Companies: Online AGMs

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

We are putting this forward in the modernising corporate reporting consultation to clarify the legal situation for fully virtual AGMs, as I mentioned, to bring the certainty into line with other international jurisdictions. We are engaging with investors on what those shareholder rights and safeguards might look like, so that if shareholders and businesses want to move to fully virtual AGMs, we will know what they might be. Examples could include five-year shareholder votes or best practice or guidance of that kind.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, if it is the Minister’s prediction that it is left up to shareholders to make the decision, the institutional shareholders will always outvote the individual shareholders. That is why individual shareholders should have their day at an AGM. When I organised AGMs for the three FTSE companies that I worked for, the chairman and I worked very hard on preparing for the questions that the awkward squad would be coming up with at those AGMs. To remove the proximity of the shareholder from the chairman is to lose that important check. Will the Minister go back and make sure that this is a firm part of the consultation?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

All noble Lords and the noble Baroness have raised the importance of AGMs. They are incredibly important. They are important for engaging shareholders, large and small, but particularly, as has been mentioned, those who perhaps do not have an institutional voice. We are engaging with investors and the shareholder representative organisations on what the shareholder safeguards should be, so that will be taken into account in the consultation.

UK Steel Strategy

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Monday 23rd March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement and welcome that there is a strategy here, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, we were expecting it for some time. However, given what is happening in the world, reading this document conjures the image of someone trying to put up a tent in a howling blizzard, and at the heart of the blizzard are the energy market ructions caused by the Iran conflict.

The UK’s industrial energy costs were already at least twice those of the EU and four times those of the USA. The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and I have different multiples, but they are all very large. It is not clear to me whether these distortions that are already there in the UK energy pricing system will increase the gap as a result of the Iran issue as it bites. I doubt the gaps will narrow.

As the strategy sets out, the British industry supercharger scheme helps those companies that benefit from it. However, the steel industry comprises very many businesses, large and small, that do not qualify for the supercharger, although some may qualify for the British industrial competitiveness scheme—BICS. Can the Minister say how many steel-related businesses will benefit from BICS? However, BICS does not kick in until 2027. Given what is happening internationally, will the Minister undertake to speak with her Treasury colleagues about bringing forward the implementation of BICS? In any case, we should note that while the supercharger scheme exempts recipients from network charges, BICS does not, and those network charges are set to increase by a staggering 60%.

These are just a few of the reasons why, unless the Government revisit the energy costs issue, the steel strategy will quite simply be blown away.

Among the more eye-catching and concerning parts of the strategy are the new trade measures to introduce tariff-rate quotas and the possibility of, in future, raising most favoured nation—MFN—applied tariffs to 50%. Late last year, the Trade Remedies Authority ran its rule over imports of rebar from Vietnam and made recommendations to the Secretary of State. This was an entirely appropriate use of that body; indeed, it is what the body was created to do. Having worked on the Trade Act, which established the TRA, at the start of this decade, I see that it clearly has an important role, particularly given the wider scope of the potential actions set out in the strategy. But I do not see any reference in the strategy to the role of the TRA. Have the Government asked the TRA for its recommendations? When could we expect its report? It seems inappropriate to act without that authority.

Next, in his answer to questions in the Commons, the Secretary of State confirmed that there has been discussion with his EU counterparts and that the discussion would continue when they meet at the WTO. Can the Minister confirm that for the purposes of these discussions, steel’s treatment in the TCA—the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU—is equivalent to its treatment in an FTA; in other words, from a WTO perspective, is the TCA equal to an FTA? Furthermore, can the Minister say how, for the purposes of these discussions, the Government are treating the MoU with the USA regarding steel? I assume it does not have the status of an FTA, so how will this modify what we can legally do under the WTO with the United States?

I turn to the local impact of this strategy, which means that there remain question marks for a lot of our communities. My honourable friend in the Commons, David Chadwick MP, spoke very forcefully about the importance of steel to Wales and its economy. He also reinforced the need for faster action in ensuring that the electricity used, for example, to power the arc furnaces is green energy. I strongly commend his comments.

