Steel Import Restrictions

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, first, we use tariffs only as a last resort, and only in circumstances where we have no other choice. Without action, we risk losing domestic steel-making capability, which would mean that we could not mean critical infrastructure and defence needs without relying fully on imports. Furthermore, as I am sure the noble Lord knows, we are not the only country that has tariffs: the EU has tariffs, Canada has tariffs and the US has tariffs.

On the point about whisky, we have signed a legal treaty with India that underpins the trade deal, and the liberalisation of whisky is a clear part of that. We will adhere to that and support the Scottish Whisky Association to ensure that India meets its obligation.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister will no doubt realise, tariffs are double-edged. The businesses that use steel that is not being manufactured in this country are in danger of having to pay higher prices for that steel, unless the Government are subtler than seems to be the case to date. Can the Minister undertake forthwith to make sure that the steel catalogue is thoroughly reviewed and that no steel that cannot be made in the United Kingdom would come under any tariff at all?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. We recall that the quota currently in place stands at 60%. For most countries, we have not achieved 60%: it is only when we exceed that 60% that that tariff of 50% comes in. Furthermore, we import most of our steel from the EU; 70% of our steel imports are from overseas and 60% from the EU, while India contributes only 5% of the market.

RMT Strikes: Impact on Businesses

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

In answering, I thank my noble friend for all the work he has done in this area; he probably understands more than anyone just how important it is to bring parties together. He raises absolutely critical points. We have to bring benefit from collaboration, and I think we have the right building blocks in place to make sure there is the respect due between different parties to make sure that we can move forward positively.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, part of the noble Lord’s Question alludes to the frailty of British high streets. I am sure that, in her travels as a Minister, she is visiting lots of high streets and seeing shuttered restaurants, empty shops and boarded-up pubs. This kind of hit from the strikes is the final straw for many of these businesses. She may not be able to control the unions, but which of these other policies can she control? There is the huge rise in employer NIC, the huge rise in business rates, the hike in employment costs and the most expensive energy costs in Europe. Does she recognise that there is work to be done, not just on strikes but on preserving and saving our high streets? This Government have to act now to do that.

[Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)]

I did wonder when I saw this Question if it would result in the question that the noble Lord asks. As a former local government leader as well, I am absolutely aware that the problem with high streets is not a recent phenomenon but goes back years, and we have to do everything we can. There are some real innovative schemes coming together to support businesses, but I go back to the point that strikes are not helpful in this scenario, and that is why we are determined to improve industrial relations as we move forward.

Energy-Intensive Industry Electricity Support Payments and Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Grand Committee

I am honorary president of National Energy Action, which advises the Government on the warm home discount, and I would have preferred it to have stayed at £350 to help those most in fuel poverty, rather than it to have been reduced and spread more thinly to the £150 it now is. I am grateful for the opportunity to have raised those issues.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who is forensic in her detail. I should say that she has somewhat mixed her drinks with this measure and other things, but this measure and her comments indicate that the energy market in this country, which this Government inherited from their predecessor, is broken, in essence, and is not working properly.

While we are talking about this particular statutory instrument, it would be useful to have an indication from the Minister that the Government understand the malfunctioning way that energy works for both and consumers, and for him to undertake a process whereby the whole thing is properly reviewed. It is quite clear that there are many pushes and pulls, puts and takes, within our energy market: some are to do with green energy and some of them not; and some are to do with the way that the overall energy cost is assessed based on a floating gas price, rather than the actual cost of the energy being generated. It would help for the Minister to indicate, on behalf of the Government, that he understands that a proper root and branch review of the way in which the energy market is structured is long overdue. I do not blame the Government for what it is now, but I would blame them if they just sat on their hands without doing something about it.

Measures to bring down some of the highest industrial energy prices in the world—if not the highest—obviously come as welcome news to those businesses that have received them. Energy-intensive industries, as the Minister said, such as steel, chemicals, glass, ceramics and brickmaking, as the noble Baroness mentioned, face much higher energy costs than competitors overseas. They really are competing with not just one arm tied behind their backs but most of their limbs. They cannot pass on these prices because of the international market in which they operate. It is welcome that these EII businesses have been recognised, but we are concerned about the lack of support for other businesses across our manufacturing and energy use sector, which includes consumer businesses and the high street.

It is not just EII businesses that are facing an energy cost crisis; it is right across business. If we look in particular at small businesses, energy can be a high proportion of their total costs. They are the backbone of our economy and the heart of local communities. They create many of the jobs on which those communities rely, but they are struggling with uncertainties and changes around the cost of energy on top of the other costs that the Government have decided to put on those businesses, such as NIC costs and the change in the business rates system.

This is all part of a huge burden that all businesses are suffering, but SMEs are proportionately suffering more. They are exposed to the energy market with little support after the previous Government’s decision to slash energy bill support for businesses by an average of 85% when they replaced their energy bill relief scheme with the energy bills discount scheme, which itself ended in 2024. We estimate that 3.1 million SMEs saw a total bill increase of £7.6 billion when the initial energy bill relief scheme ended. That is a huge burden that the sector had to take during the previous Government’s oversight.

We welcome Ofgem’s announcement in December 2024 on enabling SMEs with up to 50 employees to use the Energy Ombudsman to challenge unfair energy rises and charges.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

I hate to interrupt the noble Lord but a Division has been called—

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I have literally three words and then I will sit down. What about the ones with more than 50 employees? That is just the start of the problems that we have in our energy market.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes) (Con)]

That is most considerate of the noble Lord. A Division has been called in the Chamber; the Grand Committee stands adjourned until 5.02 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

Well, it is one of the arguments, I will accept that. At the same time, I accept the point that this is a policy decision that was taken. But the mission is to make Britain a clean energy superpower, whereby we will reduce this dependency by transitioning to a diverse energy system based on renewables and nuclear.

