Businesses in Rural Areas

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 18th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Western. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone) for securing this debate and his excellent opening speech, which touched on Liberal Democrat enthusiasms such as buses and microbreweries, but also his characteristic interest and enthusiasm for the opportunities created by science and tech in rural areas as much as across the rest of the country. Small businesses have had a tough time for years. I thank my hon. Friend for his eloquent speech, particularly outlining the challenges that businesses in his constituency face and touching on the broader challenges facing rural businesses in all corners of the country.

When I speak to businesses, their owners repeatedly tell me that their bills are too high, and that causes them to question their future, as they see their neighbouring shops and businesses close down. As we have seen, soaring energy costs over the past few years and costs related to transport, energy and supply chains can disadvantage rural businesses, and many of the Government relief schemes that exist do not sufficiently account for unique rural pressures.

Nowhere is that clearer than in the changes to national insurance contributions announced by this Government. The changes are an unfair jobs tax that will hit small businesses, social care providers and GPs. The NICs changes present an additional challenge to businesses already struggling with rising energy prices, interest rates and input costs. These businesses were hammered by the previous Conservative Government, who broke their promise to reform business rates, and instead trapped businesses under mountains of red tape, stopping them trading internationally. Making things even harder for small businesses and their workers will not grow the economy. Raising the employment allowance will shield only the very smallest employers, but thousands of small businesses will be seriously affected.

A significant amount of the income of many businesses goes straight out the door via our outdated businesses rates system. Business rates are harmful for the economy, because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment, rather than taxing profits or the fixed stock of land. I am sure the Government would agree with that assessment, given their pre-election promise to overhaul our business rates system. Nearly a year into this Government’s time in power, however, and this commitment seems to have been forgotten. Meanwhile, businesses across the UK are continuing to struggle with a system that is unfit for a modern economy. The Liberal Democrats are committed to replacing business rates in England with a commercial landowner levy based solely on the land value of commercial sites, rather than their entire capital value, thereby stimulating investment and shifting the burden of taxation from tenants to landowners. I urge the Government to consider this change.

The decline of high street services in rural areas has been an ongoing issue in the UK, with banks, post offices and other essential services disappearing at an increasing rate. This has significant consequences for residents, particularly older people, those without digital access and small businesses—not least the confusion it appears to be causing in Wellington. In the past three years, nearly 2,000 banks have closed across the UK, including hundreds of rural branches, due to declining in-person transactions and the rise of online banking. Many villages and small towns now lack a single bank, forcing residents to travel long distances for financial services.

The challenges are often compounded by limited broadband or access to the internet, leading to swathes of people in rural communities being excluded from online services and digital banking. The Liberal Democrats are concerned about the inequality of provision as the 5G network is rolled out, and we believe it is wrong that people should be disadvantaged simply because of where they live. I urge the Government to prioritise major investment in broadband for underserved communities. Alternative solutions such as banking hubs are being developed, but there are not enough of them, and the Government should be facilitating more to ensure that people across the country can access vital services when they need them, and prevent the digital exclusion of people in rural areas.

As high street services close, rural public transport has also been cut, making it even harder for residents to reach alternative services.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise that rural communities always seem to carry the burden of losing out on everything? They have the businesses struggling to get people through the door, they lose their public transport and they lose their health provision. I am seeing that in my constituency, where a rural village is losing its GP surgery, but there is no bus to take people to the proposed GP surgery in the nearby town. We need to support our rural businesses because they are the backbone of these rural communities, and they are keeping these rural communities alive.

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is always the danger that we get into a vicious circle of declining transport provision leading to declining demand for services, which then lose viability and are withdrawn. The point about investment in public transport that my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk made so eloquently at the start of this debate would go a long way to managing some of those issues.

Bus route reductions leave some villages with little to no public transport, which worsens isolation. Bus services are the backbone of economic activity in communities across our country, but they are particularly crucial in rural areas, where accessible local amenities and services are greater distances apart.

