British Steel
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the nationalisation of British Steel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I express regret and apologies, Mr Speaker, not only for the issue you just raised, but that we were not able to lay the regulations before Parliament before they came into force. After very careful consideration informed by the significant commercial and diplomatic sensitivities involved in the transfer, and to ensure operational continuity, the Government decided that it was necessary for the acquisition to take place outside of working hours.
Following Royal Assent of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026, the Secretary of State has taken the decision that it is necessary, in the public interest, to exercise the powers in the Act to transfer British Steel into public ownership. We have not taken the decision lightly, but we consider that it is the only viable route forward in the circumstances. British Steel is among the UK’s largest steel producers and has an important capability in the production of several essential steel products that are integral to the construction and maintenance of our critical national infrastructure.
I reiterate the Government’s thanks to parliamentarians on all sides for their constructive approach during passage of the Act. Today’s decisive action secures British Steel’s immediate future, secures steelmaking in support of our steel strategy, and supports the jobs and steelmaking communities that have underpinned the business for decades.
Mr Reynolds
We have a duty to stand by our steel sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges such as President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are to foster a thriving steel economy, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, we cannot allow more jobs to be lost and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcomed the steel industry legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step specifically aimed at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector.
I am particularly glad that the Government accepted many Liberal Democrat amendments to the steel industry Bill, even if they did not accept them in this place and they had to be tabled in the other place instead. Our amendments require the Secretary of State to have regard to the costs of nationalisation and to come back to this House for approval before tabling regulations. Furthermore, our amendments require the consideration of environmental liabilities in any valuation because, as we all know, public ownership without public accountability is not a plan. The changes we secured strengthened the legislation and direct the Act and the Government’s broader steel strategy towards a truly sustainable footing in the long term, while giving taxpayers true value for money.
The Act is now law and the House has still not been told how any of this is going to end, so I have three questions for the Minister. First, Jingye has said it has started the process to seek compensation from the Government for nationalisation; will the Minister confirm what compensation Jingye is asking for, the Government’s assessment of the amount, and how the House will be able to scrutinise any compensation paid?
Secondly, precision-engineering firms throughout the country have confirmed that they cannot buy the specialist grades of steel they need from the approved domestic supply list because they are not manufactured in the UK. Owning a steel company is not the same as having steel capability. What plan is there to widen the range of grades that British Steel can produce to support British industry?
Finally, what process has been arranged for new private co-investors to come in to help to modernise the sites? Without them, the taxpayer is not the rescuer of British Steel but ends up being its permanent owner.
Blair McDougall
British Steel is now owned by the people. We will appoint non-executive directors and a board to take forward the transformation of the company so that it becomes productive, profitable and resilient. Part of the conversation will, of course, be about how the company can act in support of the wider objectives of the steel strategy, including the issues the hon. Gentleman raised in respect of the availability of specialist grades of steel.
The hon. Gentleman asked what compensation Jingye is asking for. We have been in discussions with the company, as we were looking for a commercial solution, but we did not feel we were going to get value for the taxpayer. The company has been running at a loss for some time. That said, in the autumn we will, through regulations, appoint an independent valuer to make a judgment on any compensation that is due, and that could be nil.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teessiders know what it looks like when Governments stand back and fail to protect steel jobs, so on behalf of the British steelworkers in my constituency who work at Special Profiles in Skinningrove and Teesside Beam Mill at Lackenby, I thank the Government for their decision to step in and protect primary steelmaking in this country. They have preserved jobs and preserved our industry, and the decision will allow British Steel to modernise and prepare for the future, but one of the critical challenges in doing so will be addressing industrial energy costs. I am aware of the decisions that the Government have taken on energy to support industry. What more decisions will they take to bring down costs and make sure that there is a competitive environment for British Steel going forward?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that steelmaking communities have been impacted by previous Governments standing by rather than intervening —we have seen it in community after community over decades. As a Community trade union member, I am very aware of that. On energy costs, he will be aware of the various interventions that we are making through the supercharger and the uplift in network charging compensation, and we also have the British industrial competitiveness scheme. A key priority for the new board will be looking at ways to reduce costs, and a huge part of that will be investing to help with energy costs.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Britain’s steel industry is not competitive, because of high energy costs and excessive red tape, but instead of addressing the root causes, this Labour Government revert back to their default solution of nationalisation. Why are this Government so keen to take us back to the 1970s? If we cannot bring our ruinous energy costs under control, Britain’s steel industry will never be profitable and the UK taxpayer will be left footing the bill.
Can the Minister confirm how much working capital has been provided and the forecast cost to the taxpayer? Will it be more than the £2.5 billion that has been set aside in this Parliament for steel, and if so, where will the money come from? Will the Government provide compensation to Jingye, and what assessment have they made of the threat of legal action from China over nationalisation? The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), said that the Government would seek to find a buyer for British Steel, and several parties have expressed interest. Are discussions ongoing with those parties, and if not, why not?
In March 2025, the Government received advice on the state of the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe, the cost of decommissioning and land remediation. Can the Minister tell the House the state of the blast furnaces, how long their lifespan is, and the expected cost of remediating the site? We cannot allow British Steel to become a multibillion-pound liability for the taxpayer without any scrutiny, so when will the Minister next provide an update on British Steel to the House?
Blair McDougall
Let me begin with the hon. Lady’s question about relations with China. We have been very clear that this decision was made in the national interest, not because of the national identity of those who previously owned the site. We have been very clear in the steel strategy that we think the future of UK steel will be determined in partnership with the private sector and will require co-investment. That was the approach that we took with Tata and have taken elsewhere in the sector, and we have made significant resources available to encourage new private entrants into the sector.
I slightly take issue with the hon. Lady’s “year zero” approach, which suggests that British steelmaking was in a fantastic state under her Government. Crude production has fallen by 50% over the last 10 years, and we have seen community after community abandoned. I simply do not accept the idea that we will all be wearing flares and kipper ties and going back to the 1970s because we have a Government who are willing to intervene, rather than standing by and letting people and communities fall on to the scrapheap.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I say to the Minister that we should never apologise for taking bold action that protects well-paid, unionised jobs in this country and is crucial to the reindustrialisation of our nation, which we know is the future policy agenda.
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), I have companies in my own constituency such as Langley Alloys, Hallmark Fabrication, Don-Bur, Brown McFarlane and Glebe Engineering that are all going to be impacted by the quotas and tariffs, because the grades of steel they need are not made in the UK. Now that we have this capability in public hands, do the Government intend to extend the range of steel that we make domestically, so that we can feed our domestic manufacturers and producers with the grades of steel they need?
