Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

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

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

As an amendment to Motion A, at end insert “, and do propose Amendment 1B in lieu

1B: Clause 1, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(1A) From the date on which this section comes into force, after the end of each reference period the employer must send the worker a written notice explaining their right to receive a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1) and giving them the opportunity to decline such an offer.
(1B) If the worker does not respond to the notice, or responds to confirm that they wish to receive an offer, the employer must make a guaranteed hours offer under subsection (1).
(1C) A worker who is sent a notice under subsection (1A) may at any time ask not to receive any further notices or offers, after which the employer must not send further notices or make offers under this section.
(1D) A worker who has asked not to receive notices or offers under subsection (1C) may notify the employer that they wish to start receiving notices and offers again after the end of the next reference period, after which the employer must act in accordance with subsections (1A) and (1B).”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I think I am right in welcoming the Minister, noble Lord, Lord Collins, to the Bill. I too missed all of Report and so I thank my noble friends Lord Goddard, Lord Palmer and Lady Kramer for picking up the pieces. The Minister and I find ourselves at an interesting point in the Bill’s progress—the sharp end—when we come down to a small number of key issues. These issues are nevertheless crucial.

The Government have not been short of advice since the last time the Bill was discussed in your Lordships’ House. Some 13 major business organisations wrote to the Minister. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development set out issues in a report and, just a couple of days ago, the Resolution Foundation—an organisation not unfamiliar with the Treasury—set out serious concerns.

These and other warnings come at a time when unemployment is rising and job vacancies are falling; when inflation continues to be worse than most of our international rivals; and when growth is, at best, stagnant. None of these warnings came from organisations that are antipathetic to the lot of workers. Nevertheless, we should leave this to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, who put it best when he said that Britain faces a “growth emergency”.

I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will go into more detail on some of those reports, so I will not attempt to undercut him. The unifying theme from all these commentaries is that the Bill is likely to—or will have, in most cases—a chilling effect on our economy. The Bill contains 173 statutory instruments and still awaits the outcome of dozens of consultations—for example, we await the conclusion of the consultation on notice periods that the Minister set out.

Even when the Bill gains Royal Assent—assuming that it will—no one will actually know the details of what it will do. This creates an environment of deep uncertainty, which is the enemy of investment and which leads to expansions being delayed and new hires being put on hold. At a time when things way beyond the control of national governance are running amok, this Government are wilfully adding something else to the uncertainty that business faces. They could control this, but they are instead adding more uncertainty. That is at the heart of our concerns.

As we have heard, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will introduce his Motions E1 and H1 in this group, and I will leave it to him to explain their intention. However, the need to place a qualifying period and initial period of employment in the Bill is an important concern on these Benches. As it stands, the Bill will remove this provision entirely. The noble Lord can expect our support should he move to a vote.

On Motion H1, we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is right to focus on the need to properly understand and delineate how work organised seasonally should and could affect certain rights. This is largely absent from the primary legislation. Once again, we are going to rely on statutory instruments. I am not necessarily 100% convinced by the noble Lord’s wording for this amendment, but the intention is correct, which is why we will support him. Perhaps the Minister could take onboard this uncertainty and demonstrate how certain key regulations following on from the Bill will operate to manage the irregularity of seasonal work, while still making sure that such work pays for employees.

I turn to the detail of our Motion A1. A feature of the Bill is that laudable aims have sometimes been delivered clumsily. An example is in trying to tackle the important issue of zero hours, and we share the Minister’s aim to make sure that every employee has the right to move from zero hours to guaranteed hours. Nothing we have ever said or proposed in this House has undermined that from the start.

We support the aim that after a reference period those on zero hours should be entitled to an offer of guaranteed hours from their employer. Our original amendment, which the Commons rejected, sought to avoid the necessity of employers being compelled to calculate and make that offer from the outset. We understand—and heard—some of the issues that were raised: that it is difficult for certain employees working with certain employers to get past that first stage, initiate the contact and make the ask. Therefore, rather than reassert the amendment we tabled before, we have amended it. I have to say that the noble Lord, Lord Collins, did a better job of explaining it than I am probably going to do now.

In essence, we should start off and stay the same as the Government require. In other words, once an employee passes the reference period, the employer will be required to offer guaranteed hours. After that, if the employee indicates that they are not interested in that because they want to remain on zero hours, the employer will not be compelled to keep reoffering guaranteed hours, time after time, as each reference period is passed. Under the Bill, the process of calculating those hours has to be redone each time. That may seem trivial; certainly, for large employers, it probably is. However, for the smaller and medium-sized employer, it is an added burden that does not need to be there if the employee does not wish to leave zero hours.

