Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill
House of Lords · Lords Chamber · 29 Jun 2026 · 109 speeches · Official Report
Committee (1st Day)
Scottish l egislative c onsent granted. Northern Ireland and Welsh l egislative c onsent sought . Relevant documents: 1st Report from the Constitution Committee, 3rd Report from the Delegated Powers Committee .
Clause 1: Meaning of “steel undertaking”
Amendment 1
Moved by
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out “of or including” and insert “predominantly of” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to narrow the definition of a steel undertaking so that it had to be a business consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel, or iron for the purposes or in connection with the manufacture of steel.
My Lords, Amendment 1, in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral, is very simple. It seeks to confine the powers in this Bill to genuine steel businesses. Those are undertakings consisting predominantly of the manufacture or processing of steel-or iron for the purposes of steel manufacture. As drafted, the definition catches any business which merely includes steel-making as part of its operations. That is a very broad formulation. It could, in principle, sweep up a diversified business in which steel was only a minor part of what it does. Businesses with a limited connection to steel production should not face uncertainty about whether it falls within the reach of these nationalisation powers. When this point was pressed in the other place, the Secretary of State was asked whether a business with only 1% of its operations in steel would be caught by Clause 1. He did not say that it would not be. However, a statement of intent is not a limit on the face of the Bill, and future Governments are not bound by the assurances of this one. The Government say that these powers are intended for British Steel, and British Steel is obviously and predominantly a steel business. Therefore, this amendment should create no difficulty for that purpose. If the Government’s intention is genuinely not to use these powers against businesses with only a peripheral connection to steel, they should have no difficulty in accepting this amendment. I beg to move.
My Lords, I fully support this amendment and hope that it will tease out from the Minister a little more about what the underlying purpose of the general legislation is, as I am not too enamoured of this becoming a fully nationalised industry with the ability to acquire all sorts of other steel interests. I felt that the Government’s policy arose out of the circumstances of British Steel at Scunthorpe and the question of blast furnace-produced steel, where we are down to our last two blast furnaces. I did not think that the intention was to build an electric arc furnace set of businesses when progress has already been made in establishing these in the private sector and where there are plans in certain cases for government grant aid to achieve an electric arc steel additional business by that combination of subsidy assistance and private capital. I hope that the Government will accept this quite substantial narrowing of such a broad piece of legislation, because there are many with general interests in steel whom we would not like to get caught up in this. I would also like clarification on whether there is any possibility that the Government might want to build a nationalised electric arc steel set of businesses. This would be an expensive and difficult proposition.
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.
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...
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...
Amendment 1 withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed.
Clause 2: Exercise of principal transfer powers in the public interest
Amendment 2
Moved by
2: Clause 2, page 1, line 14, leave out “includes (but is not limited to)” and insert “means” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to limit the public interest test to the areas set out in subsections (a) to (c).
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...
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.
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...
My noble friend rightly quoted from the quite worrying National Audit Office report. I too had the misfortune to have to read it and discover how difficult this problem is and how expensive it is becoming and could become. There surely must be some limits to how much loss the Government will compensate and to how much working capital and maybe additional capital investment they might put into two ageing blast furnaces if their medium to longer-term plan is to close them down anyway. From the Government’s point of view, it obviously would be very bad politics if they paid hundreds of millions or even well over £1 billion to keep the blast furnaces going for another year or two and then had to admit that they had to close just before a possible next election, with the great disappointment of the workforce who, after a year or two, might have thought that they were going to carry on financing these things indefinitely.
I hope the Minister will show some sympathy for this idea of a value-for-money test or audit-there always is in government anyway but, in this case, I think my noble friend is right to ask for a specific one. I would have thought that the Government would want to set out how they are going to report the escalating losses. These will become a very important matter which will get picked up in normal public expenditure reporting, but, given the importance and sensitivity of this policy, it would be good to know that both Houses will be kept informed regularly of the costs and therefore of the impact on public spending. I assume, for the foreseeable future, it will be taken out of the budget heading of £2.5 billion which was available for modernising the steel industry, but you cannot call this modernising expenditure. It is really a virement of money that was there to try to pump-prime a more successful, more modern private sector and this money seems to be being drawn down now to subsidise a couple of ageing blast furnaces where there is still a huge gap between the value of the product they can produce for customers and the costs incurred by manufacturing it.