Blair McDougall
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the point of the steel strategy is to do exactly what he describes, which is to ensure that a far greater proportion of UK demand, including for specialist steels, is produced in the UK. That demand will increase significantly in the coming years, not least because of the industrial strategy. We have owned British Steel for all of 11 hours, and the board is being appointed, but it is fair to say that the issues he raises will be among those that the new board will want to address.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What concerns me is the jobs of my constituents who work at Scunthorpe. That is all I am worried about; I have no ideological objection. If it is what is needed now, fair enough. As long as the blast furnaces are totally uneconomic because of high energy costs, however, it can only be a sticking plaster. I was struck by the question put to the Minister by his own Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer)—there is no point my demanding that we scrap green energy and all that sort of stuff—so will he take that away and do more with grants to ensure Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces are competitive on world markets?
Blair McDougall
I thank the Father of the House for the spirit in which he asks that question. The key moment for jobs was the intervention last year, which resulted in the cancellation of the consultation on about 2,700 redundancies. The blast furnaces on the site will continue for some time to come. We have said in our steel strategy that we believe the future of the industry is in modernised, cleaner technologies. I am sure that will be at the forefront of the minds of the new board members as they look to transform and modernise the site.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) on securing this urgent question, and the Minister on his answer and on the Government’s bold action. Redditch manufacturers rely on British Steel, and to be frank, want more and different grades of it to expand their own production. I fully support the measure taken today—or, rather, last night—but can the Minister explain to us what engagement is happening on the ground to reassure workers?
Blair McDougall
This decision is of critical importance to the entire economy, our national security and our national infrastructure. However, as the Father of the House has said, it is also a matter of getting to the end of the month for thousands of people. This morning, the workers on the site have been briefed on the decision. We would expect the new board to remain deeply engaged with the workforce, who will be central to ensuring a revitalised and resilient future for British Steel.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your earlier comment. It is surprising that the Secretary of State is not here to make a statement before he visits Scunthorpe, which I understand he is doing today.
Like the Father of House, I have no objections to—and have supported the Government on—saving the steelworks by nationalisation, but it can only be a short to medium-term solution. The challenges—most notably, energy costs—remain. If, as the steel Minister has previously said to me, the Government are looking to attract private investment into the industry, will he acknowledge that energy costs must be dealt with before that investment will follow?
Blair McDougall
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The Government are very clear today that we are seeking that partnership with the private sector across the steel industry. From our side, the partnership comes with significant resources on the table, through the National Wealth Fund, to help the steel industry become more competitive, particularly on energy efficiency.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Our energy, defence and railway sectors depend on steel. Does my hon. Friend agree that steel made by British workers, in Britain, and owned by the British people, is not only in our infrastructure interest but in our national interest?
Blair McDougall
I could not agree more. On a day when many of us will be thinking about travelling back to our constituencies by rail for the summer, it is worth noting that 80% of the rails we will be travelling on are made by British Steel. My hon. Friend raises an important point about taking more steps to ensure, as taxpayers would expect, that when we engage in public procurement British Steel is firmly in the mix.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Congratulations to the Government on doing what I have been urging for seven years, which is to take this strategic national asset into public ownership. What is needed now is a comprehensive, bold vision for the blast furnaces. I am concerned about the talk about more electric arc furnaces. We already have them at Rotherham, and others are being built down in Port Talbot. We need a comprehensive vision to invest in blast furnace plate mills, so we have a real job-creating, world-class industry based around Scunthorpe in the great county of Lincolnshire. How long will it take to get that vision, so that we know which way we are going?
Blair McDougall
As the steel strategy set out, we believe the most sustainable and competitive future across the industry in general is through technologies such as electric arc. The blast furnaces at Scunthorpe will be operational for the immediate term. We are now 11 hours and five minutes into the ownership of the site. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises will be high on the to-do list of the new board, as we appoint them shortly.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Many manufacturing businesses in Keighley and Ilkley, including GESIPA, Airedale Springs and Olicana Products, are deeply concerned about the tariffs and quotas associated with the national steel strategy. They have said to me that the measures will result in increased costs, reduced supply and weakening competitiveness, and will directly threaten jobs in Keighley. Can the Minister outline a response to the managing directors of those businesses on the concerns that they have raised directly with me about the steel strategy that the Government are adopting?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the measures we took were necessary because of the ending of the steel safeguards. Without the measures we took, there was a real prospect of our becoming the global dumping ground for uncompetitively subsidised over-production. That being said, the Minister for Industry, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has been meeting manufacturers and listening to those concerns. That is why we have the transitional arrangements and have ensured that they will be reviewed after 12 months. It is also, frankly, why we are working so hard with the EU to ensure we get mutual arrangements there as well.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats supported the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, but we tabled amendments, in my name and in those of my hon. Friends, to increase the provision of scrutiny and transparency under the Bill. The Government voted those amendments down in this place, but then had a change of heart and supported them in the other place. Given that, it is extremely disappointing that a move of this magnitude has been made and no statement has been made to the House. On the change of heart in the Lords, was that merely a sticking plaster, or is there a genuine commitment to give parliamentarians scrutiny of the important decisions being made about the future of our steel industry?
Blair McDougall
As the Minister for Industry has set out, on the issue of cost, it is our intention to continue with the practice under the previous Act of coming to Parliament on a quarterly basis with a written ministerial statement to set out the costs. As we appoint the new board, we will also be keen for the owners and operators of British Steel to be accountable to Select Committees.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Steelmaking is clearly important for our national security. Some of the issues for British Steel are the costs that it has and the full orderbook that it needs to remain sustainable. What will the Government do to ensure that British Steel turns out steel at a competitive rate, and that it gets the orders that it needs?
Blair McDougall
On the point about a competitive rate, I refer the hon. Gentleman to an answer I gave a moment ago on the investment the Government are putting in across the steel industry to ensure costs are reduced. On the orderbook, through the work we are doing on public procurement, we are ensuring that there is a clearer line of sight for British steel producers—both publicly owned British Steel and others—on all the coming work linked to investment in national infrastructure or the industrial strategy, so that they get a fair shake at those contracts.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the nationalisation of British Steel, not least because it protects critical infrastructure needs, as well as local jobs and neighbourhoods. On procurement and competition rules, what assessment have the Government made to ensure British Steel does not fall foul of regulations on supplying steel within the United Kingdom?
Blair McDougall
As Minister with responsibility for regulations, if there are any particular regulatory issues that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I encourage him to bring them to me and I will pursue them across the system. In addition to the reviewed guidance that we have given to ensure British Steel is in the mix for procurement, the clean industry bonus scheme—for offshore wind, for example—will incentivise its use.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I appreciate the point that the Minister made about the taxpayer having only owned British Steel for a matter of hours, and how the board is still being appointed. It is, however, imperative that the Government are clear, once the board is appointed, what the strategic priorities are for the board—as opposed to British Steel at large. Top of those priorities must be a timescale to get to profitability. Can the Minister—or his successor—commit to ensuring that the red lines set for the board are made clear to this House as soon as it returns in September, when the board will have been functional for five or six weeks?