The aim of the amendment is to make sure that both sides are managed well and have the opportunity to change. The employee can opt back in to being made those offers if and when he or she requires, and a letter from the employer will remind them of that opportunity. I am happy that the Minister wants to continue to talk about this, and I am very happy to continue to talk, but to do so, we need to agree Motion A1. I beg to move.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

First, I am also very grateful to the Minister and his new colleagues for their time during the past couple of weeks. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his amendment. If he wishes to test the opinion of the House, we will support him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

I would argue very strongly that the focus of our efforts is about what is good for this country, and what is good for this country is economic growth and what will stimulate that growth, for which creating a secure and flexible workforce is a key ingredient. I admire the noble Baroness’s ability to suggest that she supports workers’ rights while siding with people who oppose workers’ rights. The reality, I repeat, is this: where we have made progress in employment rights over the last 45 years, it has been resisted; many times, it has been resisted because people were fearful of where it may lead, but the reality—the proof of the pudding—has been in the eating. These rights have enabled people to prosper; they have enabled people to adapt to different workplace challenges; they have enabled women not to suffer discrimination and to demand equal pay. I am determined that we will stick to our manifesto commitment and deliver a progressive, forward-looking economy that protects workers’ rights.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, pick the bones out of that, if you wish. There is quite a lot to respond to there, to which I will not completely respond, but I think it characterises that this is an unusual ping-pong. Usually, most of it is cut and dried, and it is down to tiny nuances; that is not the case in this Bill.

There is a lot of detail to be litigated in this Bill. Part of the problem we come back to is that virtually none of the Bill is there. This is paving legislation. Back in Committee, when the Minister did not even dream that he would be sitting taking these questions, I found myself in the unlikely position of agreeing totally with the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She and I put forward a proposal for a proper code of practice; that was proposed prior to the adoption of this primary legislation. Had we gone to that trouble, many of the uncertainties that noble Lords are rightly picking up now would not exist. They would have been sketched out and put out into a code of practice. That did not happen. Milk has been spilled, and there is no point crying over it, but I would point out that, in future, there is stuff that can be done when you have Bills that are packed full of statutory instruments. That was one thing that we could have done, which the Government decided not to do.

The Minister talked rightly about the majority of good employers. He is right: the majority of employers are good employers who want to treat their workers well, and they do so. He described this legislation as “underpinning” good employers, but I am not sure how it underpins what good employers are already doing. What it can do, and in some cases will do—which comes back to my point—is make unnecessary work for good employers to do when they are already doing it. It is bureaucratic.

Finally, I come back to the point about day-one rights. There are millions of people who are not working at the moment, and the Government are very clear that they want to find ways of helping these people back to work. If the Government want these people to work, they will require jobs from businesses, which have to take a risk. Businesses have to take a risk on people who have, in many cases, not worked at all in their lives or who may not have worked for years and years. That is a risk, and full day-one rights make the risk even higher. The employer has to take a punt; they have to take a bet on that employee. Sometimes they will win; sometimes they will not. Noble Baronesses opposite can shake their heads, but this will make employers reticent about making that move. The noble Lord is correct in his Motion. However, returning to Motion A1, I think there is still work to be done. On that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Motion N1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and declare that I am still a teacher in a state secondary school in Hackney, east London.

In over 10 years of teaching, I have encountered tens—maybe not hundreds—of TAs, technicians, IT staff, catering staff, site staff and all the support staff who make schools function. My subject, product design, is entirely reliant on technicians. They set up and prepare materials, maintain equipment and teach skills to us and the students.

I have seen technicians who had to be hunted out from one cigarette break to another to do their job, and those who have used the school’s 3D printer to print a better 3D printer, to print a better 3D printer, and so on. Support staff are not all the same. Some are quite happy to do the basic 8 am to 3.30 pm job and are content to be paid for that, while others will take on extra responsibilities and duties.

I had one very fine technician who would not go into the classroom while students were there, because he used to be paid extra for a teaching role, but the Government abolished it. Quite rightly, he would say that if he was not paid to do the job, he would not do it. I have also seen technicians paid well over the going rate because schools could see that they were irreplaceable; otherwise, their job would have to be done by teachers who had neither the skill nor the time.

At the moment, these decisions rest with heads of department, who can make them. Schools need that flexibility. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, very sensibly creates a floor, not a ceiling, on pay, as in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, meaning that all get a decent wage, but those who put in extra time and effort get rewarded. Should she be minded to test the opinion of the House, I will be with her.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, very briefly, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on making progress, along with the cosignatories of that amendment. I also congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Faulkner and Lord Parkinson, who have realised a lifelong dream of putting children back to work on the railways.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 47B in lieu—

47B: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on the right to be accompanied
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the feasibility of expanding the statutory right to be accompanied at disciplinary and grievance hearings.
(2) The report must consider in particular—
(a) whether the categories of individuals permitted to act as a companion under section 10(3) of the Employment Relations Act 1999 should be expanded;
12 Employment Rights Bill
(b) the potential benefits and risks of such expansion for employers and workers;
(c) any safeguards that may be necessary in relation to confidentiality, independence, or professional standards of proposed companions;
(d) the impact on access to fair representation, particularly for workers not represented by a trade union; and
(e) the potential impact of any expansion on individuals with protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.
(3) In preparing the report, the Secretary of State must consult such persons as they consider appropriate, which may include—
(a) representatives of workers and employers;
(b) professional bodies;
(c) legal and employment rights experts;
(d) organisations with experience of supporting workers in grievance and disciplinary processes;
(e) organisations representing individuals with protected characteristics.”

