British Steel

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Thursday 16th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[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.

Ceramics Industry

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 6th July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate the petitioner on securing 109,000 signatures, as well as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) on introducing it.

I thought that when I had written a speech about bricks, I would be the only Member to talk about them, but then I noticed that the hon. Members for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) were present and realised that I would definitely not be. Bricks are the nation’s favourite building material. They are durable, beautiful and woven into every constituency across the United Kingdom. In any of our constituencies, we can walk past beautiful brick-built homes and terraces built to last—many of them more than a century old, still standing, loved and lived in.

That concerns the first point I want to make to the Minister. A recent report published by Create Streets set out a serious issue about how we measure carbon in new homes. The standard assessment assumes that the building will last only 60 years. As we know, bricks do not last 60 years. Assess a brick over a realistic lifespan—120 years or more—and they perform significantly better on whole-life carbon. By baking in a 60-year assumption, the standard systematically makes bricks look higher carbon than they are and favours materials that look low carbon on day one but may need significantly more maintenance, replacement or even demolition early in the planning process. The short-termism of that standard is penalising one of the most durable, repairable materials that we have. This cost is being placed on factories. According to reports, domestic production has fallen from about 2 billion bricks not many years ago, to 1.3 billion in 2024. That is a 32% reduction in just a few years.

The sector supports thousands of skilled jobs and is worth more than £1 billion. We have seen some brick factories closing already, and if more follow, we must make sure that we do not simply import bricks, adding risk to the supply chain and transport emissions while hollowing out our British industry. That, unfortunately, is being made harder, not easier, for British manufacturers. The UK is already the single largest importer of Indian bricks, and the trade agreement that the Government have signed with India will take away the remaining protected tariffs on those bricks imported to zero.

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman rightly points out the Indian trade deal. He is right about the environmental and economic impact, but there is also the social impact. Too many factories making those bricks over in India and Pakistan are using what we would consider modern slavery and indentured labour. Additionally, efficacy surely ought to be at the forefront of any decision that the Minister makes about how we build houses in this country.

[Mr Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman is correct about the social impact, with modern slavery used in bricks coming from outside the United Kingdom. The Business and Trade Committee recently heard about how, although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was a good start and had the full support of the House, the declaration requirements within it are not strong enough. A company can import things potentially made by modern slaves and satisfy the requirements, so we need to see a new piece of legislation to ensure that companies cannot import items that they know or feel have been made using slavery.

We must also ask what the British public actually want to see in buildings. In visual preference research, bricks were preferred by 60% of the population when asked to compare two proposed buildings: one made out of bricks and one not. That is very clear across age, gender, religion and political affiliation. We are trying to build more homes, but pushing developers away from building with the material that the majority of the British public want to live in.

Brickmakers are caught in the same energy trap as all the ceramics sector. Firing clay takes enormous heat, and that heat comes from gas, but because the Government’s flagship energy relief policy is designed around electricity, gas-intensive makers are largely excluded. The same industry is squeezed from multiple directions: a penalising carbon standard is undervaluing its products, we are shutting out suppliers in the United Kingdom and favouring suppliers overseas, and then there is the energy-intensive issue.

I have four questions for the Minister. First, will he work with colleagues across Government to review the 60-year reference period for whole life carbon assessments and adopt a longer, more realistic lifespan so that we do not by accident create a de facto ban on bricks? Secondly, will the Government commit that sustainability standards will not rule out quality, durable, repairable materials that people love? Thirdly, will the Minister support cleaner brick production here at home rather than importing bricks from overseas, which sends the jobs and the emissions abroad? Fourthly, will the gas-intensive brick and ceramics industry finally be given the proper support that it needs via the Government’s supercharger scheme, so that its firms can compete on a level playing field? Bricks are not relics; they are well used, beautiful, durable, repairable and genuinely part of what makes Britain great. We should be building more homes and neighbourhoods that last for our children and our grandchildren, and stop penalising the material that does exactly that.

Draft Register of Overseas Entities (Protection and Trusts) and Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Company Law) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 General Committees

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Tackling economic crime and financial secrecy is vital for our economic and national security. The registration of overseas entities is an important step in improving ownership transparency, and we welcome any measures that make it work better in practice.

