Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 13th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I agree with the Minister that the Bill is an important element in securing the future of the vital steel industry. It is, of course, a first step. There is an awful lot to do.

The Bill leaves your Lordships’ House in a better state than when it arrived. For example, it is now mandatory for overall costs of nationalisation to be taken into consideration by the Secretary of State when assessing the public interest; environmental legacy costs must be fully assessed by the valuer; there will be parliamentary debates and quarterly Written Ministerial Statements; the management of a business that is nationalised will be quizzed by Select Committees, and the steel council will better represent steel users.

Those are all important steps, and many are improvements on parliamentary accountability, which was the mission that we on these Benches set ourselves at the beginning of this debate. I echo the Minister in saying that that could not have been achieved without co-operation and debate.

I thank the Minister, his team and the departmental team for their openness, availability and flexibility. I thank the Minister in the Commons too for the time that he spent. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, who remained, as ever, amiable debate company as we wended our way through the Bill. Finally, I thank Ulysse Abbate in the Lib Dem Whips’ Office, whose support has been superb.

As I said, the Bill has been materially changed. I hope that the Commons accept our changes and we do not have to see the Bill here again. It is a first step. I wish the Minister well in taking the next steps.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Fox, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe. Their amendments were to this Bill and not to the trains Bill. Nevertheless, the point stands. The attendance was no greater than when it was debated in Grand Committee. I apologise and sincerely hope that they realise that I was so involved with both Bills that, in my enthusiasm, I erred. I am sorry.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, I just want to say a huge thank you to the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Fox, for their kind words and co-operation during the passage of the Bill.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 8th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I am so glad my noble friend has raised once again this crucial and fundamental point. It is of great importance and of help to the Government.

When I have in the past had some responsibility for trying to recover the financial position of the odd distressed company—although nothing nearly as distressed as British Steel at Scunthorpe—I have always found it was an essential discipline to first of all institute very frequent reporting, because you need to signal to the executives undertaking the day-to-day work that the financial state of the company is at risk and that they need to give great priority to this. You need to help them get clarity over why cash is draining out of the business. This business, British Steel, which is under the operational control of the Government, is draining cash, we believe, at £500 million a year. That is a phenomenal rate of loss, which is going to have an obvious impact on the public accounts, at a time when we know that government money is scarce and there are many other priorities. We need to know rather more about why it is £500 million.

Is there any residual investment programme left? That would be the first thing to go when you are trying to save cash. Is it still committing money to raw material stocks? It clearly should not be allowing more material stocks. Does it have a very large stock of finished product which it is not able to sell? If that is the case, what is the plan for trying to move that stock on? What is the reality of the price level it is going to get for that stock? Obviously, stock is a mixture of volume and value, and you have to try to maximise the cash you can get for the stock you have got before you would normally go on to produce more. This plant has the particular problem that it has to keep producing, even if it is not able to sell enough of the product at a sensible price. You would expect regular reporting, certainly to the chief executive appointed by Ministers, but I would have thought that the Minister with day-to-day responsibility for this would know what is going on, and on the trading accounts, because a lot of the cash going out may be trading losses. You would want to see an urgent plan for selling more and economising on costs wherever you can, whether that is bought-in materials, the productivity of labour or other overhead costs that the business is incurring.

During the debates so far, I have not felt the Government’s urgency around this financial problem. Every pound that goes out of the door on losses that you are responsible for as a steel-maker is a pound that cannot be spent on the new and better industry that you really need in order to take the country forward. I am not blaming the Minister, who has been exemplary in his conduct and helpfulness—I am sure he wants, as we all do, a good outcome to this—but in those conversations within ministerial offices, it would be good if a Minister in the other place, for example, could make more Statements which showed that there was a plan and a determination to rescue this industry that we all wish to rescue.

In this group of amendments, there is talk of quarterly reporting. That is a big enterprise in terms of people and scale of loss. Quarterly reporting is quite common and normal now in the public quoted sector. It is a good discipline, even for the most profitable businesses in the world, because people like to make sure the trends are still good and the managers are in charge of it. I would have thought that quarterly reporting was the bare minimum, and if it was somebody’s day-to-day responsibility then they would obviously need rather more frequent reporting than that.

