Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Committee

16:45:00

Clause 1: Meaning of “steel undertaking”

Clause 1 agreed.

Clause 2: Directions about use of assets

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 2, page 1, line 6, after “undertaking” insert “within a period ending one year after the passing of this Act”

My Lords, as I indicated earlier today, in this House we have a responsibility to ensure that legislation is properly scrutinised and debated, and that it does not give unlimited powers to the Executive without the essential checks and balances that are largely portrayed in the work in depth of this House, in particular. My noble friend Lady Laing of Elderslie reminded us that, in its report, Fast-track Legislation: Constitutional Implications and Safeguards, the Constitution Committee stated that “whenever possible sunset clauses should be incorporated into emergency legislation particularly in relation to legislation that impacts upon civil liberties”. It continued, “emergency legislation should automatically be subject to post-legislative review”. A number of us have had a chance to reflect not only on the debate we have just had but on the words of the Minister, who, in her closing speech, said that she would regularly update the House every four weeks. Reflecting, though, on what the Constitution Committee said, we do not believe that that goes far enough. That is why my noble friend Lord Davies of Gower and I have tabled this amendment, to ensure that there is a sunset clause. We look forward to hearing from the Minister as to whether or not she accepts the need for some check on the power of the Executive. A number of noble Lords quoted from the Bill, which we have, of course, seen for the first time only today. One such quotation was the unfortunate wording in Clause 3 that: “The Secretary of State may do anything for the purpose of securing the continued and safe use of the specified assets”. It is essential that that power is there available for the sake of the future of the Scunthorpe steelworks, but should it be there available in perpetuity? That is the key question that this Chamber must now decide. The fact that the Government are saying that they may need to return to Parliament to extend these powers is not, as they seem to believe, an argument against a sunset clause. I believe that it is imperative that emergency powers are subjected to constant oversight, and I hope that the House will agree with me. These amendments that we are proposing would simply allow Parliament to do its job. Emergency powers should never be allowed to become permanent by default. Surely, they have to be justified continually, not assumed indefinitely. We recall the Coronavirus Act, as my noble friend pointed out. That was a piece of emergency legislation containing a sunset clause. That was in recognition of the fact that the Bill provided extraordinary powers—it was not power that should ever be delegated to the Government indefinitely. What we are now proposing has a strong precedent, and we would strongly encourage the Government to adopt this. If these are emergency powers designed to allow the Government to intervene in Scunthorpe’s steelworks in the short term, why would the Government resist a sunset clause? Indeed, in the debate in the other place, the Secretary of State said in response to an intervention that these are short-term measures to deal with an emergency situation, and he used “temporary” in opening. Why can the Government not accept that these are temporary but necessary powers? I suppose there is also the argument that there is greater certainty if we know exactly where we are so far as the powers devolved to the Government are concerned. Earlier today, I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Fox, in calling for a sunset clause, and heard his further comment that a debate might perhaps help to focus attention in a way that would then enable Parliament to understand the motivation behind it. I am slightly nervous at that. There is no substitute for an out-and-out sunset clause, which I believe is the right thing to do in these circumstances. I hope that the Minister, particularly accompanied by the wording of the Bingham lecturer, the person sitting alongside her—with which I agreed and have quoted on many occasions—agrees that it is time for a reset between Parliament and the Executive. This is the time. I beg to move.

My Lords, I speak very briefly to my Amendment 2. Clause 3(4) makes it clear that the Secretary of State has power to enter premises and make orders on the premises, but the wording in subsection (4)(a), in which it says that “the Secretary of State may … be accompanied by any person” could be read to imply that the powers are invested in the Secretary of State in person—that is, that the Secretary of State themselves would need to be present on the premises. After speaking to the Public Bill Office, I wanted to give the Government the opportunity to clarify that a designated representative of the Secretary of State would be imbued with these same powers, so that any intransigent company could not seek to delay government action by demanding that the Secretary of State was present in person.

My Lords, I rise on the back of that very interesting amendment to take the brief opportunity to ask again the question that I asked when we debated the Bill earlier today, which relates to the same clause of the Bill—namely, when the Bill says that the Secretary of State has the power to exercise force on entering premises, which force in practice would he intend to use? The Bill gives him no power to direct chief constables; it would be practically, and probably constitutionally, improper for him to send civil servants from his department to force entry into premises. There is also no provision in the Bill allowing him to seek a warrant that would result in bailiffs being able to enter the premises. I genuinely want to know how, in practice, the Secretary of State would exercise force. When I asked that question in today’s earlier debate, I did not get a satisfactory answer—or, indeed, any real answer at all. I have no doubt that, now that the Minister has had the opportunity to discuss it with the Attorney-General, who is sitting next to her, it may be possible that she can answer me in her response to this debate.