[Caroline Voaden]

In fact, in the spending review, the whole of rural England was given a seventh of the money for transport plans that was given to urban areas. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is not sufficient to sustain and improve the rural bus transport network as much as we need?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The way that some of the infrastructure and transport investment moneys have been distributed in the recent spending review has raised some eyebrows. Investing in rural bus services would certainly boost our struggling town centres and high streets, which would lead to economic growth.

The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes the most. Although the Government have made their red lines on taxation clear, a 50% increase to the bus cap is just taxation by other means. The Government have been left to make difficult choices, but they cannot allow the burden of fixing the Conservatives’ mess to fall on working people and small businesses. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives before seems to understand that for rural communities, having a reliable bus service is critical to enable daily tasks and commutes to be completed. I was also reflecting on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk about the impact of a lack of suitable transport infrastructure on training and the workforce.

Last week, the Liberal Democrats welcomed many of the Government’s public infrastructure and public transport investment announcements. However, we are concerned by the lack of provision allocated to rural bus services. Many communities without combined authority mayors—from Cumbria to Cornwall, and Norfolk to Newton Abbot—seem to have been left without new support for their transport networks. The Liberal Democrats continue to call on the Government to make sure that these areas see the investment that they so desperately need.

As the Government start implementing the new public infrastructure announcements, they must put the construction sector on a sustainable footing by introducing, in tandem, an industrial strategy to actually implement the projects. The general secretary of the Prospect trade union warned that the UK lacks the skilled workers required for new defence and nuclear infrastructure projects. Similarly, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted a shortage of skilled works as a critical stumbling block for growth. Workforce shortages often disproportionately affect rural areas, with limited local training opportunities and housing affordability issues exacerbating the problem, making it harder for businesses to expand.

As we await the much-anticipated industrial strategy, I ask the Minister to ensure that it will include a strategic framework to effectively address the needs of businesses in rural areas, by collaborating with local, regional and devolved authorities in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to establish how the strategy will support and facilitate industrial regeneration and innovation across all UK nations and regions. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I look forward to scrutinising the details of the proposals as they are brought forward.

Businesses and rural areas of the UK face a distinct set of challenges compared with their urban counterparts. Although Government support exists through various grants, loans and initiatives, several issues, including infrastructure challenges, the phasing out of EU funding and higher costs related to transport, energy and supply chains, can disadvantage rural businesses more severely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk for securing this debate, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the steps the Government are taking to ensure that businesses in rural areas receive the additional support they so desperately need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats have long called for a closer trading relationship with Europe after the disastrous negotiations by the previous Conservative Government. We welcomed last month’s new trade agreement, including an agrifood deal establishing a UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary zone. The EU is our largest agrifood market, but since Brexit exports are down by 21% and imports are down by 7%. The introduction of an SPS agreement will provide welcome relief to many businesses by reducing costs through the removal of border checks and reducing many certificate requirements, such as for export health certificates. However, businesses and producers cannot plan without clarity, so will the Minister set out a timeline on when we can expect the SPS deal to be implemented?

[Mr Alexander]

I sympathise with a lot of what the hon. Lady has said. She is right to recognise that post Brexit we have broadly overperformed in services, relative to expectations, but significantly underperformed in terms of goods exports. That was in no small measure because a number of food and agriculture producers were buried in red tape and new paperwork. That is exactly why, as she suggests, the SPS deal is critical. Again, I welcome the fact that, for the second time today, we are being challenged to go further and faster on deals that we have delivered. I can assure her that, as I have said in relation to the United States, we take seriously our responsibilities on the implementation of SPS, but that places responsibilities on the British Government and, in this case, on the European Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am really bothered, because we have only got to question 8, and I still need to call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats welcome yesterday’s announcements from the Chancellor on investment in public infrastructure projects. However, the general secretary of the Prospect trade union has warned that the UK lacks the skilled workers required for the new defence and nuclear projects outlined by the Chancellor. Similarly, Make UK and the Federation of Small Businesses have highlighted that a shortage of skilled workers would be a critical stumbling block for growth. As we continue to await the much-anticipated industrial strategy, why are the Government moving funding away from level 7 apprenticeships, when we know that they support social mobility? More broadly, why did they not seize the opportunity in yesterday’s statement to commit to fixing the apprenticeship levy, to ensure that money is invested in skills and training?

