Commercial Payments Bill [HL]

Lord Leong Excerpts

Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the order of commitment of 9 June be discharged and the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House; and that the instruction to the Grand Committee of 9 June shall also be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House.

Motion agreed.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. Before coming to the Minister’s words, I will pick up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on health and safety. I turn his attention to Amendment 21, which returns to the issues of health and safety and environmental liabilities. Although his point does not need to be made again, the debate on that amendment is when the Minister can respond to it.

I thank the Minister for his response to Amendments 7 and 9; I believe that they will take scrutiny a step forward. His approach to accepting them is very heartening. It is therefore clear that, if we accept Amendments 7 and 9, we do not need Amendment 1.

On Amendment 24, I am reassured by the Minister’s comments on one particular steel asset. Although we do not expect it, in the event that the future Act is used for other assets, pensions may become an issue. Picking up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, particularly in Committee, there have been some missteps around employee pensions. It is very important that, whoever the Government of the day are, they do not make those missteps again and create the situation we have seen and on which the noble Lord commented.

On that basis, and in thanking the Minister for his acceptance of Amendments 7 and 9, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, because this is Report, I will not repeat my Committee speech. Briefly, Clause 2 is unchanged and Clauses 4 and 15 have been amended along the lines that the previous groups suggested and begin to bring the rigour at the start of this process. The request made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for information after the fact, if it has to be brought forward, seems reasonable, but on that basis I do not support the amendments as they stand.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the contributions to this debate. Noble Lords have highlighted that the public interest test in Clause 2 is a vital part of the Bill and I very much agree. It is important that we get it right. Noble Lords have tabled several amendments to this clause and we have had fruitful discussions on them at previous stages, but I am happy to return to them.

Amendment 2, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would limit the public interest factors that could be considered by the Secretary of State to those explicitly set out in statute in Clause 2. As I have set out previously, the Government agree that these are likely to be the most pertinent issues in relation to an intervention in the steel sector. We have sought to strike a balance in the Bill between minimising the scope as far as possible and ensuring that we can adapt to evolving circumstances. That is why we think it is necessary to retain some flexibility to consider other factors that may be relevant to a particular case, which may be difficult to anticipate.

Let me be clear that the legal test in this clause places particular emphasis on the factors that are explicitly set out. Where the Government seek to rely on other factors, they will need to be satisfied that those factors mean that an exercise of the powers is necessary in the public interest. I therefore do not consider the amendment necessary and respectfully ask that it be withdrawn.

Amendments 3 and 5, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would create procedural steps that would need to be fulfilled before the transfer powers are exercised. Amendment 3 would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent assessment of whether the public interest test has been met and for that assessment to be met prior to using the powers. Amendment 5 would require the Secretary of State to provide details of the criteria used to demonstrate the public interest. Both are difficult to reconcile with the likely circumstances under which the powers could be exercised. The Government will likely need to act at pace to deliver an effective transfer. However, the Government will commit to publishing a Written Ministerial Statement following an exercise of the principal transfer powers, which would include details of how the public interest test has been met. I hope that provides some reassurance to the noble Lords, even if we cannot meet the full ambition of their amendments.

Finally, Amendment 4, also tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the exercise of the transfer powers would represent value for money for taxpayers. The Government are mindful of the potential costs that could be incurred in relation to the nationalisation of a steel company. This consideration is already taken into account in government decision-making under the usual public spending processes, as I have set out previously.

Additionally, as we discussed in the previous grouping, the Government are supportive of Amendments 7 and 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, which would require the Secretary of State to consider costs prior to the exercise of the principal transfer of powers. These amendments go some way to addressing the concerns raised by the noble Lord Hunt, and I hope that will provide some reassurance.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Redwood and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for their comments. I am grateful indeed to the Minister for his reassurances and the commitment that he has given, which meet many of the concerns I expressed earlier. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I am in slight confusion that I hope the Minister can clear up. My understanding of Amendment 6A is that it offers a one-term renewal of two years, meaning a four-year total for any sunset clause. I might have misheard what the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, said. I am assuming that is what Amendment 6A is seeking to achieve.

If we are reassured by the Government’s assurances on their intention, in a sense we do not need this—but it is certainly helpful to have it. If my reading of Amendment 6A is correct and it moves it four years as a maximum, it will move it into the next Parliament, where the Liberal Democrat Government will take a view.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. I will respond to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, on financial assistance when we cover financial assistance in the sixth group.

I am grateful for the points raised regarding the sunset provisions in Clause 3. The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have tabled an amendment that would limit any extension of the sunset period to two years. I have had helpful discussions with them on this matter. Throughout debates on this Bill, we have emphasised that the Government are strongly minded to use the powers in the Bill to nationalise British Steel, subject to the public interest test, and do not currently see a need to use them for other steel undertakings. However, the steel sector faces challenges that can be beyond the control of government or companies themselves. It is important that we reserve the possibility of intervening in this way if it is needed in the public interest.

The amendment from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, strikes a good balance, allowing the Government to preserve the powers if absolutely needed while limiting any extensions of those powers to a limited period and subjecting them to an affirmative parliamentary debate. We recognise the need for this level of scrutiny, and it is appropriate that any extension be limited to a short period only. I am therefore pleased to lend my support to the noble Lord’s amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I support my noble friends on the issue of the affirmative resolution. I think it is a superior device, given the importance of the matters that could be brought before us. I also fully support the idea of a proper impact assessment, which should of course include the impact on Northern Ireland, which may well be different because of the Windsor Framework—an arrangement which, in another life, I opposed very strongly.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions and for ensuring the ongoing scrutiny of any steel undertaking that is subject to the use of the powers in the Bill. Before turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I will reflect on conversations I have had with noble Lords from across the House in recent weeks as we have sought to secure agreement on the drafting of the Bill.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, have provided detailed feedback on and suggestions for how parliamentary scrutiny can and should continue following any acquisition. Following consideration of their feedback, I am pleased to confirm the following government commitments, which reflect the importance of transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.

I confirm that a debate will take place in both Houses on the steel strategy and the impact of the Bill, within 12 months after Royal Assent. Alongside this, the Secretary of State will lay a quarterly Written Ministerial Statement for at least the first year that a steel undertaking is in public ownership, reverting to a slower rate after that. Where a Minister considers it appropriate, the Written Ministerial Statement may provide an update on jobs, communities and other issues; I will detail this further in subsequent groups. As I have already set out, the Government will lay a Written Ministerial Statement following the acquisition of a company, setting out how the public interest test has been met.

In addition to these commitments on the impact of the Bill, I can confirm that, following any acquisition of a steel company, the company’s new chair would be able to attend a Select Committee to set out their plans for the publicly owned steel undertaking. I hope that that reassures the noble Lord, Lord Redwood. Alongside the chair’s attendance, the Government will write to Select Committees, including the Business and Trade Select Committee, with information following any acquisition, and subsequently on any future plans for any steel undertaking that falls within the scope of the Bill’s powers, and to respond to any specific requests from a Select Committee. I emphasise that it is for the Select Committees to set their agenda. If the Government, or the chair of a nationalised company, are asked to provide information and attend meetings, we will of course do so. These commitments build on the statutory reporting requirement on financial assistance in Clause 59, the company’s annual report and accounts, and the quarterly Written Ministerial Statements, which I have already set out.

Any nationalised steel undertaking would not be exempt from the corporate reporting requirements set out in the Companies Act 2006. This Act contains various reporting requirements that vary depending on the size of the entity. The Government will work closely with the company and, where necessary, if there are any material changes to the company’s circumstances outside the regular reporting cycle, the Government will be able to ask the company to produce an interim report on that particular issue.

Noble Lords have also raised a concern about ensuring that stakeholders are appropriately engaged in decision-making. I will provide further detail on this later, but I emphasise that the Steel Council will continue following the publication of the steel strategy. The council is made up of representatives from across the sector, and they would include a representative from any publicly owned steel company.

In addition to our continued engagement with the sector, I recognise the importance of ensuring that there are opportunities for Parliament to engage with the sector. I therefore confirm that the Government will convene an ad hoc round table on the future of the steel sector six months after Royal Assent. I hope that this series of commitments reassures noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring that Parliament can scrutinise any publicly owned steel undertaking where appropriate.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his continued engagement with the Bill. I reassure him that Minister McDonald, the Minister for Industry, recently met with Minister Price from the Welsh Government, and my officials continue to engage with Welsh Government officials to try to secure a recommendation of legislative consent for agreement on the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for the discussions on these matters, and I hope to update the House on the outcome of these conversations at Third Reading.

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in debates on Amendments 12 and 13, and particularly the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, for their constructive engagement with me over the past few weeks. The Government respect the concerns that have been raised. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we have been clear that the Government are committed to as much transparency as possible with regard to the powers in the Bill. We have listened carefully to the cases made during our debates to date and have considered where it may be possible to amend the procedure for the power without harming the Government’s ability to carry out their objective under the Bill.

I am therefore delighted to confirm that the Government will support Amendments 12 and 13, which amend parliamentary procedure for continuity of obligations and enforcement powers. Under these amendments, the power to make regulations in relation to certain aspects of continuity obligations will change from the negative procedure to a draft affirmative procedure unless the Secretary of State considers the made-affirmative procedure necessary, and the power to make regulations on the enforcement of obligations will change from the negative to the made-affirmative procedure respectively. This compromise reflects your Lordships’ House at its best.

I shall address the other amendments in this group. Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, set out the opposition to the parliamentary procedure associated with the exercise of the share and property transfer powers in Clauses 4 and 15 respectively. While I recognise the magnitude of these powers, I must emphasise that any use of the principal transfer of powers would need to be exercised promptly to ensure operational and legal certainty. I cannot overstate the importance of this. In a scenario where the Government chose to use these powers, they would need to be exercised at pace in a commercially sensitive environment. The affirmative procedure would introduce significant delays to the transfer process and create a lack of clarity regarding ownership. This in turn would significantly affect the business, particularly supply chains and third-party contracts. This must be prevented.

Amendment 14 was tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, and they have indicated their opposition to Clause 50 remaining part of the Bill. I am afraid that I have to disagree unequivocally in this case. I have previously set out that removing the clause would risk undermining the effectiveness of the Bill. The Bill confers powers that interact with the complex area of commercial company and insolvency law in a way that was not anticipated during the drafting of the legislation concerned. There will therefore be some tension in the way that the powers are applied. Clause 50 allows us to smooth over those challenges and avoid any unintended consequences or obstacles to a successful transfer.

I am sympathetic to the fact that it is difficult to justify a power of this nature when its potential use is quite abstract at this stage. By its nature, it is intended to deal with unforeseen circumstances in non-consensual, highly atypical transfer scenarios, and I remind noble Lords that it was necessary in the Banking Act context as well. As an example, the power could be used to modify or disapply certain corporate laws, such as disapplying shareholder voting or approval requirements to prevent any delay to the transfer. That is not to say that we plan to use it in this way but merely to illustrate its potential utility. It is worth repeating that the power can be used only to ensure that the transfer of power can be exercised effectively. It cannot be used outside the context of nationalising a steel undertaking to change or amend other laws. The use of the power will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure except in particular circumstances that justify proceeding on a “made affirmative” basis. I hope that this provides some comfort regarding the issue.