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s response from the Dispatch Box, but I will speak to this Motion a little, to set it in context and perhaps put down some markers for the discussions that will be happening with the Secretary of State.

Responding to the spirited work of my noble friend Lord Palmer, this House voted overwhelmingly on Report, with cross-party support, to expand the right of workers to be accompanied at a disciplinary or grievance hearing by a trained companion. The provision was removed by the Government in the other place because of concerns about potential increases to cost, complexity and length of such hearings. The Liberal Democrats disagree with the Government’s position, because there is no evidence to support it; in fact, there is excellent evidence to the contrary that trained companions reduce cost, complexity and escalation. We hear this from organisations that already accompany workers on a non-statutory basis, and we can see it in the research of ACAS and in other academic areas.

None the less, this amendment in lieu presents a reasonable compromise, as I think the Minister has conceded. It would allow the Government to conduct a proper review into the creation of a new category of trained companion, at which point any concerns could be properly examined. In the spirit of working collaboratively, I hope that we can now move forward on this and that, instead of frustrating this process, we can develop one that is a proportionate step to enable the Government to examine this issue properly and finally take into account the experiences of the vast majority of its own voters, let alone the country, who are not members of a trade union and still need support in times like this.

I turn briefly to Motion M1, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and spoken to by his colleague, which would reinsert a Report stage amendment requiring that industrial action can proceed only if at least 50% of those eligible to vote in a ballot participate. We continue to support this amendment, which would maintain the status quo.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I speak briefly to support, from the perspective of teachers, the comments by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Of course, teachers and other front-line caring professionals carry immense responsibility for the welfare and safety of children, which brings with it considerable legal obligations that few other professions face. Employers in schools are rightly duty-bound by safeguarding law to investigate every allegation, however unfounded it may later prove to be. As a result, teachers are far more likely than most to face formal hearings during their careers.

The number of allegations is rising sharply, with data from Teacher Tapp, which surveys about 11,000 teachers every day, showing that, in the last academic year alone, allegations against teachers increased by around 35% compared with the previous year; that figure rises to nearly 60% in schools with the highest proportion of pupils on free school meals. As we have debated earlier, in this Bill and others, technology is changing the landscape, with an ability to create ever more complex complaints using artificial intelligence.

As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said already, this carries a human cost but also a financial cost, with suspended teachers remaining on their salaries while schools fund cover. Some local authorities are spending hundreds of thousands pounds each year on suspended staff awaiting hearings, and still more when flawed procedures lead to tribunal claims.

The right to be accompanied by someone trained to provide calm, professional support is not an indulgence but a practical safeguard. The strength of feeling in the profession is clear and almost unanimous: according to Teacher Tapp, 97% of teachers believe they should be entitled to a trained companion, whether or not they belong to a union, and almost two-thirds say they would wish to have legal representation. This speaks volumes about the professional anxiety that teachers and other school staff face when formal allegations arise.

I hope very much that, when the Minister comes to close, he can confirm that this review will look closely at how accompaniment rights operate in practice, including teachers and other school staff within that to make sure that those who dedicate their lives to educating and caring for our children are treated with the fairness, dignity and compassion that they deserve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I certainly acknowledge what my noble brother—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—has said, particularly on the right to be accompanied.

In addressing the debate on the 50% turnout for industrial action, it is important for me to stress that trade unions play a vital role in representing members and ensuring that workplace democracy is upheld, including in decisions on political engagement and industrial actions. In fact, our reforms recognise the importance of trade unions as democratic institutions, strengthening their ability to campaign, negotiate and give working people a fair voice. Strong trade unions foster constructive relations between staff and employers, which, in turn, is beneficial for business as well as working people.

I point out to my noble brother that, believe it or not, strikes are not an end in themselves. Strikes are a tool, as a last resort, to help bring people together to negotiate and reach a settlement. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Did the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act, with its 50% threshold, result in improved collective bargaining? Did it result in fewer strikes? The simple answer is: no, it did not.

Our focus should be on having good industrial relations and proper collective bargaining, and on strengthening the tools to deliver improved conditions. Legislating to prohibit things has proved not to work. Our intention has been very clear: with the 50% turnout, we want to ensure that there are new means of ensuring greater participation through e-balloting. We discussed that during the passage of the 2016 Act and in the debate on minimum service levels.