[Sarah Jones]

Forgive me for my long answers, Mr Speaker, but there is a lot to talk about in the industrial strategy, and I like to talk about it. The hon. Lady raises an important point. There is a significant skills challenge, and we will not shy away from it. Yesterday, £1.2 billion for skills was announced in the spending review. We have announced £600 million for construction skills, because that is a big issue for building the infrastructure that we need. We know we need to go further, and we are working closely with industry on how we can use the resources we have to recruit the welders, engineers—

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to take part in this debate on product regulation and metrology, not least because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the work done by my former colleagues at the National Physical Laboratory in Teddington, which is the UK’s home of metrology. I would like to set the mind of the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) at rest. He is still, as far as I know, the only metrologist with whom I have worked in a finance department, but, nevertheless, as a non-scientist, it gave me a real admiration for the work of scientists in this particular area. In Teddington they are setting the standards. They are developing and maintaining the primary measurement standards for the UK and across the world.

What I would like to say to the Chamber this afternoon and to my constituents in the neighbouring constituency of Richmond Park is that if they have been inspired by the hon. Member for Erewash and have had a fire ignited in them for the science of metrology, the National Physical Laboratory is having its open day this Friday, 6 June, and everyone should go along.

[Adam Thompson]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. It is lovely to hear of her experiences. I was aware that she was previously at the National Physical Laboratory. Indeed, I recall how excited my field was when she was first elected. I would just like to place strongly on the record how much I agree with her colleagues’ excellent contributions to science.

[Sarah Olney]

Following that hymn of praise to metrology, I will now turn to the amendments.

The Liberal Democrats welcome many of the measures proposed in the Bill. The legislation seeks to balance consumer safety, economic growth, and regulatory flexibility, ensuring that UK laws can keep pace with technological advancements. We support enhanced consumer protection for those products that pose a safety risk to consumers, as well as the importance of corporate responsibility for businesses operating in online marketplaces.

The Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework and we are glad that the Bill takes steps to address this. However, steps must be taken to level the playing field between online and high street businesses, and to protect consumers. As such we have tabled new clauses 7, 10 and 11 and amendment 3, which work toward that aim.

Equally, the Liberal Democrats remain concerned by the Bill’s reliance on secondary legislation and the overuse of Henry VIII powers, giving Ministers excessive discretion to repeal or amend primary legislation through regulations. All product and metrology regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure and we seek to ensure that the Bill is ambitious in providing proper parliamentary scrutiny. There should also be greater engagement and consultation requirements, meaning that key stakeholders may not be adequately considered in regulatory changes. This lack of consultation feeds more broadly into our apprehensions about the burdens that some measures will place on small businesses, and as such we have tabled new clauses 5 and 6, which acknowledge this and would provide support to small and local businesses.

I wish to speak in favour of new clause 2, which would place a requirement on large supermarkets to inform customers when the quantity of goods within the product have decreased, resulting in a price increase per unit of measurement. Research by Compare the Market found that products such as digestive biscuits have become 28% smaller, yet the price has risen by 65% compared with a decade ago.

[Adam Jogee]

Outrageous.

[Sarah Olney]

It is outrageous, yes.

Similar situations have been seen with popular household items such as Coco Pops, butter and crisps. We were glad to see that, while the Bill was in the other Chamber, the Government accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment, preventing changes to the pint as a recognised measurement for beer, cider and milk through regulations under the Bill. However, I hope the Government will go further and expand this safeguard to protect consumers by accepting this amendment.