In geographical terms, I would like to highlight the South Yorkshire area, including Sheffield, where there is a host of important steel businesses. It is not just down to the headline firms; there are many other important businesses further down the supply chain that make up this vital steel ecosystem. These kinds of ecosystems are echoed all over the country. The Statement says the defence growth deal will be established in five areas, including South Yorkshire, as part of the defence industrial strategy. Can the Minister tell us when full details will be published? When will a defence growth deal be operational?

To support the effectiveness of a growth deal, a colleague of mine from Sheffield Council, with a strong steel background, suggests that a defence manufacturing supply chain database be built to include the hundreds of thousands of smaller tier 2 and tier 3 suppliers that are critical to our sovereign capability. In this way, the whole sector can be explicitly brought into the realm of the defence growth deal. Noble Lords will be surprised, I think, to know that there is no such survey and no such data available.

I was able to see how the Aerospace Growth Partnership worked effectively with its supply chain, and perhaps the Minister might like to look at how that operated and try to put the same principles into practice for steel. We on these Benches share the Government’s ambitions for a robust and growing steel sector, and we believe that this strategy makes some steps in the right direction. However, the already significant headwinds just got a whole lot worse. That is why success will depend on further action on energy, clarity on tariffs and a truly inclusive growth strategy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their rich contributions. They have raised many matters that are covered in the steel strategy and are of vital importance to the future of steel-making and its centrality to the UK’s economic success.

This steel strategy is the first one to be set out. It explains the vision and sets out bold measures across the business environment, trade, electricity costs, carbon leakage and public procurement, and it is that which distinguishes it from what has gone before. We do not believe that, although the sector does face challenges, it is inevitable that it will decline. The steel strategy’s aim is to stabilise and rebuild our existing strategy, as the noble Lord opposite mentioned, with an aim to sustain 40% to 50% of domestic demand, which of course will be tracked over the coming years. We can see the benefit of moving with this vision to a greener, high-production steel model. Sheffield Forgemasters’ electric arc furnaces have the technical capability that we need to produce steel of the highest standards.

On the question of energy prices, businesses are naturally worried about the impact of the situation in the Middle East. The Prime Minister chaired a meeting of COBRA this afternoon and the Secretary of State is meeting business organisations to look at the impact on energy prices and the supply chain. We have a diverse and resilient energy system, but we are monitoring it extremely closely. If there is a lesson, it is that reducing dependence on externally produced fossil fuels and moving to clean, green, home-produced energy has to be the way of the future. That is exactly what we are doing with the clean energy mission to increase our energy security and reduce electricity bills over the long term.

However, as noble Lords have mentioned, there are measures in place right now, including the supercharger, the energy-intensive industries compensation scheme for steel producers and, as the noble Lord mentioned, the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which will reduce bills for other businesses in the sector more widely. As I mentioned, the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State are looking very closely at what needs to be done in the current context so that our businesses can be supported through this tumultuous time.

On the question of the trade measure, it is designed to shield steel-making from the damaging effects of overcapacity. This is not something that is unique to the UK. The US, Canada and the EU all apply their own similar measures to tackle overcapacity. We want to do this so that the British steel industry contributes fully to Britain’s crucial national security and defence, and to shore up the UK’s resilience to global shocks. Without this action, the UK steel-making capability faces real jeopardy, leaving us reliant on overseas suppliers. We do not want to let that happen.

I stress that this measure follows the expiry of the UK steel safeguard measure on 30 June this year, but it is a different measure and it has been carefully calibrated, following engagement with downstream importers, to get the right balance between measures to support our domestic steel industry and ensuring that those who use steel in the national economy can manage their businesses well. Following engagement with those downstream importers, we are exploring a transitional arrangement under which the new tariff would not apply to goods under contracts agreed before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September 2026. We are finalising those details to ensure it provides genuine support to firms facing unexpected costs, while still protecting the UK market from excessive imports. We will also review the measure after 12 months to ensure it remains effective.