On top of needing proper financial reporting to see how we are doing, we should surely be due some kind of business plan. Of course, that would be redacted or edited because there may be commercially sensitive issues-and you would not want to share all your details about who you might sell steel to and what prices and so forth-but the general outlines of the business plan should be made available to the public and taxpayers through both Houses so we can see what the intentions are, form our own judgments about whether that plan looks feasible and have some way of testing whether the Government are on track or need some more help or whether things might have gone wrong. That would also be helpful for the Government.
Ministers have placed themselves in a very important but also very difficult position. Because they supervised this emergency intervention under past legislation, they are now, in effect, having to sign off on all the costs, expenses, marketing plans and all the rest of the stuff they have chosen to put into the Chinese-owned plant. They also have to handle successful negotiations with the Chinese owners, who, I think, are demanding unrealistic compensation. This country does not have a tradition of stealing the assets of people who come here from abroad to invest. That would obviously be a very unfortunate precedent because, as a country which depends on a lot of inward investment, we would not attract very much of it if people thought that an Act of Parliament could take their assets away from them-however impaired those assets might be-without any agreement about the basis of that transfer.
I hope the Government will look favourably on the need for some financial reporting, maybe quarterly, and the need to have constructed a business plan for their own concerns and interests. They should be able to share at least the general outline of that plan with the wider public to give some reassurance that the intervention to date was well based and that any successful purchase of the assets or compensated acquisition of the assets from the current owner was also in the best interests and provided value for money.
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 CO 2 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...
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...
My amendment?
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...
I turn to the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Redwood and Lord Fox, about turning British Steel around. Should we decide in the public interest to transfer British Steel into public ownership, we will act swiftly to put in place a new board to provide leadership to the organisation and to be responsible for continuing work to drive improvements in health and safety performance and to stabilise operations and manage costs. The board would explore the options for the long-term viability of decarbonised steel-making at Scunthorpe and develop transformation plans in a way that manages the impact of that transition of the workforce in the local area. We will be debating this more in groups 10 and 13 in day 2 of Committee. For those reasons, I respectfully request that the amendment be withdrawn.
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate and to the Minister for his response. I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said earlier about the way in which the Minister has given us every opportunity to think ahead into the future and to receive expert advice as to the way ahead. To summarise these three amendments, they do not sit easily together, as has been pointed out, but they have provoked a widespread debate. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, was absolutely right to point out that mission creep should stop here. There should not be ways that the Minister could include all sorts of other reasons. In Amendment 3, I suggested two reasons, but the Minister carefully responded by not ruling them out and not ruling anything else in. It seems that either the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, is right, or the noble Lord, Lord Fox, is right or the Committee is confused. It has considered all the various options, but it would be useful, as my noble friend Lord Redwood said, to have greater clarity in the form of some draft business plan that could look to the future and work out the way ahead. Value for money, as my noble friend said, sums it all up. Although the Minister thought that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, had signed Amendment 8, either it has not come to my attention that he has or he has not signed it. It may be a later amendment which suggests that value for money is required. I remain far from convinced...
Amendment 2 withdrawn.
Amendment 3 not moved.
Amendment 4
Moved by
4: Clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert- “(d) supporting the local economy of any steel-making location which may be adversely affected by this Act.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment seeks to ensure that consideration is given to the impact on the local economy arising from decisions made under this legislation.
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 4 standing in my name and to speak to Amendment 36, which is also in my name and which is grouped with it-as is Amendment 29 in the name of the noble lord, Lord Fox, and Amendments 30, 31, 43, 44 and 46 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt. I quote Amendment 4, just to bring it to everyone's mind. It would add, at the end of line 20 on page 1, a new subsection: “(d) supporting the local economy of any steel-making location which may be adversely affected by this Act”. I would have thought that those words would commend themselves very much to this House. All these amendments have to do with the impact of the Bill when enacted-an impact which may be so significant to various aspects of the economy, and indeed on the communities which may benefit or may suffer directly or indirectly from this legislation. I shall look forward to hearing the Opposition Front Bench when they speak, particularly on Amendment 43, on the possible impact of this Bill when enacted on inward investment-a subject close to my heart, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will recall, from prior incarnations. But I digress. Amendment 4 in my name would specifically impose a duty on the Secretary of State, in relation to his responsibilities regarding the public interest, to broaden that responsibility to include, via the proposed new subsection (d), “supporting the local economy of any steel-making location which may be adversely affected by this Act”. I...