I also wish to speak in favour of new clause 3, which would require the Government to undertake reviews into the feasibility of asking large hospitality businesses to disclose the country of origin of meat products on menus. The farming industry has been pushing for clearer labelling of the origins of food for some time. Previous research by the National Farmers Union has shown that 65% of consumers are more likely to visit a venue that claims that its ingredients are sourced from British farmers, and almost 70% of consumers agreed it was important that the sourcing of food in venues is transparent. Farmers across the country are grappling with the punitive family farm tax introduced by this Government, and continue to cope with the challenges imposed by trade deals under the last Conservative Government. Better labelling of British produce on the menus of larger restaurants would give crucial support to farmers and their businesses, and I hope that the Government will support this new clause as a step towards achieving that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Snell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words about the amendment and the work that my colleagues are doing. My only point is that the final paragraph under subsection (7) of new clause 4 would allow such labelling

“where the final significant production process occurred in the UK”,

but that is one of the things that we are trying to clamp down on. In ceramic production, products that are bisque fired outside the UK then brought into the UK for gloss firing are passed off as being made in the UK. We argue that this should not be the case; the full process, from clay to table, should take place in the UK. While I have absolute sympathy with her on her new clause, that subsection unfortunately would not address the issue—in fact, it could do further damage to our industry. If she is happy to, we could discuss that outside this place. I am sure that there are areas of commonality, on which we could work together.

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further information about the ceramics industry, which I now feel so much better informed about. He makes a valuable point. When we talk about things being “made in the UK”, what exactly does that mean? How can we use that valuable designation to best support our domestic industries? I thank him for that further clarification.

Liberal Democrats support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to reduce trade friction and give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We are glad that many of the measures in the Bill will have that effect, but we remain concerned about the excessive ministerial discretion in this legislation, and the reliance on secondary legislation. We will continue to push the Government to strengthen scrutiny mechanisms, and for fairer regulation for online marketplaces. Crucially, I hope the Government will take this opportunity to support British businesses by supporting new clause 4, giving consumers greater transparency and British businesses the boost that they need.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Business and the Economy

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 21st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I share the bemusement of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) that we on these Benches are being called the “other Government”. I puzzled over that for a little while, but perhaps, based on recent opinion polls, the shadow Minister was reflecting how the Liberal Democrats are now more likely to form the next Government than the Conservatives. The stones being thrown from the very fragile glasshouse of the Conservative party are astonishing, given its appalling mismanagement of the economy and the dismal inheritance that it left behind. Its record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and a record fall in living standards.

For years the Conservative party took people for granted. Our constituents saw this reflected in their mortgage payments, the hike in their energy bills, and the prices they paid for their weekly shop. Under the last Administration, public services were left crumbling, and the Tories’ pitiful Brexit negotiations saw reams of red tape introduced, causing untold damage to businesses across the country.

We know that the Labour Government have inherited a mess, and we know that the cause of that mess is a legacy of reckless economic mismanagement left behind by the previous Government. But that cannot be allowed to serve as cover for measures that damage business or cause suffering for the vulnerable in our society.

Labour’s autumn Budget has not worked. The national insurance jobs tax will damage small businesses and lower people’s living standards, and it undermines the Government’s own ambitions for growth. People endured years of Conservative mismanagement, which is why this new Government should be doing far more to grow our economy, create new jobs and improve living standards.

We know that the Government had tough decisions to make, but instead of hiking national insurance, cutting disability benefits and squeezing departmental budgets even more, they should be showing far more ambition in growing our economy, which is the best way to raise tax revenue and boost living standards. That is exactly why we have been urging Ministers to ignore the naysayers in the Conservative and Reform parties and to urgently negotiate a new, bespoke UK-EU customs union.

When it comes to taxation, the Government should look to raise revenue in much fairer ways, such as asking social media giants and online gambling firms to pay their fair share. That is the right way to repair our public finances and boost public services—not short-sighted cuts that make things worse for people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Dyke]

Excuse me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a fundamental overhaul of the harmful business rates system so that small businesses in rural areas can survive and succeed?