The public deserve quarterly reporting from this industry, which they now have a substantial operational stake in. I urge the Minister to think about more regular public clarity. I hope that such detailed, short-term regular reporting is going on. It would be good to get some good news out of the Government that they are applying the right kind of financial disciplines to control the outflow of cash. If they do not control the outflow of cash, it will end in tears and redundancies.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I want to simply question Amendment 31. In Clause 58(2), there are many different ways in which the Government can provide assistance, such as

“by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity … by the acquisition of shares or any other interest in, or securities of, a body corporate, … by the acquisition of any undertaking or of any assets … pursuant to a contract, or … by incurring expenditure for the benefit of the person assisted”.

I am one who believes that we should plan for the future and make sure we do not spend above our means. However, it seems to me that, in a Bill of this nature, putting a tag of £2.5 billion by the end of 15 August 2029 is a restricting element and it does not give me confidence that we are actually interested in nationalising steel.

There are so many unknowns. During the debate when we were all summoned by the Prime Minister to rescue the steel industry in Scunthorpe, it was quite clear that the books were not very encouraging—but this is a national asset, so what do you do? It seems to me that to put that amount in the Bill is almost legislating for failure. If, for example, it is £2.6 billion, not £2.5 billion, what would happen? Would the whole thing collapse? Putting figures in the Bill is not good for legislators. We have got the Exchequer and all kinds of other people for that. Let us not try to conduct this Report as if we are the Treasury—we are not. I urge the noble Lord, having flagged it up, to nevertheless withdraw his amendment. I would find it difficult to support.

I remember being in Birmingham when Rover collapsed. BMW announced that it would build the Mini there but left the other plant. The Government were being asked for only £600 million to keep the plant. They were already in agreement with China to sustain it, but, because of the laws around government support for businesses from the EU, the Government found that they could not, and the plant went.

I always respect the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Sharpe, because of their wisdom. However, if they do not mind me telling them this, as a Cross-Bencher rather than one of those rarefied Lords spiritual, I think that they are losing a little of what I have always taken them for—just no.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, in particular for those additional comments. I and my noble friend Lord Sharpe—as well as, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Fox—have been reassured by how the Minister has termed the positive future that we all want to see. However, as my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, the Government have still not provided Parliament with a clear limit on the potential exposure facing taxpayers. I do not know whether the Minister has any aspiration to become a Treasury Minister. To become one, you have to believe in caps—there is no other way to become a Treasury Minister.

I say to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that the Government just have to come to Parliament. If they require more money, they should ask Parliament for more money. At the moment, they have said that £2.5 billion is necessary. If there is a need for more money, it is perfectly open to the Government to come to Parliament and ask for it. Without a clear limit, there is a real risk that the cost could run into tens of billions of pounds.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

Therefore, if they can come to Parliament to ask for it, do not put the limit in the Bill. That is what the noble Lord seeks to do in his Amendment 31.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

If the noble and right reverend Lord does not support this amendment, it will be unnecessary for the Government to come and ask for more money. It is only when there is a cap that the Government have to be accountable to Parliament. For the reasons I have outlined, and because taxpayers should never be asked to sign a blank cheque, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to Amendments 2, 3 and 8.

Amendment 2 limits the public interest test to the specific factors listed in Clause 2. On first reading, the test looks robust: national security, the economy and

“the construction, maintenance and operation of critical infrastructure”.

These are serious criteria that one might think provide a meaningful check on the exercise of what are very significant powers. However, when one reads on, Clause 2(2) says that the test

“includes (but is not limited to)”

those grounds. I contend that, with those five words, the floor falls away. If the test includes but is not limited to the listed grounds, surely, in practice, there is no test at all. Any Secretary of State of any political persuasion at any time can conjure a reason and call it the public interest.

The amendment in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom would remove those words and make the listed grounds exhaustive. It would ensure that when Ministers say that these are exceptional powers subject to a robust public interest test, it is actually true—not merely true for now with this Secretary of State in these circumstances but true in the legislation for every Secretary of State who follows.

The Government may say that there need to be other grounds, beyond national security, the economy and critical infrastructure. I would genuinely like to know what they are. What situation could possibly arise that those three criteria do not already cover? If the Government can answer that question, let them do so today. Let them set out on the record what additional circumstances they have in mind. If they cannot, these words should not be in the Bill.

We have a Bill that, as we just discussed in the first group, can capture businesses with only a peripheral connection to steel. We now have a public interest test with no effective limit. Will the Minister confirm that the powers in the Bill cannot be triggered simply because of industrial pressure; for example, because a trade union decides that the answer to a dispute is public ownership? Will he rule that out?