Blair McDougall
I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman’s lack of faith in my career prospects. I am sure that the Minister for Industry, who has deep expertise in steel and is an excellent Minister, intends to update the House on the strategic objectives of the new board.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister failed to respond to any of the questions asked by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), so I will try again: some companies have expressed an interest in the business, so what discussions is the Minister, or his colleagues, having with potential buyers?
Blair McDougall
We did not take the decision lightly, and we would have preferred commercial options. We are now 11 hours and 12 minutes into ownership of the company. We are deeply committed and open to private sector partnerships to ensure the future of British Steel, and that is an essential and early part of the conversation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, the Minister is positive and giving us encouragement. I welcome the steps that have been taken to secure the wider British steel industry, but I will press the Minister on the critical issue facing manufacturing in Northern Ireland. As the Minister will know, under the Windsor framework, businesses in Northern Ireland are being hit by a double whammy of 50% tariffs on imports exceeding the slashed quotas. That is catastrophic for our engineering firms, so will the Minister commit to urgent discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive and local businesses to resolve the tariff anomaly, protect internal UK trade, and ensure that Northern Ireland’s manufacturing backbone is not broken by an unintended own goal?
Blair McDougall
Having got through this urgent question without making any commitments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, I will give one now and say that I am sure he would agree to the meetings the hon. Gentleman suggests. There are specific arrangements within the trade measures we have taken that are intended to ensure the flow of steel into Northern Ireland, and there is advice for GB companies taking steel products into Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman’s question again highlights the importance of having that ongoing conversation with the EU, because we are not the EU’s problem when it comes to steel, and it is not ours.
Sixth Assimilated Law Report
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Today the Secretary of State has laid a report before Parliament pursuant to the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 and published it on gov.uk. This report updates the House in line with the obligations under section 17 of the REUL Act, which requires a report to be published and laid before Parliament every six months until 23 June 2026 detailing all revocations and reforms of assimilated law. As this is the final (sixth) report being laid before the House, section 17 of the REUL Act removes the requirement to set out the Government’s future plans to revoke and reform assimilated law.
The report today summarises the data on the assimilated law dashboard, providing the public with information about the amount of assimilated law there is and where it sits across Departments. The dashboard was updated for the final time on 14 July 2026 and reflects the position as of 23 June 2026, showing a total of 6,921 instruments of REUL/assimilated law concentrated over approximately 400 unique policy areas. Since the previous update to the dashboard, 133 assimilated law instruments have either been revoked or reformed. In addition, Departments have undertaken further analysis and amended their record of assimilated law. As a result, a net figure of 2,700 instruments have been revoked or reformed in total. Section 17 of the REUL Act does not require the dashboard to be updated beyond the final reporting period of 24 December 2025 to 23 June 2026. As such, tracking and reporting of assimilated law, including publication of the assimilated law dashboard, will now end. After a six-month post-publication period, the dashboard will be taken offline and replaced by a downloadable version of the last dataset on gov.uk.
These steps are deemed proportionate as there is no clear policy rationale for continuing to track assimilated law once the statutory requirement expires. Any reforms to assimilated law would be made to truly support Government priorities.
The report provides details of 46 statutory instruments which were made by the Government using powers under the REUL Act and other domestic legislation since the end of the last reporting period. These statutory instruments amend assimilated law to deliver the Government’s priorities. This includes, for example, The Provision of Services (Amendment and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2026, which support this Government’s pledge to cut the administrative burden of regulation to business by 25% by the end of this Parliament. This statutory instrument supports an open, transparent, and proportionate licensing regime to reduce costs for business.
On 23 June 2026, the majority of REUL Act powers expired. The Government can continue making changes to assimilated law to support the national interest through other domestic legislation. Looking ahead, the Government will progress reform, where desirable, of assimilated law to ensure regulation creates the conditions for sustainable growth whilst upholding consumer and environmental protections.
[HCWS233]
Insolvency Service Annual Plan
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Insolvency Service is the Government agency that delivers public services to those affected by financial distress or failure by providing frameworks to deal with insolvency and the financial misconduct that sometimes accompanies or leads to it.
The Insolvency Service plays a key role underpinning confidence in our financial markets: maximising economic returns to creditors from insolvency situations, supporting those in financial distress, helping them to return to economic activity, and tackling financial wrongdoing through its investigation and enforcement work. Its enforcement role is increasing substantially to meet the Government’s ambitions to tackle economic crime.
This year, the Insolvency Service has reinforced its commitment to supporting businesses and citizens. They are supporting the delivery of the Government’s priorities in supporting regulatory reform, reducing administrative burdens on businesses, and driving forward economic growth, putting more money in people’s pockets and helping to rebuild Britain. This will ensure that the UK is a key destination for investment, with a regulatory regime that is fit for purpose and achieves value for money for the taxpayer. I have asked it to focus on:
Pro-active review of the key regulatory requirements which are placed on the insolvency profession, both to reduce burdens and to enable and facilitate use of new and emerging technologies.
Developing policy proposals to specifically support small and medium-sized businesses and ensure proportionate enforcement action that better supports growth.
Continuous improvement of its service delivery and interface with businesses through investing in and modernising its systems and processes.
The Insolvency Service’s agency plan for 2026 to 2027 will be published in full on gov.uk.
[HCWS231]
Horizon Family Members Redress Scheme: Registration
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
On 19 March, I updated the House about this Government’s preparations to launch a redress scheme for family members of postmasters most affected by the Horizon scandal.
As we approach the anniversary of the publication of volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry report, which recommended that financial redress should be provided to close family members of those most adversely impacted by the Horizon scandal, I want to reassure those awaiting updates that this scheme is progressing and that we remain committed to helping this group.
I am happy to announce that the Horizon family member redress scheme will open for registration on 16 July 2026. This will allow potential applicants to come forward and begin the process by submitting information that will support the assessment of their applications later this autumn. Applicants will be able to access the registration form, alongside further information about the scheme, here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/horizon-family-members-redress-scheme
Guidance for prospective applicants is also available at that link, setting out the type of documents that will be required to demonstrate eligibility once we start to consider claims. This guidance will help applicants to prepare the relevant documents in advance, so they are not unduly held up demonstrating their eligibility.
Processing of cases is expected to begin in the autumn of this year, once the Department has completed the necessary procurement steps to appoint an external supplier to manage this work.
At that point, cases will be dealt with in the order they were received. Those who register now will be among the first to have their cases examined. Those who are unable to register now or wish to wait until a later date are free to do so and this will not impact their cases other than them being considered slightly later.
