilities attaching to the financial assistance, and … any other information the Secretary of State believes it is necessary for the Committee to have in order to complete its consideration of the proposal”.

Whether this is before or post hoc, the Select Committees —either of just the Commons, or of the Commons and the Lords—need to have this important investigation. Of course, any information that would be made public that might compromise national security, fiduciary duties or commercially sensitive issues would not be included. Going forward, it would be useful to hear from the Minister his understanding of how Select Committees will be involved.

I had hoped to persuade the Government to commit to an annual parliamentary debate on the steel industry—its strategy, the market and the state of nationalised businesses in the industry—both in the Commons and in the Lords. This would take place once a year, as long as there were still steel undertakings in public ownership. Perhaps we can discuss this, but Amendment 41A proposes an alternate approach to information sharing. It would require the Secretary of State to make a Written Ministerial Statement every three months on the progress of any nationalised steel undertaking.

During the during the passage of the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act—SISMA—just before Easter last year, Ministers committed to a debate six months following Royal Assent on the use of direction-giving powers. That took place in October 2025. This was a commitment to a single occurrence, but SISMA also included a commitment to a monthly Written Ministerial Statement on the use of direction-giving powers. If British Steel were taken into public ownership, this commitment would fall away, replaced only by any commitments associated with this Bill.

To date, there are no provisions of anywhere near this level of information sharing within the Bill. So, without this amendment, as the cost to the taxpayer increases, the level of parliamentary scrutiny would actually decrease, creating less scrutiny for steel nationalisation than there is under SISMA. I accept that a monthly report may be unreasonable, and I know that the Minister has mused in our discussions about half-yearly reports, but I think quarterly would be a sensible interval, and that is what this amendment seeks to achieve. I do not think any Minister would be afraid of doing this because, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said on the previous group, a level of public understanding of what is going on—the difficulties, the struggles, the cost and the importance of the industry—is important. This is an opportunity to restate that, coming back to the point about what is happening in the communities, and with jobs and skills. We would expect that to be included in those quarterly reports. If we are not getting a debate every year, this would be a better response, in a way.

Taken together, these three amendments are designed to deliver a level of comfort: an affirmative process for assistance, a role for the Select Committees and a quarterly reporting mechanism. I beg to move.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, this is a very important debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for these amendments. It is not just a case of public understanding; I think the public would expect Parliament to hold the Government to account. In many ways, I hope we are pushing at an open door with these amendments. In an area potentially involving substantial financial assistance, the Government must be able to provide both Houses of Parliament with a clear indication of the estimated cost to public funds. Parliament must be able to scrutinise not only the principle of financial assistance but its scale, purpose, conditions and likely liabilities.

The proposed 90-day period in Amendment 38, which we have already debated, strikes a sensible balance. It would allow an expert Select Committee to examine the proposals and make recommendations, while preserving the Government’s ability to proceed once that scrutiny has taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, seemed uncertain several times as to whether it should be a Select Committee of the House of Commons or of the House of Lords. I have always been a great believer in Joint Committees. Something of this importance requires both Houses of Parliament to scrutinise it, and the best way to do that is through our expert Select Committee process.

Parliament has enormous expertise which should be used in determining the appropriate level and form of support. That is particularly important where taxpayers may be exposed through grants, loans, guarantees or indemnities. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively on how he intends to proceed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 49 to 55 standing in my name and the name of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom. As we have just discussed, the explosion of environmental, social and governance—ESG—red tape has created a vast and complex web of rules, which force businesses to comply with political targets at a cost to investment, job creation and, above all, the competitiveness of Britain.

Admittedly, I should add a declaration of interest, as a practising solicitor in the City of London. This has undoubtedly created an explosion of work and therefore I should probably declare an interest. But I do not take any pride in the fact that ESG reporting requirements have become more and more burdensome and onerous.

This is why I am delighted to confirm that His Majesty’s Official Opposition have committed to repealing a number of ESG reporting requirements, including those addressed by this group of amendments, so that unnecessary business costs can be removed and businesses can focus on investing, growing and creating jobs. However, if the Government are going to nationalise a steel undertaking, in order to minimise the cost of its transition, attract private sector investment and reduce the burden on the taxpayer, they should at least disapply these regulations in respect of that undertaking. British Steel employs more than 4,000 people and is, therefore, likely to be caught by a number of these costly and burdensome requirements.