On the question of how it fits with other international agreements, with regard to the TRA, this measure is distinct from the steel safeguard and is not a replacement. It is separate from trade remedies, such as the current safeguard, which it is the Trade Remedies Authority’s role to review, so the TRA does not have a role in reviewing the new measure. On the TCA, I say that the TCA is the same as an FTA in the eyes of the WTO. I fear I have not addressed all the questions, but I am sure I will come back to them shortly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I will be happy to meet with the industry representatives he talks about and to explore this in more detail. As he knows, we have changed the steel procurement guidance more generally, updating it to ensure that UK-made steel is regularly considered in public projects, and we are requiring procurers to consult a digital catalogue of UK-made steel products. But, specifically in the realm of defence, I would be very happy to take that further with the noble Lord.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, the answer that the Minister gave me on the Trade Remedies Authority was a little confusing—or it confused me, anyway. Can she set out in some detail in writing why the TRA is not involved in this? When you look at the Vietnam case, it is exactly analogous, only much less significant than the case we are looking at now. If it was good for the Vietnam rebar, why is it not good for the much larger and more important issue that we are discussing here? Perhaps a detailed letter would be helpful.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

This measure is distinct from the steel safeguard. It is distinct from trade remedies, which is why it is not the role of the Trade Remedies Authority to review it, because the TRA does not have a role in reviewing this measure.

British Business Bank

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Monday 9th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My noble friend is right to ask about mandate and risk appetite. This is the direction that the British Business Bank is taking, guided by its new strategic mandate. It is increasingly taking bigger bets to enable innovative British companies to scale and stay in the UK. The Government have provided a one-third uplift to the BBB’s financial capacity to help it to do so. It is able to leverage deep industry expertise across its investment activities, including both direct investments and investments made through funds.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My lords, as has been alluded to, as well as operating on a commercial basis the British Business Bank is expected to fill structural gaps in the capital market. As the sponsor of the British Business Bank, how does the Minister see its role in scaling up the UK defence supply chain? How will the British Business Bank help us to deliver the defence industry that we absolutely need?

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The British Business Bank’s new strategic mandate explicitly talks about supporting businesses in the industrial strategy priority sectors, which, as noble Lords will know, includes defence. One of the things that we will be doing is looking at where the financing gap is, whether that is for R&D intensive or deep-tech companies, and at investing behind specialist fund managers or investment strategies that specifically support particular sectors. Using its mandate, and with the increased financial capacity, the British Business Bank will be able to support our defence industry supply chain here in the UK.

UK Start-up Companies

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

The UK has an extremely strong track record as a vibrant ecosystem for start-ups and scale-ups, and that is something the Government are committed to building on—hence, as I mentioned, the entrepreneurship package. Specifically on regulation, we are not sitting still on that either. We have announced, as part of our regulation action plan, a commitment to reduce the administrative burden on all businesses by 25%. We have already announced several specific measures to ease the regulatory burden for smaller companies. For example, we announced in October 2025 that we would exempt tens of thousands of companies from producing strategic and directors’ reports. We are looking carefully across all departments at how we can optimise regulation. In addition, through the Regulatory Innovation Office, we are looking at how to regulate new technologies that perhaps do not fit within the existing regulatory purview, such as drones or novel foods.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am pleased to hear that the Government are going out and looking for evidence. I want to add another sector that has not really been mentioned here. From my meetings with businesses, there is a whole section of businesses—a large lump—with perhaps 100 employees, which are successful and are doing well, and are often family owned or privately owned, but they find it difficult to get the capital they need, not to turn themselves into unicorns but perhaps to double in size or get half the size again. Can the Minister take on board that sector? Can she discuss with colleagues how those firms can get access to the finance they need? That incremental growth would make a big difference to our economy.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