I hope the noble Lord will understand that we are very committed to good industrial relations, strong collective bargaining and good employment practices that will deliver growth in our economy. Legislating as the Conservative Government did in the past did not achieve the so-called objectives that they set themselves to reduce the number of strikes; it had the completely opposite effect.

We want to ensure that, where instruments such as industrial action are used, they are a tool to bring people together, not to drive them apart. Simply imposing the thresholds that have been imposed before, particularly through the minimum service levels Act, has had the completely opposite effect. I hope that noble Lords will agree that that is not the way and that the Government’s proposals are the best way of doing this.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, as I said in my opening remarks, the Government commit to reviewing in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and, following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This will also include the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran.

I hope that this satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and that he will withdraw his Motion. I also hope that noble Lords will reflect carefully, not just on an ideological position but to see that the most important thing to focus on is outcomes. We want to focus on improving industrial relations and good employment practices—and that is what the Bill is intended to do. I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I have said and will be minded to support the Government’s approach.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his words and for committing to this review—or this section of a larger review—from the Dispatch Box. We are very satisfied with that concession. I beg leave to withdraw Motion G1.

Motion G1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and of course I welcome the new team to the Front Bench. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, will recall that we had pretty much the same debate in 2016, albeit that we were facing in different directions.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, referenced the debate on 23 July, which was day 4 of Report, about disclosure of payments made from a political fund. This is key, because if union members are going to have, in effect, an opt-in/opt-out arrangement changed, they need to know what the political fund is used for. When I pushed the Government on it, the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said:

“My understanding is that the political funds will be required to continue to spell out how they are spending the money, but not for sums under £2,000”.


I challenged her, and said:

“I am sure the Minister would not like to have on record something that does not seem to be correct. I think she means that amounts under £2,000 need not be disclosed”.—[Official Report, 23/7/25; col. 281.]


The noble Baroness ignored my comment, and we carried on to a vote on whether payments made by the political fund should be disclosed to the certification officer and members of the union in respect of their own money, as has previously been the case.

On 29 August, over a month later, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, wrote to me with what was described as a corrections letter, which, while lacking in my opinion an appropriate apology, confirmed my assertion that this Bill removes the duty of unions to disclose the detail of expenditure from their members or anyone else. Accordingly, it allows the union bosses to spend their members’ money from the political fund exactly how they like, with no one able to see where the money is spent. The noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, just said that political funds are controlled by their members; he then said that those funds are accountable to members. I take issue with that.

My concern is that the vote on this issue took place on the basis of information and assurances given to your Lordships’ House at the Dispatch Box which the then Minister—not the current Minister, I emphasise—has now admitted were factually incorrect. It may well have swayed some noble Peers. This seems a very unsatisfactory situation, as it allows a vote to have taken place on incorrect information and assurances.

In the end, my amendment was defeated by 18 votes out of 360 Peers’ votes cast. I ask the Minister to explain this situation from the Dispatch Box so that we have a clear record of what has happened and so that legislation may be revisited at a later date. I ask noble Peers to bear this in mind when considering whether to support the noble Lord, Lord Burns.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am going to advance a different argument from that which we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. It is rather more philosophical and was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Burns. He mentioned “inertia”, and inertia sells.

Right across this House, your Lordships have worked on legislation that has sought to remove the perils for consumers trapped in deals and situations which are too difficult to get out of. We have made it easier for people to change their bank and to switch utilities. Those of your Lordships who lived through the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill will remember clearly a big debate about the automatic rolling over of subscriptions. Rather than the arguments that we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, I cleave to those that we heard from the proposer of this Motion. There is an element of liberalness and freedom about individuals choosing, rather than having to choose not to, which is what is asked by this change.

One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Fox]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the One Hundred Year Partnership Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ukraine.

Relevant document: 8th Report from the International Agreements Committee

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am moving this Motion on behalf of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, chair of the International Agreements Committee, who sadly is unavailable today.

The International Agreements Committee, of which I am a member, took great interest in the UK-Ukraine 100-year partnership agreement. We welcome the Government’s extension of the CRaG period for scrutiny of this agreement, which has allowed time for this debate. We think this is a useful window and believe it is an appropriate acknowledgement of the high level of interest in this agreement across both Houses.

The agreement has been laid in the context of a rapidly changing geopolitical environment. As noble Lords will appreciate, the situation has developed significantly even in the period between taking evidence and publishing our report, and has continued to change since the report’s publication. Amid these changes, the Government’s ongoing support for Ukraine remains firm, and the committee welcomes the Government’s resolution. It is in this context that we sought to assess this agreement.

We heard that this agreement seeks to put in place a long-term framework governing future co-operation between the UK and Ukraine across a range of areas and sectors. The Minister, Stephen Doughty, told us in evidence that the agreement reflects a fundamental change in the “context and depth” of the bilateral relationship. Hanna Hopko, co-founder of the International Center for Ukrainian Victory, told us that the agreement represents a “historic milestone” in our relationship.