My Lords, I will speak to the amendment tabled in my name. I am conscious of the extraordinary powers that are being granted to the Secretary of State today. I will briefly speak in response to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman of Steventon. It is my understanding, having been in government, that anything in the name of the Secretary of State can be automatically delegated to a civil servant, but it cannot go beyond that. As we have seen in a number of cases, civil servants already have some powers to gain entry, but only in relation to specific Acts of Parliament—so perhaps this amendment would give a wide-ranging element. This is clearly not an occasion to use the Civil Contingencies Act, but something that surprises me about this Bill is that the powers being given to the Government and the Secretary of State today are extraordinary and go way beyond what happened with the Coronavirus Act 2020. The inspiration for my amendment comes from the Bill that was presented to Parliament then. It set out that, to have scrutiny, a report would be put forward by the Secretary of State—over several periods, not just a year—and that there would be a debate on that report. Having a report matters because it would bring together how the powers have been used: have they been used in the way that both Houses anticipated? It may even extend to the provision of how the finances would be distributed for the regulations we have yet to see. Overall, it is important that, when we give these powers for just one industry—I guess that if we were to name the company it would end up being a hybrid Bill, so that has been deliberately avoided to make sure that it covers the entire steel industry—we should be able to have regular discussions, not simply because this is the steel industry but due to the scale of the powers being granted. To that end, that is why I have literally lifted, with a bit of adjusting, what happened in the Coronavirus Act. Frankly, for something that took over our country in such an unprecedented way, I hope that the Government would concede to think carefully about how they will report back to this House and how this House can be involved.

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 5, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Brinton. The whole House heard my contribution during the take-note debate, and I am grateful for the subsequent supportive comments that noble Lords made to me afterwards. Amendment 5 reflects that contribution. As noble Lords can see, it calls for a debate in Parliament after six months. That would be a substantive debate on which the House could vote if it so decided. The whole House also heard me pledge to work constructively with the Government to get a solution to the question of giving Parliament an opportunity to debate a possible continuation or cessation of these emergency powers. I hope that the constructive discussions we have had over the past hour or so will bear fruit and that the Minister will be able to accept the spirit, if not the letter, of Amendment 5 from her Dispatch Box. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we too have, in a sense, lifted experience from Covid, but—with all due respect to her—we believe that Amendment 5 offers more flexibility to the Government while also giving the oversight that Parliament needs at a level that is not overbearing. These are emergency powers and periodic debate is essential. Equally, the Minister called for sufficient flexibility for the power to be either kept or discarded. We should recognise that there will be times when this may need to be turned on and turned off, and the process I propose would allow that happen. Our amendment provides for that flexibility while also somewhat enhancing parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the Minister can reassure your Lordships that she agrees with us.

My Lords, I will make a brief supplementary point to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fox. I cannot support a sunset clause of the sort proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. That would cause these provisions to cease altogether after 12 months, and I think these provisions are necessary—albeit very draconian, as has been accepted. I would have gone for a different option that combines a sunset provision with a debate, of the sort that we used to have with the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Acts, year after year, from 1989. We would have a clause providing for the expiry of the provisions after a certain period—be it six or 12 months—subject to renewal by an order subject to affirmative resolution. That would mean there would then be a debate in each House and approval would be required for the provisions to continue. We would have a debate but would also have the provision for expiry if the Houses voted for that. That is not here, but I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, thinks that his amendment could procure a vote, because that is the key to this, with these powers being so draconian.

17:00:00

My Lords, I entirely support the Bill and I ask this question only because I am concerned about exactly what is meant by Clause 3(4)(a) saying that the Secretary of State can enter a premises “using force if necessary”. How is that expected to work?