Amendment 49 would disapply the Companies Act strategic report requirements, which require quoted companies to include annual greenhouse gas emissions information and reporting on environmental impacts in directors’ reports. Amendment 50 would disapply greenhouse gas emissions and related environmental reporting requirements. Amendment 51 would exempt a nationalised steel undertaking from the energy savings opportunity scheme, which requires large companies, including those with more than 250 employees or turnover above the relevant threshold, to carry out energy audits every four years to identify energy efficiency opportunities.

Amendment 52 would disapply the energy and carbon reporting requirements which apply to large companies and limited liability partnerships. Amendment 53 would remove executive pay ratio reporting requirements. These require certain companies to report chief executive pay against median, lower-quartile and upper-quartile employee pay, with the figures subject to audit. Amendment 54 would disapply forest-risk commodity due diligence and reporting requirements. These would require businesses using certain commodities to conduct supply chain due diligence and publish annual reports. Finally, Amendment 55 would disapply climate-related financial disclosure requirements. These require companies and LLPs to report how their boards oversee climate risks, the impact of climate change on strategy, and the metrics and targets used to assess those risks.

None of these requirements reduces electricity costs, secures orders, improves productivity or makes British Steel more competitive, yet each requires additional reporting, auditing and compliance costs on a business which the Government may have taken into public ownership at substantial expense to taxpayers. I therefore say to the Minister that, if the Government are serious about making a nationalised steel undertaking viable, investable and capable of returning to the private sector, they should focus on reducing unnecessary burdens and allowing management to concentrate on commercial recovery, investment, modernisation and jobs. I beg to move.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was planning to say nothing and I will say little more than nothing. I have a question for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, which he can answer when he gives his response to the Minister. Can he remind me when most, if not all, of these measures were brought on to the statute book?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have tabled a number of amendments regarding the deregulation of the steel sector. These amendments focus on three core areas of regulation: industrial action, environmental regulations and reporting, and company reporting.

I recognise the concern from noble Lords that any publicly owned steel undertaking will face a significant array of reporting requirements. That is true, and the Government believe that these are necessary to ensure that any publicly owned company operates in a similar way to its privately owned counterparts. Any publicly owned steel undertaking must protect its workers’ rights, fulfil its environmental obligations and transparently report on its progress.

At the outset, I make the general point that a company under public ownership is ordinarily treated as a public corporation—that is, it is run as a private company with an independent board of directors, operating under broad strategic direction from Government Ministers. It is right, therefore, that such a company is subject to the regulatory frameworks within which any similar private company operates. I also emphasise to noble Lords that amendments seeking to level the playing field within the steel industry are inconsistent with that position. Instead, the amendments in this section seek to give preferential treatment to publicly owned steel undertakings.

I will now address the amendments directly. I believe that Amendments 50 to 52, 54 and 55 are intended to address the noble Lord’s concern that the Government’s industrial decarbonisation policies could impose additional costs and burdens on publicly owned steel undertakings. In summary, these amendments seek to exempt publicly owned steel undertakings from a number of statutory requirements, including greenhouse gas reporting, the energy savings opportunity scheme, energy and carbon reporting, forest-risk commodity due diligence, and climate-related financial disclosures. Although I recognise the noble Lord’s concern that there is a range of requirements on the steel sector with regard to environmental reporting, I cannot support these amendments.

The reporting requirements the Opposition have identified are integral to this Government’s commitments to decarbonising our industries. Our steel strategy set out a vision for a move towards green, decarbonised steel production. We are committed to supporting the sector in achieving those objectives, as evidenced by the £500 million of funding to Tata Steel for the development of its electric arc furnace in Port Talbot.

A public steel company, no more than any other steel company, should not be exempt from these important transparency requirements. Accepting these amendments would undermine the intent of the Government’s industrial decarbonisation policies, creating an unfair system for other domestic steel producers. The Government are committed to revitalising the entire UK’s steel industry, not only the companies in public ownership. Alongside this, the Government believe that these requirements are critical to industrial decarbonisation and to meeting net zero.