Notwithstanding this rather dramatic framing, the aspiration to provide stability and structure to the UK- Ukraine relationship is laudable. However, as we note in the report, the title of this agreement, the 100-year partnership, raises expectations while distracting attention from the vital matter of the substance—or, in some cases, the lack thereof—contained in this agreement. Indeed, given that the agreement may be terminated with six months’ notice from either party, the title and stated duration of the agreement could be described as somewhat illusory.

The agreement itself is broad. Detail is included in the accompanying and non-binding political declaration. This declaration spans a range of areas including defence, security, maritime co-operation, co-operation on the economy, trade and investment, energy, justice and combating disinformation. We heard that this declaration is intended to evolve over time.

Our report focused on the areas it covered that we felt were significant to the national interest or had the potential to deliver tangible benefits for the United Kingdom. I turn first to the defence and security provisions. The agreement commits the parties to develop joint defence-industrial capabilities and to strengthen Ukraine’s defence procurement. The accompanying political declaration envisages creating

“rapid response mechanisms … and joint use of military formations and other specialised structures to provide … mutual defence and security services”.

It sets out ambitions jointly to produce and develop

“advanced weapons and ammunition manufacturing capabilities”,

to

“deepen cooperation on long-range strike capabilities”

and to integrate

“air and missile defence and complex weapons stockpiles”.

Your Lordships should note that it reiterates the Government’s previous commitment to provide Ukraine with £3 billion in annual military assistance

“until 2030/31 and for as long as needed to support Ukraine”.

I note that this is a very long-term and substantial commitment of taxpayers’ money.

Leaving the financial commitment to one side, in our report we considered the merits of this kind of co-operation. We heard of some opportunity costs to the UK’s military readiness but also of benefits both to the UK’s international reputation and, potentially, to our future defence and security capabilities and industrial base. Ukraine has developed modern military capabilities from which the UK stands to learn—for example, in AI-assisted drone technology. Yet it is impossible to truly assess how future benefits to the UK will be realised without greater detail on how these aspects of the agreement are to be implemented. In our report, we stress the need for the Government to develop more concrete plans as to how defence-industrial projects might be carried out under this agreement, to set out some indicative timeline and to provide assurance as to how these projects will benefit the United Kingdom.

In view of current events, our report also considers the important question of the relationship between this agreement and security guarantees to Ukraine. In doing so, we considered whether an agreement of this nature could possibly offer a deterrent to future Russian aggression in Ukraine. This is not a binding security guarantee of the type sought by Ukraine from its allies. As such, in and of itself, it likely will not offer a deterrent of this kind. However, witnesses told us that the agreement could help to

“maintain, increase and improve, through co-operative agreement, Ukraine’s ability to defend itself”

and that it facilitates the co-operation and action needed to underpin a future security guarantee. Were this to occur, we would welcome this outcome.

The agreement establishes a maritime partnership between the United Kingdom and Ukraine. The political declaration tells us that it is the aim of both parties to ensure the

“speedy restoration of Ukraine’s control over all temporarily occupied territories and strengthen its potential as a powerful maritime and riverine state”.

For my part, this is perhaps the crux of the overall partnership, as currently envisaged by this agreement. The Minister told us in evidence that this aspect of the agreement is about

“equipping Ukraine to protect its own assets and operations in line with international law”.

He highlighted that, in the short term, this partnership will involve “providing force-generation training” for the Ukrainian mine countermeasure task force to support Ukraine in dealing with mines in the Black Sea and other risks to future civilian and military navigation. Force generation in the NATO context refers to the process by which allies resource the personnel and equipment needed to carry out operations and missions, so perhaps the Minister can confirm whether this will mean Royal Navy personnel on board Ukrainian naval vessels in the Black Sea.

I turn to other aspects of support. As the committee understands it, the UK has to date provided £265 million in support of Ukraine’s maritime capabilities. It was not clear to us where the partnership proposed in the agreement departs from or builds on this existing practice. In order to assess the depth of the proposed maritime partnership, it would be helpful to hear from the Government exactly what additional support will be offered to Ukraine under the maritime partnership, and in what way this would complement existing arrangements.

Looking forward, I trust that when the strategic defence review is published it will explain how the Royal Navy will balance this currently open-ended commitment with a range of other needs, such as the UK’s recent accession to the Bahrain-US Comprehensive Security Integration and Prosperity Agreement, C-SIPA; an expanding need to protect subsea assets locally; and a likely need to expand operations in the Arctic. How will it achieve this while simultaneously maintaining the Navy’s other activities?

Returning to this report, the committee urges the Government to ensure that any maritime partnership as envisioned by this agreement contributes to the overall stability of the region. As such, we have recommended that the Government review the agreement in general, and the maritime partnership in particular, in the event of a peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine. This should also take into consideration the increased territorial claims made by Putin on the Black Sea area since this report was published, so we have asked the Government to keep Parliament informed of any such review.