However, I note with concern the temporary removal of the LLP address reporting requirements. The Government have stated that the reason is that Companies House systems are not yet equipped to receive and process that information, but that raises broader questions about pace and resourcing in Companies House more generally. We have known for a significant period of time that it has been underperforming, under-resourced and not doing what it should be in the appropriate manner. Having some transparency and clarity from the Minister would be beneficial.

The Government must set out a clear and binding timetable for when the LLP reporting requirements will be reinstated, and ensure that Companies House receives the investment that it needs to deliver the reforms that Parliament has already passed. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify that.

Steel Tariffs: Northern Ireland

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Businesses across Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are concerned that from tomorrow they may face tariffs on the steel that they are importing even if that steel is not manufactured in the United Kingdom in the quantities or grades they need. The Under-Secretary has requested that we write to him with specific examples, and I did so on 19 June on behalf of Hewland Engineering in my constituency, but it is concerned that it has not heard back yet and 1 July is coming quickly.

The Minister mentioned in his response to the urgent question that he was working hard to ensure a single market in this area between us and the European Union. The Liberal Democrats are really grateful to hear that, because we have long argued that this friction is an inevitable result of our leaving the European Union and the single market. Will he help support the Liberal Democrats’ campaign to ditch the Government’s red lines and have a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union, along with joining the single market for our new growth and defence partnership with the EU, to help protect British companies and help get Britain growing again?

[Chris Bryant]

He’s a cheeky one! No, I am not going to sign up to the Lib Dem campaign. However, there is a serious point here: it would be much better if the UK and the EU were to have a mutual exemption in relation to quotas and tariffs in this area. I have made the point already, but I will make it again: we are not the problem for EU steel manufacture and it is not the problem for us. The real problem is about overcapacity, and all the countries in the world that are facing this same issue should be joining together to try to tackle it.

I was asked a question about the Trade Remedies Authority. I am not aware of a particular company in Northern Ireland having approached anybody about whether a TRA investigation should be launched, but certainly there are areas where steel production in the UK could look at whether a trade remedy ought to be sought.

Steel Tariffs

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris McDonald]

There are issues with category 1, and I am looking at that. As I mentioned before, the uncertainty is unfortunate, but my hon. Friend will understand why it is there. I am aware that some businesses have been told by their stock holders that all their steels will be subject to a tariff, but that is not always the case. I can be generous and say that stock holders are perhaps also suffering some uncertainty and want to protect their own businesses, but I ask them to look very carefully at the codes. If they need some help with that, my officials stand ready to support them.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Firms such as Hewland Engineering in Maidenhead face a 50% tariff on their specialist steel, but there is no approved British supplier to make the grades they need. That is not a steel strategy, but a tax on British manufacturing. I know the Minister understands their concerns, so will he go further and exempt categories for which there is no realistic British manufacturing or supply?

Single Status of Worker

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), with whom I sit on the Business and Trade Committee, for securing this debate.

The world of work has changed beyond recognition in the past several decades, but our employment laws have been severely left behind. We still sort people in work into three rigid categories—employees, workers and the self-employed. The framework for that was built in a different era, when people had one job, one employer and the reasonable expectation that the law would protect them if things went wrong.

That is obviously not the reality for millions of people today. It is not the reality for the delivery drivers who log into apps and spend hours under the management of an algorithm; they cannot set their prices and they are disciplined if their ratings drop, yet when they fall ill or are injured on the job, they are told, “Sorry, you are self-employed—you are on your own.” It is also not the reality for the agency care worker who has been looking after the same vulnerable residents for years without ever accruing a single day of redundancy protection, and it is not the reality for the freelance designer who depends entirely on one client but has no holiday pay, parental leave or pension contributions.

These people are trapped in a gap in the law. They are doing essential work, but they are being denied the essential rights that go along with that. The legal case that created those gaps was rooted in case law going back to 1968 and relied on concepts designed for the factory floor, not for the platform economy. It means that the rights of many workers depend not on the work they do or the hours they put in but on how cleverly designed their contract is. Let us be completely honest about who benefits from those contracts and that complexity: it is most certainly not the worker.

The problem has not gone unexamined. The Taylor review reported in July 2017 and recommended significant reforms. The Government of the day responded with the “Good Work Plan” in December 2018 and committed to legislate. Although the previous Government identified the problem and promised to fix it, they never did, and that has left people waiting for far too long. The current Government have taken important steps in the Employment Rights Act 2025: guaranteed hours for workers if they want them, a day one right to make flexible working requests and the establishment of the Fair Work Agency. Those steps are all welcome, but the Act did not address the fundamental structural problem that the categories themselves are broken. The Government can strengthen the rights attached to the “worker” category, but if people cannot tell which category they fall into, those rights remain words on the page. The Government’s next steps document commits to consulting on a simpler two-part framework for employment status, but we have been here before, and consultation commitments alone are not enough.