On Amendment 3, the Government’s impact assessment describes the difficult environment in which the steel sector operates, including high domestic operating costs and a lack of long-term investment. It recognises that these pressures bear directly on the ability of UK steel producers to compete. Yet Clause 2 refers only in the broadest terms to “supporting the economy”. That phrase could cover almost any intervention; it does not require Ministers to demonstrate that the intervention will leave the United Kingdom with a stronger, more productive or more internationally competitive steel sector.

There is a difference between preserving an undertaking for the moment and putting it on a sustainable footing for the future. Nationalisation may avert an immediate crisis, but it should not become a means simply of transferring losses, risks and difficult decisions from a company to the taxpayer. The question must be whether public ownership can help to secure the investment, modernisation, productivity and commercial resilience needed for this sector to compete successfully.

There is also a point of consistency with the Government’s own drafting. The Bill makes clear that the public interest test is not intended to be limited to the matters specifically listed. It says that the test includes but is not limited to national security, critical infrastructure and the economy, as I said earlier, so the Government have already chosen not to confine the public interest test. In those circumstances, why would they resist including economic growth and international competitiveness expressly within it? Growth is the Government’s stated number one priority. International competitiveness is plainly fundamental to the future of a sector exposed to intense overseas competition and high energy costs. If the Government consider national security and critical infrastructure important enough to name in the Bill, surely growth and competitiveness should also be named. I invite the Minister to explain why those two objectives do not appear in the Bill. How will the Government assess whether an intervention is likely to strengthen competitiveness? Will that assessment include energy costs, investment, productivity, output, technological modernisation, export potential and the undertaking’s ability to operate sustainably without indefinite support from the taxpayer?

On Amendment 8, the Government have confirmed that they have already provided approximately £555 million to British Steel for working capital, including raw materials and salaries. The National Audit Office reported that, as at 31 January this year, the Department for Business and Trade had spent £377 million on its intervention. At the then current rate of spending, total costs were expected to exceed £642 million by the end of this month. More importantly, the National Audit Office warned that if spending continued at the then current rate, costs could exceed £1.5 billion by 2028—and that figure was before any potential transformation of the business, compensation to the current owner or the eventual costs of exit. The NAO also found that the intervention has

“no clear end date … has not stabilised the company’s finances”

and began

“without a clear exit strategy”.

This Bill is not simply emergency legislation to keep the furnaces operating over a weekend. It creates enduring powers to transfer businesses, assets, rights and liabilities into public ownership. Before those powers are exercised, the Government must be able to demonstrate that the proposed course represents value for money.

The facts since the emergency intervention underline why this matters. We are told that the business in its present form is structurally unprofitable. We know that substantial decisions remain to be made on its future, including any transition in production technology, the cost of investment, the length of any transition period and the eventual route to a viable and sustainable business. The taxpayer needs protection against an open-ended commitment.

The Government may argue that the Treasury’s Managing Public Money framework already requires departments to consider value for money. I suppose I could look forward to the day when there is some evidence of the Treasury acting responsibly in this way. Can the Minister tell us what value-for-money assessment will be undertaken before a principal transfer power is exercised? Will it include the expected costs of compensation, operating losses, capital investment, decommissioning, restructuring and any eventual exit?

This amendment would not frustrate the Government’s ability to act where action is genuinely justified. It would simply ensure that before nationalisation takes place, the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is a responsible use of taxpayers’ money. I beg to move.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 2 would replace

“includes (but is not limited to)”

with the word “means” so that we knew what we were describing. The worry is that leaving it as it is could create a public interest so large that there was a mission creep that I do not think should be in the Bill, which is trying to nationalise steel. We need to be slightly more economical in the words we are using, so that we need not fear that on another day, if another public interest was being taken into account, the definition would prove far too loose. The word “means” does the job: we know exactly what one is talking about, and it lists the three elements. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, wanted to include two other areas but, for me, limiting it to those three objects seems to be where we should stop. The word “means” would stop mission creep.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these three amendments. Amendment 2 is a necessary slight curtailment but would still leave the Government with enormous scope, given how wide-ranging the three cited reasons for public interest intervention are. Like my noble friend, I cannot think of any other reason why they might want to do this that could not be adequately covered by the wide-ranging proposals in the existing text.