At the end of the day, we also need to address—as the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, asked—the cost to consumers. The Government will continue to fund the NCC scheme through the EII support levy, which is charged on all licensed electricity suppliers to Great Britain, as the noble Baroness mentioned. To offset this, the Government will bear down costs across the energy system to ensure that domestic and non-domestic energy consumers do not see a net increase in their electricity bills as a result of the uplift of the NCC scheme. We are also taking action to reduce costs across the energy system, helping to ensure that the British industry supercharger and the British industrial competitiveness scheme are delivered in line with our wider priority of providing affordable power for businesses and households. The Government’s clean energy superpower mission sets out a long-term plan to strengthen energy security and reduce electricity prices by expanding clean energy and improving interconnections with EU markets.

The noble Lord, Lord Fox, asked about the broken energy market. This is precisely why the Government have the clean energy superpower mission, which is, as I have just said, to strengthen energy security and reduce electricity bills by expanding clean energy and improving the interconnection with EU markets. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, also made a point about other businesses. The supercharger is currently targeted at the EIIs most prone to carbon leakage. However, the Government will undertake a review of the eligibility criteria for the supercharger this year—we are undergoing a review of the various sectors.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord for his response. The supercharger is in itself a good thing, but unless it is combined with a real understanding of the financial mechanisms by which the market is organised, it will not deliver energy at a price that will be less than our competitors around the world. So there is a second part; it is not just the generation and the distribution but the financial engineering behind that which will make it work.

On the second point on other businesses, I am very glad that the Government are having a review, but could they hurry up? If you sit down with any manufacturing business, anywhere in the country—not the ones that are benefiting from this scheme but those that are not—it will list energy costs as its number one or number two major concern. If this review does not get on with it, some of those businesses—hopefully not too many—will not be there to benefit from whatever the review comes up with.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Before the Minister comes back in, can I add to the noble Lord’s question? Of course, it is not just the manufacturing businesses that we are interested in; we need to attract data centres, which have enormous power requirements. That is partly for sovereign security reasons, as regards how we maintain our own data and the integrity of that data. What is being done to attract those businesses here? What sort of financial mechanisms are in place? Are there any plans to expand this sort of scheme to businesses that are not yet located here but that we so urgently need?

Retail and Hospitality Sector

Lord Fox Excerpts

Thursday 22nd January 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, it was a delight to hear the four maiden speeches from the noble Baronesses, Lady Dacres and Lady Shah, and the noble Lords, Lord Forbes and Lord John, who bring really meaningful experience to your Lordships’ House. I want to empathise with the noble Lord, Lord Forbes: I was in exactly the same position with my father 10 years ago.

This has been an interesting but somewhat predictable debate. I expected all the issues that came out, and mostly from the people who I expected to give them, but it has been an important debate because it was an opportunity to air the pressures facing Britain’s high streets. Some of those pressures are historical—Covid, Brexit and things like that—and some are general and local, such as those brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, such as parking, the overall environment, the variety on the high street and the presence of anchor stores. But some of the pressures can be laid at the door of the current Government.

Noble Lords talked about raising employers’ NICs, which has undoubtedly had a catastrophic effect on employment in businesses. Retail and hospitality are very people-centred and are among the businesses worst hit by this rise. Lib Dems oppose this and we would scrap it. Energy costs have hit some sectors of the high street particularly hard, and hospitality is very much hit by the increase. We do not think that the Government have demonstrated the necessary practical understanding of what that has done to those businesses.

SMEs—which, of course, many pubs are—in particular are exposed to a deregulated energy market with little support after the previous Conservative Government’s decision to slash the energy bill support for businesses by an average of 85% when they replaced the energy bill relief scheme with the energy bills discount scheme, which itself ended in March 2024. We estimate that 3.1 million SMEs saw a total bill increase of £7.6 billion when the initial energy bill relief scheme ended. That is a huge benefit.

A couple of Peers decided to relitigate elements of the Employment Rights Act, and I am delighted that they did. Since the noble Lord, Lord Young, trooped out his greatest hit, I am afraid I will have to bring mine out. During the debate, I felt the phrase “banter ban” to be entirely revealing. Since time immemorial, the phrase, “It was only a piece of banter”, has been used to justify homophobia, racism and misogyny, and I think it is a very revealing choice of words.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was more subtle in her relitigation. I take issue with some of the points that she made, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, will no doubt fail to resist that temptation. However, I note that she is correct in that there is still an awful lot of consultation and, of course, of secondary legislation to come. I reiterate another of my greatest hits: when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, stands up and brings this issue to the fore, I hope that he can persuade his Front Bench to engage in meaningful debate on secondary legislation—which means jeopardy that that secondary legislation will be voted down. Until His Majesty’s loyal Opposition meaningfully make that threat, the Government are on a pass. That is done for the day.

For retail, the competition from online sales has continued to mount. Over the past 15 years, we have seen internet shopping increase its market share by five times to around a quarter of all sales. It is clear that although some high street businesses also practice online trading, they cannot compete with the global concerns supplied from out-of-town fulfilment centres. There have been government claims of levelling the playing field between their two retail models, but there is no such levelling.

Here, we come to the bit about non-domestic rates. I know that the Treasury has been busy, but I find completely incredible the recent claims that the Chancellor was surprised by the effect of the changes she is making to business rates on retail and hospitality. This time last year, some of us were debating the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill, which is now an Act. During the stages of that Bill, my noble friend Lady Pinnock, the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, on the Cross Benches, and I spoke at length of the twin effects of the scaling back of the Covid relief and the future valuation, which was, at that time, not available. We noted that the phasing would not eliminate the sharp jump in rates. We launched a wider critique of the structure and effect of business rates, arguing that the Government’s proposals on multipliers were poorly targeted and risked damaging public services and regional fairness, rather than delivering a genuinely fairer system for high streets.