My Lords, I am sure that by now noble Lords will be more than familiar with what the Government are seeking to do with this legislation. It will allow us to take control of British Steel’s blast furnaces, maintaining steel production and, by extension, protecting the company’s 3,500-strong workforce. As such, I will turn swiftly to the amendments at hand. Noble Lords across the House have raised a number of important issues relating to the parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill. I want to reassure noble Lords that this Government take these concerns very seriously. With regard to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, that seeks to add a sunset clause to the Bill, I will reiterate what I said earlier: because of the speed at which this legislation has been drafted and the uncertainty of the situation, it was neither necessary nor appropriate to set a timeline on those specific interventions. As noble Lords are keenly aware, the current international situation is unpredictable. A fixed sunset clause would not be practical and would cause an unacceptable amount of uncertainty if a solution to the issue at hand became protracted. In those circumstances, we might have to come back to Parliament and go over this whole process again. We can revoke directions given to a particular steel company at any time once the need for intervention has passed. As I have said, we would welcome working with the Business and Trade Select Committee in the other place and relevant committees of your Lordships’ House, to make sure that we work with your Lordships and Members of the other place and keep everyone updated, so that these powers are not in place any longer than is absolutely necessary. I was clear in the debate earlier today that the Government will provide an update to Parliament every four sitting weeks, as well as providing information to relevant Select Committees. I do not want to pre-empt discussions in the usual channels across both Houses about the nature of these updates, but it is our intention that the first instance will be an Oral Statement and that subsequent updates will be made in an appropriate manner. What this means in practice will be subject to further discussion but could, for example, be determined by the reality on the ground at that time. Given the interest in both the steel sector and the use of powers in this Bill, I can confirm that my noble friend the Chief Whip will facilitate a fuller debate on the Floor of the House on the operation of what will then be the Act. This will take place within six months, with exact details to be subject to further discussion in the usual channels. In addition, as stated in the Government’s letter to all Peers this morning, we intend to publish our steel strategy in the spring. We will continue other related work, such as on our modern industrial strategy, and we will of course update noble Lords on that as well. All of these moments will allow scrutiny of the Government’s use of the powers in this Bill and of our wider efforts to support the vitally important steel industry. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, draws attention to Clause 3(2) and his concern about the words that the Secretary of State can do “anything”. I have to say to him that those words need to be read in conjunction with the rest of that sentence, which limits them to anything that a “relevant person in relation to that undertaking could do”. It is for only a very specific purpose. I hope that this commitment satisfies the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I underline that a sunset clause would create further uncertainty for thousands of workers, who need to know that their jobs are secure on a long-term basis. Inserting a sunset clause would create an arbitrary deadline by which the long-term future of that plant would need to be settled. As I said before, nothing is off the table in our response to securing the future of steel in this country. We should send a strong message today to those whose livelihoods depend on the steel sector that this Parliament stands behind them. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, seeks to add to Clause 3(2), after “the Secretary of State”, the words, “or a responsible person they designate”. I can confirm that Clause 3(2) entitles the Secretary of State to do “anything … that the steel undertaking, or any relevant person … could do”. So officials can act in the name of the Secretary of State. Regarding the question of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, about using force if necessary, this will be a statutory power to be carried out by those acting on behalf of the Secretary of State. Officials or their agents could use force to enter the premises, but this would have to be lawful force; therefore, they could not assault anyone, and there would have to be clear barriers on their actions. It is up to police judgment as to whether they would intervene, based on usual policing principles. I hope I have been able to provide reassurance on all these matters. I therefore respectfully ask that all the amendments in this group are not pressed.

My Lords, I join the Minister in wanting to send a strong message from Parliament to all those involved in the Scunthorpe steelworks that we are solidly in support of them, and that everything we do today is directed to that end. Turning to my amendment and the debate we have just had, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, made a very important point about civil servants being able to act in the name of the Secretary of State. My noble friend Lady Coffey confirmed that that was the case, so at least we know where we are. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, very much indeed. He and I have been working together on this as hard as we possibly can to find a way through, because we do not want to stop this action in its tracks—far from it. We just feel that Parliament—in particular, the House of Lords—and the words of our Constitution Committee should not be disregarded. The committee has a right to stress the importance of sunset clauses. However, having heard this debate, I am quite happy, following discussions through the usual channels, to indicate that such a debate could be postponed until we know a little more clearly where we are. In six months’ time, if we are to have—as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, have suggested—what he referred to as a substantive debate, and, as the Minister said, further debate on the operation of this legislation, we have made a great deal of progress. The voice of this Chamber has been heard, and I am very pleased to have been able to speak in this debate. I say to my noble friend Lord Moylan that he and I still await the reply to the question that he posed, but no doubt the Minister will write. I do not think that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has had an answer to her point about force. That is something that we will have to leave for another day, but it is a very important issue. We should not be giving powers in this Parliament to individuals to use force without clarifying exactly the circumstances in which they can be used. All in all, we have reached a reasonable conclusion, and I am very grateful to the Minister for having listened so carefully and taken to heart the concerns of this Chamber about the need for this legislation to have an end date. We will return to that in the debate that we will have in October on a substantive Motion, as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Clause 2 agreed.

Clause 3: Breach of directions: power to take control of assets

Amendment 2 not moved.

Clause 3 agreed.

Clauses 4 to 9 agreed.

Amendments 3 and 4 not moved.

Amendment 5

Tabled by

5: After Clause 9, insert the following new Clause— “Debate on provisions of this ActWithin six months of this Act coming into force, a Minister of the Crown must, in both Houses of Parliament, table a motion for debate on the continuing necessity of the provisions contained in this Act.”

My Lords, I would just like to say a few words. I first thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for his kind words—which I had not expected—but, mostly, I thank the Government Front Bench, in particular the Chief Whip, for the constructive discussions that we have had, which enabled the Minister to say the things that we hoped she would say. The point is that we understand the need for flexibility, but we also understand the need for parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that, between us, we have got to that point, thanks to the flexibility and the scrutiny that we have had over the past few hours.

Amendment 5 not moved.

Clause 10 agreed.

House resumed. Bill reported without amendment.