Amendment 5, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, would require the Secretary of State to provide quarterly Written Ministerial Statements to Parliament updating on the progress of the nationalised steel undertaking and the broader impact of the Bill. I thank the noble Lord for our discussions on this point, and I recognise the appetite for further parliamentary scrutiny of the approach to a nationalised undertaking. As I have already set out to the House, I can confirm that the Government will commit to provide quarterly Written Ministerial Statements to Parliament for at least the first year of a steel undertaking in public ownership. This reflects the Government’s commitment to ensuring that Parliament is appropriately informed about the progress of any publicly owned steel undertaking.

I turn to Amendment 16, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his continued discussions on stakeholder engagement throughout the passage of this Bill. This includes the amendment he has tabled, which would require consultation with the stakeholder advisory committee on whether an intervention was in the public interest before exercising the powers in the Bill. I believe that the noble Lord and I agree that stakeholder engagement is critical to supporting the Government’s vision for the future of the steel industry and to ensuring appropriate scrutiny. As previously mentioned, I am pleased to confirm that we will shortly be inviting the UK Metals Council to join the Steel Council, which will ensure that the views of downstream users can be fed into engagement and discussions.

However, as I previously set out, any decision to exercise the transfer powers would need to be made at significant speed. The amendment would delay the exercise of the transfer powers, creating additional risks to the business viability and ongoing operations and uncertainty over ownership. In addition, there are commercial sensitivities associated with any decision to exercise the transfer powers, making it extremely difficult to consult in advance of a decision. While I cannot accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I will reflect on the range of ongoing engagement that Ministers and officials from my department undertake with industry and stakeholders.

A notable forum for engagement is the Steel Council, which I have already confirmed will continue following publication of the steel strategy. The council will support the delivery of the strategy by providing evidence and feedback on evolving or emerging policies that affect the sector’s competitiveness, and by providing strategic oversight of the working groups on research and development, investment and skills. Having considered the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I can confirm that the Government will convene an ad hoc parliamentary round table on the future of the steel sector six months after Royal Assent. I hope this reassures the House that the Government regard stakeholder engagement as critical to the revitalisation of the steel sector.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have tabled Amendment 40, which would require the Secretary of State to publish an impact assessment of the operation and effect of the Bill within two years of Royal Assent. This is straightforward for me to address. As the Government have already published an impact assessment for the Bill, in line with our Better Regulation Framework requirements, further impacts will be assessed as part of a post-implementation process or review. I reassure noble Lords that if the powers under the Bill are exercised, we will publish further impact assessments to accompany any transfer regulations. Following this, the Government will consider any further impacts in the post-implementation review. As I have already set out, the Government will ensure that a debate on the steel strategy and the impact of the Bill takes place in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords within 12 months of Royal Assent. This reflects our commitment to ensuring that parliamentarians remain well informed about our plans for the steel sector.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

17: Clause 53, page 34, line 26, leave out from “regulations” to “by” in line 27 and insert “must provide for any valuation for the purposes of the regulations to be carried out”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require (rather than enable) compensation scheme regulations to make provision for the role of an independent valuer and would focus more explicitly on their role in carrying out valuations for the purposes of the regulations.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to introduce a set of amendments that the Government have tabled. I hope that we have demonstrated throughout this Bill’s passage a willingness to listen to and engage with the concerns raised by your Lordships and to consider potential solutions. In tabling these amendments, we seek to address the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, regarding the discretionary nature of the appointment of an independent valuer. I previously noted that the Government intend to appoint a valuer whenever the principal powers in the Bill are exercised. We therefore consider the noble Lord’s suggestion to make this mandatory reasonable.

Amendment 17 will therefore make the required change by ensuring that any compensation scheme regulations must provide for the appointment of an independent valuer. The amendments that follow to Clause 54 make minor consequential changes clarifying that the valuer’s role is to carry out valuations for the purposes of the regulations, which is a critical step in determining any amounts of compensation. I hope that these amendments demonstrate the Government’s constructive approach and that noble Lords will support them.

Turning to Amendments 20, 21 and 23 from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, I am grateful to him for his engagement over the past few weeks on this and other points. These amendments would ensure that compensation scheme regulations must require the independent valuer to take into account environmental and health and safety liabilities when assessing the value of the relevant steel undertaking. I refer also to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, earlier. I have said during the Bill’s passage that the Government will seek to address concerns from noble Lords as far as possible.

Many companies operating in heavy industries such as steel operate as normal with contingent liabilities. The precise cost associated with environmental liabilities would depend on many factors, including the extent to which land will be retained for future steel-making, kept safe or remediated for alternative light industrial use. None the less, we agree that the environmental and health and safety liabilities are likely to be an important part of any compensation determination and that this should be made clear in statute. I am therefore pleased to confirm that the Government will support these amendments, and I hope the House will support them too.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

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

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank all noble Lords for their support. I want to share with noble Lords that the issue of health and safety is definitely a priority. At British Steel there has been a clear improvement in health and safety standards since the introduction of the special measures Act last year. This will remain a central priority going forward. Indeed, since the passage of the Act we have already spent some £8.1 million on essential improvements in this area, so we do take health and safety seriously and it is a priority for the Government.

Amendment 17 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

18: Clause 54, page 35, line 10, leave out “determining an amount of compensation” and insert “the carrying out of a valuation”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

22: Clause 54, page 35, line 27, leave out “making a determination” and insert “carrying out a valuation”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

25: Clause 54, page 36, line 1, leave out “determining the amount of compensation (if any) payable” and insert “carrying out a valuation”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 53(1).

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s descent from the spiritual to the temporal, and indeed the financial. His contribution is appreciated. I also welcome all those who have not had the joy of participating in the steel Bill debate so far.

Before I speak to Amendment 31, I am going to speak to Amendments 34 and 37, which are in my name. I am happy to say that the Minister pulled the rug from under my feet with respect to Amendment 34 when he spoke to a previous group of amendments. Amendment 34 seeks to promote a role for Select Committees going forward. I am happy to say that the Minister has taken that suggestion on board to a large extent. It is important that Select Committees are able to get under the bonnet of this, to look at the nature and amount of financial assistance, the beneficiaries of that financial assistance, the purpose and the effect of that financial assistance, and the conditions of repayment. I am happy to say that the points the noble and right reverend Lord made about the nature of any support were covered by previous comments.

Amendment 37 would insist on a report to outline the impact of financial assistance provided under Clause 58, with a focus on the short-term and long-term investibility of any nationalised steel undertaking. In tabling this amendment, I hope the Minister can put on record again what he told us in Committee about the long-term aim of the Government regarding returning these public assets into private hands. It would help your Lordships if the Minister were able to repeat that.

On Amendment 31, the Liberal Democrats in the Commons tabled an amendment to cap financial assistance, but we are now dealing with a different Bill. The Government have accepted Amendments 7 and 9, where value for money is accepted as a criterion in the Bill. We have inserted rigorous quarterly reporting. The noble Lord, Lord Redwood, will remember from two groups back that that amendment has been accepted and we will have quarterly reporting. As we have just said, we have ensured a role for Select Committees in scrutinising any nationalised industry, and we have implemented mandatory valuation of contingency liabilities. That Bill is not the Bill we are talking about.

I am persuaded that flexibility is required. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, put in a spirited performance and, at one point, was possibly auditioning for the role of Chancellor—when he talked about magic money trees, I thought he was pushing his name forward to become the next Chancellor of the Exchequer. But then, he seemed to very freely talk about spending £2.5 billion here and £2.5 billion there. My worry is that his £2.5 billion would become a target, rather than the limit. Given the controls that we have put into the Bill, we will not be supporting Amendment 31.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions, and I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for his support.

Amendment 32, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, would require that details of any proposed financial assistance under Clause 58 be provided to Parliament before the assistance can be granted. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has raised the issue of parliamentary scrutiny in respect of this clause in Amendment 34, which would require detailed proposals to be put forward before Parliament for a 90-day period and allow the Select Committee to make recommendations which the Government must respond to before any assistance is forthcoming. I understand that these amendments address the concerns of all noble Lords about the potential to incur costs in relation to the powers in this Bill.

As I have noted previously, there is a framework of public-spending principles and governance, designed to ensure that public funds are well managed, and the Public Accounts Committee holds government to account in this respect. Where the Government use the powers in the Bill to transfer a steel undertaking into public ownership, costs may be incurred from day one and will need to be funded to maintain an ongoing operation. It is vital that a steel company that is running production continuously does not face disruption due to funding shortfalls. That is why these two amendments cannot be accepted by the Government, despite the good intentions behind them. As set out in Clause 59, we will provide annual reports to Parliament detailing the costs incurred under the financial assistance provided. A nationalised company will also need to publish an annual report and accounts, as the department does, so this information will be available in several places.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we debated CBAM and the ETS in Committee, so I will not add to that debate, but I will ask a question of the proposers which I did not ask then: how is a steel business affected differently by CBAM or the ETS, whether it is publicly or privately owned? The answer is that it is not. The Bill is about the potential public ownership of steel. We will have to have a debate about CBAM and the ETS. The Liberal Democrats often talk about energy prices but not in the context of this Bill, because it is about whether a steel entity is in public or private ownership, and frankly, the CBAM will affect them the same way, no matter where that ownership lies.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate on the emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism, which I will refer to as CBAM, and their impacts on the steel sector.

Notably, these amendments seek to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from both these environmental measures, thereby undermining the level playing field that the noble Lord mentioned in the previous group. At the outset, I emphasise the Government’s commitment to their industrial decarbonisation policies and to moving towards a green, decarbonised steel sector. Although I appreciate that there may be differing views on this issue, these amendments would completely undermine the Government’s objectives for these measures.

These commitments build on the statutory reporting requirement on financial assistance in Clause 59, the company’s annual report and accounts, and the quarterly Written Ministerial Statements, which I have already set out. Any nationalised steel undertaking would not be exempt from the corporate reporting requirements set out in the Companies Act 2006. That Act contains various reporting requirements, which vary depending on the size of the entity. Where relevant or material, our Written Ministerial Statements may refer to any wider contextual or regulatory impacts. In addition, as previously mentioned, the Secretary of State would have the ability, if needed, to request an interim report on a particular issue.

Amendment 41 seeks to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from CBAM. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lord; however, I emphasise that CBAM’s purpose is to ensure that imported carbon-intensive goods face comparable carbon prices to those of domestically produced goods. It gives industry confidence to invest in the UK, knowing that its decarbonisation efforts will not be undermined. CBAM makes no exemptions for particular UK firms. Its intent is to target the problem of carbon leakage and ensure that highly traded, carbon-intensive goods from overseas, including steel, pay a comparable carbon price to that paid by UK manufacturers.

I understand the intention behind Amendment 42 and the desire to ensure that Parliament remains informed about the impact of carbon pricing policies on the steel sector. The Government are committed to supporting a competitive and sustainable steel industry while delivering our decarbonisation objectives. However, the UK emissions trading scheme and the carbon border adjustment mechanism are economywide policies designed to address carbon leakage and support the transition to net zero across industry as a whole, rather than for any particular company or ownership model.

The UK ETS Authority already keeps the operation of the scheme under review. The scheme contains statutory review mechanisms. The authority has committed to continued monitoring of both free allocation policy and the interaction between ETS and CBAM. The authority has also recently confirmed the extension of the UK ETS beyond 2030 and will continue to engage with industry and consult on future scheme design, ensuring that the impacts on affected sectors are properly considered. Given these existing review mechanisms, it is not necessary to create a separate statutory requirement for a particular transferred steel undertaking.