My Lords, this is a mixed bag of amendments. I will speak primarily to Amendment 29 in my name but also to some of the others. Amendment 29 highlights the potentially distorting effects that CBAM-the carbon border adjustment mechanism-would have on various elements of the steel industry, from supplier to steel user. On the one hand, if applied fairly, CBAM could and should deal with the currently distorting global steel market, whereby Chinese steel, with a high carbon investment, is competing unfairly with greener steel in Europe and the United Kingdom. So far, so good, but the effects of CBAM on other steel users and manufacturers could, if applied wrongly, be very detrimental. That is why the international picture, particularly our future agreement with the EU, will be so important in ensuring that manufacturers do not have one hand tied behind their back. The way that CBAM interacts with tariffs, which has not been discussed terribly much, is important and issues around energy costs have been put in this group, but in truth CBAM, the EU and energy costs fall outside-or at least at the very edges of-the scope of this Bill. However, Amendments 4 and 36 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and Amendment 44 from the noble Lords, Lord Sharpe and Lord Hunt, are front and centre within it. Tata, for example, is making considerable investments on its own account and should not be disadvantaged by any publicly owned business. Similarly, the communities in which the...
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 30, 31, 43, 44 and 46 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Wigley-who I thought made a very powerful case-and Lord Fox, for their previous speeches. Amendment 30 goes to the valuation of a steel undertaking and the need for that valuation to reflect the real commercial environment in which the undertaking will operate. That environment is not fixed; it is being shaped directly by government policy and, in particular, by the new steel trade measure coming into effect from 1 July. Only days ago, the Government changed the detail of that policy, relaxing the original proposals somewhat, with tariff-free quota reductions pulled back from the level first proposed. We will no doubt discuss that in more detail when the Statement is taken tomorrow, and I do not intend to rehearse that debate now. However, the fact is that the Government’s choices on trade policy will have a material effect on the commercial position, and therefore the value of any steel undertaking. A tighter quota and a higher above-quota tariff will limit import competition. The way quotas are set will affect downstream industries, supply chains, customer relationships and the availability of particular steel products. The Government cannot, on the one hand, present their trade policy as central to the future of UK steel and, on the other hand, resist any requirement for that policy to be factored into what a steel...
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising the crucial issue of electricity prices. As the strategy is to convert more and more to electric arc furnaces, the price of electricity becomes the critical variant in determining how successful those businesses will be, how competitive their prices will be and whether they will generate cash and profit to reward those who ventured in them, or whether there will be problems for those businesses, just as there are problems in the British Steel carbon-based system through its blast furnaces. I hope the Minister can give us a little more background by way of reassurance, given that the steel strategy has been, and is still to be, based on electricity as the prime source of energy. There needs to be a policy that will consistently deliver competitive electricity prices because the current prices, without specific and targeted subsidy intervention, are way out of sync with the electricity prices in the more competitive world of our major competitor countries. It is very important that this group of amendments raises the issue of tariffs. Of course, anybody valuing the assets that might be acquired under this legislation, or valuing what we already have by way of control and operating responsibility, will need to look at the impact of tariffs. It is a good idea to stress this because these are a very major change to the background for the conduct of steel businesses in this country, and we cannot be sure exactly what the...
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...
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...
Amendment 4 withdrawn.
Amendment 5
Moved by
5: Clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert- “(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power unless the Secretary of State has commissioned an independent assessment of whether the exercise of the power is in the public interest, and that assessment has demonstrated that it is in the public interest.(2B) The Secretary of State may appoint such independent person as the Secretary of State thinks fit to carry out an independent assessment under subsection (2A), and may pay remuneration and allowances to that person.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment would require an independent assessment of whether the public interest test had been met before the Secretary of State could exercise the principal transfer powers.