The Liberal Democrats believe that reform in this area should be built on clear principles. First, we need a dependent contractor status that sits between those who are fully employed and those who are genuinely self-employed. If someone works personally for another party and is not guaranteed business on their own account, they should have access to minimum levels of earnings, sick pay and holiday entitlement. The idea that someone can work full time for a single company and have fewer rights than a Saturday shop assistant is an indictment of our current system.

Secondly, the tax and national insurance treatment for employers in different categories must be aligned, because the current framework creates fiscal incentives for businesses to push people out of the protections they deserve. When it is cheaper to classify someone as self-employed, that is exactly what happens, and the cost is borne by the worker, and ultimately the Government.

The third principle concerns the burden of proof in disputes, which should shift from the individual to the employer, because asking someone on low or irregular pay with no savings and no legal protection to take on that legal risk against the company that controls their livelihood is not a fair fight. If an employer has classified someone as self-employed, it should be for the employer to justify that decision.

Fourthly, the Liberal Democrats believe that pension provision for those in non-standard work must be addressed urgently. Far too many people in the gig economy sector are building no retirement security whatever. They are invisible to the auto-enrolment system, and when they reach retirement with nothing, that cost will fall on us. In the Commons, we are currently going through the Lords amendments to the Pensions Schemes Bill. The Government should be acting on the issue in the Bill.

Finally, where zero-hours contracts remain, there is a strong case for a higher minimum wage at times of normal demand to begin rebalancing the risk that currently falls entirely on the shoulders of those people who are least able to bear it. I urge the Minister to confirm when the promised consultation on employment status reform will come forward and to commit to a timetable for legislation that does not repeat the sorry patterns of promises and retreats that we have seen from Government time and again, because the people caught in the gap have been patient for a long time. They have been told time and again that reform is coming and they deserve more than warm words; they deserve the law to be on their side.

Statutory Menstrual Leave

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) for introducing the debate and I congratulate the lead petitioner on securing more than 109,000 signatures on their petition. That number should stick in all of our minds, because it sends a clear signal that this issue has been ignored for far too long and that the people affected by it are exhausted by the neglect they are feeling.

One of the women affected, a constituent of mine, wrote to me ahead of this debate. She talked about how endometriosis has shaped her life through pain, exhaustion and suffering for far too long. From a young age, she knew that her symptoms were not normal, enduring irregular cycles, severe clotting, chronic pain and debilitating symptoms that were too often dismissed or ignored. She was told that she may never have children, and although she was fortunate enough to have two, she told me that her condition worsened, bringing miscarriages, severe blood loss, iron deficiency, IBS and relentless pain.

My constituent said that, time and again, she would visit the GP, hospitals and specialists, and she was often told—as we have heard many times today—to simply manage the pain. Women with endometriosis are expected to suffer in silence, while their health, careers, families and quality of life deteriorate around them. She told me that she was not asking for miracles; she was asking to be heard, to be taken seriously and to receive the care that she deserves.

My constituent’s testimony is not exceptional; it is representative, and it is backed up with data. Last year, Endometriosis UK found that the average wait time for a diagnosis has now reached nine years and four months. That has gone up significantly in the last six years. During those nine years, the condition progresses, fertility is affected, and women are forced to manage debilitating pain in workplaces, education and at home. Shockingly, 83% of respondents to Endometriosis UK’s survey were told by a healthcare practitioner prior to their diagnosis that they were making a fuss. On top of that, women wait an average three and a half years after first noticing symptoms before seeking medical help at all, largely because severe period pain has been thoroughly normalised in our society. That women wait such a long time before they get their diagnosis is simply not acceptable. We also need to think about women from ethnically diverse communities, whose average time to diagnosis is even longer, at 11 years. The House should find that inequality unacceptable.

This is not just a health crisis. Endometriosis UK estimates that the economic loss to the UK from absenteeism due to severe period pain, heavy periods, endometriosis, fibroids and ovarian cysts is about £11 billion a year. The case for investment in women’s health and women’s support is not just moral; it is economic.