My noble friend Lady Pinnock repeatedly criticised the lack of an impact assessment, saying that the Committee on the Bill was “debating in the dark” about a combined effect of the new higher multipliers and the withdrawal of the Covid-era reliefs. She argued that the Government’s claim to be creating a fairer system was not being met because the Act relies solely on rateable value rather than genuinely targeting online distribution warehouses, despite all that rhetoric about an Amazon tax. She was able to cite an Amazon warehouse near her home which is levied at about £25 per square metre, versus a local shop in the town just nearby which is at 10 times that, at £250 per square metre.

That said, without a root-and-branch change in the way that valuations are done, business rates will continue to penalise high streets and advantage large out-of-town operators. The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, with all his expertise, added further valuation data to that argument, which the Government and the Minister simply ignored.

Above all, we criticised the absence of a meaningful impact assessment and the absence of new valuations. It is clear that, without these, the ministerial comments at the time were plain nonsense; the Minister was reading out wild guesses and wishful thinking from the Dispatch Box. However, by the time the Chancellor stood up this autumn, that information was available, so either her comments at the time of the Budget were seeking to deceive us or she had allowed herself to be deceived. Either way, the new business rates will be a hammer blow for many high street businesses, where rates are often more than rent, as we heard, and the Chancellor should and could have been aware of that when she made her announcement.

There is, of course, a need for holistic reform of business rates. The Liberal Democrats have proposed a commercial landowner levy, but in the short term we also propose to lower the retail, hospitality and leisure multiplier by the full 20 pence permitted under the legislation recently passed by the Government, as opposed to the 5 pence reduction that the Government have implemented. Also in the short term, to further stem the haemorrhaging of businesses, we would cut VAT from 20% to 15% for hospitality, accommodation and attractions, and we set out details of that before the Budget.

Meanwhile, Parliament needs full details of the Government’s proposed U-turn on what exactly the rates will be and who will be paying what. Businesses need to know what they are facing; they need to be aware of the kinds of changes that are coming down the track. I have to say that the responses on Tuesday to the Question before your Lordships’ House were completely inadequate.

If there is to be a recovery in our economy, it will come from a turnaround in consumer confidence. For that confidence to materialise, we need vibrant and successful high streets where people go to buy things and enjoy flourishing hospitality. There is a big danger that that will not be available and that we are moving in the wrong direction. There is much to be done, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

My Lords, it is my privilege to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s Government. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest, for securing this debate. I thank all noble Lords for their thoughtful, informed and passionate contributions on a subject of real importance to our economy and to communities across the United Kingdom. I will endeavour to answer all questions. If I do not, I will go through Hansard and write to all noble Lords, and I will place a copy of the letter in the Library.

I congratulate my noble friends Lady Dacres of Lewisham, Lord Forbes of Newcastle, Lord John of Southwark and Lady Shah on their excellent maiden speeches. They bring a vast amount of knowledge and insight in local government, regeneration, science, computing, law, education, arts and culture. I look forward to working with them and listening to their contributions in this House going forward.

I should also declare an interest. When I was much younger, I harboured ambitions of opening a nightclub —we called them discotheques in those days. In truth, however, I spent far more time boogying on the dance floor than on any serious business planning, and that, I fear, was the end of my nightclub venture. It might have been a brilliant idea, because it gave me the opportunity to set up various businesses, and I became a sort of serial entrepreneur before I joined the Front Bench.

More seriously, I have many friends and relatives working in hospitality, tourism and retail, owning restaurants, wine bars and shops. Through them, I see at first hand the pressures these sectors face every single day: rising costs, staffing challenges and the constant need to adapt. That personal experience informs my appreciation of just how demanding, and how important, these businesses are.

This debate resonates particularly with the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, and I pay tribute to her remarkable charity, Team Domenica, and to its inspiring new establishment, the North Star in Brighton. This pub is a powerful testimony—an example of social enterprise in action. It supports young adults with learning disabilities and autism through vocational training in hospitality, while fostering inclusion, confidence and opportunity within the community. That it was delivered despite some well-publicised cautionary advice from one Jeremy Clarkson speaks volumes about the noble Baroness’s determination and vision.

Retail and hospitality are far more than economic sectors. They are part of what might be called the everyday economy. They are woven into daily life, shaping how people work, shop, meet and socialise. They anchor our high streets and town centres, provided first jobs and flexible work to many noble Lords—including me —and offer routes into long-term employment and management for those who wish to build a career within them. They also play a vital role in the character and vitality of our towns, cities, seaside communities and villages.

I note here the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, on Section 21. I do not need to say any more. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, has said everything I needed to say. I was a victim of a bit of banter, but it was nothing more than racist comments; I will just park it there.

A successful high street is rarely just about shops. It is about cafés, pubs, services, culture and places where people feel welcome and connected. Retail and hospitality sit at the heart of that mix. To summarise their impact briefly, in 2024 the retail sector produced something like £115 billion in gross value added, representing 4.4% of UK output, and by September 2025 it supported about 2.8 million jobs. The hospitality sector generated £51.3 billion, about 2% of total economic output, and supported approximately 2.1 million jobs.

While these figures are significant, they tell only part of the story. The true importance of these industries is in their functions as local employers, community centres and catalysts for footfall, investment and civic pride. The Government are clear-eyed about the pressures that retail and hospitality face. In recent years these sectors have weathered an extraordinary series of shocks: the pandemic, supply chain disruption, rising energy costs, inflation, labour shortages and profound changes in consumer behaviour. Government policy cannot remove all these challenges, but it can provide stability, reduce unnecessary burdens and help businesses plan, invest and adapt for the long term.