[HCWS232]
Modern Industrial Strategy: One Year On
Blair McDougall Excerpts(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
One year ago, this Government published the modern industrial strategy, a 10-year plan to increase business investment, drive economic growth and support high-quality jobs across the United Kingdom. The strategy backs the industries that will define the 21st-century economy and tackles the barriers that have too often held back investment, innovation and growth.
Businesses, trade bodies and investors told us that what they needed most was a long-term plan that provided certainty. They also told us that one of the greatest barriers to growth was not ambition, but friction. In response, we have taken action across planning, infrastructure, energy, skills, access to finance, and regulation to make the UK a better place to start, grow and scale a business.
Today, we are publishing a one-year update on delivery of the industrial strategy, setting out how we have taken co-ordinated action to start addressing these barriers to growth. This includes introducing major planning reforms to accelerate infrastructure delivery, reducing energy costs for thousands of firms, improving access to finance for growing businesses, investing in the skills needed by key industries, and strengthening the support available to companies seeking to start, scale and stay in the United Kingdom. Twelve months on, businesses are beginning to see the benefits of a more joined-up approach to Government, with over £380 billion of private investment commitments secured, more than 155,000 jobs supported, and reforms under way to remove barriers to growth across the economy.
The Industrial Strategy Advisory Council continues to play an important role in advising on delivery of the strategy and maintaining a long-term focus on implementation. In January we announced the appointment of Amelia Gould, Keith Anderson and Dana Strong to the council, and in April confirmed that Clare Barclay would continue to serve as chair. We are now confirming that Aislinn Rice, Dame Diane Coyle, the right hon. Greg Clark, Greg Jackson, Henrik L. Pedersen, Henry G. Overman, Kate Bell, Roy Rickhuss, Tunde Olanrewaju and Dame Nancy Rothwell (deputy chair) will continue to serve as members of the council. Chris Grigg, chair of the National Wealth Fund, and Phil Smith, chair of Skills England, will also continue as ex-officio members.
Supporting growth also means ensuring that regulation works for businesses and investors. Alongside the industrial strategy update, we are reporting on progress under the regulation action plan and introducing a new regulator sponsorship charter and growth goals for regulators, marking a shift from ambition to delivery. Our approach is clear: we are regulating for jobs, growth and investment, ensuring the UK’s regulatory system actively supports economic expansion, innovation and competitiveness.
We committed to reduce the annual administrative burden of regulation by 25% by the end of this Parliament, equivalent to £5.6 billion in savings. We have already identified £2 billion in net annual savings, with £1.5 billion delivered and a further £0.6 billion in progress—we are now over a third of the way to our target.
Alongside reducing burdens, we are enabling innovation. Later this year, we will introduce legislation to create regulatory sandboxes, allowing businesses to test new products and services safely in controlled environments and providing clear pathways to market.
Sandboxes are being developed across key sectors, including AI, life sciences, maritime autonomy and last-mile delivery, helping ensure that the UK s areas of greatest opportunity are also its fastest-moving.
The regulator sponsorship charter and growth goals for regulators will further embed a pro-growth mindset across the regulatory system. This will ensure that regulators actively support innovation, investment and economic expansion alongside their core duties.
This marks a shift towards a more flexible, responsive way of regulating that keeps pace with innovation, rather than relying on fixed rules that can quickly become outdated. It means moving from barriers to pathways, from risk aversion to managed experimentation so that innovation can be tested, refined and scaled in the UK.
One year on, the industrial strategy is beginning to give businesses the certainty and confidence to invest, grow and create jobs. By working in partnership with industry, we are backing the sectors, technologies and places that will drive future prosperity, while building a more resilient economy in an increasingly uncertain world. Regulatory reform supports that wider mission, helping ensure that businesses can bring new ideas to market more quickly and seize the opportunities of the industries of the future. As we enter year two, we will continue to strengthen the conditions for investment and growth across the United Kingdom through the industrial strategy.
[HCWS199]
Summer Jobs
Blair McDougall Excerpts(2 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) for his excellent speech. I agree with everything he just said. This is a really important debate, and the motion put forward by His Majesty’s Opposition is so significant for young people. I am the most worried I have ever been for young people and their prospects. Although I do not doubt the intentions of many Labour Members who have spoken, I sense a massive disconnect in Government policy. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) spoke about the triple whammy, and I will come on to some of those points, although I am conscious of time.
There is a massive disconnect between what the Government say that they are doing and the reality on the ground. Businesses in my constituency increasingly tell me that they cannot take on young people because the costs are so high. On the recent polling day, a business owner came up to me while I was knocking on doors and said, “I just don’t know if it’s worth it any more.” It struck me what a sad state of affairs that is: someone is grafting away and running a small business; he wants to do the right thing and hire people, and he is unable to do so. That is significant.
Three things have had a huge impact on the labour market. If there had been just one intervention, there would have been some impact. It is basic economics that interference in the labour market will have a consequence: naturally, business owners must make logical decisions and will decide to adjust their employment numbers accordingly; they will do what they can afford, and they must make a profit. But there has been a triple whammy with the impact of business rates, national insurance—the jobs tax—and the Employment Rights Act, possibly the single most damaging piece of legislation to business from any Government. We will see the impact of that.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) asked which bits of the ERA the Opposition would repeal. Well, I would repeal everything that has to do with the liberation of trade unions. That legislation is not about employment rights; it is a love letter to trade unions. It is there to ensure that trade unions and the hand of the state can interfere with private enterprise. We are starting to see the consequences, which will only increase. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made this argument logically and eloquently, but when a business owner must make a decision—he used the hypothetical example of the 18-year-old and the 30-year-old—they will of course take the individual with more experience. That individual requires less training, has proven that they are resilient, and has proven that the opportunity cost of hiring them is much lower than with the 18-year-old.
When I ran a business, I loved hiring apprentices and young people—they had a hunger—but small businesses can only do that within the parameters of what is affordable and within the profit they can project. The consequence of the Government’s policies is that youth unemployment is high, at 14.5%—much higher than when they took office in 2024—and among 16 to 17-year-olds it is 30.7%. Those are huge numbers, and I worry about them.
I recently held a debate in Westminster Hall on the impact of the Government’s policies on rural pubs. As has been alluded to, hospitality, leisure and retail are great employers—not just for Saturday jobs, but of young people generally. The impact of those policies has meant that, if those pubs are staying open, they are not able to hire more young people. It is going the opposite way. We are seeing the impact.
As a number of hon. Members have said, there is dignity in having work. It gives young people the soft skills—or the soft-hard skills, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said—and gives them an opportunity to get ready for life. There might be other, structural issues, such as getting on the work ladder, but that first job has such a positive impact on young people. We have heard about sweeping floors, but whatever the job, it ensures they are able to work.