My Lords, Amendments 5, 6 and 42, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, go to three basic questions which ought to be answered before the Government exercise powers of this scale. They are: on what evidence is nationalisation justified, by what criteria will Ministers make that judgment, and what will be the financial and economic consequences? Amendment 5 would require an independent assessment before a principal transfer power is exercised, establishing that the proposed transfer is in the public interest. That is not an attempt to prevent the Government acting in a genuine emergency. It is an attempt to ensure that before private assets are transferred into public ownership, there is an objective check that the case has been made. The sums involved may be very substantial. Once the state acquires a business, it may assume not only its assets but its liabilities, its working capital requirements, its investment needs, and the risks of continuing operating losses. These may be decisions with billions of pounds at stake. They should be based on evidence, not merely urgency or political pressure. Amendment 6 is the natural counterpart. It would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament the full criteria by which the public interest test has been judged. The Bill currently gives Ministers a broad discretion. I believe that Parliament is entitled to know how that discretion has been exercised before a transfer takes place. What...
Amendment 42 would complete that framework by requiring a published impact assessment before the Secretary of State exercises a power under the Act. A proper assessment should set out the financial costs, economic implications and risks. It should address the expected need for public funding, the consequences for competitors and supply chains, the effect on investment and the realistic alternatives available to the Government.
The Government may say that they will act responsibly. I hope that they will. But the Bill will create lasting powers, and ministerial assurances are just not a substitute for statutory safeguards. The Bill, as we have said before, risks leaving taxpayers with an open-ended bill, and that is most unsatisfactory. I beg to move.
I am very glad that my noble friend raised the issue of an impact assessment, because if the Government press ahead with the acquisition of British Steel under the legislation, that could be the first opportunity we have for a realistic impact assessment. Yet, the taxpayer has been responsible for the losses in working capital and investment funds for over a year now, with the lack of clear reporting that we have commented on before. We have an impact assessment for this piece of legislation. Understandably, it says that there are not any costs or benefits to report, because there is not a transaction. These are enabling powers, which would enable the Government to undertake and complete a transaction. But it would only be at that point that officials tasked with the difficult question “What is the impact?” would be able to come up with some numbers, because we would then presumably have some visibility on the cost of acquisition, if any, the operating costs and working capital costs that will go forward. That would be very helpful, in connection with the difficult investment at Scunthorpe, where, as we heard earlier, the NAO reported that there has already probably been £642 million of taxpayer expenditure up to the current month, with a very high run rate going forwards. So, I hope that the Government will offer us reassurance-if not a new clause in the Bill-to say that there will have to be a proper and timely impact assessment. That, too, would clearly require proper due...
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.
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...
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...
Amendment 5 withdrawn.
Amendment 6 not moved.
Amendment 7
Moved by
7: Clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert- “(2A) The Secretary of State may not exercise a principal transfer power unless they have laid a statement before both Houses of Parliament explaining their reasons for concluding that it is necessary to exercise the power in the public interest.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament explaining their reasons for concluding that it is necessary to exercise a principal transfer power in the national interest, before exercising that power.
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 10 and 11 in my name. Agreement appears to have broken out. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Minister and I all agree that the wording of Clause 2 is central to how we move forward. I always suspected that the public interest test element would be the hardest bit to resolve in this Bill. We are beginning to see that this might be true.
Following discussions, my understanding of how things would go with the Bill as currently formed is that the Government would publish a public interest test immediately after the use of its transfer powers under this Bill. To their mind, this would focus on the underlying rationale for intervention in a particular steel undertaking and to some extent show how it would be determined to be in the public interest. However, as things stand, it would not address the cost of taking any asset into public ownership. The Government will say to Parliament that it is in the public interest to nationalise asset X, Y or Z but, in essence, “at any cost or no cost or at a cost that we are not going to tell you what it is”. That self-evidently cannot be true. There is a value to any asset which any acquirer must not pay. I have sat around executive boards where potential acquisitions that are strategically perfect fits turn out to be too expensive. The board cannot sanction the acquisition of those assets. The same must be true here to some extent. The weighing is a different weighing, but the principle is exactly the same. Furthermore, the idea that there is a price strengthens the hand of the government negotiators to the counter parties. They will be able to say, “Parliament will not wear this number; we need a better number”. Therefore, it strengthens negotiation.
The Minister talked about the need for speed but there is “repent at leisure” if you move too quickly. There is an element of speed. Parliament has demonstrated that it can move at speed. Just before Easter 2025, we did important things on behalf of the steel industry in a day. Both Houses can move at speed, but they need the information to make those decisions. The Minister will say that it is a matter of sequencing-establish the public interest first and then negotiate the cost. He will say more generally, as he already has, that any acquisition under the Bill will be subject to the usual M anaging P ublic M oney principles-I would ask him how those principles differ from those that were used to safeguard the investment in HS2. Moreover, the Government have been clear that the modernisation of the steel sector is dependent on both public and private investment. How will that play into the decision-making?