Several noble Lords mentioned business rates, which rightfully featured prominently in this debate. We recognise that the current system places a disproportionate burden on many high-street businesses, which is why we are continuing its reform in line with our manifesto commitment to protect the high street. From April 2026, we will introduce permanently lower tax rates for eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties, benefiting more than 750,000 ratepayers. A higher multiplier will apply to the most valuable properties, affecting around 1% of premises, helping to fund this relief in a fair and sustainable way. In addition, we have announced a £4.3 billion support package over the next three years to protect ratepayers facing bill increases following revaluation. These measures are designed to ease pressure where it is felt most acutely, while ensuring local services remain properly funded.

On top of the support package announced at the Budget, the Chancellor also commissioned work to look at what more can be done to support pubs. Further details will be announced in the coming days. Treasury Ministers have met with a range of stakeholders to discuss business rates before and since the Budget, including the British Beer & Pub Association and UKHospitality. Many noble Lords have spoken with real feeling about the future of pubs.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

I thank the Minister. In outlining the changes in the rate system, the Minister is talking about the process. Could he perhaps talk about the outcome, which, when conjoined with the reduction and removal of Covid relief, leaves many businesses—indeed, most businesses—paying more, not less, business rates? Will he at least acknowledge that from the Dispatch Box?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I am coming to the part of my speech that addresses some of the noble Lord’s concerns.

Many noble Lords have obviously spoken with real passion about the future of pubs, including me, and understandably so. Pub closures are always painful, and each one represents the loss of a place where people meet, talk and feel part of something local. Around 2,000 pubs in England and Wales have closed permanently over the last five years. That is a matter of genuine concern, although it reflects a long-term trend that pre-dates recent changes to national insurance, the minimum wage or business rates. Much of this reflects changes in how people live and socialise. People are drinking less often, particularly young adults, including my 19 year-old daughter, with a growing interest in low and no-alcohol options. The pandemic accelerated shifts towards home-based socialising, remote working and more food and experience-led venues.

Costs do matter, and the Government continue to provide targeted support, including specific help for community pubs. The future of pubs depends not only on managing costs but on being supported to adapt to changing habits and expectations. Our approach reflects that reality. Following the establishment of the Licensing Taskforce last April, we published the National Licensing Policy Framework in November. This was co-created with industry councils and various trade associations.

The Government work closely with the Hospitality Sector Council to improve the productivity and reliance of hospitality businesses by co-creating solutions to issues impacting business performance. Likewise, the Retail Sector Council is also undertaking to support growth, working very closely with government on sustainability and the circular economy. High streets, international trading and cybercrime are the main areas of focus. It sets out a vision for a simpler, more consistent and pro-growth regime that reduces bureaucracy, supports investment and promotes cultural and community life. We will build on this work through further planning reforms to help hospitality and high-street businesses grow and adapt.

Alongside regulatory reform, we are also providing targeted support. The Government have introduced a £1.5 million hospitality support scheme, including £440,000 to help rural pubs diversify as community hubs delivered with Pub is The Hub. This initiative is only the start. The Government are committed to supporting pubs and further announcements will be made very soon. This has already unlocked more than 40 previously stalled projects, generating jobs and new services. Industry research suggests that every £1 invested generates more than £8 in social value, as my noble friend Lord Rook said.

The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, made a point about drink-driving. One in six road safety casualties involves drink-driving. I can share with the noble Baroness that the Government are consulting on lowering the limit, which is currently the highest in Europe. In 2014 an academic study showed no impact from the reduction of the limit in Scotland.

It is also right to recall the scale of support provided to hospitality and leisure during the pandemic. These sectors were, rightfully, among the largest beneficiaries of emergency intervention, including furlough, business rates relief, grants, VAT reductions, government-backed loans and measures such as Eat Out to Help Out. That support helped many businesses survive an unprecedented shock.

Since then many parts of the sector have seen a recovery in output and revenues, though I readily accept that this experience is not uniform and that pressures remain acute for some businesses. Emergency support was, by its nature, time-limited and designed to help businesses through an extraordinary period rather than to replace the need for long-term sustainability. The Government will continue to engage constructively and to support growth through skills, investment and proportionate regulation, as businesses move forward on a sustainable footing.

Labour and skills are central to the success of these sectors. I recognise the concerns expressed about changes to the national minimum wage and the national living wage—but I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that we are not the highest. Countries with higher minimum wages include Luxembourg, Australia and the Netherlands. Working people have borne the brunt of the cost of living crisis, and it is right that pay reflects living costs, productivity and wider economic conditions. In setting wage rates, the Government rely on the independent expertise of the Low Pay Commission, which my noble friend Lord Hannett mentioned, balancing fairness for workers with the need for businesses to grow and employ.

Concerns have also been raised about the Employment Rights Act. I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, who was the Minister who took that Act through this House. My department consults daily with businesses in all sectors and trade associations on implementing the Act. There will be further consultation on parts of the Act, and further announcements will be made in due course.

Economic growth is our foremost priority, but growth cannot be built on insecure or unpredictable work. By strengthening employment protections we are improving stability for workers and employers alike, and supporting a modern, productive economy. These reforms sit alongside our wider commitments to skills development, tackling economic inactivity, accelerating construction and delivering a modern industrial strategy. Together they form part of our long-term plan for national renewal.

I want to address directly the concerns raised in this debate, including by noble Lords who take a different view from that of the Government. I recognise that the pressures that many businesses face, particularly smaller operators, are immediate and personal. Policy choices, even when carefully designed, can feel very different on the ground, and that is why the scrutiny of this House matters. I welcome that scrutiny. Where noble Lords have raised concerns about costs, regulation or the cumulative impact of change, I want to be clear that the Government are listening.

We do not claim that the system is perfect, nor that there are no difficult trade-offs. Our task is to strike a balance between supporting growth, protecting workers, maintaining public finances and enabling businesses to plan with confidence. Retail and hospitality succeed when high streets succeed. Through the Pride in Place programme we are investing £5 billion across 339 communities to renew high streets and centres.