Amendment 43 seeks to exempt a publicly owned steel undertaking from the emissions trading scheme. I am sympathetic to the fact that this imposes a cost on activities that have significant emissions. However, as with Amendment 41, accepting Amendment 43 would grant preferential treatment based on ownership and undermine a level playing field across the industry. The transition to low-carbon steel must be fair, credible and consistent across all operators, whether publicly or privately owned. I emphasise that the ETS includes targeted protections for energy-intensive, trade-exposed industries, including steel. Further protections will be introduced through CBAM from 2027.

The Government remain firmly committed to both a competitive steel sector and our decarbonisation objectives. Exempting a publicly owned steel undertaking from ETS or CBAM would create an uneven playing field, weaken the integrity of these schemes and undermine efforts to tackle carbon leakage. Steel producers, regardless of ownership, should operate within the same fair and consistent framework. I hope that my comments reassure noble Lords.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Redwood for highlighting the importance of ETS and CBAM. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, that the British taxpayer has a right to know the effect of ETS and CBAM. I take his point that it would apply whether it was in the private or the public sector, but we are now dealing with a nationalised industry which is funded by the taxpayer, and the taxpayer has a right to know exactly what the effect of the UK ETS and CBAM will be on the costs, production, exports and competitiveness of the transferred steel undertakings.

However, I recognise that the Minister has done much to explain the method by which the Government are approaching this situation. We will keep it under careful scrutiny but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

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

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

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

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

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

Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Leong Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 1 June be approved.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 30 June.

Motion agreed

Steel Trade Measure

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, as someone who has spent most of his life in Sheffield and South Yorkshire, I know that this issue is not an abstract discussion about tariffs and trade policies; it is about the future of communities that have made steel, engineering and manufacturing part of their identity for generations.

South Yorkshire has always been more than a producer of steel; it has been the place of innovation. Today, alongside our proud steel heritage, we are home to one of Europe’s leading advanced manufacturing clusters. The work taking place at Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District, around the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre, demonstrates what modern British manufacturing can achieve. Global companies such as Rolls-Royce, Boeing, McLaren and many others have chosen to invest there because of the extraordinary skills, research and engineering excellence that exists in our region. That is precisely why getting these measures right matters.

I welcome the Government’s Statement and in particular the improvements they have made following engagement with the industry, as we heard earlier. Increasing tariff-free quota volumes and removing product codes where there is no domestic production are sensible changes, and Ministers deserve credit for listening. We on these Benches have consistently supported action to strengthen British steel-making. A resilient domestic steel industry is essential for our economy, our nation’s security and our industrial future.

We also recognise the pressures created by global overcapacity and unfair competition. But if there is one lesson that Sheffield has taught us all over the decades, it is that our steel industry and our manufacturing succeed together. One cannot thrive if the other is weakened. The difficulty with these measures is the question of domestic non-availability. Many manufacturers in aerospace, defence, energy and precision engineering require highly specialised grades of stainless bar and cold finished bars that are simply not produced in the United Kingdom at the required grades, specifications, dimensions and commercially viable volumes. These businesses are not choosing to import because they are cheaper; they are importing because no British alternative is available.

My Lib Dem colleagues argued in the other place last week that downstream manufacturing supports around 300,000 jobs, compared to approximately 30,000 jobs in primary steel-making. We must therefore ensure that policies intended to protect one part of our industrial base do not inadvertently damage another that employs 10 times more people. In South Yorkshire, we understand those connections better than most. A component manufactured in Sheffield may end up in an aircraft engine, a Formula 1 car, a defence system or an offshore energy project. Those supply chains are complex, highly regulated and internationally integrated. Changing suppliers is not something that happens over a weekend, as we heard earlier; it requires years of qualification, testing and certification. For many firms, there is simply no immediate substitute.

I really hope that the Minister can provide reassurance that the remaining product categories, particularly categories 14 and 27, have genuinely been assessed against the reality of domestic supply, rather than simply the theoretical possibilities of production.

I also remain concerned about businesses that, as we heard earlier, entered contracts after March but before the final details were announced, only days before implementation. Manufacturers need certainty. Investment decisions are made over years and not weeks.

Finally, as the Government begin negotiations in the WTO Article 28 process, I hope they will retain a simple guiding principle: where specialist steel cannot be sourced domestically, permanent tariff barriers serve only to increase costs for British manufacturers without creating new British production. Sheffield’s history teaches us that British steel manufacturing succeeds through innovation, skills and partnership, not artificial shortages. Let us support British steel and British manufacturing, and above all, let us all ensure that industrial policy recognises that these sectors are partners in our nation’s success, not competitors for government support.

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

First, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, to his place and thank him for everything he has done so far for Sheffield Forgemasters. I thank both noble Lords for their contributions.

Let me begin with first principles. The United Kingdom needs a strong and resilient steel sector, both producers and downstream manufacturers. Steel is not simply another commodity; it is the backbone of our manufacturing economy, our defence capability, our critical national infrastructure and our economic security. A country that cannot make steel is a country that becomes increasingly dependent on others for some of its most strategic needs. Yet our steel industry faces an existential challenge. Fifty years ago, the United Kingdom produced 27 million tonnes of steel a year. Even as recently as 2010, we produced 12 million tonnes. By 2024, that had fallen to just 4 million tonnes, meeting around only 30% of our domestic demand. No responsible Government can simply stand by and accept that decline. That is why we are committed to doing two things in tandem.

First, we published our steel strategy on 19 March. It addresses the structural challenges facing the sector and is backed by up to £2.5 billion of government investment, alongside the £500 million already committed to Port Talbot, which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will appreciate. In response to the noble Lord’s point about electricity, the Government also provide meaningful support through the British industry’s supercharger, helping to reduce electricity costs for this energy-intensive industry and strengthening its long-term competitiveness. Secondly, we committed to introducing robust new steel trade measures to safeguard domestic steel production and protect our ability to produce steel for defence, critical national infrastructure and the industries of the future.

Today, I have addressed that second commitment. I think every noble Lord recognises the scale of the challenge facing steel producers across the world. Global overcapacity, opaque state subsidies and artificially depressed prices mean that British steelmakers are not competing on a level playing field. For the past eight years, UK producers have benefited from the steel safeguard inherited from the European Union. That safeguard, introduced by the previous Government, provided an important degree of protection through quotas and a 25% out-quota tariff. But despite those measures, UK steel production continued to decline. We have now reached a critical point. Under WTO rules, the safeguard legally expires today and cannot be extended beyond eight years. The same rules apply to the European Union. Had we simply allowed those protections to lapse without replacement, UK steel production would have lost all meaningful protection overnight.

Doing nothing was never an option. Indeed, at precisely the moment when Canada, the United States and the European Union have all strengthened their own trade defences, failure to act would have left the United Kingdom exposed as one of the few major open markets in the world. We would quickly have become the destination of supply steel diverted from global markets. The consequences would have been profound. It would not simply have weakened our steel industry; it would have threatened its very survival.

That is why the Government have acted. From tomorrow, a new tariff rate quota regime will come into force. It introduces a 50% out-quota tariff while protecting only those categories of steel that are made or have the realistic potential to be made in the United Kingdom. We have always been clear that these measures must work not only for steel producers but for the manufacturers who rely on steel every day. That is why we have listened carefully to industry. Following extensive engagement, we have increased the volume of tariff-free quotas to 3.2 million metric tonnes—an increase of more than 560,000 tonnes compared to our provisional proposal, representing a significant 21% uplift. Nearly three-quarters of UK steel imports by value, and more than half by volume, remain outside the scope of these measures altogether.

We recognise that British manufacturers sometimes need specialist grades of steel that are simply not available from domestic producers. The quotas have therefore been carefully designed to ensure that those imports can continue without unnecessary additional costs. We have introduced transitional arrangements, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for contracts agreed before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September. We will review the operation of these measures after 12 months, monitoring their impact from day one.

We have worked intensively with the European Union. Given our deeply integrated supply chains, we have reciprocal arrangements that provide greater certainty for the UK-EU steel trade from tomorrow, while discussions continue on the longer-term partnership. We remain committed to working constructively with our international partners to address the root cause of the challenge of global overcapacity.

Some have questioned whether the measure is necessary. I simply ask them: do they believe that the United Kingdom should continue to have a sovereign steel industry? If the answer is yes, they must also explain how they would protect it from the flood of cheap, heavily subsidised steel created by global overcapacity. It is simply not credible to support British steel in principle while opposing every measure that is needed to preserve it. Our tariff and quota measures are not about protectionism; they are about fairness. They will ensure that British producers are not undercut by unfair trader imports and prevent the United Kingdom becoming a dumping ground for surplus steel.

Without action, thousands of highly skilled jobs, strategically important in the capabilities and future of steel communities across our country, would be placed at risk. There are those who argue that the market alone should decide and that we should simply buy the cheapest steel available, wherever it comes from, but we know how that story ends: we buy cheap today, domestic production declines tomorrow, the steelworks close, skills disappear and communities suffer. Then, when international markets tighten or geopolitical tensions rise, we suddenly discover that we have surrendered our sovereign capability and have nowhere else to turn. We have seen the consequences of allowing strategic industries to decline before. Communities across our country are still living with those consequences today. The Government are simply not prepared to repeat those mistakes.

The Government have made their choice: we choose to stand with British steel workers, manufacturers and communities whose livelihoods depend on this vital industry. We choose to defend our sovereign steel-making capability, because we understand that steel is not simply another sector of the economy; it is a strategic, tangible and national asset. These measures are fair, proportionate and necessary. They strike the right balance between protecting domestic producers and ensuring that downstream manufacturers have access to the steel they need to grow. Above all, they send a clear message that the Government will not allow the United Kingdom to become a dumping ground for surplus steel, nor will we stand by while our strategically important British industry is allowed to decline. We are backing British steel, protecting British jobs and safeguarding an industry that will remain fundamental to our country’s prosperity, resilience and security for generations to come.

Before I sit down, I will address the technical questions the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about how the measure will operate and the impact on sectors and businesses. Noble Lords will be aware that the measure will be reviewed in 12 months, and the Government will look at many of the issues the noble Lord raised and make necessary changes. However, I confirm that we will remain responsive to any significant changes in circumstances. While we want to provide the industry with as much predictability and certainty as possible, we reserve the right to intervene before the 12-month review if there is a serious and material change in market conditions and domestic supply.

The noble Lord also asked how the Statement will impact Northern Ireland. Specific arrangements are in place. These include specific tariff rate quotas from the EU, and facilitations to protect steel of UK origin moving within the UK from incurring duty. HMRC has confirmed these arrangements to industry, and more information will be available on GOV.UK tomorrow.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

I join the Minister in welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, to the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. It is so helpful to have someone with such experience of the steel industry participating in our debates.