I agree that it would be a good idea to change the language through Amendment 3 to stress that intervention should, in the longer term, be interested in economic growth, profitability and successful investment. Surely the Government do not want a lame-duck investment that costs a large sum of money for a limited period of time but then they have to disappoint all those people who thought that it was going to be kept going for a rather longer period or that it might break through to profitability and success. If I had to choose between the three amendments, I hope my noble friend would particularly press Amendment 8 on value for money, which sums it all up.

At Second Reading, in looking at the general legislation, we had some discussions asking: what is the medium and longer-term future of blast furnace steel? As I think we have agreed across the House, at Second Reading and now, the main reason for the previous emergency legislation and this legislation is the temporary cessation of closure of two very important blast furnaces, which are our last blast furnace-making capabilities in the country. But I believe—I would love to have the Government either confirm or deny this—that it is still their medium to longer-term intention to close all blast furnaces in this country, as previous Governments have been doing, and to transfer to electric arc steel-making, preferably with private finance and successful competitive private sector businesses doing that work. In the previous exchanges, I think the Minister signalled that the Government do not wish to build a nationalised electric arc business with these powers, although for understandable reasons they have to be general and will most likely be exercised in the case of the blast furnaces. It would be helpful to workers and taxpayers if there were greater clarity over the time period for keeping these blast furnaces open, and whether there are any limits on the costs that the Government are prepared to run, so that people can make proper plans concerning their jobs and their futures in this important steel industry, and so that taxpayers could have some reassurance.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

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

[Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

No!

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I have a right to ask questions. What is most concerning, at least for me, is not the limit or the reducing of the compensation package—that is not the question—but the use of ping-pong to produce a new clause that has never been debated in your Lordships’ House or even in the Commons. That is a constitutional question that bothers most of us.

I have not heard a word saying, for example, that we reached an agreement, we felt we had to bring it in and we will not do this kind of thing again. As more Bills come, how do we know whether ping-pong will be used in a way that, in my book, it should not be? No one should introduce new clauses that have not been canvassed in both Houses of Parliament. Because that has not happened, some of us are arguing about not the actual amendment but whether we will know that rules that have been established in your Lordships’ House for years will be followed. I have been in the House since 2005, and ping-pong has never been used to introduce a new clause that has not been debated in both Houses. Will we know?

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

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

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, for meeting with me earlier today. It allowed us to sort out some misunderstandings, for which I am very grateful.

I will speak only to Motions B and B1. I somewhat regret that this is not the speech that I had originally intended to make—in fact, I had written it. I had intended to make a very short speech thanking the Minister and the Government for listening to the House, almost every business group, the Resolution Foundation, the Tony Blair Institute and their own impact assessment, and reaching a sensible compromise based on what this House proposed.

I was very pleased that the Government held talks between the business groups and the unions, and that all had agreed that the compromise was workable. Contrary to some of the more irresponsible comments that we have seen in the press—some coming from the other place, sadly—this was not a case of out-of-touch Peers blocking a government Bill. It was a good example of this House doing its job of scrutinising legislation and asking the other place to think again. We do not block legislation; we seek to improve it. I do not underestimate how difficult it was for the Government to make the important concession on day-one unfair dismissal rights that they have made.

Sadly, though, I cannot end my speech there. The Government set out the compromise they reached in an announcement on 27 November. It said that agreement had been reached on a six-month qualifying period, which would be changeable only by primary legislation —so far, so good. It also very briefly mentioned the lifting of the compensation cap, something that has never been discussed during the passage of the Bill. Then I saw the actual amendment, which goes somewhat beyond lifting the compensation cap. The amendment abolishes it altogether so that compensation for unfair dismissal will be unlimited, which I suggest is different from lifting.

As we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, it is at best ambiguous. I note that the Minister is now referring to removing the cap, which I think is more accurate. As we have heard, this does not appear to have been equally understood by every party to the agreement between the employer organisations and trade unions. A number of employer organisations are still expressing concerns about it.

Does this late change matter? The amendment removes the current cap on what can be claimed in an unfair dismissal claim. Currently, it is the lower of 52 weeks’ pay or £118,223. While it might be true that few claims go over that, that may well be because higher-paid people will generally reach agreement, knowing that the cap exists, rather than taking the matter to the tribunal. This change may incentivise more higher-paid people to turn to the already overburdened tribunal system. There is no downside to them doing so with the hope of a higher payout, or at least a strengthening of their negotiating position. As we have heard, the irony of this is that the main beneficiaries are likely to be senior employees on high salaries who are moving towards the end of their careers, not the workers the Government claim to be helping.

The noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, gave the example of the water industry. I was trying to think of an example and one rather closer to this House occurred to me. When the noble Lord, Lord Mandelson, was fired from his position as ambassador to the United States, there was a lot of speculation in the press that he might be able to claim for unfair dismissal due to the summary nature of his dismissal. Obviously I do not know the details of his contract, what has been agreed or anything else—it would be interesting to know what was agreed—but is this really the sort of situation the Government want to give the possibility of unlimited compensation to? It would certainly strengthen the negotiating hand of the employee in any such situation.

The truth is that we do not know what the effect will be or whether this matters. It has been introduced without warning at the last possible moment in the Bill, with no consultation, no impact assessment and no scrutiny. Whatever one thinks about the merit of removing the cap on compensation, this is not the right way to do it. I would go as far as suggesting that it is testing our constitutional processes to the limit. Legislation should not be decided in—I do not think I am allowed to say “smoke-filled” any more—darkened rooms as a deal between a limited number of interested parties. It is not the way we do things. This is a material change, and it deserves to be properly consulted on, impact-assessed and debated. It should have been introduced much earlier.

The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, is admirably constructive; I thought it would go further. Rather than remove this new clause altogether, it proposes a review of unfair dismissal compensation to take place within three months, and sets out that the review

“must include a consultation with … employers’ organisations … trade unions … employment law practitioners, and … such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

That is a fair and constructive approach.

However, we must be pragmatic. This is the third stage of ping-pong. Whatever we do at this stage is unlikely to move in the other place, and I am conscious that I do not want to see the key concession of a six-month qualifying period being unpicked as a result of our actions. As I said, I accept that that was a big step for the Government to make.

I thank the Minister for her confirmation that there will now be an impact assessment, which will be published as soon as possible. I did not hear clearly that there will be a full consultation with other parties. Currently, this has been consulted on by six organisations and I do not know how many unions. That is not a wide consultation on such a big change. Will there be a proper consultation process on this before it comes into effect?

Assuming the answer to that question is to the positive, reluctantly, and while protesting in the strongest possible terms that introducing such a significant change at such a late stage runs a coach and horses through the proper process of scrutiny of legislation, I am minded to bring this to an end and accept the Government’s amendment. But, as I said, I will listen to what the Minister says before I make that final decision.

I have one final request. This late insertion of a material change to legislation in the third stage of ping-pong must not become a precedent. Can the Minister confirm that the Government see this as a one-off, extraordinary case, and not something to be repeated?

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister, who is new at the Dispatch Box, for explaining things quite clearly. I am thankful for the Government accepting that amendment, which has clearly enabled the country to feel, when people take on jobs, that there is a qualifying period, although not an indefinite one. I said in your Lordships’ House that I was like a gramophone playing a record that was stuck in a groove. The Government have given me a new needle and I am out of that groove, so I thank them very much.

[Lord Cromwell (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak fairly briefly in support of Motion D1 from the noble Lord, Lord Burns. This has become known as the hokey-cokey amendment—opt in, opt out, opt in, opt out, through the chain of amendments that have been put down. I support the vital role of trade unions, but I find it hard to understand why legislation should be used to steer—or, if you prefer, nudge—employees towards funding political causes.

The noble Lord, Lord Burns, has shifted a very long way from his original amendment. All the amendments now require is a checkbox at the start to allow employees to opt out if they so wish. This is surely the absolute minimum that should be available to them. I would have preferred asking trade union members if they wished to opt in, as a positive statement, rather than to opt out, which is a negative that would perhaps attract black marks in the membership list of their union. It does the Government no credit to seek to deny employees this opt-in choice. However, like the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Vaux, I am reluctant to extend ping-pong, and I will be guided by the noble Lord whose amendment this is.

Employee Car Ownership Schemes

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

We believe that the tax system that has been applied is fair and balanced, but we are happy to take those points under consideration.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Front Bench of His Majesty’s Government. The noble Lord from the Official Opposition asked a question about the taxation of cars. I understand taxation for electric cars—that is pretty straightforward—but he asked about hybrids, which use both petrol and electricity. How will that work? Is it going to be a double whammy of taxation? I too drive a hybrid vehicle.