I wanted to touch on a point that Members have made multiple times about the arbitrary hit points for absence in absence management systems. When I was working in the private sector, we had a very similar system: if someone hit three absences within a defined period of time, they would go through an investigation and a disciplinary meeting—just like that. Although there may be mitigations for long-term conditions, the stress of the idea of going through an investigatory meeting because of their long-term condition adds to the cycle of women not wanting to go to their doctor or talk to professionals about what they are experiencing. They have been told for so long to just get on with it and manage the pain, and the absence management system in this sector does not help at all.

The Government’s response to the petition acknowledges the hardship that women are facing, but the action they talk about falls short. Ministers point to the Equality Act, reasonable adjustments and the Employment Rights Act, specifically on flexible working. I want to be clear that the Liberal Democrats support the right to day one flexible working, and we are glad to see these changes coming into force, we think, in April next year. Flexible working genuinely helps people to manage conditions such as endometriosis, and employers should be actively engaged in using it, but it relies on individual employers, and it cannot be a substitute for proper medical care or compensate for decades of misdiagnosis.

Before women can be properly supported in the workplace, they need to be diagnosed, and before they can be diagnosed, healthcare professionals need training. Time and resources need to go into being able to recognise and act on the symptoms. When over half of women with endometriosis are forced to attend A&E before receiving a diagnosis, we know that there is a failure in primary care, and that is adding to the pressure on our hospitals.

We need to invest in GPs and other healthcare professionals to ensure that anyone with long-term conditions such as endometriosis has access to named GPs who know their history and can provide continued support. We also need to make sure that people are actually able to receive a GP appointment and be seen when they need it; far too often, they are unable to do so.

I want the Government to commit to a new target to bring down substantially the average endometriosis diagnosis time, working towards the one year or less by 2030 target that Endometriosis UK is calling for. I also want them to put in place a proper awareness campaign and ensure that National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines are fully implemented across the primary care sector, with standardised referral pathways in place. The Government must also take seriously the role of mental health support, which, after years of pain and dismissal, many women will require. Such mental health support is currently severely lacking.

The petitioners and individuals who signed the petition —100,000 across the country and the many more they represent—are not asking for the impossible. They are asking to be heard, taken seriously and to receive the care that they need. I urge the Minister to match that urgency with her response today.

Department for Business and Trade

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Britain is in the middle of a cost-of-doing-business crisis. I see it on my high street and I hear about it from local employers, and colleagues from across the House will hear exactly the same in their constituencies. From the Government’s national insurance hikes to sky-high energy bills and uncertainty over what the Employment Rights Act 2025 will mean in practice, British businesses are being pulled in one direction and then another. The Government say that they want to grow the economy, but significantly adding to the tax burden of the very organisations that are trying to do that does not help.

The increase in employers NICs is an unfair jobs tax, and its impact is being felt across the country. UKHospitality estimates that the combined impact of the autumn Budget has landed £3.4 billion in additional costs on the hospitality sector. Jobs are being lost, hours are being reduced and venues are closing. A Government who think that relaxed licensing laws will help hospitality when businesses are already reducing hours do not understand the sector. The Liberal Democrats voted against the NI jobs tax changes at every opportunity because we could see this coming. The Government now need to face the consequences of their own choices and scrap this jobs tax before the damage becomes irreversible.

In 2019, the Conservative Government promised a fundamental review of business rates, but they never delivered it. Now this Government have promised to revamp the system, yet we are still waiting for proper rebalancing. UKHospitality estimates that the average tax increase for hospitality would be 76% over the next three years, compared with warehouses at 16%, offices at 7% and large supermarkets at 4%. The businesses at the heart of our high streets are being asked to carry an unfair share of this burden, and the adjustments do not come close to fixing that.

I can point to a business in Maidenhead, in my constituency. Laura set up Piccolo Land less than a year ago. It is a children’s role-playing village, and the kind of place that gives young families in Maidenhead a reason to come to town to spend time and to spend their money. When she started the business, her business rates valuation for a 2,500 square foot unit was £71,000—significantly more than her annual rent. She challenged that figure with the Valuation Office Agency and it was reduced to £42,000, but from April 2026 that bill will rise to £55,000. Laura has done everything right, but she cannot make this work. How do the Government expect businesses like this, which is barely a year old, serving young families and employing young people, to absorb that kind of increase? Maybe the Minister will be able to write to Laura to let her know which part of the Government’s growth plan she is meant to be benefiting from, because we cannot find it.