The noble Lord, Lord Borwick, who is elegantly suited this afternoon, talked about retail crime, as did the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe. The Government are committed to restoring visible and responsive neighbourhood policing, with 3,000 additional officers in neighbourhood policing roles by the spring of 2026 and 13,000 by the end of this Parliament. We are also ensuring that the right powers are in place. In the Crime and Policing Bill, we have brought forward a new offence of assaulting a retail worker, to protect the hard-working and dedicated staff who work in stores. We are removing the legislation that makes shop theft of and below £200 a summary-only offence, sending a clear message that any level of theft is illegal and will be taken seriously. But funding alone is not enough, which is why we remain committed to ongoing engagement with local authorities, trade bodies, businesses and workers, so that policy remains grounded in lived experience.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Monckton and Lady Neville-Rolfe, asked about the visitor levy. The precise design and scope of the power for the levy is still under development. The Government have published a consultation, which will run until 18 February 2026, to ensure that the public and businesses can shape the design of this power.

Retail and hospitality are not just engines of economic activity but places of connection, opportunity and shared experience. They matter deeply to communities across the country, and they matter to this Government. Through targeted support, community investment and proportionate reform, we are determined to work with these sectors as they adapt to a changing world. We may not agree on every point, but I hope all noble Lords will recognise our commitment to engagement, stability and long-term renewal. I thank all noble Lords once again for contributing to this important debate. I owe the noble Lord, Lord Fox, an explanation about business rates, so I will write to him.

Fair Work Agency: Small and Micro Businesses

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My noble friend is right draw attention to this matter, on which she has long been a thoughtful voice. In 2024, the Low Pay Commission estimated that some 20% of workers paid at or around the wage floor were underpaid the minimum wage. Analysis conducted by the Resolution Foundation suggests that 900,000 UK workers per year have their holiday pay withheld, worth some £2.1 billion. A similar analysis published by the Trades Union Congress estimated that 2 million workers do not receive their holiday pay and entitlements amounting to more than £3 billion per year, and 1.8 million workers do not even receive a pay slip. My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to crack down on these shambolic practices, and the Fair Work Agency will address them.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

The Minister has already said that this new body will involve existing bodies, many pointing in opposite directions in their reporting. The Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority points to the Home Office, the Director of Labour Market Enforcement points elsewhere, and there will be bits of Treasury in there. This will not be a simple exercise in creating a new organisation. During the passage of the Bill, my Amendment 277 sought a full review of the process for this before the enactment of the Bill. The then Minister declined but undertook to do extensive consultation. Can the Minister confirm that that consultation will still happen? Can he give your Lordships’ House some idea of when the statutory instruments required to enact this organisation will come? When are the Government expecting it to be fully operational?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for reminding us of his amendment in Committee. As far as I know, and I will obviously correct by way of a letter, the consultation is happening and statutory instruments—secondary legislation—will follow suit. We hope to get this up and running by April 2026.

Alleged Spying Case: Home Office Involvement

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 21st October 2025 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. As he knows, the Security Minister made it clear last week, on 15 October, in Parliament that Ministers were informed after the DPP had made his decision and shortly before reporting restrictions were lifted. He came to the House straightaway to make a statement; self-evidently, I hope that answers the noble Lord’s point.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, yesterday my noble friend Lady Tyler of Enfield asked about the personal safety of parliamentarians and campaigners, and their families, whose detailed information has been handed to China’s centre of power. In her answer, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent, acknowledged a duty of care and said:

“I know that direct conversations have happened”.—[Official Report, 20/10/25; col. 486.]


However, I know for a fact that for at least one very prominent human rights campaigner there have been no such conversations at all along these grounds. Given that he was left out, I worry about others. Can the Minister confirm that it is his department that is accountable for protecting people whose information has been leaked in this way? Whatever that answer is, can he undertake that the Government will absolutely ensure that these people are properly protected?

[Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)]

I certainly give the noble Lord the assurance that this department takes extremely seriously the security of individuals whose personal circumstances have been brought into the public domain in a way which puts them under potential threat from any hostile force at all. I will certainly also take his comments back, and if he wishes to supply privately to me the name of any individual who he believes to be under threat, we will examine their individual circumstances. I hope that gives a reassurance to the noble Lord.

Companies (Directors’ Report) (Payment Reporting) Regulations 2025

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Grand Committee

Overall, this legislation looks persuasive, but I very much doubt that it will change the power relations between SMEs and large companies. I hope the Minister will answer my questions.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I was surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, describe this SI as looking persuasive, as nothing he said prior to that indicated that that was how he felt. I will pick him up on one point on auditors, having been responsible for the content of dozens of annual reports at a corporate level: although the auditors may or may not have had a legal responsibility for directors’ reports and strategic reports, there is not a single directors’ report or strategic report for which I have been responsible where the auditors did not pick up and verify the points within. I am merely observing this; I do not think we need a debate on it because it is not relevant to the statutory instrument. It was just because the noble Lord brought it up.

Late payment remains a significant issue for UK businesses, as the Minister said—particularly small businesses but other businesses too. Our calculations show that, in 2024, small businesses were owed an average of £21,400 in late payments. This clearly has a significant effect on cash flow and it creates a real challenge.

Without cash flow, business viability is threatened and people are unable to invest in their businesses. Late payment undermines growth and drives some firms out of business. Some businesses use their suppliers’ balance sheets to fund their cash flow. We have seen notorious examples of this; for example, it seemed that Carillion’s entire business model was based on funding its activities through the cash flow of its supply chain. This sort of statutory instrument should be able to identify those operators effectively.

This legislation goes some way to strengthening transparency around how large companies pay suppliers. Here, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sikka: it is not a universal panacea but a small step, and we should be careful not to invest too much in this step. Businesses have been expected to report on a number of issues, such as their environmental performance and the number of women in particular roles, for many years, yet change at the corporate level has been very slow despite the transparency that was earned through legislation.