As noble Lords may know, we are supporting our public finance institutions. We are increasing the capitalisation of the British Business Bank, which can play a role in this area, complemented by the National Wealth Fund’s new mandate, which includes a focus on other sectors such as digital and technology. As the noble Lord is aware, we are also acting over the longer term, which may take a little longer, to increase the amount of capital that domestic pension funds can allocate to private assets, including through the Mansion House Accord and the Sterling 20 group, in order to continue to support businesses getting access to finance in the UK.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Tuesday 16th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this time last week I said that much had happened in the preceding interval. Today, the opposite is true. We are now down to one issue, but the arguments on that issue remain as they were last week. For that reason, unlike last week, this speech will be short.

There remain concerns about the removal of the cap on compensation, as we have heard. As he did last week, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has taken those concerns and amplified them, to the seeming exclusion of the wider strategic position of what we are discussing. I understand the motives, and those motives became ever clearer just now. If the noble Lord would like to have a face-off on the water industry, I would be very happy to discuss with him the hundreds of thousands of tonnes of sewage that went into the rivers under the Conservative Government and the compensation terms that he very helpfully enumerated, which happened on his watch. However, this is not the arena for that argument, and I will pass without comment. My critique of the noble Lord’s amendment to the Motion is unchanged. We believe there are better ways of dealing with the cap than derailing the package that got the key concession with which we are all very pleased.

As set out last week, reiterated in the Minister’s letter and by the Minister just now, the Government will publish an enactment impact assessment for the Bill. They will do so prior to commencement regulations which would put in place the dismissal package. That was what we on these Benches were asking for and we were pleased to receive that assurance. Further, the impact assessment will be publicly available, and I was pleased to hear the Minister say that we will be engaging the community of business in the process of developing that impact assessment.

Many UK business associations and organisations share the feeling that there is nothing to be gained from the opposition amendment today. They are asking the opposite. As the Minister set out, six of the major organisations have sent a letter. It is a longish letter, as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, demonstrated by selectively picking elements out of it. But as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, pointed out, the conclusion is clear and actually unambiguous, in saying,

“we believe that the best way forward is to keep working with the government and trade unions to find balanced solutions through secondary legislation. To avoid losing the 6 months qualifying period, we therefore believe that now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.

I said that last week, and it is truer this week.

I also pointed out last week that, as the business organisations said, the key to enacting the Bill will be through secondary legislation. If His Majesty’s loyal Opposition care about how the Bill is brought into life, it is on those statutory instruments that they should focus their attention. Their critical actions must extend to include the possibility of fatal Motions to vote down secondary legislation and keep the Government focused on the needs of British business. That is the real arena that we should be working in.

If the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is put to a vote and he seeks to extend ping-pong to yet another round, that will clearly be against the advice of the business groups which have been cited. I urge your Lordships to heed the advice of those organisations, and the advice of the noble Lords that we have heard opposite, and pass the Bill now.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

My Lords, I again thank your Lordships’ House for its attentive scrutiny throughout the passage of the Bill. There can be no doubt, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, mentioned, that this House has discharged its duties as a revising Chamber. Your Lordships’ House asked the Government to look again, and we have worked collaboratively with noble Lords to reach this agreement. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Pannick and Lord Vaux, for their speeches in favour of the compromise proposed by the Government.

I turn to a number of the issues raised, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. I remind noble Lords that negotiations are successful only where there is compromise, as was so eloquently put in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Barber of Ainsdale, the former chair of ACAS. The Government and worker representatives moved considerably during negotiations to agree to retaining a six-month qualifying period. Without similar compromise from business representatives on the removal, this deal would have been one-sided and undeliverable.

On the question of the impact of the cap, I do not think I can do better than the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who said last week that

“the concerns that have been expressed about the impact of the removal of the cap are perhaps … exaggerated”.—[Official Report, 10/12/25; col. 276.]