I welcome some of the assurances that the Minister has given, but one of the questions I raised I would like him to focus on for a few moments: the growing regulatory burden faced by our steel industry. I join with him in saying that of course Britain needs a strong steel industry: it is part of our past and it must be part of our future. However, there are many signs that the growing regulatory burden is hampering growth in the sector, particularly the burdensome ESG reporting requirements, including those requiring businesses to report on greenhouse gas emissions, non-financial information and sustainability statements. He did not have time to deal with my question. Before I move on to the other questions, it would be helpful if he could address the growing regulatory burden faced by our industry.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. Ministers, colleagues and officials from the department have regular meetings with the sector, with producers and downstream users through an arrangement of sector councils and all that. We regularly get feedback from them. If any such requirements do hamper, we will take note of that, but so far, we have heard nothing from downstream users or producers. In respect of our international obligations, whether it is CBAM, ETS or whatever, we are a country that complies with international regulations. We have set out our case as far as CBAM and ETS are concerned and will continue to do so.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

Dealing with the whole question of energy costs—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, it seems to me that the announcement made today was essential. The Government would have come in for criticism had they not put forward such a Statement.

Is it consistent with the contents of the steel Bill, for which we have done the first day of Committee and are about to have day 2. I am assuming that everything that has been said today is consistent with the Bill that is going through. Clearly, there will have to be other announcements made as and when we see what is needed to support the industries. There must be some unknowns in all of this. If the Minister has any indication of when we might know the end of the passing of the steel Bill, that would be helpful.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for those points. First, let me say something about the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill that is going through this House. That Bill gives us a framework to acquire any steel undertaking in the public interest. Once we do acquire, in the public interest, that aligns with our overall steel strategy, which is to support our domestic supply of steel. That is precisely what we are doing, to increase domestic supply, which is currently 30%, to as much as 50%.

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, as noble Lords will be aware, we are now on the Back-Bench section of questions to the Minister on the Statement. As there do not seem to be any more Back-Benchers wishing to ask questions, and we are still waiting for the full complement of Front-Benchers to continue with next business, I suggest we adjourn briefly to a time to be announced on the annunciator.

Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 5th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, these regulations will make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the operation and transparency of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE. They will also correct a technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, which I will refer to as LLPs.

The Government remain committed to improving the transparency of beneficial ownership as part of our efforts to tackle economic crime while ensuring that there are appropriate safeguards for sensitive personal information. Noble Lords will be aware that the ROE, established by the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Act 2022, is a key part of that framework. It is a public register requiring overseas entities that own or purchase land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers to Companies House.

The register plays an important role in exposing ownership structures and supporting efforts to combat illicit activity. Information on the ROE has been used by law enforcement agencies, journalists and others investigating corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals. Last year, the Government increased public access to trust information on the ROE through the launch of the trust disclosure service on 31 August. The service allows members of the public to apply to Companies House for access to trust information held on the register. Applicants must provide their own details, together with the overseas entity’s name and identification number. While this information is publicly available, applicants must also provide the name of the trust they wish to investigate. However, the trust’s name is not publicly available on the register.

In addition, where an application relates to trust information involving a person under the age of 18, the applicant must demonstrate a legitimate interest. This requires evidence that they are investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions breaches. Where legitimate interest cannot be demonstrated, all associated trust information is withheld, including information relating to adults. These requirements can create barriers to access and limit the effectiveness of the service. This instrument will therefore make two targeted changes to improve public access to trust information and ensure that the service operates as intended.

First, it will remove the requirement for applicants to provide the trust name when requesting information. This addresses a significant barrier, as many applicants are unlikely to know that information, resulting in applications being rejected. Secondly, the instrument will change how information is held where a trust involves a person under the age of 18. Where legitimate interest is not demonstrated, Companies House will be able to disclose trust information relating to adults while continuing to withhold information relating to the individual under 18. This will ensure that access is not unnecessarily restricted simply because a minor is connected to the trust. Information relating to those under 18 will continue to require a legitimate interest before it can be disclosed. Taken together, these changes will increase transparency and public scrutiny while maintaining appropriate protections for minors.

The instrument will also make targeted improvements to the ROE protection regime by simplifying the process for removing a residential address from the public register. Currently, individuals may apply to Companies House to have their home address removed, but they must provide supporting evidence. This protection regime helps safeguard individuals who may face the risk of violence or intimidation if their personal information is publicly available.

These regulations will remove the requirement to submit supporting evidence when applying to remove a home address from a public ROE. In most cases, the register can already verify whether an address is residential. The change therefore removes an unnecessary administrative burden. The regulations will also require applicants to provide a replacement service address for publication on the register, except in limited circumstances.

Finally, the instrument will make a limited technical correction to the LLP framework. A requirement to provide additional address information was inadvertently introduced ahead of schedule; these regulations remove that requirement for now. It will be reinstated once the necessary systems are in place for both companies and LLPs. Work to achieve that is already under way. In the meantime, other address information will remain publicly available.

Taken together, these are sensible and proportionate amendments. They improve the transparency and operation of the ROE while making a necessary technical correction to the LLP framework. I thank noble Lords in advance for their contributions and will endeavour to address in my concluding remarks the points that they may raise. I am grateful for the support shown across the House for these regulations. I beg to move.

[Lord Ashcombe (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to speak to these regulations, which form part of the ongoing work to strengthen and refine the register of overseas entities, a register introduced by the Conservative Government to bring greater transparency to overseas ownership of UK land and to protect our economy from illicit finance. The instrument before us makes targeted and practical improvements to ensure that the register continues to operate effectively, balancing transparency with the proper protection of personal and sensitive information. These are measured and proportionate adjustments that respond to operational experience and ensure that the system remains robust, fair and fit for purpose.

As the Minister has outlined, the purpose of the register is to increase transparency around the beneficial ownership of overseas entities that hold land in the United Kingdom and to strengthen the UK’s defence against illicit finance. The framework for the register, including the treatment of trust information, was designed to balance two important principles: first, transparency, to ensure that overseas ownership structures cannot be used to conceal criminal activity; and secondly, privacy and proportionality, particularly in relation to sensitive trust data and information involving minors.

Since the register came into force, operational experience has highlighted several areas where the legislation could be improved to ensure that the system functions as intended. These include: first, the requirement to provide the name of the trust when applying for trust information, which in some cases risked revealing personal or sensitive details; secondly, the rules governing access to trust information where minors are involved, which were found to be overly restrictive; and thirdly, the administrative burden placed on individuals seeking to remove their home address from the public register, even where Companies House could verify the information internally.

The regulations before the Grand Committee today are intended to address these practical issues. They refine the balance between transparency and privacy; ensure that sensitive information, particularly relating to children, is handled appropriately; and streamline processes where the register already has the means to verify information. Taken together, these amendments represent a continuation of the work begun when the register was created, strengthening its operation, improving its accuracy and ensuring that it remains a robust tool within the UK’s wider economic crime framework.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, to his new role and congratulate him on it, and I thank both noble Lords for the points raised during this very short debate. I start by saying that the UK’s approach to the ROE is way ahead of international standards in this area. The Government are continuing efforts to enhance transparency and support greater scrutiny of trusts’ information, where appropriate and proportionate, monitoring the impact of reforms and engaging with stakeholders to ensure that the register remains effective. Part of that effort is the asset ownership review, led by my noble friend Lady Hodge, announced in the Government’s anti-corruption strategy. This will, among other things, consider the approach to trust transparency across government.

I just touch on a point mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I have been told that the technology and systems in Companies House are holding back the required updating of information, but I have been informed that work to improve them is ongoing at pace, and a requirement for both LLPs and companies will, hopefully, be commenced very soon once that is completed. I do not have details at hand on when that will be completed, but I will get officials to find out from Companies House when it will be done.

The noble Lord made the point that a regular review and update from Companies House is well overdue. I will ensure that my officials reach out to Companies House to perhaps organise a drop-in session with interested Peers in this area, so at least we can ask officials from Companies House the questions that the noble Lord posed in respect of the timeframe, the technology system and, more importantly, the enforcement unit—where the resources have been allocated to make it effective. It is good having all this on the statute book and in legislation but, if enforcement is ineffective, it means nothing, so we must ensure that that is done as well. I am very grateful for the support across the Committee for these regulations.

Motion agreed.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, his team, the department and the two experts who came all the way from Coventry in 35-degree temperatures to educate the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and me on the technology of steel. It has been very co-operative and I thank them.

I am slightly confused by how narrowing these words are: “of or including” versus “predominantly”. What is predominantly? Is it 60:40? Is it 55? I do not know. You have to look upon it with the body language of the Government. The Government have shown no tendency to go on a nationalisation rampage through all businesses that have ever touched a piece of steel. It is very clearly focused in one area, as the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, alluded to. Also, I remind noble Lords that there is a sunset clause in here which closes it after two years. So the talk of subsequent Governments does not have particular purchase and I am much more relaxed than the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, on this.

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

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their constructive engagement in advance of Committee, and for all the amendments and valuable contributions that they will make during it.

Amendment 1 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, seeks to introduce a narrow definition of a “steel undertaking”. I fully understand the purpose of the amendment, but the Government have no desire for these powers to extend beyond what is necessary. They are exceptional powers for exceptional circumstances and should be exercised only where Parliament intends.

I respectfully suggest that the amendment would not provide greater certainty; instead, it risks introducing greater ambiguity into the Bill. The proposed test, that a business must be “predominantly” involved in steel, immediately raises difficult questions, as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, on how “predominantly” is measured. Is it turnover, assets, employees, production, profit or some combination of these? The amendment provides no answer. That uncertainty would inevitably invite legal challenge, precisely when swift and decisive action may be required. Businesses with significant steel operations could argue that they fall outside the definition, because steel is not their primary activity. Equally, complex corporate structures could be organised to make the test easier to avoid altogether. In seeking to narrow the definition, the amendment risks creating loopholes that undermine the legislation’s very purpose. The Government’s drafting avoids these difficulties; it provides a clear and workable definition that gives legal certainty, while ensuring that powers are used only when genuinely needed to protect the public interest.

For those reasons, while I appreciate the spirit in which the amendment was tabled, I cannot agree that it improves the Bill. I know this is not what the noble Lords intended and I can accept that the current drafting is broad, but this definition follows closely that used in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act and it ensures that there can be no disputes about its meaning. In practice, we do not expect many companies to fall within the current definition, so the amendment would have minimal effect.

I will repeat the Government’s position expressed throughout the Bill’s passage so far: we are strongly minded to use the powers to acquire British Steel if it is in the public interest to do so, and we do not have any plans to acquire any other steel undertakings. It is therefore very unlikely that this would be used for any other company, let alone one that is engaged primarily in non-steel activity. I hope this helps clarify the matter and respectfully request that the amendment is withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. It was remiss of me not also to thank the Minister and his team for their extensive engagement on the Bill.

This amendment is simple. I am afraid that I do not agree with the Minister’s comments or those from the noble Lord, Lord Fox. This is very straightforward. In fact, I refer noble Lords to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, which says that the word “predominantly”, in formal or technical usage, can denote a precise majority, such as more than 50%, or an even higher threshold, such as 60% to 80%, depending on jurisdiction. I am not an expert on which jurisdiction we are in, but it clearly means north of 50%. The way the Bill is written, as I pointed out, could allow for as little as 1%.

I have listened to the Minister’s objections to the wording of the amendment and am very happy to work on tightening it up, if he thinks that would help. The amendment is simple: it would confine the powers in the Bill to genuine steel businesses—that is, undertakings

“consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel, or iron for the purposes or in connection with the manufacture of steel”.

I think that answers most of the Minister’s objections, which, frankly, if they are relevant to my wording, are also relevant to the wording currently in the Bill, so I do not really believe in the ambiguity argument.