This SI should enable investors, auditors, shareholders and potential suppliers to get a better idea of what a company is about, as much thematically as definitively. If a company always files late numbers, that tells you something about how the business is managed; in some cases, one-off things may make that happen. As the Minister set out, though, there is more to be done. However, he did not mention the role of public procurement, which is vital to driving the right behaviours in business. I would like the Minister to talk about that and accept that the Government have a strong leadership role around public procurement and that there is still a lot of work to be done.

That said, taking into account its limited objectives, we support this statutory instrument.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, so do we.

As the Minister rightly outlined, this instrument introduces new requirements for large companies to report annually, through their directors’ reports, on their supplier payment practices and performance. Although the content of these disclosures remains broadly in line with the existing reporting framework, the shift to include them in the directors’ report—alongside their existing publication on the government portal—is a notable development in terms of transparency and scrutiny.

We recognise the intent behind these regulations and support the objective of improving payment practices, particularly given the long-standing and well-documented impact of late payments on small businesses. At this point, I was going to take a detour into some statistics, but the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has shot my fox and quoted them already. We do have a few questions, though; they follow on from those asked by both of the previous speakers.

First, how will these new reporting obligations interact with enforcement? Transparency is important, but it must be coupled with accountability. Will the Government monitor compliance with these new requirements? Are there plans to review their impact in due course? I think I heard the Minister say that there is a plan to review these measures in due course; I would be grateful if he could confirm that.

Secondly, although the inclusion of this data in the directors’ report means that it will be seen by shareholders and auditors, does the Minister expect this alone to drive behavioural change? Beyond disclosure, what further steps are the Government considering to tackle poor payment practices where they persist?

Thirdly, we note that the instrument does not introduce changes to the underlying payment terms or practices; it merely brings reporting into a different format. Do the Government believe that there a risk that companies may comply in form but not necessarily in substance?

None the less, from these Benches, we continue to press for action to support small businesses and ensure that they are paid fairly and on time. On that, we share the ambitions of the noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Sikka. The problem of late payment is persistent, and while the measure may support transparency, it must not become a substitute for enforcement or cultural change. On that basis, we do not oppose these regulations. We urge the Government to treat them as part of a broader, ongoing effort to improve business practices and protect small suppliers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, may I take a few moments to respond to a couple of things that have been said?

[Lord Fox (LD)]

The Minister has sat down.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My noble friend must be very brief.

Jaguar Land Rover Cyberattack

Lord Fox Excerpts

Tuesday 14th October 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Fox]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what lessons they have learned following the Jaguar Land Rover cyber attack.

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

My Lords, the Jaguar Land Rover cyberattack has highlighted the vital need for robust cybersecurity across the UK’s economy, which is why today the Government have written to leading companies with advice on strengthening cyber defences using tools like the Cyber Essentials scheme and the Cyber Governance Code of Practice. We strongly recommend and encourage all companies to follow this guidance. We will also introduce very soon the cyber security and resilience Bill to raise cybersecurity standards in critical and essential services such as energy, water and the NHS.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, with the indulgence of the House, let me say that this weekend I came back from the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, where there were heartfelt tributes to the work of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. He was held in very high esteem. It is one example of his dedication to defending our national interest.

One of the concerns of the NATO assembly was hybrid warfare. Attacks like that on JLR may come from nation states or they may come from individuals, but together they add up to a war on our economy that is costing billions of pounds. The National Cyber Security Centre chief executive Richard Horne said today

“Cyber security is now a matter of business survival and national resilience”.


As the Minister said, Minister Jarvis has written to large companies, but can he assure your Lordships’ House that the Government understand that information campaigns alone, like that which he has just described, are not effective? Can he tell the House that he realises that there needs to be a substantial change in gear, because attacks like the one we saw on JLR prove that what we are doing today just is not working?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, may I echo the words of the noble Lord about the late Lord Campbell? On behalf of the Government and this side of the House, I thank the late Lord Campbell for his public service to this country. He will be sorely missed in this House.

The National Cyber Security Centre has been working very closely with Jaguar Land Rover to provide support in relation to the incident. The NCSC response to the JLR incident is ongoing, but it is set to reduce as mediation takes place. Throughout the event, the NCSC has been capturing feedback to inform national and internal incident management practices. The NCSC will participate in a cross-government “lessons identified” process to review how best to improve the Government’s response, share information across partners and react to some of the unique pressures, such as those that the noble Lord mentioned. The NCSC would be happy to share aspects, depending on classification, of this process with noble Lords and other Ministers once it has been conducted.

Jaguar Land Rover Cyberattack

Lord Fox Excerpts

Wednesday 10th September 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, before I respond to the noble Lord’s question, I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch for her sterling worth as a Minister in this House. I am sure that all noble Lords will thank her for her performance at this Dispatch Box and her support to all Members across the House. I am sure that we will hear many more of her contributions from the Back Benches.

The new Commercial Digital Centre of Excellence for the UK central Government will substantially improve service delivery, enhance user satisfaction and drive efficiency, leveraging new procurement regulations. The provision of cybersecurity services is a part of this vision. In addition, through the Crown Commercial Service’s Cyber Security Services 3 agreement, we provide an official streamlined route to market for National Cyber Security Centre-assured services. I also need to say that the Government are working tirelessly to improve the cyber resilience of government systems, basing our efforts around the Government’s cybersecurity strategy. We have made important steps in understanding and mitigating cyber risks. We are now implementing a more interventionist approach to public sector cyber resilience to address key risks and better support departments.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, some 40% of companies in the UK reported last year that they had faced some sort of cyberattack. High-profile attacks such as those on JLR, Marks & Spencer and the British Museum are just the tip of the iceberg. In the Commons, the Minister referred to legislation. Can the noble Lord confirm when the cyber Bill will appear? What methodology might the cyber Bill use to solve this? The Minister implied that this legislation would seek to cause businesses to try harder. The protagonists of this crime are not state-sponsored, but they are tolerated and supported by the regimes in which they exist and they are part of the asymmetric war that this country faces. Of course business has to defend itself, and the Minister has outlined what the Government are doing now, but it is quite clear that that is not enough. What will the Government do that is different from what they are doing now to defend ourselves from this ever- growing problem?