I now turn to the economic, science and technology co-operation set out in the agreement. The Government’s evidence stressed that, beyond the immediate security needs of Ukraine, the priority of this agreement lies in securing growth, innovation and economic co-operation between our countries. The Minister told us that this included fostering business-to-business links and encouraging mutual investment and joint ventures. Our report welcomes the aspirations set out in the political declaration to support the development of Ukraine’s financial centre and business environment through sustained UK market access and the proposals to develop Ukraine’s public procurement regime. We note that this will not be a one-way process as the UK stands to learn from Ukraine’s experience—for example, in the development of critical technologies.

In this vein, we draw the attention of the Grand Committee to subsequent correspondence we received from the Government—it is available on our website—which outlines the sectors in the UK that stand to benefit commercially from co-operation under this agreement, including via UK Export Finance support for contracts in the defence, infrastructure and construction sectors. In view of the importance of securing stable market access for UK companies, we were pleased to hear that the Government are seeking to deepen co-operation on the crucial issues of the rule of law, good governance, anti-corruption and transparency. These are vital ingredients of a stable business environment and, accordingly, of the UK’s national interest in this agreement.

Our report calls on the Government to continue to work closely with Ukrainian counterparts to support governance reforms and strengthen the rule of law, including by structuring funding to encourage this outcome. We view this activity as vital to the success of this agreement and accordingly have asked the Government to keep Parliament informed on their work in these areas.

To sum up, the committee supports the underlying aims of the agreement, although we have concerns about the lack of substance and detail. Accordingly, we ask the Government to provide Parliament with a clear and realistic road map of how and when the activities on defence co-operation and maritime security will be undertaken. We have asked that the Government formally review the arrangement in the event of a settlement between Russia and Ukraine, with a particular focus on the maritime security partnership, and that they keep Parliament abreast of updates. We welcome the reports by the Minister that the UK continues to work with Ukrainian counterparts on governance and rule of law issues. We hope that this work can bring about a closer economic and investment relationship between our two countries.

To finish, I draw noble Lords’ attention to our final conclusion, which considers the ongoing work at an international level to bring Russian aggression in Ukraine to an end. The committee welcomes the Government’s ongoing support for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, their position on security guarantees and a US backstop and their commitment to future domestic defence spending. We believe that these steps will be vital to achieving successful implementation of this agreement. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this has been an important and valuable debate. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and the Minister for his considered response. I will not try to summarise the debate, but I will make a few comments and points on it—perhaps abusing my position here. Noble Lords not on the committee may have detected the varying tones of its members, which speak to the challenge not just of chairing the sessions but of writing the report. You get a sense of that balance from the committee report, which was highlighted by some of the comments today.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, rightly pointed out the gaps in the CRaG process. Were it not for this report and the Government extending the deadline for us to have this debate, there would have been absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny of this at all. Frankly, a treaty or agreement of this nature should have more, not less. Those noble Lords not on the committee will be interested to know that the CRaG process itself is the subject of its latest inquiry.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, raised some important questions about Ukraine’s future relationship with NATO and the EU, which also came up later. This is a big issue. We talked a lot about NATO, but Ukraine’s potential EU relationship may be even more important because it may be more tangible. It will be interesting to see how the United Kingdom contributes to that, given our position outwith the EU.

The noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, and, to some extent, the noble Lord, Lord Marland, set out a number of concerns around how this will go forward, which points to what I raised earlier. Many of those concerns might have been dealt with had there been more detail. I understand the Minister’s dilemma in setting out detail for 100 years, but he could have started with the first two years, or perhaps three, of that 100, and set out some milestones. There is still time for the Government to look at that and come back to Parliament to explain how we are taking this forward piece by piece. If we dissect elements of the Minister’s speech, there were milestones in it. Frankly, if they had been made available in a more palatable way when we were considering the report, some of those reservations might have been less strident.

The noble Lord, Lord Marland, raised the issue of a critical minerals deal. That was spectacular by its absence in the evidence, the debate and otherwise, given the high-profile nature of this, so it remains something of an enigma. Again, there is more work to be done on how that fits into the overall frame.

The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton of Richmond, gave a tremendous strategic overview. I suggested that the strategic review had a lot of ground to cover, and I think the noble and gallant Lord really gave a sense of the huge nature of the challenge that this country, the defence establishment and the Government have to cover at least some of his six pillars, if not all of them. We absolutely need the strategic defence review, and the military industrial strategy that follows it, because we have to understand how we are going to move forward. Time is not on our side.