[Lord Stockwood (Lab)]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for declaring his interest. I believe that hybrid vehicles are going to be taxed at half the rate, which is 1.5p a mile, as opposed to 3p a mile.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

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

I return very briefly to Motion B1. To make jobs pay, as we have said, there need to be jobs. We learn that half the jobs lost since this Government came to power were for workers under 25—the very people who the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Sharpe, talked about. Their future will not be helped—indeed, it will be hindered—by the Bill, nor will the millions on benefits the Government seek to move into employment. That is the 21% inactive that I talked about in the first group. I hope that noble Lords can help common sense prevail by voting today and supporting these amendments.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise: I wanted to speak before the noble Lord, Lord Fox, spoke, but he went far too quickly and never looked in my direction.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Phillips, a former Lord Chief Justice and the first President of the Supreme Court, asked a question: would you employ somebody with a criminal record without the qualifying period? He was never answered. Like a gramophone where the needle has stuck, I am stuck in that groove, so I will ask a second time: would you employ somebody without any qualifying period if they have a criminal record? I will add another category. Say somebody graduated from university and could have worked because they are not unwell, but they have not worked for 30 years and they want to go back to work: would you employ them without any probationary period? The serious issue here is like the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said: going from two years to just one day—24 hours and you are in.

There is another thing that worries me. We tend to describe employers as if they are all rogues. There are some bad employers, but the majority abide by the law. Today, they go before a tribunal if there is an unfair dismissal, so most people do not do it, but they want to have the security of knowing, when someone comes in, that there is a period of six months, say, during which they find out how that person plays in the firm and whether they are going to be loyal and faithful.

This probationary period is not a bad thing; most of us have been through it. I was a deacon for one year, and if they had discovered that I was no good, that would have been the end. The bishop would not have made me a priest; he would have said, “I will leave you as a deacon, and somebody, one day, may use you”. That sort of thing is discussed in relation to people in the Army. For example, a gentleman might want to become a commanding officer, and his trainer puts on his report, “Men will follow this gentleman, out of nothing”—or, in other words, “Do not take him”. Those reports are still being written.

Let us not deny employers who like to take on young people who have done some kind of mentoring work. I took on some, and that period was very useful. Quite a number ended up being ordained. We are discussing one day—24 hours—in which someone cannot be dismissed. I reckon that that is not how the world works. We want to protect workers’ rights but let us do it properly.

Finally, although this is a manifesto commitment, there is always a hurdle to turning a manifesto commitment into legislation. For me, the law is a public statement of policy; it is not just a manifesto commitment. Will this country go awry because we are so keen to protect workers’ rights—which we all want to do—without any qualifying period? I support Motion B1.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I cannot resist telling the House the following. Immediately after secretarial college, I had a job for a fortnight. On the last day, my employer said to me, “What are you really wanting to do?”, and I said, “Be a barrister”. He replied, “Thank goodness. You would never make a career as a secretary”.

Data (Use and Access) Bill [HL]

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments and / or reasons
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt these exchanges, which are of great interest. I have not been able to participate in ping-pong for some time, but the House will be aware that I am very keen on the issues being discussed and have been involved in a number of Bills on which issues of a similar nature have arisen. I have been working with a group, keeping in touch on WhatsApp—the fashionable thing to do these days—and we had a broad approach to this, which I am afraid is now fragmenting. My noble friend Lord Knight has traitorously said that he is going to come back into the fold, and I wish him well with that.

The very fine speeches made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, have been misinterpreted by this House, and I regret that. She is absolutely right in asking us to look again at this. If she is successful with her Motion, it is right and appropriate that at last, the Commons has a chance to put forward a proposal which would be in everybody’s interest as a compromise based very closely on—but, ironically, not the same as—the amendment she has been forced, by the system of ping- pong, to put down today.

The right amendment was suggested some time ago—I was involved in discussions around that, but it received short shrift. It would allow the Government to have the power to bring forward by regulation measures required to deal with the ongoing and accelerating crisis, which is increasingly difficult to understand, concerning the way in which creative rights are being stolen and theft exercised on a grand scale. The amendment does not have a timescale or a period over which it can be looked at maturely; it does not rely on consultation; it is a judgment. It is that trust in the decision I want to be taken by my Government that is important to stress, not some of the other issues raised today. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was right to reflect on the fact, picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, that although this is not the first time the House has been faced with a difficult issue, it is the first time it has been frustrated by inappropriate processes and procedures. Let us have a debate on what we can do to get ourselves to a better place. The issues have been well explained.