I still remember a 16-year-old I hired once. He did not have his tie done up or his shirt tucked in, but I took a risk on him—and it was a risk, because I had to train him up. I said to him, “Young man, you’re going to have to tuck your shirt in and do your tie up.” Only two years later, when a grad came in for interview, he told them, “Tuck your shirt in, and do your tie up.” That just made me laugh—I thought, “Look how far that young individual has come on.” He went on to do other forms of employment, go up the job ladder and get higher wages. I take great pride in all the young people I employed and trained.
Flexibility in the labour market is important, as is ensuring that the Government do not increase the burden on businesses. I come back to the disconnect. The Minister who opened the debate, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who I have a great deal of time for, made a valiant effort—
Saqib Bhatti
I have lots of time for the Minister who will be closing the debate as well, but I have not heard him speak yet, so I will reserve judgment.
The hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore made a valiant effort at defending the Government’s record, but he did not acknowledge that the unemployment rate has gone up—as a natural consequence of the Government’s interventions—and there is no indication of how they are going to get it down. With the best will in the world—however much money they spend training people up and doing interventions—if businesses are not hiring, the unemployment rate will stay where it is. I invite the Minister to address that point in his closing speech. What reassurances will he give to 16-year-olds, 18-year-olds and other young people who want hope and want to build their lives?
I will end in a moment, because my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) wants to speak. Recently, I was at the opening of the Bluebell Wood café in north Solihull. It was an idea that I came up with, and I worked with Andy Street, the former Mayor of the West Midlands. Hospitality is a big employer in my constituency—we have the National Exhibition Centre, the largest regional hotel, the Hilton Metropole, and many other businesses—and they all talk about the need for skills. We talked to University College Birmingham about bringing to north Solihull a training restaurant that would train top-level chefs and “maître d’s”. When I cut the ribbon, the main chef said that they were training level 1 apprentices to do level 3 work. I invite you to come and visit, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you would like—top football clubs and top restaurateurs go there to recruit. But there have to be jobs at the end of the line.
This is so important. I urge the Government to reflect on their policies and consider the impact they have had on the future prospects of young people.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to close this debate after so many thoughtful contributions from hon. Members across the House. Many difficult questions have been raised. I thought of following the example of the soon-to-be-former hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) in just resigning to avoid those difficult questions—[Interruption.]. I will resist the encouragement.
It has been fantastic to listen to hon. Members talking about their own experience of Saturday and summer jobs. It allowed me to imagine the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) running around with multiple plates balanced on her arms, and the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Blake Stephenson) getting busy with his chamois. I pictured the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden), who I belatedly welcome to his position, as a postie in shorts, fighting the rain coming off the North sea. I pictured the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) with long, flowing locks getting busy scrubbing pots in the Italian sunshine. That was important, because it allowed me to picture Conservative MPs doing something productive. More importantly and seriously, it was a reminder of the importance of our first employment experiences in making ourselves into fully rounded human beings and workers.
My job was working on Saturdays before going to university and in the summers at Beveridge fishmongers’ in Giffnock. The antisocial teenager in me would want to be in the back of the shop filleting something, but every time a customer came in I had to remake myself and find confidence all over again. It is in no way an overstatement to say that all the Saturday and summer jobs that hon. Members have spoken about are why we are all here. They gave us that first chance and opportunity to find confidence in ourselves, as many hon. and right hon. Members have said.
However, I will caution Conservative Members. Yes, this is about experience and people finding an opportunity and, as some have said, avoiding the long-term scarring effect of youth unemployment, but for many young workers this is about paying the bills. These jobs are not a nice additional thing. I think of the young woman with a family who I met; she had a zero-hours contract and simply did not know from month to month whether she would be able to pay her rent or take her kids to anything special.
My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) spoke powerfully about how insecurity in the workplace is linked to the health of the economy. When people’s incomes are hollowed out, it hollows out the centre of our towns and ends up in the empty high street shops that we see.
Rebecca Smith
The Minister makes a very interesting point about city centres being hollowed out, but the main thrust of this debate is about young people doing summer jobs before they go back to school or university in the autumn. They are the very young people who would ordinarily take those wages to buy a hot chocolate in Lorenzo’s, like I used to, or to go and buy the new pair of trainers that they have saved up for. If they do not have a job in the first place and do not come from a family in which their parents can subsidise all those things, they miss out on that opportunity. While I accept the point he is making, will he accept the point I am making? The very thing we are discussing this afternoon is part of that problem, and removing those young people from the market altogether will not help.
Blair McDougall
The reason I am responding to the debate by talking about the impact of zero-hours contracts is that Conservative Member after Conservative Member rose to speak in defence of those contracts. Of course, many people value flexibility in the workplace, but some employers have used that flexibility to take advantage of their employees, including young employees.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Summer jobs are really important, as are summer schools. Will the Minister join me in welcoming students from the Burnley summer school, who join us in the Gallery today, and will he perhaps include in his speech the fact that over the Tories’ time in power from 2010 to 2024, 7,500 pubs closed across Britain—many of them in Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield—meaning that those jobs just did not exist for people?
Blair McDougall
I am very happy to welcome that summer school from the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting that into Hansard. I also congratulate him on teaching those students a lesson about the hypocrisy from the Conservative Benches, which they will get used to.
Many hon. Members spoke about seasonal workers as if the legislation was somehow going to force seasonal contracts to be permanent contracts. That is simply not the case—where people genuinely value that flexibility in the workplace, they will be able to continue to work in that way.
Douglas Lumsden
The Minister speaks about zero-hours contracts almost as if they are the devil’s work. Does he accept that those contracts give people the flexibility they want when they are doing a job? For a lot of people, a zero-hours contract fits in with their lifestyle; they do not want to be committed to working so many hours a week.
Blair McDougall
Where the workers that the hon. Member describes feel that way, they will not have to change their contracts. We are talking about the people who work for the same employer as their main job, week after week, without any certainty of income. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said that only 3% of workers rely on a zero-hours contract as their main job. That is one in 25 workers. [Interruption.] In his constituency, there are 60,000 people of working age, meaning that hundreds of people in his constituency do not have the right to regular hours.
Blair McDougall
I will take the right hon. Member’s intervention. Maybe he can say why he thinks those hundreds of workers in his constituency should not have the right to full-time employment.
Damian Hinds
I can tell the Minister that 3% is a relatively small percentage of 100%, and many of those people are students. The Labour party used to speak about zero-hours contracts as if they were taking over the entire economy, but that is simply not true—they are a perfectly legitimate form of employment that works for some people. I described the situation of my constituents who have one zero-hours contract at their term-time address and another at their home address. What is wrong with that? If it works for the employer and for the employee, why is Labour so against that flexibility?