Finally, I will address Amendments 49 and 53 together, as both seek to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from existing corporate reporting requirements. Amendment 49 would disapply the strategic reporting requirements under Chapter 4A of the Companies Act 2006, while Amendment 53 would remove the requirement to publish information on executive pay ratios.

I recognise that the purpose of these amendments is to reduce the administrative burden on a publicly owned company. However, the Government do not believe that public ownership should entail lower standards of transparency or accountability. Indeed, if a steel undertaking is brought into public ownership, there is an even greater expectation that it should operate openly and be subject to appropriate public scrutiny. That is why the Government expect any publicly owned steel undertaking to comply with the standard reporting obligations that apply to comparable public corporations. Its annual report and accounts should provide Parliament, taxpayers, employees and the wider public with a clear and comprehensive overview of the company’s financial position, operational performance, governance and remuneration arrangements.

Transparency is not merely a regulatory requirement; it is an essential part of maintaining public confidence. It supports effective parliamentary scrutiny, promotes sound corporate governance and demonstrates that public assets are managed responsibly. It also serves a practical commercial function. Should the company seek external finance, strategic partners, or, in due course, a return to private ownership, prospective investors and creditors will rightly expect access to robust, reliable and consistent corporate reporting. Maintaining those standards will enhance rather than diminish the company’s long-term prospects.

For all these reasons, the Government believe that a publicly owned steel undertaking should be held to the same high standards of openness and disclosure as comparable public corporations. Public ownership should set the bar for transparency, not lower it. I therefore hope I have explained why the Government cannot support these amendments, and I respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I will be very brief and speak with some support for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. As far as I can tell, the Bill does not require legislative consent from either Cardiff or Edinburgh. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. If it does not, the principle set out by the noble Lord, for both Wales and Scotland—I know that there may be industrial differences, but the two things apply—would be very important. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in that regard.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I very much echo what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just said, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his amendments, which raise very important points. There are considerable concerns about what is happening at steel plants in Wales and the consequences for the workers, their families and the much wider community. It is right that, where these powers may affect a Welsh steel undertaking or devolved responsibilities, Wales should be properly involved. I urge the Minister to respond positively to the concerns so rightly raised by the noble Lord.

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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We are speaking, as we did several times during the passage of the Employment Rights Act, with one voice, and that voice tonight has met with a response from the Minister that still requires a whole range of actions to be taken. I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in recommending that everything possible should be done to resolve disputes at an earlier stage. This is the key, rather than overloading an already existing system that is creaking under pressure, although I know that tribunals are determined to try and meet the problems of overreliance and overcapacity.

I will say just two things about early resolution. I am troubled that discussions are taking place about the lack of resources for ACAS. ACAS could provide a great deal of opportunity for early resolution. I will also just say that I recall the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I think it was, or one of his colleagues, pressing for a review of Section 10, including the right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings. Given the pressure on the employment tribunal system, does the Minister not agree—perhaps he might write to me about this—that better support for employees at an earlier stage might prevent some workplace disputes escalating unnecessarily? Will he at least indicate to us at some stage, perhaps in correspondence, how a review of that whole mechanism could proceed? There will be lots of opportunities, I hope, to resolve this.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I was planning to write a letter on that very subject, because I felt that it was not necessarily due in this debate, so there is a letter heading in the Minister’s direction on the right to accompany. I appreciate the noble Lord raising that.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

That is another demonstration that the Opposition speak with one voice. It is now up to the Minister to answer, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Monday 10th November 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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


and we heard a little of that just now.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The news release further states that the report

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

that is, CRaG—

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

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

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

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 28th October 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Less—or more—prosaically, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has set out the issues here doggedly and in detail. I still feel that we are in a “he said, she said” situation, and it is extremely difficult to unpick how this will work. I assume—I am sure—that the statutory instruments and the rules will probably fill in the detail. We on these Benches will wait to hear what the Minister says but we are not currently minded to support the noble Baroness.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the progress he has made on a very valid point he raised earlier in these debates. I also say to my noble friend Lord Parkinson and the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner: my goodness, they must be chuff-chuffed with the result. It has been a major step forward.