Pubs, live-music venues, hotels, restaurants, cafés, and visitor and tourist attractions are all facing the same rising bills, collapsing margins and impossible choices between cutting staff, putting up prices or closing their doors. To add insult to injury, the Government’s business rates U-turn is not going to fix the issue they have created, just make the pain less bad. The Government need to reduce VAT on hospitality, accommodation and attractions. This is not untested—the previous Government did that during the pandemic and it worked.

When asked about VAT cuts in December last year, the Government did not even attempt to justify their position. They simply pointed to business rates reform and moved on. Our high streets and town centres cannot wait for a Government who will not engage with that topic.

Every time we visit shops in our constituencies we will hear the same thing about shoplifting having effectively been decriminalised. Thieves do not fear consequences because there are none, and shoplifting has risen by 48% in England and Wales over the past five years. Shop owners tell me time and again that when they contact the police, they are told it is not an effective use of resources to follow up on minor thefts. However, these are not minor thefts to the people running those businesses, and they are not minor to the staff, often young people, who are being put in harm’s way simply for doing their jobs. With over 800 offences going unpunished every day, businesses are haemorrhaging money, driving up costs for consumers and pushing businesses to close their doors for good.

So here is a concrete proposal that the Government should adopt: a small shop needs about £6,500 for adequate modern CCTV, so the Government can make available grants for half that cost to every independent convenience store, and they can work with high street lenders to provide affordable loans to cover the rest. This is not just our idea: it is supported by the Federation of Independent Retailers.

I could go on about youth unemployment, shoplifting, business energy costs, Brexit or general trade barriers, but we do not have the time. What the Government have delivered is a jobs tax, broken business rates, unaffordable energy bills and a shoplifting epidemic that they refuse to take seriously. Businesses right across the country are resilient, but resilience has limits, and this Government have tested those limits to breaking point. The Government have the tools to act, but they needs to use them to bring down the cost of doing business, because we are in a complete crisis.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats support this Bill, and we support the amendments that are before the Committee today. The Bill does something that is straightforward and necessary: it raises the Industrial Development Act cap from £12 billion to £20 billion, reflecting inflation since the alignment was last set in 2009, and it nearly doubles UK Export Finance’s commitment limit from £84 billion to around £160 billion. Both the industrial assistance and export finance frameworks would hit their ceilings if we did not make these changes, so it is really important to make them. We support the Bill because British businesses need the Government’s backing to compete globally, and these limits need to keep pace with our ambition.

The amendments before us would strengthen the Bill in a few distinct ways. Amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that Government-backed export finance cannot be used to support businesses whose supply chains involve modern slavery or human trafficking. That is a straightforward ethical line. British taxpayers should not be underwriting exploitation, and we Liberal Democrats are glad to support the amendments. I ask the Minister to confirm what existing safeguards are in place, and whether implementation guidance will be issued so that businesses know where they stand.

Amendments 3 and 4 would address the risk that UK Export Finance could facilitate sanctions evasion through re-exporting. As we raise the statutory limit to £160 billion, Parliament must be satisfied that none of this expanded headroom can be used in a way that undermines our sanctions regime, so we support the amendments.

New clause 1 would require annual reports on the impact of the limit changes on each of the four UK nations. Although export finance is a reserved matter, outcomes are not necessarily evenly distributed. A report would allow Parliament to scrutinise whether the expanded capacity is reaching every single part of the United Kingdom, so we support the new clause. New clause 2 would require annual reports on the steel industry. Steel is of profound strategic importance to the UK and deserves the dedicated parliamentary scrutiny that the new clause suggests, so we support it.

New clause 3, which appears in my name, would require the Secretary of State to report on the annual impact of the Bill on GDP, on the export capacity of small and medium-sized enterprises, and on the volume of trade between the United Kingdom and the European Union. UKEF’s 2024 to 2025 activity contributed £5.4 billion to the UK economy, and Parliament should be able to verify such a claim on an annual basis. According to the Office for National Statistics, there are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK, yet UKEF’s annual report shows that it supported just 667 businesses. Annual reporting would hold the Government to their own target of supporting an additional 1,000 SMEs to export. It would make visible whether the current eligibility criteria, which require at least 20% of a business’s annual turnover to be from exports in any one of the previous three years, continue to lock out businesses trying to break into export markets for the first time.