Businesses with a limited connection to steel production should not face uncertainty about whether they fall within the reach of these nationalisation powers. The present drafting does not provide that reassurance; it permits powers to apply to an undertaking that merely includes steel-making or related iron production, as I have already pointed out. I will not press the amendment for now, but I would like further discussions with the Minister, if he is amenable, to see whether we can find a way to tighten up the language so that it both suits the Government’s purposes and makes it clearer for all those undertakings that we are discussing. For now, I beg leave to withdraw.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, one of the things that the briefing from the high value catapult team confirmed is the enormous difficulty there will be in creating a viable business from what His Majesty’s Government intend to take control of in Scunthorpe. There is the age of its blast furnace, the potential cost of any replacement of a blast furnace, the expense of conversion to an electric arc furnace—if that is what is intended—and the hugely competitive landscape of the global steel markets. These are just the headlines of the complexity, but the choices go beyond blast furnace or arc furnace.

If investment is found to install a new electric arc furnace, what will it produce? Will it aim to produce the full range of steels that we need—longs, flats, rebar—or will it specialise in particular steels that perhaps are more strategic and less easy to source? If it goes down the specialisation route, the UK will probably need access to much more direct reduced iron, or DRI. It is likely that this would have to be imported, and these would be very high CO₂ emission imports from most countries, because making our own DRI would need a whole new bit of kit which is very pricey. Choices and making the right calls will determine whether Scunthorpe has a long-term future and what that future looks like. It will determine whether it is indeed an investable prospect and whether it can attract the private sector.

When the Government begin—assuming this Bill becomes an Act—to use the terms of the Act to take ownership of this plant, that will change the focus of these choices. Of course, there will be a new board and management to run the plant, but the cost of the choices will rest with UK taxpayers, at least at first. We will be providing the capital. As we have heard, we have already made available £555 million in working capital, but clearly these sums could increase massively at scale. It is the scale of risk that the Government are taking on that is guiding my approach and our approach, because this Bill needs more scrutiny from Parliament at all levels. From these Benches, we will be pushing those buttons.

These three amendments start at least to open up that point around accountability. I am a bit intrigued because while I do not always agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, he is normally internally consistent. However, the noble Lord started out by saying there should be no expansion of the terms of Clause 2 and then put forward two pretty reasonable ones about growth and expanding the economy. I have one that I think the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, would agree with, which is cost. We should have a clear understanding of the cost before the public interest test. I completely disagree with Amendment 2 because there needs to be a broader discussion around “public interest”. We need to understand the numbers around it, otherwise we do not know whether it is interesting to the public. I do not agree with Amendment 2. I have some sympathy with the other two amendments, and I am sure we will talk more about public interest tests as we deal with other groups.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hunt, Lord Redwood and Lord Fox, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, for their contributions to this group. There are several amendments to the articulation of the public interest test in Clause 2. This is a key clause in the Bill; it is a necessary safeguard to ensure that the powers are used proportionately in response to a clear need.

Amendment 2 would limit the public interest factors that the Secretary of State may consider to those set out in the Bill. The Government agree that the three factors of national security, critical national infrastructure and support for the economy are likely to be the most relevant to the steel sector. Accordingly, the current approach ensures that they are given particular weight when assessing whether to pursue an intervention. However, circumstances may arise in which a case for intervention may not be clearly made on the basis of these three factors, yet it would clearly be in the public interest to take action. It is therefore pragmatic to build some flexibility into the Bill to address this issue.

I turn to Amendment 3. It has been suggested that the third public interest factor should refer specifically to

“economic growth and international competitiveness”,

rather than “supporting the economy”. With respect, this is a distinction without a meaningful difference. It is largely a matter of drafting rather than substance. The phrase “supporting the economy” is deliberately broad. It clearly encompasses economic growth and international competitiveness but also recognises that the economy is more than growth figures alone. It includes strengthening economic resilience, protecting strategically important industries, supporting employment, safeguarding supply chains, encouraging investment and ensuring the long-term productive capacity of the United Kingdom. By contrast, narrowing the text to

“economic growth and international competitiveness”

could unintentionally exclude other legitimate public interest considerations that any responsible Government should be able to take into account.

There may be circumstances where intervention is necessary to preserve critical industrial capability or economic resilience, even where the immediate effect on growth or competitiveness is less direct. The Government’s intention is to provide Ministers with a sufficiently broad framework to consider the full range of economic factors that may arise. The existing wording achieves precisely that: it is flexible, comprehensive and future-proofed, while fully capturing the objectives that the amendment seeks to emphasise. For those reasons, I do not believe that the amendment would improve the Bill. The Government believe that protecting our sovereign capability in what is a foundational sector for the economy will help to underpin our resilience and leave us less exposed to volatile international trading conditions. The Government therefore cannot support the amendment.

I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Lord Hunt of Wirral, and by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. In different ways, all three noble Lords seek to require the Secretary of State to consider value for money or the impact on the public finances before exercising the principal transfer powers.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My amendment?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am referring to the noble Lord’s later amendment.

I fully agree with the principle that taxpayers’ money must be spent wisely. Any decision to bring a steel undertaking into public ownership would be among the most significant interventions that a Government could make. Such a decision should never be taken lightly, and it would not be. However, these amendments seek to place into statute an obligation that already exists as a fundamental principle of government. Every significant spending decision is subject to the rigorous disciplines of managing public money—as stated by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt—Treasury approval where appropriate, and the established accounting officer framework. Ministers are already required to demonstrate that public money is being used properly, proportionately and with due regard to value for money.

The question, therefore, is not whether value for money should be considered—it absolutely should—but whether it is necessary to restate an existing, well-established constitutional obligation in the Bill. I do not believe it is. Doing so would add no new safeguard, create no new accountability and impose no duty that does not already exist. More importantly, this legislation is intended to ensure that, where a vital national interest is at stake, the Government can act decisively. Decisions of this nature will always involve weighing immediate fiscal costs against the far greater economic and strategic costs of inaction. The loss of sovereign steel-making capability, thousands of skilled jobs and critical supply chains, and industrial resilience could ultimately impose a far greater burden on the taxpayer than timely intervention would. The Government will continue to ensure that every decision made under the Bill is subject to the highest standards of financial discipline and accountability. Those safeguards already exist; they are robust and will continue to apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, noble Lords have raised a number of amendments to ensure that there is a level playing field across the steel industry. I thank noble Lords for their commitment to ensuring that the Bill positively impacts the UK steel industry. A number of amendments have been tabled on this topic so, with this in mind, I will address those before turning to the new clauses proposed for the Bill. I will consider Amendments 29 to 31 together, as I believe they are intended to have the same effect.

Amendment 29 seeks to specify that compensation regulations under Clause 54(4)(b) allow the independent valuer to take into account external tariffs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, and the carbon border adjustment mechanism when valuing the steel undertaking, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. Meanwhile, Amendment 30 seeks to require that any valuation of a steel undertaking takes into account the steel import quota and tariff measure that is due to take effect from 1 July 2026. Amendment 31 would require any valuation to consider the anticipated effects of electricity prices.

I am sympathetic to concerns about the impact that these trade-related measures and electricity costs may have on steel undertakings, and therefore on any compensation determinations made by an independent valuer in relation to them under any compensation scheme regulations. However, I emphasise that the Government consider it unnecessary to add these amendments to the non-exhaustive list of examples of matters for a valuer to take into account under any compensation regulations. Any valuation would reflect the wider economic and market context, including the trading environment in which the steel undertaking operates, with or without tariffs, without the need to single out specific factors in primary legislation. This means that the valuer will ultimately have discretion to determine what they consider to be the relevant factors in making their determination.

Valuing a steel undertaking would be complex. The independent valuer would necessarily have, or be advised by those who have, expertise and experience in this area and would be well equipped to make informed decisions on their approach to valuation. For this reason, the Government do not consider these amendments necessary.

I turn to Amendment 43, which would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the impact that any nationalisation of a steel undertaking would have on inward investment in the UK. I emphasise the commitments the Government have already made to support investment in the steel sector. The Government’s steel strategy set out commitments to removing barriers to investment and creating a more supportive business environment so that steel companies are better able to compete, are protected from carbon leakage and unfair trading practices, and have greater security and certainty. The Government welcome new entrants to the UK steel industry, which would foster a more competitive business environment. Government funding is available to support this.

I reassure noble Lords that the impact of nationalisation would be taken into account in any impact assessment on the use of transfer powers. This is the most appropriate mechanism for reporting on any expected impact on the economy. Given the complexity, interlinking and scale of investment trends, it would be difficult to report further on the exact impact of a single intervention. It is for this reason that we ask for this amendment not to be pressed.

Amendment 44 seeks to ensure that the powers in the Bill do not confer any advantage on publicly-owned steel undertakings which could distort competition and trade. I understand the concerns from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, that the Bill may unfairly distort competition and investment across the steel sector. However, I reassure your Lordships that this is not the Government’s intention. Any financial assistance provided to publicly-owned steel undertakings will be time-limited, targeted and proportionate. Furthermore, we will continue to comply with domestic and international subsidy control obligations to avoid market distortions. I hope this clarifies that the Government are committed to ensuring a level playing field between state and privately-owned steel companies. This amendment is therefore not required.

Amendments 4 and 36 were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, who has raised concerns about what he considers to be the potential adverse impact of the Bill on local communities in steel-making areas. Amendment 4 would create an additional public interest factor for a Secretary of State to consider ahead of exercising the principal transfer power. This would be to support the local economy of any steel-making location adversely affected by the Bill.

The Government have introduced the Bill to support domestic steel-making, not to threaten it. Additionally, one of the three factors set out under the public interest test in Clause 2 is supporting the economy, including any part of the UK economy. The same applies to Amendment 36, which would allow financial assistance to be provided to compensate communities adversely affected by the Bill. I do not expect the Bill to have any adverse impacts on local communities, so I do not consider this amendment appropriate.

I emphasise to the noble Lord that the steel industry in Wales is the only part of the industry with a ring-fenced fund: £500 million for Port Talbot to transform the steelworks and secure steel production at that site and to secure the future of the south Wales steel industry. This is a significant investment that will benefit the local community in that area for years to come. This demonstrates the Government’s confidence in the Welsh steel community and the crucial role that Tata plays in it.

I understand the objective of Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. We all want to ensure that any publicly owned steel undertaking can operate effectively, maintain production and continue to serve the national interest. On that objective I do not believe there is any disagreement within the Committee; where we differ is on the means of achieving it. The amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to prohibit or restrict industrial action where it is considered to pose a sufficient risk to the public interest.

The Government do not believe that curtailing workforce rights is either necessary or the right way to secure a successful and resilient steel industry. The people who work in our steel plants are not an obstacle to operational success; they are the reason it is possible. Their skills, commitment and professionalism keep furnaces running, fulfil customer orders and sustain a strategic industry on which our economy and national security depend. The long-term success of a publicly owned steel undertaking will be built on partnership with this workforce, not on restricting their rights.

Moreover, good industrial relations are an asset in themselves. Constructive engagement with employees and their trade unions is far more likely to ensure stable operations than legislation that risks damaging trust and co-operation. Indeed, imposing additional restrictions could prove counterproductive, making disputes harder rather than easier to resolve. The Government have established constructive relationships with the trade unions representing workers at British Steel and across the wider steel sector. We value the role they play in representing their members and in helping secure the future for this vital industry.