[Sarah Olney]

My hon. Friend is exactly right; there are so many things currently holding our small businesses back. The Conservatives failed to reform business rates. We are now looking to the Labour Government to bring forward measures that make it easier for people to set up businesses in their local communities.

Let me be clear: stripping support from many of the poorest pensioners while energy bills are still sky high was the wrong thing to do. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have listened to our constituents and have heard from countless pensioners who have been affected by the cut. We have heard warning calls from sector representatives including Age UK and Disability Rights UK, and indeed from many pensioners themselves, regarding the huge damage that the cuts have done. Some pensioners have been put in the position of having to choose between heating and eating.

Back in December last year, the Government admitted that their changes to the winter fuel payments will result in an additional 100,000 pensioners being pushed into poverty.

[Dr Caroline Johnson]

The hon. Lady is talking about the effect of the Government’s winter fuel payment cuts. Does she agree that the cuts were not just cruel and unpleasant for the elderly people who have suffered, but economically illiterate because of the increased cost to the NHS from individuals becoming sick as a result of being cold?

[Sarah Olney]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention. I have engaged the Minister directly on this point and shown him examples of how the cuts have directly impacted on pensioners in my constituency very harshly.

The Liberal Democrats voted against the removal of the winter fuel payment to prevent millions of the most vulnerable in our society from losing out on vital support. Following the Prime Minister’s comments earlier today, we continue to call on the Government to reverse the cut in full, to guarantee that it will not be in place by next winter and to ensure that all pensioners who need support will receive it. I ask the Minister for full details of the proposed changes as soon as he is able to give them.

It is not just in their cuts that we hope to see a change of direction from the Government. After the last Government did so much damage to our high street businesses, the Labour Government’s national insurance jobs tax has made things even harder for businesses and their workers. The changes to employer national insurance contributions announced in the autumn Budget are an unfair jobs tax that will hit small businesses, social care providers and GPs. SMEs are the beating heart of our economy. They are at the centre of our local communities and create the jobs that we all rely on. Raising the employment allowance will shield only the very smallest employers, while thousands of local businesses will still feel the damaging impact of the changes. The Liberal Democrats voted against the changes to employer NICs at every opportunity, and I once again urge the Government to scrap these measures.

Even more damaging for our small businesses is our broken trading relationship with Europe. The Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal has been a complete disaster for our country, especially for small businesses, which are held back by reams of red tape and new barriers to trade, costing our economy billions in lost exports. The dismal picture of the financial impact of their terrible Brexit trade deal is becoming increasingly clear. While the Conservative party’s motion notes that

“over 200,000 businesses have closed since Labour took office”,

it was under its Administration, in the years 2020 to 2024, that the rate of small business closures in this country started to outpace the rate of new businesses starting up. Since 2019, there has been an average business closure rate of over 12%, outstripping the rate of businesses opening.

A recent survey of 10,000 UK businesses found that 33% of currently trading enterprises experienced

“extra costs directly related to changes in export regulations due to the end of the EU transition period”.

Small businesses have been particularly badly affected, with 20,000 small firms stopping all exports to the EU. Another recent study found that goods exports have fallen by 6.4% since the trade deal came into force in 2021.

I welcome the actions taken by the Government at Monday’s UK-EU summit—particularly the impact they will have on our seed potato trade—but I urge the Government to recognise that the deal should only be a first step toward negotiating a new UK-EU customs union, which would ease the pressure felt by so many businesses and boost the economy as a whole.

More broadly, we continue to call on the Government to introduce vital reform to the business rates system. Business rates are harmful for the economy because they directly tax capital investment in structures and equipment rather than profits or the fixed stock of land. Liberal Democrats would abolish the broken business rates system and replace it with a commercial landowner levy. We believe that we need to see a fundamental overhaul—not just tinkering around the edges or sticking-plaster solutions. We are disappointed that, yet again, serious reform of the system has been kicked down the road. We need fundamental reform of business rates if we wish to boost small businesses and high streets and to stop penalising productive investment.