On the UK-EU trade part of new clause 3, the Chartered Institute of Export & International Trade has documented a 30% fall in EU export value among the smallest firms since the trade and co-operation agreement came into force. A recent Institute of Directors policy voice survey found that 54% of businesses that stopped exporting to the EU cited the trading relationship with the EU as one of the reasons why. These are not businesses that failed to break into new markets, but established exporters that have walked away from our largest and nearest trading partner because the barriers in their way are too great to bear. Every customs declaration and every check that did not exist before 2021 is another reason why businesses are not exporting to the EU, because it simply is not worth it for them. Those are the realities behind the statistics that simply increasing UKEF capacity alone cannot fix. Parliament should be able to see whether expanded UKEF capacity is making a measurable difference to those figures, so we hope the Minister will support new clause 3.

The most effective long-term support for British exporters would be a new bespoke UK-EU customs union. Analysis by Frontier Economics, commissioned by Best for Britain, in February 2025 suggested that a customs union could boost British GDP by 2.2%. The House of Commons Library estimates that this could generate £25 billion in additional annual tax revenue for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which I know the Chancellor would be grateful for. New clause 3 is the link or accountability mechanism that would allow Parliament to see whether what has been proposed is working.

We will support the Bill and the amendments to it, because capacity without accessibility is meaningless, and capacity without accountability is unacceptable. The Government need to accept the new clauses that match the expanded headroom with the practical reforms to ensure that they reach the 5.7 million SMEs, which are the backbone of British business, currently not being supported by UK Export Finance.

[Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 1, which appears in the name of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). The Bill is narrow, but it gives us an opportunity to raise this matter.

Thanks to the work of this House, public bodies such as the Department of Health and Social Care are legally required to eradicate slavery in their supply chains under the Health and Care Act 2022 and the National Health Service (Procurement, Slavery and Human Trafficking) Regulations 2025. We also strengthened the safeguards to ensure that public money is free from forced labour in last year’s Great British Energy Act 2025. There was a little bit of fuss about that at the time, but no slavery or human trafficking is present in any part of Great British Energy’s supply chain.

UK Export Finance still lacks those protections, but amendment 1 would fix that inconsistency. If we are increasing the financial limits available to UK Export Finance, we should ensure that British support for business abroad is never tied to exploitation. It would make the protection much bigger by covering everything across Government. We tried something like that with the Great British Energy Bill, and I was told I was right that this would not have been covered, but the Bill then went to the Lords and came back pretty quick. I thank the right hon. Member for tabling his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Joshua Reynolds]

Britain is a trading nation. When our businesses win contracts abroad, they create jobs, raise wages and generate the tax revenues that are needed to fund our public services. Expanding UK Export Finance’s capacity to £160 billion, and raising the limit for industry development to £20 billion, sends a clear signal that we are open for growth and want our exporters to compete globally. That matters for advanced manufacturing, life sciences, clean technology, and the thousands of smaller firms across every constituency that have the ambition to sell to the world. We support the Bill because that ambition deserves to be backed.

I am disappointed that the Government could not support our amendments. Today we were asked to approve a near doubling of UKEF’s statutory commitment limit without the mechanisms that we feel are required to verify whether that is working properly. UK Export Finance supported 667 businesses last year, and we are concerned that its eligibility criteria lock out firms that are trying to break into exporting for the first time. That remains unchanged. We are also concerned, of course, that the structural barriers that drive former exporters away from our largest export market, the European Union, remain unaddressed. We support the Bill because it is important that we move forward in supporting businesses that are exporting, but we are concerned that we have missed an opportunity to help support British SMEs that want to start exporting, or that used to export to the European Union but cannot now. We will monitor the Bill closely to ensure that it works in practice for all those local SMEs.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Joshua Reynolds Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

Let me be clear at the outset that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We do so because we recognise that British businesses need backing to compete globally, and both the industrial support package and the export finance package have vital roles to play in that. The increases proposed in the Bill represent a major expansion in Government capacity and give us the opportunity to ensure that that expansion serves our priorities as a country: supporting small businesses, driving green growth and maintaining proper democratic oversight.