Existing industrial relations legislation already provides the legal framework for industrial action. The Government see no justification for establishing a separate and more restrictive regime merely because an undertaking has entered public ownership. Public ownership should not mean fewer workers’ rights; it should mean responsible stewardship of a strategically important industry, working with the skilled men and women whose expertise will determine its success.

I thank all noble Lords for their amendments, which aim to ensure that the Bill does not distort the market to create inequality between public and private sector steel companies. I hope I have reassured noble Lords that the Government remain committed to revitalising the steel sector, which should be achieved through co-investment from the private and public sectors. I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response on the whole range of diverse amendments we have before us. No doubt the Opposition Front Bench will have their own opinion on which ones of these they may want to return to on Report, because there are important issues that undoubtedly have arisen from those amendments.

Amendment 4 seeks to support

“the local economy of any steel-making location which may be adversely affected by this Act”.

I noted the Minister’s response, that this may be taken to be covered by other words in this subsection and in other parts of the Bill. But, with respect, words such as

“supporting the economy of the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”,

are so general that they do not actually address the point we are specifically addressing in Amendment 4, which is the impact on local communities of steel-making locations which may be adversely affected by the Act. It may well be that some such locations are not adversely affected by the Act—they may not be helped by the Act, but they may be able to get on with it—but some almost certainly will be, and there should be express and specific provision to ensure that the needs of those areas are on the face of the Bill.

In Committee, we are quite clearly only probing these matters. But I ask the Minister whether, between now and Report, he will come back and consider that. This is because the reaction against the Act will not be from the generality of the UK economy, or regional economies; it will be from specific places that are in danger of losing out because of the changes, some of which are perhaps inevitable, but which need to take place in order to facilitate the general objective of the legislation. Therefore, in begging the leave of the House to withdraw Amendment 4, I ask the Minister to consider that specific aspect between now and Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I do not want to be the bringer of bad news to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, but I suspect that it is pretty clear that the condition of the blast furnaces is poor and whatever happens, either to reinstate them to the level that would take them forward or to invest in electric arc, will take a lot of money. That is the point that we are focusing in on, and that is why we are focusing in on the public interest test. We have not yet gotten past Clause 2 yet, because this is the crunch.

I have a group of amendments in the next group, so I will reserve almost everything I have to say. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has already disobeyed his Amendment 2, because we are seeking to broaden the scope of the public interest test. With respect to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, there is such a number of issues that have to be addressed within the particular field of potential investment that the public interest really requires focus. I will leave it at that for this group and then come back to these in the next group.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Redwood, Lord Fox and Lord Hunt, for their contributions.

The noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, tabled Amendments 5, 6, and 42 to provide for an independent person to assess the public interest. Further amendments tabled by the noble Lords would require the Government to publish both the criteria used to assess the public interest and their assessment on how those criteria are met, before exercising the principal transfer power. Amendment 42 would require an impact assessment to be published before any intervention or the exercise of any power under the Bill. As these amendments deal with similar issues, I will address them together.

I start by saying that I understand and sympathise with the desire for the greatest parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of a decision to intervene under the powers in the Bill. Stakeholder engagement is a key part of the Government’s policy approach to the sector, with Ministers regularly meeting key industry groups and representatives through the steel council and other forums. The Government have published an impact assessment alongside the Bill, explaining how the public interest test will be considered. A further impact assessment will be published alongside any secondary legislation exercising the transfer of power.

The framework for decisions to intervene will stem from what has been included in Clause 2, with regard to the three public interest factors. There is no attempt on our part to obfuscate or hide the criteria that will be applied in practice. The Government will not only consider whether a steel undertaking is engaged in activity that serves the public interest; they will also consider whether the activity is at risk of not receiving government intervention.

The Government cannot support these amendments as each would create additional hurdles and process pre-intervention. In the kinds of situations that the Bill envisages, speed will be crucial. Likewise, commercial and market sensitivities mean that swift action will, in most circumstances, be necessary to avoid uncertainty.

None the less, I am aware that there are strongly held concerns about this issue, and I can confirm that the Government will consider options for Parliament to scrutinise decisions taken either at the time of or after the exercise of the transfer of powers ahead of Report stage. I hope that this offers some reassurance to noble Lords, and I look forward to continuing further conversations with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, ahead of Report. With that, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response, particularly his closing words. My hopes were raised when he started by saying that he understood everything that I had said and was sympathetic. Then the situation clouded a little as he said that these amendments would present additional hurdles at a time when speed would be essential, but then he said that the Government would consider options between now and Report—and that is what I was seeking to hear.

I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Redwood for putting it all in the historical context. It is easy to forget the pace at which we entered this debate, by being summoned to Parliament in April of last year. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, reminded us, Clause 2 is the crunch. It is a key part of this Bill. To remind colleagues, Amendment 5 would require an independent assessment confirming that nationalisation is in the public interest before transfer powers could be used. Therefore, as we approach that amendment, I obviously cannot press the Minister on the options that the Government will consider, but it would be a way forward if we could find a solution comparable to that in Amendment 6, requiring the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the criteria used to assess the public interest before using transfer powers—and then Amendment 42, which would require an impact assessment.

I recognise the point that the Minister has made about the practical difficulty of preparing a full assessment before the exercise of emergency powers—particularly, as he explained, where Ministers may need to act quickly to prevent serious harm. However, that cannot mean, as I believe the Minister accepts, that the financial consequences are treated lightly. The cost to the taxpayer of taking on a steel undertaking—its liabilities, its working capital needs and its future investment requirements—may be substantial. As my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, Parliament has a proper understanding and an interest in understanding those costs, the risks assumed and the basis on which the decisions have been made. Parliamentary scrutiny should not be seen as an obstacle to action. It is surely a necessary part of ensuring that exceptional powers are used responsibly and transparently.

We await the decision of the Government. I had hoped that the Minister would commit to publishing an impact assessment alongside the exercise of the power. I will examine his words carefully, because that assessment is the key. It should set out the costs incurred, the economic implications, the liabilities assumed, the anticipated future costs and the risks to the taxpayer. There is much for the Government to reflect on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for bringing forward these amendments. As he has observed, there are similarities with some amendments of ours and we are happy to work together to clarify them. He could also have said that Parliament will be acting at speed tomorrow on the National Security (State Threats) Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Hanson—so it can be done.

We have already raised significant concerns about the breadth of the public interest test in Clause 2. The amendments in this group go directly to those concerns. The noble Lord is quite right that, before such exceptional powers are used, Parliament should be told why nationalisation is considered necessary. It is also right that the Government should have to consider the effect on the public finances and whether the undertaking has any credible short-term and long-term prospect of being investable. A business may be capable of being kept open in the short term, but that is not the same as being viable, competitive or capable of attracting the investment needed for its future. The public interest also cannot be assessed without proper regard to the liabilities and continuing costs that may fall on taxpayers.

The Government’s approach so far has relied heavily on broad discretion and ministerial assurance. These noble Lord’s amendments would introduce greater transparency, discipline and realism into that process. For those reasons, we support them.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sharpe, for their contributions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, for his constructive engagement over the past few weeks. I understand that he is trying to support the steel sector and the Bill while ensuring value for money, which is the Government’s objective as well.

Amendment 10 would require the Secretary of State to take into account the impact on the public finances when applying the public interest test. Of course, any decision to nationalise a steel undertaking should not be taken lightly, given the significant costs that could be incurred. However, the principle of securing value for money for the taxpayer is already well established and embedded in government decision-making, as I said on an earlier group. Any decision to exercise the powers in the Bill is subject to the usual Managing Public Money governance and the framework of accounting officer checks, which includes consideration of the impact on the public finances. I therefore respectfully suggest that incorporating the amendment into statute would not serve any particular purpose, but we are mindful of ensuring that costs associated with the Bill are well managed.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also proposes, in Amendment 11, that the Secretary of State should take into account the short-term and long-term investability of a steel undertaking when considering whether to intervene in the public interest. I understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but I do not think that investability should directly inform the public interest test.

If a steel undertaking is an investible prospect in the short term, it is unlikely that there would be a case for government intervention, as the need could be met by the private sector. The intention behind the Bill is not to crowd out private investment but to act where private ownership has failed. Whether a steel undertaking is investible in the longer term is highly speculative, so I do not think it would be particularly helpful for it to form part of the statutory framework for the decision. By intervening, the Government would hope to turn a steel undertaking that is not investible into something that may become investible. To the extent that this is what the noble Lord hopes to achieve, we share his ambition, but I do not think that the amendment is workable.

Amendment 7 would prevent the Secretary of State exercising the principal transfer powers until a statement explaining how the public interest test is met has been provided to Parliament. I am sympathetic to the desire for greater parliamentary and stakeholder scrutiny of any decision to intervene under the powers in the Bill.

As I said previously, the Government have published an impact assessment alongside the Bill, explaining how the public interest test will be considered. Any further impact assessment would be published alongside any secondary legislation exercising the transfer powers. The framework for the decision to intervene will stem from the three public interest factors included in Clause 2. The Government will consider not only whether a steel undertaking is engaged in activity that serves the public interest but whether that activity is at risk without government intervention.

The Government cannot support this amendment, as it would create additional hurdles and processes pre-intervention. In the kinds of situations that the Bill envisages, speed will be crucial, as I said previously. Likewise, commercial and market sensitivities mean that swift action will, in most circumstances, be necessary to avoid uncertainty; I take note of what noble Lords said about speed. None the less, I am aware that there are strongly held concerns about this issue and I confirm that, ahead of Report, the Government will consider options for Parliament to scrutinise decisions taken either at the time of or after the exercise of the transfer powers. I hope that this of some reassurance to the noble Lord and ask that his amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his support for these amendments and I was pleased to hear the closing part of the Minister’s statement. We all want the costs of any nationalisation to be well managed; we are looking for those costs to be well understood in advance of any commitment by the Government on behalf of the people of this country. We look forward to those discussions and I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 7.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, in this group of amendments, the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has raised important concerns about the ways in which the Bill includes the Welsh Government and legislature in decision making. Amendment 9 would amend Clause 2 on the public interest so that the Secretary of State would be required to consult the First Minister of Wales before exercising the principal transfer power in relation to an undertaking located in Wales.

The Government have been keen to engage closely with the devolved Governments throughout the passage of the Bill, and I am grateful for the approach taken by all parties in that engagement. I am delighted to inform your Lordships that the Scottish Parliament granted its legislative consent to the Bill on 23 June. I record my thanks to Ministers and officials who worked swiftly to complete the legislative consent process ahead of the Scottish Parliament’s Summer Recess.

I am happy to confirm that the Government will ordinarily consult the relevant devolved Ministers if it is likely that the principal transfer power will be used in relation to a steel undertaking with its principal place of business in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. If this is not possible because swift action in the public interest is required, Ministers will engage with their ministerial counterparts at the earliest opportunity following the exercise of the principal transfer power. I also understand that my colleagues, Ministers and the Secretary of State for Wales will meet their counterparts in the Welsh Government tomorrow to discuss the Bill further.

Amendment 19 would require the Senedd to give approval to any proposed use of the modification power that would relate to devolved regulations. Again, I am sympathetic to the sentiment of this amendment and reassure the noble Lord that the modification power in Clause 50 is targeted and limited to applications necessary to ensure that transfer powers can be exercised effectively. It is not a general power to amend legislation. The drafting does not permit any changes to other laws unless they are for the purpose of ensuring that the powers in the Bill can be exercised effectively.