This approach has made me more adamant that there need to be changes to Clause 2 to take this into account. The amendments in this group start to address the fundamental point. While I acknowledge and welcome the reporting provisions in the Bill, these would take place post hoc. It is not right to expect the Houses of Parliament to vote on regulations regarding nationalisation without any indication of the cost attached to that nationalisation.
In a later group, I will propose a role for Select Committees on this by amending Clause 58. However, these three amendments focus on Clause 2. Amendment 7 is quite similar to Amendment 6 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, and would require the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament explaining the reasons for concluding that it is necessary to exercise the principal transfer power in the national interest before exercising that power. Amendment 10 would require the public interest test to consider the impact of nationalisation on the public finances. In other words, how much does it cost? Amendment 11 would require the public interest test to consider the investability of the steel undertaking. In other words, how does the private sector get involved in this, as that is the stated government aim for this legislation?
We must find a way of ensuring that the anticipated cost of any nationalisation is an integral part of a public interest test and one that Parliament can influence rather than debate post hoc. I am very happy to discuss ways of doing this with the Minister and his team. In the meantime, I beg to move.
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.
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,...
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.
Amendment 7 withdrawn.
Amendment 8 not moved.
Amendment 9
Moved by
9: Clause 2, page 1, line 20, at end insert- “(2A) In assessing the “public interest” in regard to the exercise of transfer powers relating to a steel undertaking located in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult the First Minister of Wales before exercising such principal transfer powers.”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment is to ensure that the UK Minister and the First Minister of Wales work together in taking forward transfer powers which involve a steel undertaking in Wales.
My Lords, the amendment proposes inserting a new subsection (2A), which provides that: “In assessing the ‘public interest’”- which is the whole dimension underpinning the Bill- “in regard to the exercise of transfer powers relating to a steel undertaking located in Wales, the Secretary of State must consult the First Minister of Wales before exercising such principal transfer powers”. This is surely basic common sense, since many, if not most, of the responsibilities impacted by such transfers in Wales rest with Senedd Cymru. These powers include economic development, town and country planning, roads, education and training, and the environment. Each one of these may, and almost certainly will, be impacted by the consequences of transfer decisions. To those who argue that responsibility to co-operate already exists, I say that, if that responsibility is spelled out in the Bill, it would trigger an earlier and more thorough approach. Otherwise, it would be so easy to treat such dialogue and mutual action as an afterthought when it should be a cast-iron statutory requirement. This brings me to the associated Amendment 19. Clause 50 provides powers to the Secretary of State “to modify law in connection with … property transfers”. Clause 50(3) is very serious as it provides for retrospective legislation. This should always trigger alarm bells, in whatever context it arises. As many of the legislative responsibilities that might be impacted by this are fully devolved to Senedd...
I will be very brief and speak with some support for the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. As far as I can tell, the Bill does not require legislative consent from either Cardiff or Edinburgh. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that. If it does not, the principle set out by the noble Lord, for both Wales and Scotland-I know that there may be industrial differences, but the two things apply-would be very important. I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in that regard.
My Lords, I very much echo what the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just said, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, for his amendments, which raise very important points. There are considerable concerns about what is happening at steel plants in Wales and the consequences for the workers, their families and the much wider community. It is right that, where these powers may affect a Welsh steel undertaking or devolved responsibilities, Wales should be properly involved. I urge the Minister to respond positively to the concerns so rightly raised by the noble Lord.
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...
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.
Amendment 9 withdrawn.
Amendments 10 and 11 not moved.
Clause 2 agreed.
Clause 3: Sunset for exercise of principal transfer powers
Amendment 12
Moved by
12: Clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5) Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State extending the sunset of the principal transfer powers.