Small business owners have told me that the current system simply does not work for them. UK Export Finance’s processes are designed for larger transactions, larger businesses and those that are already exporting. UK Export Finance’s criteria state clearly that in any one of the last three years at least 20%, or in each of the last three years at least 5%, of a business’s annual turnover needs to be made up from export sales, but those thresholds mean that businesses trying to break into the export market, or those growing still quite modest export activity, cannot access support. As we expand UK Export Finance’s capacity, let us make sure that the commitment made is about not just bigger deals and bigger companies, but making UK Export Finance work for smaller businesses—the backbone of British exports—with simpler application processes, lower eligibility thresholds for SMEs and dedicated support teams made up of those who really understand SMEs the best.

As the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said, we also need to understand the elephant in the room, which is that we are discussing expanding capacity of UK Export Finance at precisely the moment when British exporters face unprecedented challenges with our largest trading partner, the EU. The Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade has documented the impact, saying that among the smallest firms—those with six employees or fewer—the value of their exports to the EU fell by 30% after the trade and co-operation agreement was struck; meanwhile, firms with more than 107 employees were largely unaffected.

The Institute of Directors’ January 2025 “Policy Voice” survey found that 54.8% of businesses that previously exported and have stopped cited as a reason the UK’s trading relationship with the EU. More than half of former exporters surveyed gave up because of the barriers to trade with Europe. We are not talking about businesses that have failed to break into distant markets; we are talking about established exporters abandoning our nearest and largest market because the barriers have become insurmountable.

The priority for small manufacturers is assistance in navigating customs declarations and rules of origin to sell in Europe. These are markets they have served for decades, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a fundamental reset of our relationship with Europe—a new bespoke UK-EU customs union that would cut through red tape, boost gross domestic product by an estimated 2.2% and generate roughly £25 billion in tax revenues, according to the House of Commons Library.

[Gareth Snell]

I hate to burst the hon. Gentleman’s bubble, but in 2019, when this House was grappling with how to take forward Brexit, there was a vote on 1 April on a proposal from the then Member for Rushcliffe, now Lord Clarke, on staying in the customs union. I voted for that, as did my party, but it failed by three votes. Five Members from his party, including the now party leader, voted against that proposal, on the basis that trying to kill any deal might keep us in the European Union. I appreciate the position he is coming from, but one of the reasons we do not have a customs union today is the actions of his party many years ago.

[Mr Reynolds]

In reality, we need to look at the positions that were on the table at the time. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the positions that both our parties took when the votes were happening. Obviously I was not in the House at the time, but I recall watching and listening to colleagues on the Labour Benches opposing various things that we put forward. The proposal that the Liberal Democrats are putting forward today would add £25 billion a year to the revenue coming into the Treasury. That money is not to be sniffed at, and it should be supported across the whole House.

In discussing the doubling of UK Export Finance’s capacity to £160 billion, we need to ask ourselves whether that extra money is going to address the export challenges that British businesses actually face. Despite the fundamental barriers to the markets, the Government’s answer is simply to expand capacity, without addressing whether that capacity will be able to reach the businesses that need it most.

While I appreciate that, according to its 2024-25 annual report, UK Export Finance put in £14.5 billion of new finance, that only supported 667 UK businesses to grow and invest. UK Export Finance’s business plan for 2024 to 2029 clearly states its five-year milestones, including that it wants to support an extra 1,000 SMEs to export every year until 2029. That target was introduced under the previous Government, but it has not been amended under the current Government. Considering that there are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK and that facilitating export is a critical tool for economic growth, that number seems pitifully small. I would value the Minister’s thoughts on whether that target of 1,000 is his target and whether it can be improved. It is my hope that the Bill will ultimately support a more ambitious target for UK Export Finance. It would be stronger if we acknowledged the reality of supporting small businesses and removed the practical barriers that stop SMEs from exporting.

That brings me to my final point: parliamentary oversight. We are to spend £20 billion on industry assistance and guarantee up to £160 billion for export finance. This House deserves more than just retrospective annual reports. Fundamentally, these are political decisions about which sectors succeed, which regions benefit and how Britain competes globally. We need to have regular parliamentary scrutiny of spending decisions, transparent criteria for allocating support and proper impact assessments that show whether the funding is actually working. The assessments must show not just how much has been spent but whether it is reaching the businesses that need it the most and delivering the economic growth that we were promised.

We support the Bill. The Government have brought forward legislation that recognises that British businesses need backing, but British businesses need proper industry and export support that is strategically directed, environmentally responsible, democratically accountable and rooted in the challenges that they actually face. I hope that the Bill will deliver that.