The Liberal Democrats acknowledge that the Government inherited a dire economic landscape, compounded by the challenges posed by an aggressive Russia and an unreliable US Administration, but that cannot be an excuse for the mistakes they are making. People are still struggling with the cost of living crisis, just as small businesses are struggling with the cost of doing business, as energy prices soar, food costs keep going up and mortgage bills remain sky high. The Government must take bold action to boost our economy. We urge Ministers to U-turn on the winter fuel payment cut, scrap the national insurance jobs tax and row back on removing support for disabled people, many of whom need that support to stay in work.

[Sarah Dyke]

My hon. Friend talks about U-turns. Does she agree that the Government should also reverse the family farm tax?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point—her constituency is more rural than mine, I admit. She is right that we would also like to see the Government urgently U-turn on the family farm tax, because it is creating such difficulty in our rural communities.

We are calling for bolder, more ambitious and fairer measures. We want the Government to replace business rates with a fair new system to boost high streets and town centres, and to negotiate a new customs union with the EU, which would cut red tape for small business and boost our economy as a whole.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

We now have the pleasure of hearing from Chris Vince.

Venture Capital: Access

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered access to venture capital for people from ethnic minority and other underrepresented backgrounds.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. Venture capital in the United Kingdom is a unique and valuable industry that supports many smaller innovating companies with high growth potential. Our VC market accounted for £8 billion of investment in 2023. It is the largest VC market in the world after the US and China, and the largest in Europe by a considerable margin. As the CEO of the UK’s trade body for venture capital, the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association, eloquently put it:

“Venture investment helps turn ideas, research and development into thriving businesses, generating economic growth, stimulating innovation and creating jobs and opportunities across all nations and regions in the UK.”

However, while our VC market is growing and strong, it is highly inequitable. For ethnic minorities, women and many other communities which there is either insufficient data or insufficient time to discuss today, our system of venture capital does not work. Businesses with founders from those communities receive a disproportionately lower percentage of VC deals and of total VC funding. With their priority of growth, the Government must do more to ensure that the venture capital market in the UK is inclusive and accessible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this debate. In Northern Ireland we have the Minorities Recognition Awards, which launched the innovators grant competition for ethnic minorities in Northern Ireland. It has been a successful collaboration that offers entrepreneurial individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds who are resident in Northern Ireland and have a novel business idea a choice to apply for a grant of some £10,000 to further develop their ideas. But to make it go further and work better, does the hon. Lady agree that the devolved institutions could benefit from further funding for the likes of these grants to potentially bridge funding gaps and ensure that people from all backgrounds can have the opportunity to succeed? I believe that many people have that ability.

[Sarah Olney]

I entirely agree that we need to do more to bridge that gap. I am delighted to hear about some of the efforts already being made towards that goal in Northern Ireland.

In 2022, 10% of first-time equity deals went to all-ethnic minority teams, with 19% of total investment value. However, while I welcome the broadly representative nature of these first-time equity deals, they are unequally distributed within ethnic minority communities, with only 0.24% of venture capital funding between 2009 and 2019 going to black founders. On a similar note, all-white teams accessed a mean investment of £224,000, whereas teams with one or more ethnic minority founders received an average of £49,000. All-ethnic minority teams received an average of £94,000—less than half of what all-white teams received.

I am proud to be a member and former chair of the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners, which has not only supported ethnic minority business owners, but considered the intersection of diverse characteristics, including gender and ethnicity, on access to finance, which I will come on to later. I am proud to welcome Diana Chrouch, who provides the secretariat for the APPG and does amazing work on behalf of ethnic minority founders.

I am pleased to note the recent successes in the financial industry. In particular, I welcome the work of the Lending Standards Board on creating their access to financial services for ethnic minority-led businesses code. While that was an important and significant step towards greater equality, the Lending Standards Board does not directly cover venture capital, instead covering other financial instruments for investment. With the LSB acting as living proof that positive change can happen, and given the statistics I have mentioned, it is time for the Government to step up and ensure that that success is replicated in venture capital, and that we can tackle the inequality within VC.