Just now, he mentioned that he does not believe it will lead to the chaos that the noble Lord outlined earlier. It is not our view, but, in any case, as I mentioned, we will publish the enactment impact assessment as soon as the Bill achieves Royal Assent. It will be public and transparent, and will include an assessment of the impact of removing the compensation cap.

I remind noble Lords of our commitment to convene meetings with shareholders so that those from the City, law practitioners and others can feed into that. Those findings will be taken into account by the dispute resolution task force that we are setting up—it will have all that information to hand. We are obviously very keen to improve the functioning of the dispute resolution system. We inherited something that was not in a good state. We are providing ACAS with over £65 million in resource funding, which is a significant increase. We are working actively to make this a system that works extremely well.

I hope that this afternoon will mark the end of the Bill’s journey through Parliament. I reiterate the Government’s commitment, mentioned by other noble Lords who spoke today, to continue talking to and genuinely engaging with interested parties in the way we have recently about the full range of issues discussed today. The Bill will deliver a generational shift in employment rights. It will do so by working with businesses and trade unions in a collaborative manner. These changes to the qualifying period and the compensation cap are proportional and practical. For those who are concerned about business impact, the joint letter should provide noble Lords with reassurances that businesses support this workable agreement. As they have stated,

“now is the time for Parliament to pass the Bill”.

I hope noble Lords will recognise the progress made over the past nine months, oppose the amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench, and, in doing so, support the package to deliver certainty for businesses and fair rights for workers. It is indeed time for Parliament to pass the Bill. I commend it to the House.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 10th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

I emphasise again that the Government’s convening of recent discussions and our willingness to compromise on the issue of unfair dismissal should signal to parliamentarians and stakeholders that we want to get this right. I emphasise that the Government’s work on this agenda is far from over. There will be opportunities for further debate and scrutiny, and I look forward to these discussions. I therefore hope that noble Lords will join business representatives and trade unions in supporting the position reached in recent discussions and backing the Government’s Motions today.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, there was a moment when I was engulfed in shame that I had misunderstood the difference between median and average. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, distracted your Lordships quite quickly, so I have recovered.

Nobody in this House is pretending that this is perfect. We are at a point of pragmatism and, I remind your Lordships, at the third round of ping-pong. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, has made some important points. All of us go into this. If it was perfect, I would press Motion A1 and I would want to keep on iterating. I know that now is the time for this Bill to pass. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.

ExxonMobil: Mossmorran

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Monday 24th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, this is quite clearly a blow for the area of Fife, and especially for the direct and indirect workers of the plant. Just as the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said, our thoughts go to them and their families as they seek to find ways of coming to terms with the blow.

The closure will see many highly qualified and specialised workers laid off at a time of severe cost of living pressures. The company has talked about supporting its employers and possible relocation available for some, but what about contractors and the wider supply chain? As far as I am aware, no task force has yet been set up to manage this, so can the Minister please update your Lordships’ House on how the wider workforce will be helped as this crisis bites? It is reported that only around 50 staff are being offered jobs, and nearly 500 miles away in Hampshire. Can the Minister confirm how many have actually agreed to relocate? What are the Government doing to protect and create highly skilled, high-quality jobs located for those who cannot move far from their homes, their communities and their wider family? More generally, much is made of the transition to net zero, which we wholeheartedly support, but there is a danger of the old jobs disappearing more quickly than the new ones are being created, and this mismatch will make growth very difficult, if not impossible.

There has, not unexpectedly, been some finger-pointing—indeed, we just saw some—trying to work out who is to blame for this. But we should understand that this plant has been in trouble and making a loss for five years. If economic and trading environments are causing the closure, both this Government and the last Government are culpable. But I also point to Brexit. All the products made at Mossmorran are exported to the EU. Can the Minister outline how much Brexit contributed to the plant’s demise? Given that there will no longer be these exports from the plant, what is the effect on our balance of trade?