I also congratulate my noble friend Lady Barran on making some compelling points. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to them and rethink the approach that he outlined earlier. We were greatly helped by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, bringing his personal experience to bear on this problem.

If my noble friend wishes to test the opinion of the House, certainly, on these Benches, she will have our support.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

It would be very useful if she could share it with the other Front Benches as well.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister. We have had a very important debate. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, because we have not really spent enough time worrying about the people who are just unable to cope. Working conditions have changed so much. Stress-related sick leave is a huge issue, as is what the noble Baroness referred to as “losing the habit of work”. These are issues that we have to think about very carefully.

There is an important and complex issue of so-called presenteeism, which deserves greater attention in our discussions about workplace health and productivity. I came across some research—perhaps the noble Baroness had this in mind—carried out by Robertson Cooper: its 2023 data, drawn from over 3,000 UK respondents, revealed that almost two-thirds, 60%, of employees reported working while they were unwell, so-called presenteeism, in the last three months. That is an important issue, which has to be taken into account in any impact assessment.

The distinction is essential because not all forms of working while unwell are inherently harmful. Some, such as pragmatic or therapeutic presence, can be beneficial for both the employer and the employee. The challenge lies in identifying when presenteeism becomes detrimental and ensuring that workplace policy, including statutory sick pay reform, supports businesses in managing that balance effectively.

I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Vaux of Harrowden, for reminding us of the finding of the Regulatory Policy Committee. We just need to be aware of the severe criticism that was meted out about a Bill that is making such profound changes while in the gloom of uncertainty, because no one can be actually sure what effect these changes are going to have.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Committee stage
Thursday 8th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Lucas and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, were looking for the draft regulations. I do not think I need to remind the Committee of my declaration of interests; at Second Reading, I reminded the House that I am still a practising solicitor. It is no accident that, last week, City AM—a newspaper circulated widely through the City—said that the Bill is the biggest boost for the legal profession that anyone had ever seen. Many more lawyers will be needed to wade through the complexities of the Bill.

In particular, as my noble friend just pointed out, we are constantly debating the Government’s power to introduce regulations, but Parliament is not allowed to see those regulations when it passes the primary legislation that gives Ministers the power, after consultation, to do whatever they wish whenever they wish to do it. We are going to have this time and again in this series of debates. Surely it is right that, if the Government are taking the power to introduce detail—in particular by amending primary legislation—we should see that detail, if only in draft, before we decide to give that power to Ministers.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I do not know whether I am allowed to intervene on this, but I wonder whether the noble Lord heard the Minister say that the Government are consulting on draft regulations. Perhaps he might ask the Minister to share those draft regulations with us during the process of consultation.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I completely agree and am very grateful to the noble Lord, who introduced the whole concept of “lumpy”. As well as “lumpy”, we are all talking about “flexible” and he also said “fluctuating”.

This has been a very helpful debate. I particularly enjoyed my noble friend Lord Moynihan of Chelsea describing the history of the introduction of the minimum wage and how it gave rise to zero-hours contracts in the first place. It is a reminder that we have to be careful every time we take a key step down the road to creating more employment law, as we have to be mindful of the consequences.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Londesborough, that we have to keep thinking of the start-ups and scale-ups, and the effect that this legislation will have on them. It was good that my noble friend Lady Noakes reminded us of the truth behind the Low Pay Commission 2018 Report that small and micro-businesses, as she put it to the Committee, need flexibility. My noble friend Lady Coffey reminded us that one’s job quite often depends on whether it is raining, as she put it. I think it was Mark Twain who once wrote that, in England, everyone talks about the weather but no one ever does anything about it. It is a fact that demand often fluctuates according to the weather and this was a good reminder of that.

I welcome the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. His four points were key; I accept them and will carefully ponder each one—particularly his point about escape routes. Our purpose—mine and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom—is to ensure that we do not need escape routes, because we will get a law that fits the way in which the economy can grow and be more competitive. That is what it is all about. It is not about short-term contracts being the answer here and another form of contract being the answer there. Most employers want stability so that they can look forward with confidence.