Blair McDougall
Those people will still be able to have those contracts under the legislation, but we are talking about potentially hundreds of people in the right hon. Member’s constituency—that was his formulation—who rely on zero-hours contracts as their main form of employment, with no certainty of income from month to month. That cannot go on in this country; it is fundamentally unfair.
Several Conservative Members mentioned business rates, which the Government take incredibly seriously. The Conservative party began the revaluation without any plans whatsoever for any transitional support or relief for the people affected by it; Labour introduced a support package worth £4.3 billion to protect ratepayers from seeing large overnight bill increases because of that revaluation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) said, over half of ratepayers will see no bill increases this year, and 23% will see their bills go down. Plenty of arguments could be made about whether we have gone far enough and how far our continued reforms of business rates should continue, and my colleagues in the Treasury will do that, but for members of a party that had no plans for any relief whatsoever to be saying now that they will spend £4 billion on abolishing those rates altogether, without saying where it will come from, is frankly ridiculous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) mentioned the great British savings this summer, and made a very fair request for those in the Treasury, as they look at the overall impact of that, to look at the impact on individual young people as well.
Many Opposition Members rightly raised the impact of increased national insurance contributions. As I have said before from the Dispatch Box, we recognise that that was a big ask of business, but what it did was say to the international money markets that we were a serious country again. That has been seen in lower mortgages, and in lower borrowing rates for businesses. I understand the genuine concern expressed by Opposition Members about the impact on youth employment, but I would say that it is at best a partial explanation, given that employers of workers under the age of 21 and those employing young apprentices do not pay national insurance.
The hon. Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green suggested that whenever a Government add to existing business costs, we should think about the cumulative impact rather than viewing it in isolation, and that is an entirely fair argument. Every time we ask something of businesses, that gives us in government a further incentive and, indeed, responsibility to do more to remove costs from them. That is precisely why, through the £2.5 billion youth guarantee package, businesses are being given a £3,000 incentive to employ 18 to 24-year-olds who are at risk of long-term unemployment, a £2,000 incentive to hire foundational apprentices, a further £2,000 to hire apprentices aged between 16 and 24, and fully funded costs for 16 to 24-year-old apprentices. That, of course, is on top of all the other work that we are doing to reduce the costs on business.
Rebecca Smith
I am glad that the Minister has brought up the subject of fully funded apprenticeships for those under 25. As soon as that was announced, an electrician in my constituency contacted me and said, “That is all well and good, but I still have to pay the higher wages.” Although such businesses are not paying national insurance, this is not as free, or as cheap, as the Government maintain. Will the Minister accept that it is not 100% correct to say that these are fully funded apprenticeships, because those businesses still have to pay increased salaries?
Blair McDougall
As was said earlier, we believe that people working full time should be able to afford the basics in life. My point is that we are dealing with the issue of youth unemployment by incentivising businesses to employ young people.
Many Opposition Members mentioned red tape. They will not have to wait terribly long to see the work that the Secretary of State and I have been doing to reduce the administrative burden on business. Many others spoke about additional costs being imposed on business. Let me remind them that our target to reduce that administrative burden by £5.6 billion is a net target, and they will not have to wait very long to see the progress that we have made in that regard.
David Reed
The Minister is coming out with these great plans. Can he confirm that the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) agrees with them, and will implement them when he becomes Prime Minister?
Blair McDougall
Of course he does. It is in the Labour party manifesto. He has spoken about backing our industrial strategy, and this is an incredibly important part of it.
The hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) spoke about how beautiful his constituency was. [Interruption.] Yes, I know—I am looking at him. Later this month I shall be on my way to a holiday in Cornwall, and perhaps I will stop off in his constituency with my family. So many Opposition Members spoke of our imposing a tourism tax on local areas, but there will be no such imposition. This is devolution, allowing local areas to decide whether they want to invest in that or not.
I can confirm that we will not move our amendment, but this Government are proud to be taking employment law into the 21st century, proud that we are rebalancing business rates for smaller businesses to help young people get jobs, and proud that we are backing our high streets. We have commissioned Alan Milburn to investigate the high level of youth unemployment, and we look forward to the publication of his final report in the autumn. The report will be backed by evidence and the real experiences of young people in a changing labour market. What it will not be based on is outdated, Dickensian ideas of getting 13-year-olds working late into the night before school. This Labour Government will act, and these reforms will deliver the national renewal that our country needs.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I put the Question, let me say that it is a shame that those at the Burnley summer school have left. The Minister will want to be careful about using the word “hypocrisy” in the Chamber.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House regrets the combination of the rise in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025, and the regulations that make it more difficult for young people to get their first job; further regrets the destructive impact that the Government’s policies have had on entry-level, flexible and seasonal work in particular; also regrets the Government’s plans to give Mayors powers to introduce an overnight visitor levy, making staycations in England less attractive and less affordable, while risking jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries that depend on domestic visitors; calls on the Government to change course to support summer jobs, flexible working and seasonal work, on which the hospitality, leisure and retail sectors depend; and further calls on the Government to abolish business rates for high street businesses, to boost the economy and save summer jobs.
Oral Answers to Questions
Blair McDougall Excerpts(3 weeks, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this vital sector for island economies. Whisky exports were worth over £5.4 billion in 2025, supporting jobs and supply chains across Scotland. We are supporting distillers through UK Export Finance, DBT’s export support, trade promotion and direct engagement with the industry to help businesses, including small distilleries, to grow, invest and reach new markets.
Torcuil Crichton
Distilleries in my constituency—I count nine of them—overwhelmingly rely on kerosene heating oil to make their product. Since President Trump’s folly in Iran, they have seen costs rise by 18%. It is not just the distilleries; seaweed manufacturing, chemical processing at Callanish and the iconic Harris tweed industry all rely on kerosene heating oil to make their products. Domestic consumers in the islands are helped by generous support from the Government, but can the Minister outline what the UK Government can do to help these energy-reliant industries that keep hundreds of jobs in Na h-Eileanan an Iar keep on going?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend knows that at this time of year, my heart is in Uist, and I wish I was there now sampling a gin cocktail from the Downpour distillery—my favourite of the nine distilleries he mentioned. We are determined to support energy-intensive industries such as his local distillers. The supercharger for British industry is being reviewed this year, and we are keen to hear from the whisky industry as we review that support. As he says, many distilleries are off-grid and heavily reliant on heating fuels, and are suffering from the Iran war. That is why we are considering the temporary suspension of tariffs on kerosene oil. The consultation on that ended a few days ago, and we will make a decision on it in due course.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
Earlier this year in my constituency, the much-loved brand Slingsby Gin went into administration. A cocktail of different things added to the pressure on the business. Will the Minister wish the new owners of Slingsby Gin, Chris and Asma Williams, good luck in their new venture, and tell me what steps the Government are taking to support them going forward?