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord made a couple of interesting points, which are crucial, and I will try to address them. Cybersecurity of the UK is a key priority for this Government. It is crucial to protect public services, the public, our way of life and a successful, growing economy. We have been taking significant action to help protect business from cyber- attacks.

We are also providing businesses with the tools, advice and support to protect themselves from cyberthreats, including the Cyber Governance Code of Practice, which shows boards and directors how to effectively manage the digital risk to their organisation. The highly effective cyber essentials scheme prevents common attacks and reduces the likelihood of a cyber insurance claim by 92%. Before I was invited to be a part of the Government, when I ran my businesses I ensured that they all had a cyber essentials certificate. That is the basic requirement that you need to have. At the same time, businesses need to protect themselves by having sufficient cybersecurity insurance. There are a wide range of tools and support from the National Cyber Security Centre including training for boards and staff and an early warning system to get notified about cyberthreats to networks.

When parliamentary time allows, this Government will introduce the cybersecurity and resilience Bill to raise cybersecurity standards in critical and essential services such as energy, water and the NHS.

Employment Rights Bill

Lord Fox Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

We are planning and conducting the review within the first year of the Labour Government.

It would be premature to make further legislation in this space before the parental leave review has taken place. We will, however, take my noble friend’s ideas and concerns into consideration, and I look forward to updating your Lordships’ House on the review.

Before I conclude, we understand the concerns raised by—

[Lord Fox (LD)]

Before the Minister exits the review, it clearly reflects on a number of the issues in the Bill. It would make an awful lot of sense, if the Government are going to do this within the first year—which, by the way, is not very much longer—to be able to present us with the findings of that review so that we can reflect them in what we bring back on Report.

[Lord Leong (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, and I will speak to my officials and write to all noble Lords accordingly regarding the review.

We understand the concerns raised by micro and small businesses around proposed day-one rights to paternity leave. Those employers often work with very lean teams and tight margins, so any perceived increase in entitlement can raise questions about costs and continuity. Introducing day-one rights is about fairness and consistency. It ensures that all fathers, regardless of tenure, have the opportunity to support their families at a critical time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I commend the speeches that have been made, particularly on kinship care, but recognise the challenges that carers face. I am sure that the debate on remuneration for carer’s leave will continue. I am contributing on this group because of Amendment 81, from the noble Lord, Lord Brennan of Canton. I would say that it is quite odd for this to have been grouped alongside the other issues, recognising the very serious situation of pregnancy loss. Before the noble Lord spoke, I was not aware that this was relating to an inquiry at the other end. I have only just started reading aspects of that report, so I am not as fully informed as he was in presenting this. However, there are some issues here that I am concerned about.

Thinking through this, only three other countries in the world include parts of pregnancy loss in terms of being formally considered for bereavement leave. That is not a reason not to do it, but it is important to recognise that we would still be quite a considerable outlier. It needs careful consideration. I am not dismissing it in any way, but I am conscious that the Government responded on 25 March and I am slightly disappointed that we have not yet seen an amendment tabled. I appreciate that some of these things take a bit of time, but I had hoped that in Committee we would be able to consider what the Government were going to table in this regard.

As the Government have set out in their response to the committee and as is set out in ACAS guidance, a number of these issues are already covered in terms of pregnancy or maternity-related illness. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about this becoming a potential HR issue. It is discriminatory for any such illness in any way, including miscarriage, and molar pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy would be covered very straightforwardly by that.

I have a particular concern about proposed subsection (2B)(a)(iv) in his Amendment 81, which widely casts the net of any medical abortion. It is already recognised that any abortion after 24 weeks is automatically covered in bereavement leave. The same is true of stillbirth, which, in the UK, is considered to be the loss of a pregnancy at 24 weeks and above. The two are not causal or directly related—obviously, there is a correlation in the timing. It just so happens that we have our current abortion limits, with certain exceptions, up to 24 weeks. So I am concerned that, in effect, proactive abortions taken up to 24 weeks would be covered in this amendment. I do not know whether that is the intention of the Government in their response, because, as I have said to the House already, I have not yet had the chance to read the entire report from the Women and Equalities Committee.

On proposed subsection (2B)(b), I say that I have had many friends who have, not always successfully, had children through IVF. Thankfully, many people do, but they recognise when they enter into it some of the challenges they definitely will face in trying to have a child by IVF. As it stands, on average, the success rate for a woman below 38 is about 35% for any particular embryo-transfer loss. Once a woman starts to go over the age of 40, that falls—it has gone up from 2012 from an 8% to a 10% success rate in 2022. That careful consideration needs to be thought about by the Government and your Lordships in this House when we decide to extend certain entitlements, while recognising the heartbreak that can happen at certain moments in people’s lives in these particularly sensitive moments. I am conscious that this is a sensitive issue to bring up at this point in the Bill.

I do believe that I would like to understand this in more detail. I will take the time to do some more research myself, but I am very keen to hear from the Government quite where this is stretching. I appreciate they have given a certain kind of wording to the House of Commons Select Committee on this point, but the provision of further details to the Committee here would be very welcome.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, I thank all speakers from your Lordships’ House for what has been an excellent debate. It is a genuine pleasure for me to participate, hopefully quite briefly.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, gave a moving speech, which was made more moving by the knowledge that Sarah Owen is at the Bar today, and I thank both of them for their contributions, but especially Sarah.

Amendment 81 has our support, not least as a catalyst to try to have the sort of debate we need and the careful consideration that the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, also alluded to. I hope it can start to move things forward.