How right the noble Lord was to remind us of the importance of small and medium-sized enterprises. It must surely be a worry in his mind as to the effect this onerous Bill will have on those small and medium-sized enterprises looking to grow and expand that do not have an HR department that can set out for them exactly the way ahead through all the bureaucratic routes they have to follow. They want to be able to grow and expand without carefully checking which rulebook applies. They, of course, always allow bereavement leave. All the employers I have known, when there was a tragedy in a member of their workforce’s family—I am not talking about just my clients but across the whole sector—did, of course, allow people time off. Therefore, we should not be establishing rigidity.

This is where I find myself in total agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Fox: we do not want a two-tier system. However, as my noble friend Lady Noakes pointed out on our previous Committee day, there are various tiers already in the tax system. The exemption I sought in Amendment 21 surely does not in any way undermine the rights of workers but gives the Bill the flexibility it needs to succeed in practice. We have heard in this debate and from businesses across the country that a rigid one-way system for guaranteed hours simply does not reflect the way in which large parts of our economy function. Retail, hospitality, tourism, logistics, seasonal industries—all rely on flexible staffing, and they operate in environments that can shift rapidly, sometimes overnight.

I plead again with the Minister that these amendments provide a narrow, principled route for employers to propose changes: not to walk away from commitments but to respond when there is a genuine and material change in business operations. No retaliation, no loopholes, just a basic safeguard to ensure that businesses are not locked into obligations that are no longer viable.

Let us be honest, if employers are not able to make changes in response to real pressures—a drop in demand, a loss of control, over-capacity—they are far less likely to offer guaranteed hours in the first place. That is not speculation; it is what we are hearing from so many of those making representations about the Bill at the present time. The result is clear: fewer jobs offered, fewer guaranteed hours and fewer opportunities, especially for the very people who rely on flexible and part-time work. That means young people, students—who we will come to in a moment—workers with disabilities, carers and, of course, those trying to get their foot on the ladder.

Finally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Sharpe that it would be helpful to sit down with the Minister and her colleagues to see if we can find a way through. Otherwise, we shall have to return to this on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Yes. I had to turn up at 5 am and then read the news.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I am excited by the noble Lord’s anecdote, as I was by other noble Lords’ anecdotes, but would he perhaps concede that that was several years ago and the employment market, and indeed the student body, might have changed somewhat since then?

British Steel

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Thursday 24th April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to return to the subject of Scunthorpe and British Steel. I start by saying once again, as I said on the last occasion, that our thoughts today must be with the steel-workers, their families, the suppliers and the communities whose future hangs in the balance in what is a very difficult and challenging situation.

We welcome the news that British Steel’s redundancy plans have been halted. This will be a relief to the workers and their families who have endured months of uncertainty because, when one looks at the background to this whole situation, one sees that the Government have just not had any plan at all for British Steel. As was said when we met on Saturday 12 April, during the Recess, this situation should never have been allowed to reach this point. The closure of the Stellantis plant in Luton—as long ago as 29 November last year—was a stark warning, yet still the Government failed to act in time. So, although today’s Statement brings some short-term reassurance, it is by no means a resolution. This is only the beginning. I say to the Minister that we now need urgent clarity. We need to understand how the Government plan to secure the future of the British steel industry.

That includes a clear strategy to boost domestic steel production, a credible plan to attract and sustain private sector investment, and an assurance that the broad powers that the Government have taken will genuinely be temporary. Although we are told that these powers will not be held

“for a minute more than is necessary”,—[Official Report, Commons, 12/4/25; col. 843.]

the Government’s recent approach with delegated powers and Henry VIII clauses is precisely why this House called for a sunset clause. Parliament was just not given sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill properly, and the Government should have taken that opportunity to come back to Parliament with improved proposals that had not been rushed through. Sadly, that proposal was rejected. We now have a commitment that the Secretary of State will provide updates every four weeks, and we are going to have a debate in this House, in September or October, on the future of British steel. This is very much what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and many of us called for on the last occasion, but the House really now needs to hear a commitment from the Minister that this will be a substantive debate. On the last occasion, the Minister said:

“I can confirm that my noble friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the Act”.—[Official Report, 12/4/25; col. 534.]