Although I cannot agree with these amendments, I reiterate the Government’s desire to continue engaging closely with our partners in the devolved Governments. In particular, the Government are continuing to discuss the Bill with the Welsh Government, and I hope to be able to provide noble Lords with further updates later in the Bill’s passage. However, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

Well, well, well—I thank noble Lords for their positive responses. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Hunt, and indeed the Minister, for the tone and content of their support for the principles here, if not the exact wording on the Order Paper. I noted with interest the ongoing discussions with colleagues in Cardiff and that there are further discussions about to take place. If, arising from those discussions, the Government feel it is appropriate to tweak the Bill to cover those points, I am sure that would be widely welcomed all round. On the basis of this general positive approach, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I see the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, has made, and I commend him for getting past this amendment before 9.21 pm, which is of course sunset.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for his contribution. I note the Constitution Committee’s comments on this clause in its recently published report on the Bill. The inclusion of the sunset provision demonstrates the Government’s commitment to ensuring that powers remain on the statute book for as long as necessary to serve their purpose. Ultimately, we want to see the domestic steel sector return to a more sustainable and stable state in which government intervention is unnecessary.

As we have said, we do not currently see another use case beyond the possibility of British Steel. Therefore, we hope that noble Lords get their wish and there is no need to extend the sunset period. However, the current geopolitical landscape creates a volatile backdrop for this sector, making it difficult to anticipate what may transpire in the coming months and years. We have therefore built in some flexibility to extend or shorten the two-year sunset timetable if circumstances change. We consider this a reasonable precaution to take.

The drafting ensures that there will be full parliamentary scrutiny of any change to the sunset period through the affirmative procedure, meaning that parliamentarians will be able to test and debate any regulations brought by the Government to extend the sunset period. We anticipate needing to use this extension power only in extenuating circumstances. I therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, that was a very brief debate, and I am grateful to the Minister for his response, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. The Government say they want to secure a sustainable private sector-led future for British Steel. But a power capable of being extended repeatedly without any final statutory limit sends exactly the opposite signal. It risks making investors more, not less, cautious about committing capital to the sector. There must be a reasonable period that the Minister can identify and put in the Bill. If the Government genuinely regard these as exceptional and temporary powers, they should be willing to set out a clear limit.

The noble Lord cannot realistically blame external circumstances. There are always external circumstances. This has fallen foul of the Constitution Committee for very clear reasons, which it has set out. Speaking personally and from experience, I think it is unwise to fall foul of the Constitution Committee.

We urge the Government to take seriously the recommendation of the committee and either specify the final extension period in the Bill or impose a statutory limit on each extension. I think we will have to return to this matter at a later stage, but for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I have to say I was a bit grumpy when the Conservative Party tabled these amendments that we had tabled in the Commons, but in retrospect I am very pleased. No joking—that was a tour de force from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This is his specialist area, and that was his best speech on Henry VIII that I have heard. All the points were points that I would have made except that I am not good enough to have made them, so in that respect I am glad that he was the person proposing this, rather than I. The only thing that stops the noble Lord from being risen to the pantheon is that, having won affirmative powers, he and his colleagues never actually exercise them through fatal Motions. Frankly, that is the only flaw in what we have just heard.

I countersigned Amendments 13 to 15 and 18 but my pen ran out when we got to Clause 50 stand part. All the points that the noble Lord made are valid. I hope the Government are able to take on board both what he said and what your Lordships’ committees have said about the shortcomings in this draft.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, before I turn to the amendments in this group, I thank the members of the Select Committee on the Constitution for their report on the Bill, which relates to this grouping. The report recommended that in Clause 47 the provisions for dispute settlement should be set out more fully in the Bill. The approach to drafting here is in line with existing precedent under the Banking Act 2009 and reflects the approach taken for similar powers, such as enforcement powers. We think it is appropriate to provide for dispute settlement on a case-by-case basis through regulations.

Noble Lords have tabled a number of amendments relating to parliamentary scrutiny of and procedure on the transfer regulations. In particular, the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have tabled amendments which would change the parliamentary procedure for the principal share and property transfer powers, continuity obligations and enforcement powers from negative to affirmative. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Lords. From the outset, I reassure all noble Lords that the Government take parliamentary scrutiny extremely seriously. For that reason, we have ensured that a number of substantial powers in the Bill, such as the compensation and tax powers, are subject to the affirmative procedure. However, the Government consider that changes to the procedure for transferring powers would adversely affect the Government’s ability to effect a smooth transfer where necessary in the public interest.

Steel is fundamental to the UK’s industrial base and our national resilience, making it critical to secure supply. Any delays, especially in a non-consensual transfer, would prevent the transfer from taking place, particularly if the transferer was unco-operative. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the recently published report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which did not raise any cause for concern about these powers, including the level of parliamentary scrutiny attached.

To set out the necessity for the negative procedure for these powers, I will discuss them in turn. I will address Amendments 13 and 14 together as they seek to amend the procedures for the share and property transfer powers respectively. It is important that the principal transfer powers can be exercised with speed and operational and legal certainty. The Government expect that, if these powers were exercised, it would be in a fast-moving, commercially sensitive situation. The affirmative procedure would introduce a substantial delay, creating a vacuum in ownership. Such uncertainty would significantly affect the business, particularly the supply chains and third-party contracts.

Amendment 15 seeks to amend the procedure for continuity obligations. The continuity obligations in the Bill are essential to ensure that the company continues to operate as normal following the transfer, minimising disruption and maintaining operations at the steel undertaking. This is achieved by imposing obligations on residual steel undertakings and their group companies to ensure that all services and facilities required by the transferred business continue to operate as normal. Any changes to the procedure would affect the effectiveness of the transfer. The Government’s primary objective with this provision is to ensure a smooth transfer of ownership. As I have set out, it is imperative that there be no delay to any transfer of a steel undertaking into public ownership.

Amendment 18, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, aims to amend the procedure for enforcement regulation. Clause 45 gives the Secretary of State the power to make provision in regulations for the enforcement of obligations under the share and property transfer regulations. As with the other amendments, if the Government consider it necessary to enforce obligations, they must do so at pace. Any delay in using these powers risks interrupting the transfer process and reducing its effectiveness.

For those reasons, the Government do not consider these amendments necessary. However, I have reflected on the argument made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. While it is critical that the Government are able to preserve their ability to enforce as necessary, there is a reasonable rationale for further parliamentary scrutiny. I cannot accept this amendment but I will consider this issue further, ahead of Report.

The noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, have given notice indicating their intention to oppose Clause 50 standing part of the Bill. That would remove the modification power in Clause 50. This power is not taken lightly, but it is a necessary measure to ensure that the transfer powers under the Bill can be used effectively. The clause has precedent because the same power was used in the Banking Act 2009 to resolve complex companies in the financial sector. Given that the transfer powers would be used only in circumstances where a public interest test was met, it is crucial that the Government have the necessary tools to ensure that any such transfers can be implemented effectively to deliver the intended outcome.

The powers in Part 1 of the Bill interact with commercial, company and insolvency law. This is the law that normally governs the consensual acquisition of companies or of their businesses. The legislative environment is therefore varied and complex and, because general legislation was not designed with compulsory transfers in mind, as the Bill envisages, there will be some tension between applying the Bill’s powers to a steel undertaking and the highly complex private law that it will inevitably cut across. The clause therefore provides a necessary power to modify other laws that may ordinarily interact with a transaction of this nature in order to integrate the Bill’s powers into the existing legislative and commercial landscape.

The use of the modification power is limited to the purpose of enabling the transfer powers to be used effectively. It is not a general power to amend legislation; it is targeted and limited. It cannot be used in isolation from the use of powers in respect of a particular steel undertaking to amend or disapply laws, and it cannot be used to amend the Bill—or Act—itself. In the absence of these powers, there is a real and significant risk that the Secretary of State could not fully and effectively implement a transfer. This could result in an ineffective or incomplete transfer to public ownership, affecting a company’s ability to continue operation. If a smooth transfer is not achieved, the public interest aims could be undermined.

I turn to the potential retrospective effect of the power. The Bill permits it to be applied retrospectively but does not require it. Preserving the possibility of applying this power retrospectively anticipates circumstances in which the transfer powers may need to be exercised at pace and in which there may be limits on the ability to conduct the level of due diligence necessary to support acquisition. Similarly, it may not be possible to identify all legislative interactions in the transfer scenario before making a transfer. This may mean that any secondary legislation made under the transfer powers may not fully affect the transfer that was intended. In such circumstances, it would be necessary to address this through the modification power, with the modification backdated to the time of transfer. The use of the power will be subject to the affirmative procedure unless there are particular circumstances that justify the Secretary of State proceeding on an affirmative basis, likely due to time pressures.

I hope that I have provided some clarity on the need to include the provision, and its retrospective effect. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

On a number of occasions, the Minister has painted a picture of a breathless process, where all the organs of government have to operate at breakneck speed. Taking the Government at face value, we are talking largely about a particular asset that we have been talking about for around 15 months, since the discussion at Easter last year. At some point, perhaps not at the Dispatch Box but when we are having our meetings, the Minister will explain why there is this predisposition to putting everything in place to have things moving at the speed of light when, in reality, they have been moving relatively slowly.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I am happy to give that commitment in our further conversations.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fox, not only for his generous praise, which I felt was completely undeserved, but for his support. At some stage, this great Chamber of ours will consider better ways to deal with secondary legislation. He will know that I gave quite a lot of support, when I chaired the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, to one of his noble friends who moved that there should be a new Bill—the Statutory Instruments (Amendment) Bill. But that is for another occasion. In the meantime, I thank the noble Lord for his strong support.

There is clearly much now for the Government to consider, in particular in view of the commitments made by the Minister. How do we achieve the right balance between acting swiftly where necessary and, at the same time, ensuring that Parliament has a meaningful role in scrutinising powers, particularly where they affect property rights, liabilities and commercial arrangements? I am sure these issues will merit further discussion as the Bill progresses. For the present, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 28 April be approved.

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Leong Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd June 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leong]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 28 April be approved.

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

My Lords, before I kick off, I am sure all noble Lords will want to join me in wishing the England team good luck and all the very best wishes for tonight’s match.

I note the regret amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I will address the points that he has raised. For context, these instruments were laid before Parliament on 28 April and approved by the other place today. Their purpose is straightforward: to extend the time for bringing certain employment tribunal claims from three to six months.

The draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 apply across Great Britain. The draft Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 applies to England and Wales. Subject to the approval of this House, both instruments will come into force on 1 October this year.

I turn first to the regret amendment. It raises concerns about the current capacity of the employment tribunal system and the possibility that a longer claims window could place further pressure on it. I assure the noble Lord that these issues have been carefully considered. We fully recognise the pressures faced by the employment tribunal system and the wider dispute resolution framework, including a growing case load. That is why we are working across government to ensure that the system is resilient and able to support the effective enforcement of measures introduced under the Employment Rights Act.

As noble Lords will be aware, the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice have established a dispute resolution task force. It brings together representatives from business, trade unions, the legal profession and the third sector. We are pursuing a combination of immediate targeted measures and longer-term reforms. Together, these are intended to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We are taking a phased approach, with several measures already under way. This programme of reform will continue at pace to ensure that the employment tribunal system has the capacity that it needs for the future.