Blair McDougall
I absolutely wish the hon. Member’s constituents all the best. It is entrepreneurial spirit like that that drives the economy forward. I will give one example of the support: there is a big extension of UK export finance so that such businesses can find new markets, because the best way to become a more resilient business is for them to open up and diversify their markets. I will gladly put his constituents in touch with people at UK Export Finance to discuss that.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Mr Connor Rand (Altrincham and Sale West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
This Government are determined to tackle the scourge of late payments, which closes down the equivalent of 38 businesses every day. The Commercial Payments Bill was introduced to Parliament on 19 May and had its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 9 June. This legislation sets out stricter maximum payment terms, mandatory interest on late payments and stronger powers for the Small Business Commissioner to ensure that small businesses are paid on time. That will give the UK the strongest legal framework on late payments in the G7.
Mr Rand
Small businesses are at the heart of Altrincham and Sale West, and when I meet them, often alongside the Altrincham district improvement board, they tell me that one of the biggest problems they face is late payments. Can the Minister explain further how this Government’s action on mandatory interest rates and to force large firms to pay up within 60 days is a win for my high street?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend always fights hard for small businesses in his patch. This Bill will ensure that purchasers pay suppliers within 60 days and that mandatory interest is paid on late invoices. For too long, large businesses have used small businesses as a source of free credit. That will end under these plans. That will mean better cash flow for businesses in his constituency, more jobs, more economic growth and better high streets.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Small rural businesses in villages such as Pembridge in my constituency tell me that the combination of high business and VAT rates and rising national insurance contributions means they are facing a struggle for survival. Small rural businesses face greater pressure than their urban counterparts, with lower footfall and seasonal fluctuations in trade, so they operate with very tight margins. Does the Minister recognise the additional pressures faced by such businesses and that existing support schemes simply are not enough, and what more will he do to support businesses in constituencies such as mine?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Of course, we recognise that this has been not just a tough time for small businesses, but a tough decade for those running one. That is exactly why our small business strategy is improving access to markets for small businesses, improving access to finance for small businesses, and cutting the regulatory burden on small businesses. We will of course keep doing more to make it easier, simpler and more profitable to run one.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
In early 2025, Rutland police caught a local shop owner red-handed with a carload of illegal fake cigarettes. Since then, I have reported this to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the police and trading standards, and nothing has happened. Will the Minister please haul in trading standards, because this individual runs two shops in my constituency, which are both still open, attracting in children and encouraging the sale of vapes? That is wrong, and such shops are clearly part of the black economy.
Blair McDougall
It is infuriating when we see bogus businesses forcing legitimate, valued, independent retailers out of our high streets. The hon. Member will be aware of Operation Machinize, through which we have put significant resources into tackling the type of crime she raises. That is becoming a permanent approach under this Government. For my part, I am constantly meeting Companies House and the Insolvency Service to talk about how we can improve our enforcement efforts to force these bogus businesses out of our high streets and create space for legitimate businesses.
Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend raises a really important issue. With the issues around Morrisons Daily and TGJones, a lot of people across the country are worried about the future of their local post offices. Under the decision we made to maintain the current size of the post office network, I have been talking to the Post Office, and it is clear that where there is a risk of disruption that does not mean the service will disappear. Around the country, where there is the potential for a closure, it is advertising for alternative sub-postmasters to take over the businesses.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I welcome the appointment of Parminder Kohli as the chief executive officer of the Office for Investment. He is a personal friend of mine, and he will bring 30 years of experience in the oil industry. Will the Secretary of State set out what measures of success Parminder will face, so we can judge what impact the Office for Investment makes and what role he will play?
Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Blair McDougall Excerpts(3 weeks, 5 days ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
These regulations, which were laid in draft before this House on 1 June 2026, make targeted and technical amendments to strengthen the transparency and operation of the register of overseas entities, which I will refer to as the ROE or the register from here. They also correct a separate technical issue relating to limited liability partnerships, or LLPs.
Hon. Members will be aware that the ROE was introduced in 2022 as part of the Government’s efforts to increase transparency in land ownership and combat economic crime. It is a public register maintained by Companies House that requires overseas entities that own or acquire land in the United Kingdom to disclose information about their beneficial owners or managing officers.
The register plays an important role in shedding light on complex ownership structures and in supporting action against illicit activity. Information on the register has been used by law enforcement, journalists and other parties examining corruption, money laundering and assets held by sanctioned individuals.
Appropriate safeguards are in place through a protection regime that includes the ability to apply to Companies House to have a home address removed from the register. As part of the application, individuals are required to provide supporting evidence to confirm that the address on the register is indeed their residential address. However, in most cases, the registrar is able to identify and verify that information internally. Furthermore, there is currently no requirement for applicants to provide a replacement correspondence address. This results in a gap in the information available on the public register.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
I agree with the principles put forward in the regulations, but I am a little concerned about the regulations allowing overseas beneficial owners to suppress their residential address. Could the Minister reassure us on how the Government will prevent dirty money from flowing into the UK?
Blair McDougall
Yes, I will come on to that. The hon. Gentleman will hopefully find reassurance shortly that that information will still be gathered.
Part 2 of these regulations streamlines the application process; applicants will no longer be required to provide supporting evidence when applying to remove a home address that appears on the public ROE. This removes an unnecessary administrative burden for applicants. The regulations also introduce a requirement for applicants to provide a replacement service address to be displayed on the public register, except in very limited circumstances. Taken together, these changes bring the ROE protection regime more closely in line with the approach taken with UK companies.
Part 3 of the regulations includes changes to the ROE’s trust disclosure service, which enables members of the public to apply to Companies House to access unpublished trust information held on the register. Under the current application process, individuals must provide their own details, as well as the overseas entity’s name and ID number. These details relating to the entity are publicly available on the register. However, applicants must also provide the name of the trust that they are requesting information on. The name of the trust is not publicly available on the register, and many applicants are therefore unlikely to have this information, which leads to rejected applications.
In addition, where an application relates to trust information involving a person under the age of 18, the applicant must demonstrate a legitimate interest. This is demonstrated by evidencing that the applicant is investigating money laundering, tax evasion, terrorist financing or sanctions breaches. However, currently, when that is not demonstrated, all associated trust information is withheld, including information relating to adults, so those requirements can act as a barrier to accessing trust information and limit the effectiveness of the service.
The instrument therefore makes two targeted changes to the trust disclosure service to improve public access while maintaining appropriate safeguards. First, it removes the requirement for all applicants to provide the name of the trust when requesting access to trust information. This addresses a key barrier for making a successful application.