The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, clearly paid attention in his geography lesson back in the day, when he was looking at the industrial capabilities of Ukraine. It was helpful to pull us back to look at the economic value that Ukraine can generate. If there is a strong partnership, those partners will benefit from the economic power. However, I think the noble Lord’s warnings about Putin’s ambitions were starker. We should all take that seriously, and I do not think any of us trust what is going on. We must be vigilant and not start pulling back. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I do not think we should start ticking off things that should not be in a peace agreement; everything has to be on the table at this point, rather than saying, “not Ukraine” or “not this or that”. We have to be firm now because—as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out—in the mind of Putin, some territory will not be sufficient until it is all territory. I do not think we should pander to that.

My noble friend Lord Purvis made one of his characteristic speeches, and the history lesson was important. However, I pull out of it his reminder that we need commercial guard-rails. The report is very clear, some of your Lordships were clear and I was clear that a commercial environment is needed where British companies can safely go and collaborate with Ukrainian ones and not be fearful of their IP, money or other commercial things being stolen. If this partnership does nothing else but drive that business culture into Ukraine, it will have been a resounding success, so I endorse that.

My noble friend Lord Purvis also raised the exclusivity, or otherwise, of this agreement. I think we have to assume it is not exclusive so, in some sense, what we get back will be a function of what we put in and the way we do it. He suggested that other countries will be circling, and I add to his observation that Turkey has very strong hopes on the reconstruction contracts that will come out of Ukraine eventually. They are positioning themselves very meaningfully.

The noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is clearly very supportive of the current policies and where we are going forward, as are the Liberal Democrats. The unanimity in the approach to this is an important part of your Lordships’ House. I observe somewhat wryly that it is easier to be a hawk on the defence budget when you are on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition Benches than when you are on the other side of the Chamber.

As I said, the Minister gave a strong speech; if we pick out the bones, we have got quite a lot of detail of what we asked for. He did not speak to coming back to Parliament as matters change. I am sure, however, that the Minister meant to commit to that. I am also sure, without speaking for the committee, that in the event of things happening, we will be chivvying for the opportunity to come back to that.

The Minister framed this as collective security and shared interests, and that is the strength of this. Putting aside the hubris of the 100 years in the treaty title, I can understand how it sends a signal. Sometimes I think that people have to look past that at the practical and look at the next two, three, four or five years on the way to 100. However, I think we all agree that keeping Ukraine strong has to be a priority, because it is only from a position of strength, or relative strength, that we can move in the right direction.

In closing, I thank fellow members of the committee, the secretariat of the International Agreements Committee, our expert advisers and all those who gave evidence in the short time we had available. Once again, I thank all contributors to this debate, and I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Scotland

Lord Fox Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

I do not have a precise answer for the noble Earl, but I will look into this. It is important that this is at the heart of government, with the responsibility lying there. I am confident that we will find a way of making progress and of marking that progress in a way that is easily understood. I will take a precise note of the noble Earl’s question and come back to him with a fuller answer.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the reason behind the breakdown in the relationship that the noble Lord pointed out was that, through the last Parliament, there was a continual flow of legislation that trod on the toes of the devolution process. The noble Baroness knows well that the common frameworks process was set up explicitly to deal with these kinds of issues. Can she update your Lordships’ House on where we are with the common frameworks and when we will see them back in the process of making sure that toes do not get trodden on again?

Economic Update

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I reiterate that the purpose of the Government is certainly to help those who are vulnerable and those living in some anxiety at the moment. That is one of the reasons why we are looking at ways of concentrating the energy help on the most vulnerable as we go forward, after dealing with the immediate crisis. I assure the most reverend Primate that the levelling-up programme will continue. Many of the growth measures that were announced will also continue. I hope that if local authorities in his area wish, for example, to set up investment zones to attract jobs and investment in the way that the Government would like to see, then he will, with his great leadership role in the community, give support to such propositions.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, until about a week ago, the whole Cabinet and most of the Members opposite were proclaiming that the only way to deliver growth was through a whole suite of tax cuts. We now know that almost all those tax cuts have been reversed, so what is the plan for growth, how much growth does the Minister expect, and when can we start seeing the measures that will deliver the growth that we need in this country?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we will continue to go for growth by delivering support for families who need it most—for example, by cutting the tax burden that would have taken place with the national insurance tax. That levy reversal will give 28 million people an average of £330 a year. We will go for growth by launching investment zones, as I said when responding to the most reverend Primate. We will introduce minimum service levels for transport services shortly in Great Britain, to ensure that strike action cannot derail economic growth; I look forward to support from the Liberal Democrats for that legislation. We will accelerate infrastructure projects across the country and have announced over 100 of them for transport and energy. We will also speed up delivery to undertake the complex patchwork of restrictions and EU-derived law.