This is, of course, a further blow for the Scottish economy and UK-wide manufacturing, and it comes fast on the heels of other company closures. The common denominator seems to be a combination of long-standing depressed demand alongside the policy environment—and the overwhelming issue, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is the cost of energy. Energy was a problem when the noble Lord was in government and it remains a problem now. This is not to downplay today’s news confirming the £420 million a year committed to reduce electricity costs for the UK’s most energy-intensive industries—but that is jam tomorrow; it does not start until 2027.

There is a desperate need for further and more rapid intervention, as many UK chemicals operations face risk of closure before the British industrial competitiveness scheme, as it is called, comes into effect the year after next. There also remains considerable uncertainty about which businesses will benefit from this new support. Can the Minister fill us in on what the process will be for deciding which businesses and sectors qualify for this subsidy? What specific steps are the Government taking for the here and now? We understand what is happening in 2027, and we have seen the long look into the future that is called the industrial strategy, but what is happening now? We need to find a way of making sure that there is long-term investment in our manufacturing and chemicals industry.

The Scottish Government have a responsibility for the economy and jobs in Scotland, so why is there no meaningful mention of them in the Statement? Will the Minister outline what conversations were being had with the Scottish Government and when, and how the Minister sees the role of the Scottish Government going forward?

To conclude, energy-intensive industries are in decline across the UK. Every chemical business across the UK is paying more for its energy than competitors elsewhere, as was the case under the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, as much as 400% higher than in America. Closures at Grangemouth, Prax Lindsey and now Mossmorran risk forcing downstream operators to import resources at higher cost. Britain’s once dominant chemical industry is continuing to suffer. The UK’s chemical output has reached its lowest level for a decade. The latest business survey of members of the Chemical Industries Association shows that 60% of chemical businesses report falling sales with a further 20% seeing no growth. More worryingly, many report strategic reviews.

Closures reduce our already dwindling industrial capacity and reduce our ability to deliver essential materials for our country’s critical national infrastructure, be it health, energy, food or defence. If the Government want to continue to have a chemical industry, then we need much more action to address these unsustainable costs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business and Trade and Department for Science, Information and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords for their statements today, and I entirely agree that our thoughts are with the workers and the families of those affected by the closure.

While this Government inherited a precarious economic position from the previous Administration, it is imperative that we continue to move forward and pursue the right pro-innovation, pro-business policies which generate growth. We were disappointed to learn of Exxon’s announcement of the closure of its Fife ethylene plant. This follows months of engagement with the company and a commitment to explore all the opportunities to retain the site’s operations. However, it is my understanding that there was no credible buyer for the plant. Of course, if there are potential purchasers who wish to explore what is possible, the Government would be happy to work with them. We would be happy to find a solution, whether that is the ongoing operation of the plant or repurposing the site for new uses.

As noble Lords will know, the Government and ExxonMobil have been discussing the operating environment around the plant since April, and officials endeavoured to meet Exxon every week since August. Last weekend, Ministers from across government were in contact with the company to discuss this decision, and I expect there will be further conversations over the coming months. The Minister for Industry was clear that the Government are prepared to step in and support industry where it is feasible to do so, as we did with Harland & Wolff, Tata Steel and most recently British Steel. Sadly, in this instance, the Government are not able to provide support without a fundamentally sound business proposition. No intervention would represent value for money without one.

We know that it is a concerning time for those affected, which is why our focus is now on supporting the workforce. The Minister for Industry met Unite to explore options for supporting the affected employees, and Exxon is taking steps to mitigate the impact of its closure decision, as any responsible company would, with some employees being retained to support the decommissioning of the site and others being offered relocation and training packages to Exxon’s other assets at Fawley and Southampton. Discussions about the precise allocation of those roles are ongoing and I cannot confirm at this time exactly how many people have decided to make the transition to other sites. Regrettably, this falls short of supporting the entire workforce in finding new employment, which is why the Department for Work and Pensions is engaged in supporting those impacted. Officials in the department are also in contact with representatives from Fife Council and the Scottish Government and are working together on a task force to provide further support. Today, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland met the Scottish Government and the Fife local authority to convene the first of those discussions and will continue with that task force over the coming months.