I reflect on the work we did on the Online Safety Bill, when I said from the Opposition Benches—unscripted, and with slight trepidation that I would be shot down—that I did not want to work in opposition to the Government on a Bill for which there was no political disadvantage on either side, and that we wanted to use the talents, skills and expertise so often found in this House to get the best Bill possible. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, nodding, because we worked well together. It was really difficult to do, because the system is set up to provide opposition to anything that challenges the supremacy of the Bill as introduced. Even the noble Lord had long and difficult times persuading his own side that there was a case to make on moving forward.

This is exactly the same issue. There is not a huge difference in where we want to get to. The Government have moved, but they lack the flexibility that we think will be necessary in the next few months—or even years—to bring forward at the appropriate time the transparency that everybody knows has to be there.

There are other things that need to be looked at, such as copyright, but they can be dealt with in time. However, transparency is at the root of this. I urge the Government to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and others—I offer to participate in any necessary discussions—to get to a point where everyone can relax, knowing that the main issue is dealt with and we have a clearly articulated programme that will take us forward at the appropriate time, in the Government’s judgment. That is what we need.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long. I have sat through every stage of the Bill and not uttered a word. I have been absorbing the debate, and I am still puzzled as to why the Government are not willing to reach agreement with some of the wonderful statements being made.

I have two issues to reflect on. The first is that the creative arts have had a fantastic campaign, but it would be a mistake to think that this is only about the creative arts; it is to do with any property right where copyright is involved. The first to fall would probably be the creative arts, but anybody who is protected by copyright will be affected by AI in one way or another, unless you follow the wonderful wisdom of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron.

The second point is one for the Government to reflect on. They need to remember the words of Francis Pym, the first Foreign Secretary in Mrs Thatcher’s Government. They had a very big majority, and he dared to suggest to the Iron Lady that big majorities never make for good government. Why? Because you can rely on even those who do not listen to the debate to turn up and vote for your side. You know what happened to Francis Pym? He lost his job. How much will the Labour Government reflect on the experience of Francis Pym?

[Lord Clement-Jones (LD)]

My Lords, I once again declare an interest as chair of the Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society, and once again give the staunch support of these Benches to the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her Motion A1. She made an incontestable case once again with her clarion call.

I follow the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others in saying that we are not in new territory. I have a treasured cartoon on my wall at home that relates to the passage of the Health and Social Care Bill as long ago as 2001, showing Secretary of State Alan Milburn recoiling from ping-pong balls. Guess who was hurling the ping-pong balls? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, that notable revolutionary, and I were engaging in rounds of parliamentary ping-pong—three, I think. Eventually, compromises were reached and the Bill received Royal Assent in April 2001.

What we have done today and what we are going to do today as a House is not unprecedented. There is strong precedent for all Benches to work together on ping-pong to rather good effect. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, says, what we are proposing today will not, in the words of the Minister, “collapse” the Bill: it will be the Government’s choice what to do when the Bill goes back to the Commons. I hugely respect the noble Lord, Lord Knight, but I am afraid that he is wrong. It was not a manifesto commitment; there is no Salisbury convention that can be invoked on this occasion. It has nothing at all to do with data adequacy except that the Government feel that they have to get the Bill through in order to get the EU Commission to start its work. If anything, the Bill makes data adequacy more difficult. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that I agree with almost everything he said: everything he said was an argument for the noble Baroness’s amendment. Once again, as ever, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, as I so often do on these occasions. I regard him as the voice of reason, and I very much hope that the Government will listen to what he has to say.

Compromise is entirely within the gift of the Government. The Secretary of State should take a leaf out of Alan Milburn’s book. He did compromise on an important Bill in key areas and saw his Bill go through. I am afraid to say that the letter that Peers have received from the Minister is simply a repeat of her speech on Monday, which was echoed by Minister Bryant in the Commons yesterday. The Government have tabled these new amendments, which reflect the contents of that letter. Despite those amendments, however, the Government have not offered a concession to legislate for mandated transparency provisions within the Bill, which has been the core demand of the Lords amendments championed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for the reasons set out in the speeches we have heard today.