Secondly, the instrument makes a further change where trust information involves a person under the age of 18. Where legitimate interest is not demonstrated, the regulations enable Companies House to disclose trust information related to any individual over 18 years old. This ensures that access to information is not unnecessarily restricted because an individual under 18 years old is associated with the trust. Access to trust information relating to those aged under 18 will continue to require a legitimate interest. Together these changes improve the transparency of trust information on the register and enable more effective scrutiny while maintaining appropriate protection for minors.
Finally, part 4 of the instrument makes a limited and technical correction to the LLP framework. The requirement to provide additional address information in certain circumstances was inadvertently introduced ahead of schedule. The instrument therefore removes the requirement for LLPs to provide additional address information. However, this requirement will be reinstated once appropriate systems are in place to collect the information for companies and LLPs, and work is ongoing to achieve that. In the meantime, other address information is available on the public register for all LLPs.
Taken together, these measures improve the transparency and practical operation of the ROE while resolving a small but necessary technical issue relating to LLPs. I commend the draft regulations to the House.
Blair McDougall
I thank both Front Benchers for their constructive and helpful questions. They both eloquently set out why this matters.
Turning to their specific questions, as of June, 29 applications had been received. Of those, nine were successful, 19 were rejected and one is currently being considered. With regards to worries about the abuse of trust in the service, we recognise the risks associated with trust structures, partly because their anonymity makes assets easier to hide. The Government also recognise the important role that law enforcement and the public can play in helping to mitigate those risks through greater transparency.
Access to trust information is subject to a £55 fee per overseas entry. That creates a deterrent for the type of misuse that the shadow Minister was worried about. When the original draft instrument was laid, as was said before, the structures were in place in Companies House for the recording of that information. Hon. Members on all sides of the House will recognise—not least because of the huge volume of economic crime legislation that has been passed in this place—that there are very heavy burdens on Companies House, as was said by the hon. Member for Maidenhead, and many systems that must be in place. I cannot give a precise date at the moment, but Companies House is working at pace on that.
On the question of looking backwards, the regulations do not have a retrospective impact. I would point to the review that is being undertaken by Dame Margaret Hodge, which looks at the wider issue of economic crime and our approach to transparency. Having responded to those questions, I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Small Business Regulatory Taskforce
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
When regulation works for small business, it works for all. I am committed to ensuring the Government provide the best assistance to those brave enough to start a business and it is only right our regulatory environment supports entrepreneurs. It is for that reason that I am today announcing the establishment of the small business regulatory taskforce. The taskforce has been commissioned by His Majesty’s Government to develop recommendations that will target reducing regulatory burdens faced by small and medium-sized enterprises, including microbusinesses. The taskforce will first meet on 11 June.
These recommendations will drive forwards our work to reduce the administrative burden of regulation by 25% and build on commitments in our small business plan to make life easier to start, run and grow your business in the UK. Small businesses are central to the UK economy. Yet far too often they face disproportionate regulatory and administrative burdens. Evidence gathered by the Department for Business and Trade’s business questionnaire shows that complexity, duplication and inconsistent guidance across regulators can make it harder for smaller firms to comply and grow. This Government are determined to reduce unnecessary burdens on business while maintaining vital protections for workers, consumers, the environment and the wider public interest. The taskforce will seek to improve the clarity and usability of regulation in a way that looks to support and increase innovation, productivity and growth across the SME economy
I will co-chair the taskforce, in my capacity as Minister for Small Business alongside Tina McKenzie, Chair of Policy and Advocacy at the Federation of Small Businesses. It will bring together voices from business, industry and Government to identify evidence-based reforms that can improve the operation, clarity and proportionality of regulation for SMEs. The composition of the taskforce reflects a broad cross-section of the SME economy and will consult on members’ views and suggestions throughout the duration of the process. In doing so, it will build on the success of the 2025 licensing taskforce and help apply the lessons learnt from the John Fingleton-led nuclear regulatory review across the wider economy. The taskforce’s work is expected to include consideration of issues such as modernising regulatory submissions, embedding more SME-friendly approaches to guidance, exploring regulatory passporting initiatives, reviewing the impact of enforcement across regulators and local authorities as well as examining what more Government can do to support SMEs with the capability, resource and technology needed for compliance.
The taskforce is expected to run through the summer, with recommendations and a Government response to be provided in autumn.
[HCWS96]
Companies House Accounts Reforms
Blair McDougall Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 included measures to reform how companies report information and what information they report when filing their annual accounts with Companies House.
The reforms include:
Requiring small companies and micro entities to file profit and loss accounts with Companies House as other companies do;
removing the option for companies to file abridged accounts;
a strengthened eligibility statement for all companies claiming an audit exemption;
the ability for the registrar to require all companies to file accounts via software—using inline extensible business reporting language (iXBRL) format; and
requiring component parts of the filed accounts and reports to all be filed together.
We also plan to bring forward secondary legislation to reduce the number of times a company can shorten its accounting reference period and introduce annotations to the register where a company has not complied with a notice regarding compliance of its accounts with the requirements of the Companies Act 2006.
ECCTA 2023 also included a requirement for small companies to file a directors’ report. However, as part of the Government’s modernising of corporate reporting programme, the Government announced that we will remove the requirement for any company to produce a directors’ report as part of their annual report and accounts. This change will therefore no longer apply.
The accounts reforms seek to improve the transparency, accuracy and reliability of data on the companies register, to inform business decisions, modernise practices in line with other countries, and tackle economic crime.
In June 2025, Companies House communicated that the reforms would be implemented in April 2027. This sparked some concern about the impact some of the reforms might have on businesses. As a result, we paused implementation to take time to engage with a range of stakeholders.
We have listened carefully to stakeholders’ concerns and after some consideration have taken the decision to proceed with the reforms, but with two changes.
First, we are proceeding with requiring small companies and micro-entities to file profit and loss accounts, but they will be able to opt out of having these published on the public register. We have taken this decision in response to concerns from the business and investment community around the commercial risks for smaller companies of disclosing this information, and the potential impact on investment opportunities.
Details of how smaller companies can opt out of publication will be confirmed in due course. Companies who wish to enjoy the benefits of publication, such as improved access to finance and enhanced transparency, can still do so.
Where a company opts out of publishing their profit and loss accounts, Companies House, law enforcement and His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will still have access to identify and tackle fraud, economic crime and tax evasion.
Second, to give companies and software providers more time to prepare, we will postpone implementing these reforms by one year, from April 2027 to April 2028.
We will also proceed with mandating accounts filing in iXBRL format from April 2028. This will improve the quality of financial data for register users and provide more opportunities over time for companies’ accounts data to be aggregated, compared and subjected to analysis in different ways for use more widely.
We will continue to engage with stakeholders as we prepare the necessary secondary legislation and proceed to implement these important reforms.
[HCWS94]