P&O Ferries

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding the House of his career in P&O, which was one of my first clients in the 1980s, when I joined the shipping department of Bank of America, and I remember him well. The Government are absolutely shocked by the actions of P&O Ferries, and we must make the point here that there is no relationship between P&O Ferries and P&O Cruises, which are entirely separate organisations. We are shocked by its actions over the past week. We have been angered by the lack of empathy and consideration that P&O Ferries has demonstrated towards its employees. The way that these workers were informed was completely unacceptable, especially as P&O Ferries received millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ support through furlough.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister knows, multi-divisional companies such as DP World use a legal corporate veil so that they can hide behind the deeds of those subsidiaries. However, there is no moral corporate veil and DP World is morally implicated in the activities of P&O Ferries. How can the Government continue to do business with DP World, how can they continue to give it £50 million in tax breaks and why are they not suspending immediately the involvement of DP World in the two freeports that it has been granted?

[Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)]

The noble Lord is right and, as Ministers stated in the other place, we are reviewing existing arrangements and working with all government departments to consider what relationships we have with DP World. This includes my honourable friend in another place, Minister Scully, saying that the company should be on notice that it had fundamentally changed the relationship with government, including a £25 million subsidy the company received to help develop London Gateway as a freeport. It needs to realise that the relationship between the companies and the Government has changed as a result of its absolutely callous conduct.

Covid-19: Strategy

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 12th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

On the noble Lord’s first point, we are extremely concerned about the apparent disparities in how Covid-19 affects people. That is why Public Health England is undertaking a rapid review to provide insight into how factors such as ethnicity, deprivation, age, gender and obesity are disproportionately impacting people. That review is under way and the findings will be published at the end of the month. In relation to his other points, as I said, we are working closely with the unions and businesses in developing our guidance. I am sure that we will take advantage of the excellent union reps that the two noble Lords mentioned. We are working closely with business in all sectors, including construction, to make sure that the workforce who return go to a safe place. That is in all our interests, and I believe that employers and employees will work together to ensure that it happens.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement announced an escalation in the level of fines. The debate earlier this afternoon highlighted how much confusion there is around legally enforceable regulations and non-enforceable guidelines, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, highlighted the difficulties the police have. In order to develop some clarity, perhaps the Minister could give just two specific examples of public behaviour which the new increased fines are designed to stop.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

As I have said, the Home Office is working closely with the police on the guidance, and I am sure that it will update it through the NPCC and the College of Policing. As the noble Lord rightly says, fines will go up to £100, which will be lowered to £50 if paid within 14 days. As now, if members of the public do not follow the rules, the police can arrest individuals who are acting unlawfully and instruct people to go home, leave an area, disperse or impose fines.

It is worth reiterating to noble Lords that the vast majority of people are respecting the rules and what is happening. Only a very small minority is not doing so, and it is absolutely right that the police should have the tools at their disposal to deal with that minority.

Data Science: Government Processes

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I am sure the noble Lord is aware of the Government’s policy on ID cards. We do not believe they are the answer to any of the problems that noble Lords and others have mentioned.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I understand that we have been promised a national data strategy at some point. What level of scrutiny will Parliament have over that strategy and will it be able to amend and improve it?

[Earl Howe]

Transparency is very important to DCMS, which is leading the work on the national data strategy. Last June, it published a call for evidence. It also conducted more than 20 round tables, structured around the three themes it had identified—people, the economy and government—with around 250 organisations. That first phase focused on engaging with academics, civil society and small and medium-sized enterprises, but DCMS also intends to hold vision workshops to include the public in discussions of what the strategy should include. I do not doubt that parliamentarians will be included.

Priorities for the Government

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 25th July 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

We will be in negotiations with the European Union, which means, of course, that two sides will be involved and looking for what they want—but both sides want a deal. We want a constructive, strong relationship with the EU going forward; they want that, and we want that. That is why we are very keen to begin discussions with both the Commission and EU leaders to try to get over the current impasse because at the moment, we do not have a withdrawal agreement that we can get through the House of Commons.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there was no mention of industrial strategy in the Statement. Given the two new incumbents of the Treasury and their stated views on, and opposition to, industrial strategy, would it be fair to assume that it is no longer government policy?

Industrial Strategy

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Liberal Democrats and then we shall hear from the Labour Benches.

[Lord Fox]

My Lords, I declare an interest in GKN and Smiths Group. At this week’s Science and Technology Select Committee, the Science Minister from the other place was unable to describe to us what the intention of an industrial strategy would be. Given that the last Parliament put in place a long-term industrial strategy, what role will that play in this long-term industrial strategy, and can the Minister explain to us what it is?

[Baroness Mobarik]

As I said, we are consulting on it just now, and it will not happen overnight. However, I can say that we will focus on our strengths. That does not mean to say that we are just picking out winners. We are tailoring our approach to the needs of different sectors and looking at our proven strengths—a cornerstone of good strategy—and this country has no shortage of those, such as our world-beating aerospace and automotive industries. We recognise that we must continue to support our successful industries and build upon the significant progress that has been made through the existing sector strategies. However, we need to create an economy where new entrants can come in, new businesses can be created, and new companies can challenge incumbents.