My Lords, I hope that this outbreak of agreement means that the Government will accept my Amendment 12. The Government have repeatedly spoken of a long-term plan for steel-securing private investment, increasing domestic production, safeguarding jobs and creating a viable future for the industry. Against that background, Clause 3 comes as something of a surprise. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Fox, indicated that he was somewhat reassured by its presence, but I suspect that its actual terms have escaped his usual vulpine scrutiny. A sunset clause is intended to place a clear limit on exceptional powers, but the Bill allows the Secretary of State to substitute, by regulations, a different period for the two-year limit. Subsection (4) makes it clear that this can be done more than once. Therefore, in practice, the powers could be extended again and again, which gives no reassurance at all. Two years could become five years, 10 years or longer. That is not a meaningful sunset clause; it is a potentially perpetual sunset clause. It is an indefinitely renewable power. What does that say about the Government’s confidence in their own ability to secure a viable private sector-led future for British Steel? If Ministers genuinely expect these powers to be exceptional and temporary, why do they require the ability to extend them without any stated final limit? This goes directly to the concerns raised throughout our debates-the risk of open-ended liabilities for taxpayers, uncertainty...
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.
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.
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.
Amendment 12 withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed.
Clause 4: Share transfer regulations
Amendment 13
Moved by
13: Clause 4, page 2, line 30, leave out “negative” and insert “affirmative” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment seeks to require regulations transferring securities of a steel undertaking to be subject to the affirmative procedure.
My Lords, Amendment 13 makes regulations transferring securities in a steel undertaking subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 14 makes regulations transferring the property rights or liabilities of a steel undertaking subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 15 makes regulations on continuity obligations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 18 in this group makes enforcement regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. I will begin by referring to those amendments but speaking to the question of whether Clause 50 should stand part of the Bill. This clause gives the Secretary of State a very broad power to modify primary legislation, secondary legislation and common law in connection with a share or property transfer. It may be used retrospectively and, in some circumstances, before Parliament has had the opportunity to approve the regulations. These are considerable powers, particularly when we are discussing property rights, contractual rights and the compulsory transfer of businesses and their assets. My noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom has already referred to the report of the Constitution Committee, and he speaks from personal experience of knowing the dangers of ignoring the recommendations of that committee. The committee is pretty clear about Clause 50, and I will quote from its report: “We recommend that the broad power granted to the Secretary of State in Clause 50(1) to modify the law in relation to share or property transfer by...
The Government argue that the negative procedure is necessary because a transfer might be commercially sensitive and fast moving. They point to the risk that assets might be moved or contracts terminated, key personnel might leave or counterparties might take action to frustrate the transfer. We recognise that there may be genuine urgency in particular cases, but we do not accept that this makes affirmative scrutiny inherently obstructive. The Bill already demonstrates that Parliament can accommodate urgency where it is genuinely necessary.
Clause 50 provides for a “made affirmative” procedure. Ministers may act immediately where required, but Parliament must subsequently approve the regulations for them to remain in force. Why should the Government not use a comparable approach for the actual transfer of securities, property rights and liabilities? Indeed, the need for security is greater because, once the principal transfer power has been exercised, the Bill permits a range of supplemental onward, reverse and connected transfers without a new clause covering public-interest determination. Parliament should therefore have a proper opportunity to scrutinise the initial act that unlocks that wider suite of powers. These amendments would not stop Ministers acting swiftly where there is a real emergency. They would ensure that compulsory transfers of private property and liabilities are subject to meaningful parliamentary approval. That is not obstruction; it is surely the minimum level of scrutiny appropriate for powers of this constitutional and commercial significance.
Amendment 15 concerns Clause 39 and continuity obligations. Clause 39 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying matters that are to be taken into account or disregarded when determining reasonable consideration and the terms of arrangements that parties would be expected to make at arm’s length. The Government’s memorandum says that this power may be used to provide detail about how consideration and terms are to be determined and that its purpose is to ensure fair compensation for parties subject to continuity obligations. That raises an obvious question. Why should matters going directly to fair compensation and the terms imposed on affected parties be left to the negative procedure? These regulations may determine what constitutes reasonable consideration and what terms can be expected from parties who may have little practical choice but to continue arrangements after a transfer. It is our view on these Benches that this should surely be done by the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 18 concerns enforcement. Clause 45 permits regulations on the enforcement of obligations under share or property transfer regulations. The regulations may confer jurisdiction on a court or tribunal. Again, the Government say that this is necessary to ensure that obligations can be enforced from the moment of transfer, but the fact that enforcement may involve courts or tribunals makes scrutiny more important, not less, and therefore it should be subject to the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
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.
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...
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.
I am happy to give that commitment in our further conversations.
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.
Amendment 13 withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed.
Clauses 5 to 14 agreed.
House resumed.
Sitting suspended.