I stress that this closure is not representative of UK industry as a whole. Through our modern industrial strategy, we are channelling support to the eight growth sectors of the economy, including clean energy, defence and advanced manufacturing—all areas in which Scotland is incredibly strong. Far from being uninvestable, since July, we have seen more than £250 billion of investment committed into the UK, alongside 450,000 jobs. Only recently, we have seen further investment into AI growth zones and small modular reactors.

Both noble Lords talked about energy costs. Your Lordships know that bringing down energy costs for British businesses is a key part of our industrial strategy. Although it is important to note that electricity costs were not a major factor behind this site’s closure, we are pressing ahead with unprecedented support for our energy-intensive industries so that they can properly compete and win in the global economy. Last month, we pledged to increase the discount on electricity network charges from 60% to 90% for businesses in sectors such as steel, cement, glass and chemicals; this discount will slash costs for a whole host of businesses not just in England but across the UK. We know that around 550 of our most energy-intensive businesses will save up to £420 million a year on their electricity bills from next April thanks to this one change.

To that end, our new British industrial competitiveness scheme, announced for consultation today, will reduce electricity costs for more than 7,000 eligible manufacturing businesses. We want to save them up to £40 per megawatt hour, or up to 25%, from April 2027; that will cover the foundational and frontier areas, as defined in the industrial strategy. This will be subject to further consultation, as set out in the papers today.

On the point about engaging and working with the devolved Governments, the Scottish Government have been heavily involved in the ExxonMobil discussions, with meetings at the highest level. I thank my colleagues, both there and in the UK Government, who have been engaging on this issue for such a long time and trying to find a way forward. We will continue to work constructively together both to support the hard-working employees of the Fife plant and to ensure that they are fully supported over the coming weeks and months.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Yes, I am quite happy to write as a follow-up. I think I said £250 billion, and I originally meant to say 45,000 jobs. I apologise; that was my error—but I can follow up on that point.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Just to prolong the agony for slightly longer, when the Minister was answering the noble Lord’s question on oil and gas, she came up with a long list of very creditable investments and changes that are going on. When I was asking my question, I referred to the relative speed of creating jobs versus losing them. Does she accept that it is much easier and quicker to lose jobs than to create them? It is very important that this creative process keeps pace with the destruction process, otherwise we will lose even more skills than we are already.

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

It is indeed very important that we continue to create jobs in highly productive, well-paid sectors, and that we provide the skills and training to a broad base of young and older people to take advantage of that. Whether that is through large, single-site companies or through the plethora of SMEs that can create jobs, it is important that we continue to focus on the productivity of our economy, so I agree with that point.

Employment Rights Bill

Debate between Lord Fox and Baroness Lloyd of Effra

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Monday 17th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

Of course, we have had many discussions and there have been amendments during the passage of the Bill as a result of some of the consultation we have had with all social partners. We made amendments to the Bill on Report in respect of fire and rehire and the school support staff negotiating body—all sorts of changes or amendments have been made through the consultation process. We have also set out a clear plan for implementation, so that each milestone is there and there is a consultation before that, so that all businesses, large and small, can have the right amount of time to prepare and to get the guidance they need to implement these measures.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response. I very much welcome the objective that she set out of reducing red tape. I remind her that the Bill contains 170 statutory instruments. In my experience, every statutory instrument leads to at least one regulation, so perhaps when next she stands up, she can commit to retiring at least one regulation, if not two, for each one that the statutory instruments bring in on the tail of the Bill, if indeed it ever becomes an Act.

The Minister also talked about a moral duty in respect of zero hours. I share that moral duty. Nothing in Motion A1 resiles from that moral duty, and on that basis, I would like to test the will of the House.