The noble Lord raised concerns that a longer claims window could prolong disputes and put greater pressure on the system. The current three-month limit was originally introduced when employment tribunals were intended to offer a quicker, more informal route to resolving workplace disputes. However, demand has increased significantly. Experience has shown that three months is often insufficient for claimants to prepare a robust case, a point that the Law Commission recognised in 2020. Extending the time limit to six months strikes a better balance. It preserves the principle of timely resolution while providing claimants with a realistic opportunity to prepare their case. Better prepared claims should improve the quality of proceedings, reduce the need for applications to extend time limits and allow judicial resources to be focused more effectively on delivering justice.

I turn now to the instruments. First, the draft Employment Tribunal (Extension of Time Limits) (Miscellaneous Amendments and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026 extend the time limit from three months to six months for a range of workplace rights. These include rights for part-time workers, fixed-term employees, zero-hours workers, information and consultation representatives, negotiating representatives, trade union blacklists, and certain NHS-related protections. The regulations will apply where the relevant workplace issue arises on or after 1 October 2026. If the issue arose before that date, the existing three-month time limit will continue to apply.

Secondly, the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) (Amendment) Order 2026 extends the time limit for bringing employment tribunal claims for breach of contract or sums due under a contract of employment from three months to six months. This order applies only to England and Wales. It does not extend to Scotland because the power to amend the equivalent Scottish legislation rests with Scottish Ministers, not the UK Government. We are working closely with the Scottish Government to secure a corresponding change in Scotland. We expect the change to take effect in mid-November 2026. Clear guidance will be issued to ensure that individuals and employers in Scotland understand the temporary difference in time limits.

The order will apply where the termination giving rise to the breach of contract claim occurs on or after 1 October 2026. Where the contract was terminated before that date, the current three-month time limit will continue to apply. These instruments are necessary to ensure consistency with the changes introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. They also align these claims with the existing six-month limits that apply to statutory redundancy and equal pay claims. Without these changes, the system would become unnecessarily complex for employees and employers alike and would create additional administrative burdens.

In closing, these measures will give both employees and employers more time to resolve disputes internally, to engage in conciliation, and to properly consider the merits of bringing a claim. This is particularly important in sensitive cases where individuals may need extra time before deciding how to proceed. By encouraging better preparation and greater use of early resolution processes, these changes may help ease pressure on the employment tribunal system. I hope noble Lords will support these instruments and the wider programme of reform that sits behind them. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be speedy. First, I thank both noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, which I respect. I will address the point that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made about the review of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. The noble Lord is absolutely right: we are committed to reviewing Section 10. I am sure that we will update the House on that in due course, but I cannot say more at this stage.

On the dispute resolution task force, the Government are considering reform measures, from early resolution to enforcement, to ensure that the system is more efficient and resilient. The expertise of the task force—which, as I mentioned earlier, will be made up of representatives from across the various stakeholders—will help inform the Government’s development of these reform measures. We are working on a mix of both more immediate targeted measures intended to reduce the current pressures and longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency, effectiveness and resilience of the system. We intend to use a phased approach, rather than doing everything in one go, and we will work on some of the measures already in train, such as targeted awareness-raising to reduce workplace conflict.

The Government are continuing to invest in recruitment to build employment tribunal capacity. New salaried employment judges will be sitting from this summer, and recruitment is under way for up to 55 employment judges who will add capacity from 2027. In addition, recruitment for up to 150 non-legal members will also conclude this year, so we are adding capacity and recruiting as things stand today. For 2026-27, the employment tribunal has been funded for 34,590 sitting days, which is more than has been utilised in each of the last 12 financial years up to 2024-25. Remote hearings are expanding through virtual means, enabling around something like 20,000 sitting days annually without geographical limits.

As noble Lords know, one of the key points of the Employment Rights Act is the establishment of the Fair Work Agency, which will now enforce rights including the national minimum wage. In time, it will enforce additional rights, including holiday pay, and ease pressure on employment tribunals. From 2027, the Fair Work Agency will enforce key rights—as I said earlier, holiday pay and statutory sick pay—to make enforcement faster and more accessible for workers. We are working on a mix of both immediate targeted measures intended to reduce current pressures and more targeted, longer-term, more ambitious reforms designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. The Government’s longer-term view includes looking at opportunities for the Fair Work Agency to take on enforcement where that would help workers and businesses reach resolution more quickly without needing to go to the employment tribunal. With all this in place, we hope to see a reduction in some of the caseload that we currently experience.

In closing, I reiterate the positive impact that these regulations will have for employees and employers and commend our ongoing reforms of the employment tribunal system so that it is more resilient to any future changes.

Steel Tariffs

Lord Leong Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, yesterday there was cross-party concern in the other place, including from government Back-Benchers, that these steel measures risked doing real damage to downstream businesses. Of course, we all want to protect British steel-making, but the Government have designed a regime that risks penalising British manufacturers for importing specialist steels that are not made in this country, or not made here to the grade certification or volume that is required. That is not protecting British industry; it risks pushing value-added manufacturing jobs and contracts overseas.

The Minister in the other place said that this was necessary to respond to overseas tariffs and job losses, but the Government have had plenty of time to reduce the structural costs facing steel and manufacturing businesses, from energy and carbon costs to business rates and employers’ national insurance. Will the Minister therefore accept that the Government need not only emergency tariff measures but a proper, comprehensive steel strategy? Will they now revise the proposed quotas so that specialist steel products desperately needed by downstream manufacturers can be imported tariff-free where there is no realistic UK supply?

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that question. While calls for delay are totally understandable, our existing steel safeguard will expire and cannot be extended under WTO rules. Without replacement measures, the UK risks becoming a destination for diverted, subsidised steel, as other jurisdictions act. We have carefully designed the regime and we are consulting extensively with producers and downstream users. Ministers are considering changes based on downstream feedback. We will continue engaging with industry and finalise the measures ahead of implementation on 1 July.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, in responding to the last point made by the noble Lord, today I forwarded to the Minister a very detailed list of the categorisations of steel that will not be available in the UK but which will be subject to tariffs, and I would appreciate a response on that. Further, he mentioned 1 July. Most of the steel under consideration is imported from the EU, and negotiations are under way with the EU around a mutual tariff system. It is unlikely that those negotiations will be concluded before 1 July. It makes no sense to implement a tariff regime and then come to an agreement with the EU which will necessarily change that regime, so will the Minister go back to his colleagues and suggest that no change is made to the UK tariff regime until the EU agreement has been concluded?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I will address the noble Lord’s first point. Following extensive engagement with downstream importers, we have introduced a transitional arrangement, as the noble Lord knows, so that the new tariff will not apply to goods contracted before 14 March and imported between 1 July and 30 September of this year. Quotas will be administered quarterly, with unused allocations carried forward within a quota year to provide greater flexibility.

To address the point about the EU, the United Kingdom and the European Union share a unique trading relationship, with highly integrated steel supply chains that support jobs and industry on both sides. We are, as all noble Lords know, engaging closely with the European Commission to secure a solution that protects the vital EU-UK steel trade. While I cannot comment on live discussions, we have made it clear that restricting UK access to the EU market would disrupt supply chains, increase costs and harm businesses in both the UK and the EU.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I note and welcome the recent agreement reached by the Prime Minister and the Prime Minister of India, on the FTA and its commencement date in July. However, there is another issue on the horizon when it comes to steel tariffs, which is the imposition from 1 January next year of the carbon border adjustment mechanism, particularly on steel which is imported into the country, and which relies on coal. Bearing in mind India’s heavy burden on coal manufacturing, will we need to look at the FTA again?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

First, I thank the noble Lord for all his work when he was a Minister in having conversations with the Indian Government. We should be celebrating and we should all be delighted that the landmark UK-India trade deal will now finally take effect from 15 July, delivering benefits for businesses and working people across the United Kingdom. This agreement, which is the most comprehensive India has ever concluded, is expected to boost UK GDP by £4.8 billion, increase bilateral trade by around £25.5 billion annually and raise real wages by £2.2 billion. Key sectors will benefit from this substantial tariff reduction, including exports of whisky, automotive products and cosmetics. I will write to the noble Lord on CBAM.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)]

Can the Minister confirm that the Government are consulting on this, and therefore that some of the suggestions made in this House and in the other place can be taken into account by the Government and amendments made? Can he also tell us—despite the rather theatrical intervention from the Front Bench opposite—what would have been the state of the British steel industry if the Government opposite had continued?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I always agree with my noble friend. We have listened carefully to downstream steel users and designed these measures to balance manufacturers’ needs with the imperative to protect domestic steel production. Imports will continue to play an important role, and transitional arrangements will provide flexibility for some of the contracts that I have identified earlier. Delaying implementation would leave the UK exposed to damaging global overcapacity while our international partners act. We will continue to engage closely with the European Union as discussions progress.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the French economist Frédéric Bastiat said that the distinguishing feature of a good economist is looking beyond the visible and seeing the secondary consequences. There are some 34,000 people employed in the steel sector in this country; one can argue about whether protectionism will help even them. Let us look at the numbers in the steel-using industries: 183,000 people work in the automotive sector, 452,000 in agriculture and 2.8 million in construction. These sectors either cannot buy the kind of steel they need other than through imports, or cannot get the volume from the UK alone. Will the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact of pushing up the cost of these imports, especially in the north-east and the West Midlands, which are hubs for the aeronautic and automotive sectors?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I say to the noble Lord that the steel sector is a very important part of our industrial strategy. That is why the Government are taking steps to protect the steel industry. It is not just another commodity; it underpins everything we do, including in the defence, infrastructure, manufacturing and energy sectors. We are intervening to protect our domestic production and we are protecting jobs up and down the country; whether it is in the Midlands or elsewhere, we are doing what is required of a Government to protect jobs.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

This is a very large increase in costs for steel processors, so what is the Government’s estimate of the job losses and business losses that are sure to follow such a comprehensive, large increase in a major cost to these businesses?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, we have to recognise how important steel is to thousands of workers and families and the wider supply chain. Our objective is to secure a viable long-term future for steel-making in the United Kingdom. Maintaining domestic steel capability is essential for jobs, investment and economic resilience. Whatever we do, flexibility is needed to explore future options not only for British steel but for other sectors which use steel, while safeguarding an industry that remains strategically important for the nation.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the changes

“could add millions of pounds to manufacturers’ costs”.

Why do the Government want to add more costs to UK industry, which is already reeling from the increased national insurance costs?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I do not know whether the noble Lord listened to the response that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Fox. We have been engaging extensively with downstream importers. We have introduced transitional arrangements that I set out earlier for contracts made before 14 March and for any imports between 1 July and 30 September. We are listening to end users, and we will continue to listen to end users. As I said before, Ministers are consulting with users and, if needed, changes will be made.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Lord Leong Excerpts

2nd reading & 3rd reading & Order of Commitment discharged
Thursday 12th March 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, can I ask him about SMEs?

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Leong) (Lab)]

I am sorry, the noble Lord should not be intervening because he is not on the speakers’ list.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

The question was well made. I can tell the noble Lord that it is important and that there is a whole strategy with UKEF and the Government to ensure that the opportunity that the Bill creates is articulated to the SME community as well.

With that in mind, I thank noble Lords from across the House for this informed debate. It is with great pleasure that I beg to move.