We also support Amendment 134, which was so ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe. This again is an important issue that we want to have more conversations about following this debate.

My noble friend Lord Palmer gave a very spirited and strong advocacy for kinship care, and that was supported across the House—here is another area where there is an absolutely clear and present need for carers to be officially brought into the carers’ community.

The point on fostering was also well made by my noble friend, as was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about short-term fostering as something we should seek to bring into that. All these amendments are, in a sense, broadening the scope of carers and where we should be considering. For all of them, I hope the Minister will be able to stand up and say “Let’s have a debate following this particular group. Let’s talk with interested parties to see how some or all of this could start to be moved forward”.

I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I focus on paid carer’s leave. I had the great honour of piloting Wendy Chamberlain’s Private Member’s Bill through your Lordships’ House with, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, the strong support of the Conservative Government. During that time, I had a chance to meet a lot of carers and a lot of employers of carers—big companies such as Centrica, which the noble Lord mentioned, and much smaller companies. They all set out the advantages of having a proper, strong relationship with their carers and the starting point, which we established through that Private Member’s Bill, of unpaid carer’s leave.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

I am very happy to write to my noble friend with more details. We will cover some of the issues on carer’s leave in the round later in my speech, but I thank him for his intervention.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

With all due respect, this Bill is full of situations in which the consultation for its implementation is yet to be completed. Having adopted a principle in primary legislation, one more consultation would hardly stain the integrity of this Bill. If the Government wanted to, they could very well take on kinship care and fill in the details later—that is what they are doing with the rest of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 82 in the name of my friend and former colleague, the noble Lord Hogan-Howe, which I have signed. I declare an interest as a paid non-executive adviser to the Metropolitan Police Service. I apologise that I was unable to speak at Second Reading, but I intend to focus in a disciplined way on the amendment, unlike some colleagues.

In London, the Metropolitan Police, the UK’s largest police force, has, in recent years, been unable to recruit police officers to the level it has been funded for, and is now unable to recruit full-time regular police officers because of budget constraints. The Labour Government’s community policing guarantee, to recruit 13,000 more neighbourhood police and Police Community Support Officers, appears to be challenging, given that the Metropolitan Police accounts for about 19% of all UK police officers and about 25% of the UK police budget.

One low-cost way to recruit more community police officers is to take a no-cost-to-the-taxpayer measure to encourage members of the public to become special constables, such as that proposed in the noble Lord’s amendment. As of March 2023, the contribution of special constables was saving an estimated £85 million to £90 million a year in policing delivery, according to government statistics.

The Minister may well say, as Ministers are prone to do—for example, on the issue of humanist weddings—that while they agree in principle with the amendment it needs to be part of a holistic approach to volunteering generally; that the Government will consider this and bring forward such legislation in due course, if necessary; but that they do not want to create an uneven playing field. However, if they intend to meet the 13,000 uplift in community police officers, they need to create an uneven playing field, providing more of an incentive for the public to volunteer to be special constables than to be any other sort of volunteer.

In any event, the playing field is already uneven, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just said, in that in 2018 the Government—albeit a different Government—amended Section 50 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 to include four groups of volunteers in another part of the criminal justice system, such as independent prison monitors. The reason was to attract applicants in full-time employment, who tend to be younger, and thereby improve the diversity of these volunteers, who tended to be skewed in favour of older age groups.

Not only do the police need fit, younger people to volunteer to be special constables but, particularly in London, they need local volunteers who know and reflect the diversity of the communities in which they will serve. The proportion of special constables from minority backgrounds currently serving is higher than it is among regular full-time police officers, and with the added incentive that this amendment would provide, we have the prospect of recruiting more ideal volunteers, who know and reflect their local communities, as special constables.

Were these not good enough reasons to support this amendment, given the current issues around police culture—highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey of Blackstock, in her report on the cultural issues facing the Metropolitan Police—recruiting more officers from minority backgrounds, working part-time and hence less influenced by existing negative aspects of police culture, would assist in changing those undesirable aspects of police culture and increase public trust and confidence. Not only would the public see more police officers who look like them; they may recognise them as members of their local community.

The special constabulary has also proved to be a fertile recruiting ground for the full-time regular force, as the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, has just said, providing an opportunity for those from minority backgrounds in particular to try out policing before making a full-time commitment to it. Recruiting more volunteer special constables could also lead to improving the diversity and local representation among the full-time regular police force.

As with the changes made in 2018 to the 1996 Act, there are compelling reasons to extend Section 50 of the current Employment Rights Act to special constables, and I enthusiastically support this amendment.

[Lord Fox (LD)]

My Lords, we could hardly have expected two more expert speakers to propose this amendment. This is another case where society is getting something on the cheap and, even though it is a different argument from the one about unpaid carers, it is another way where, in fact, we are not recognising the value that society is getting from these people who work as special police officers.

I really want to hear what the Government say on this and I hope it is not the sort of answer that my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested it might be but is something rather more constructive that can come forward the next time this Bill comes up.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I would very much like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, for his important amendment in this group and for the valuable context he gave in his opening remarks, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for speaking so eloquently to it as well.

They are both right. Special constables play a vital role in our communities and, as they pointed out, they serve alongside other police officers, offering their time and their skills to protect the public and contribute to the safety and well-being of society at large. As the noble Lord, Lord Fox, has just pointed out, society benefits from their work.

It is often overlooked, though. For many, being a special constable is something they do alongside other regular employment. These individuals are already balancing their professional lives with the demands of policing and, as has been pointed out, that can be both challenging and rewarding.

I could bore on for hours about how valuable special constables were when I was policing in Hong Kong—but I will not. I welcome this amendment and believe it represents a small but significant way to better support those who give their time to serve our communities by ensuring that special constables can fulfil their duties without facing conflicts with their employment obligations. We would be sending a strong message of support for public service generally, as well, of course, as for special constables. So we are very minded to support this amendment.