I do not know whether the Minister has had an opportunity of talking to her colleague, but we really would like some further detail, because this House must be given the opportunity to scrutinise and influence the direction of policy in a substantive debate. Can we please have that assurance?

We must of course also address the cost to the taxpayer. Have the Government provided any form of estimated assessment of the public cost so far? Looking ahead, where will the ongoing costs land, especially if the government intervention continues or escalates? On that point, the Business Secretary has now said repeatedly that nationalisation is likely. Can the Minister confirm that any move towards nationalisation will not be rushed through at the last minute via emergency legislation? If it is indeed the Government’s intention to nationalise, they should make that clear today and bring forward legislation without delay. This House must be given the opportunity properly to debate and scrutinise such a significant move. What happened during the Recess is not acceptable and should not be repeated, because it was an appalling way for Ministers to treat Parliament. The Government should act in a timely way to prevent unnecessary uncertainty and strain on our steel sector workers and their families.

Then to the matter of the Government’s long-promised steel strategy: we are told that this will be laid before us very soon. Can the Minister give us an idea of what it will contain? Specifically, will the Government consider, or reconsider, opening coking coal mines in the UK? On the last occasion we debated this, the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, asked the Minister:

“Will the Government reconsider the decision not to support the Cumbrian mine, which can produce high quality coking coal?”.—[Official Report, 12/4/25; col. 517.]


There was no indication of an answer to her noble friend’s question in that debate, and we would love to hear an answer from the Minister today. I realise that there is a sulphur problem, but it is long standing and can be overcome. Can we please reconsider opening coking coal mines in the UK? It is patently absurd to reject domestic coking coal on environmental grounds, only to import it from thousands of miles away at a greater environmental and financial cost.

Secondly, the Government have committed £2.5 billion in investment in steel. Will the Minister clarify for what this funding is intended? Is it going to cover running costs? If not, who will? Are we expecting the taxpayer to carry that burden as well?

Finally, I have a broader question. Will the Government now reconsider elements of their environmental policy and regulatory framework that have at times actively harmed UK industry? Of course we must stay committed to our environmental obligations, but surely that must be balanced with industrial viability, energy, security and economic growth. Can the Minister confirm whether such a review is under active consideration?

The British steel industry is a strategic national asset. It surely deserves better than piecemeal interventions and opaque announcements. I ask again: can we please be provided with the clarity, detail and honesty that this House, the other place and the thousands of workers and communities relying on us rightly demand now?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, when we debated the fate of British Steel on 12 April, the sense of urgency from the Government was palpable. As subsequent events played out, that sense of urgency was fully justified. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I would say it was timely legislation that Parliament moved effectively to deliver. That is why the contents of this Statement—as far as it goes—which sets out how both blast furnaces have been secured and the redundancy process has been ended, are good news. Everyone involved should be congratulated on pulling together and working so effectively to do that.

However, the haste of the legislation and the need for quick action leave a lot of open questions. I will ask a few more nitty-gritty questions. First, what about Port Talbot? I cannot help thinking the Welsh will be looking eastward and wondering where they fit into this programme. Have the Government had discussions with Tata Steel? How do the Government see the whole picture of steel in the United Kingdom, and how will they set that picture out to your Lordships?

Secondly, what is Jingye’s current status, in respect of British Steel but also the other steel-related businesses that it holds in the UK? Given the fractious nature of the past 10 days, how are the Government relating tousb the Chinese business that it still owns the site? What is the point of contact? Is it operational or departmental? Is it governmental, or is there no contact at all between Jingye and the people now running the plant? Can the Minister confirm whether there have been government-to-government discussions about this between the UK and the People’s Republic of China?

Thirdly, following some discussion during the take-note debate last week, I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, who was present on the Front Bench at the time, asking them to clarify the basis of international law that the Government are using, at WTO, EU and domestic legislative levels, to justify subsidising the operational functions of a business that they do not own? Perhaps the Minister could alert her officials to the existence of that letter and chivvy along the response.

In the Statement, in answer to the rhetorical question “What next?”, the Secretary of State said that

“All options are on the table”.