In the view of these Benches, the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, other Members of this House, and countless creatives have made the absolutely convincing case for a transparency duty which would not prejudge the outcome of the AI and copyright consultation. We have heard the chilling points made by the noble Lords, Lord Russell and Lord Pannick, about US policy in this area and about the attitude of the big tech companies towards copyright. We are at a vital crossroads in how we ensure the future of our creative industries. In the face of the development of AI and how it is being trained, we must take the right road, and I urge the Government to settle now.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 21st May 2025 Lords Chamber

In the spirit of trying to be constructive, I want to suggest a way forward. To me, the easiest solution here would be simply to remove Clause 23 and Schedule 3 altogether and just shorten the qualifying period to nine months, without changing the already significant existing protections. I think that would be acceptable to most businesses, and it would minimise the damage this policy will cause to the business in terms of costs, but most importantly to the life chances of those people who need employers to take a chance on them. It would also go a long way to meeting most of what the Government appear to be trying to achieve.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I find myself wanting to support the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. The reason is this. We arrived in Berwick-upon-Tweed, which, by the way, according to the Guardian a few days ago, is the most loving, caring place—the best in the country. Yes, maybe since I arrived it has become that; none the less, that is what it said. It is the most peaceful place to live in. Sometimes, we do not even lock our doors when we go out for a short period. In other places, they would know, word would get round, and you would be visited by people who think they should acquire your property, outside the law.

We had to find a plumber. The plumber was wonderful, the best in the town, and people said that to get him was quite costly. He was costly because, once you agreed to let him do the work, he would say, “I have an apprentice. I could pay him as the Government say and give him the national living wage. But he is at college and doing very well, and I would like him to graduate, and to succeed”. So, he said that a fee would be charged to the person who hires him. He showed that in his receipts—the amount you paid for the wonderful apprentice. That apprentice, Oscar, has grown in his job since being there for four years. When he graduates, he will be one of the best plumbers.

Apprentices need to be protected. My plumber will never just immediately say that the job is coming to an end, because he has been very wise. He is a single employer who works alone, and out of his business he is willing to pay the amount of money the Government have allocated. However, he suddenly realised that some of us would like to put in a little bit more for this apprentice. So, there will never be a day when he has not got money to keep that apprentice, even if business may not be coming in.

This is an example of an employer who employs an apprentice, and I am sure he is going to get another one. His apprentice learnt very fast: for three days a week, he had to go to college in the morning, and then come back to do the apprentice work—

[Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)]

I think the noble Lord is speaking to the previous amendment, which is about apprentices.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I am supporting it.

[Baroness Wheeler (Lab)]

This is the clause stand part notice. The previous amendment was about apprentices, which I think the noble Lord is speaking about.

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

I am supporting this one, but also the amendments which come later, which are mentioned. That is what I said at the beginning.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Lord Sentamu Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 13th May 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sentamu (CB)]

My Lords, I was not intending to speak, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and other noble Lords here, have posed for me a conundrum. By the way, I live in a village where there is a Conundrum road, right near the Scottish border. When you face a conundrum, what do you do? I want to support this Bill, but I have a problem: the issue that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, raised about the 13 people whose appeals were turned down. If you include them in this Bill, you would be directly interfering with the Court of Appeal, by saying to the court that you do not agree with what it did and so are pardoning these people.

My suggestion is that, in the light of the evidence that we have been hearing at the inquiry, the Minister and the Government need to go back and find other lawyers to see whether there is still fresh evidence that can emerge, so that those 13 people can go back to the Court of Appeal. My worry is that, if you legislate en bloc, as has been suggested, you run the danger that you are definitely interfering and telling the Court of Appeal that its decision was not the right one. That needs resolving. If you do not resolve it for the likes of me, I will find myself in a conundrum.

Secondly, why do the Department for Work and Pensions convictions not require the same examination as for all other convictions? Somebody somewhere has got to bend their mind to those 61 cases. If you do not do it, you give the impression that they had better evidence, and that because people have not appealed it is therefore not going to be followed up on.

For me, this Bill should not have a say in what the Court of Appeal’s decision was in those 13 cases. On the Department for Work and Pensions, again I suggest that somebody needs to look afresh at those 61 cases and at whether there is a possibility—not through this Bill—of fresh hearings by the Court of Appeal.