It would help your Lordships’ House if the Minister could explain what is meant by “all options”. More than this, I suggest that, to properly decide what should happen, the Government should have a very clear-eyed sense of their industrial strategy. We should not delude ourselves: the UK steel industry has been in a tough place for a very long time, and Saturday 12 April did not change that. For UK steel to flourish, it needs to be within an industrial strategy and within a defence industrial strategy. We are waiting for these, and the need for these anchoring strategies is ever more present. So, I ask the Minister: when will the industrial strategy be published?

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the Stellantis closure, which was announced on 29 November. This was surprising, because I would ask him: who was in government at the time that announcement was made? However, he said that steel is fundamental to Britain’s industrial strength, and we agree with that.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

The noble Lord has got the dates wrong.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

In that case, I withdraw the point.

To make the statement true, the industrial strategy should explain how it is going to build the steel industry, what steels are needed and what processes can deliver them. I have an outstanding question on the different sorts of steels that can be delivered by blast furnace and electric arc furnace; that question still has not been answered. It is my contention that many of the specialist steels we require, particularly for our defence industry, cannot be produced via current electric arc technology. I would like an answer to that question. It should explain how the demand for UK-made steels will be stimulated and grown, and it should devise an ownership structure that actually fits in with that strategy. At the moment, we are looking at ownership before we look at what we want the industry to do. I suggest that we should be looking at this the other way around.

Finally, unless the Government deal with the high cost of energy—which they did inherit from the Conservative Government—it is hard to see how any of this works. So, can the Minister at least acknowledge the problems faced by the whole manufacturing sector by disproportionately high energy costs, and can the Minister suggest how the Government are going to address that absolutely key issue?

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hunt of Wirral and Lord Fox

Report stage
Wednesday 26th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, while the Minister recovers his breath, we will all carefully reflect on every word that he has just said but, given the speed with which he delivered that speech, I hope he will forgive me if I do not respond in detail. I shall just deal with what we believe is the overly broad current definition of an “online marketplace”, as the scope could be inadvertent. I speak to Amendments 49 and 53 on behalf of my noble friend.

The current definition of an online marketplace would inadvertently capture a number of online services not thought of as marketplaces, such as search engines, online advertisements and price comparison websites. Potentially, even further removed services, such as app stores, could be captured by this proposed definition. This risks placing disproportionate requirements on services whose functionality is not what the Bill is intended to regulate and will require careful drafting of the necessary secondary legislation to avoid confusion and potential challenges. That is not guaranteed, however, due to the extensive delegation of powers and limited oversight provided by the Bill.

This broad scope will create unnecessary regulatory burdens on businesses that were never intended to be covered by the legislation. It could also discourage innovation and investment in digital services if companies fear that they will be subject to complex and costly compliance requirements. Our amended definition would therefore capture services that are not meant to be dealt with under the Bill but is more appropriate in its scope when it comes to goods and products, giving greater context and identifying the subjects of the sellers being provided, namely consumers and third-party sellers. I hope that gives an indication to the Minister of why we feel these amendments are required.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for their comments. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in the amendments that he is putting forward, really puts his finger on the problem and the challenge of defining an online marketplace. What was not an online marketplace yesterday can be one tomorrow. You can be looking at what starts off as a chat site where people exchange photographs, which suddenly becomes somewhere you can sell things. The problem that we therefore have, in being very specific in the definition, is that we create the loopholes for other people to use.

I am sympathetic to the problem that the noble Lord sets out, which is the inadvertent inclusion of other things, but the more we try to nail it down with a framework, the less likely we are to legislate for what is coming round the corner. I am very happy to have that discussion with the noble Lord. Perhaps there is a way of having something that can flexibly move, but we have all seen the changing world of online selling—it is absolutely changing every day. I am sympathetic, but sceptical that the amendment would do what we need it to do.

I co-signed government Amendments 23 and 51, which took on board issues that I brought forward in Committee. I thank the Minister for his reaction to that. Overall, with the exception of that key issue—marketplaces are where this is happening and we need a process whereby liability can be properly attributed, but I am convinced that primary legislation will not be the place to do that because of the changing world that we live in—and with those provisos, I think we need a way of moving forward that gives us that flexibility.