Lack of equality for venture capital investments is not only an issue in relation to ethnic minority communities; female founders are also far less likely to secure this kind of investment. In 2022, a report by the British Business Bank found that only 13% of first-time equity deals went to all-female founder teams, representing 6% of total investment value, and that there had been no statistically significant improvement in this during the past decade. The data is even more worrying for women from ethnic minorities: only 0.02% of the total amount invested through VC went to black women entrepreneurs. One of the most damning statistics of the inequality within the venture capital system is outlined in a 2023 British Business Bank report: only 3% of individuals in senior investment and non-investment positions were women from ethnic minority backgrounds, and concerningly, zero black women were found in positions of seniority in VC firms at the time of the study.

I am sure that many of us are aware of this as an issue affecting founders and business owners across the country. However, this inequality was highlighted to me by a constituent of mine in Richmond Park, who is the founder of Parli-Training, a business that has supported the Northern Irish and Scottish devolved Governments, NATO and even parliamentary offices in this very House. In the years leading up to and including 2024, it employed 170 people and, at its peak, generated a £250,000 in turnover. Despite that strong performance over many years, my constituent, who is a woman from an ethnic minority community, was recently denied investment from the Greater London Investment Fund. In her correspondence with the fund manager, she was told that the fund would not be viable for someone like her because she would be viewed as a risk, that those who access the funds usually come from wealthy backgrounds, and that the only funds available to female-led businesses in London usually take the guise of a grant. My constituent was told that she should try to find a grant that suited her business, or start a GoFundMe. Clearly, something has gone wrong.

Of course, a long discourse on the issue at hand can only go so far. What entrepreneurs from affected communities need is for the Government to take meaningful action to ensure that the UK’s venture capital industry is accessible and inclusive. The first thing we need is greater transparency in the reporting and recording of data, particularly for venture capital deals. That has been championed by many leading voices in the venture capital sector and by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners.

Ladi Greenstreet, CEO of Diversity VC, has said:

“There is a significant amount of power in reporting. Simply measuring the problem creates momentum for change”,

whilst the July 2023 British Business Bank report stated:

“Venture capital firms should participate in industry-wide surveys and make D&I data on their investments public”—

an effective action to improve diversity.

Furthermore, a November 2023 report by the British Business Bank in collaboration with other leading trade bodies outlined the

“scarcity of comprehensive data on ethnic minorities particularly at the intersection of gender and ethnicity.”

One measure that I hope the Government will consider is integrating the reporting of diversity data within venture capital tax reliefs. As recommended by the Treasury Committee’s 2023 report, provision of diversity statistics as a requirement for eligibility to receive the enterprise investment scheme or the seed enterprise investment scheme tax reliefs and the venture capital trust tax reliefs may be an effective way to improve reporting statistics, and to push companies to act on this important issue.

Secondly, I urge the Government to take more robust action to support women in finance and venture capital, including through the Treasury’s women in finance charter and the British Business Bank’s investing in women code. Despite their success, the schemes continue to be voluntary initiatives with relatively low levels of uptake, meaning that their progress in improving diversity in venture capital is too slow and restricted. For instance, the women in finance charter is currently signed by 400 companies covering 1.3 million employees, but there are more than 80,000 companies and 2.5 million employees in the UK’s financial services industry. On the other hand, signatories to the British Business Bank’s investing in women code accounted for 47% of venture capital deals, meaning that over half of VC deals would not fall under the code. Therefore, I echo the calls made by the Treasury Committee in 2023: will the Government consider mandating the Treasury and the British Business Bank to adopt a “comply or explain” policy with regard to both the WFC and the IWC?

I should note that the Treasury Committee also outlined that, should diversity statistics and reporting not improve quickly enough, it would be wise to consider calling for compulsory membership instead. With these changes, the Government can strengthen existing processes to ensure that women are not negatively impacted.

Another key call from groups including the British Business Bank concerns diversity at the top, referring to the lack of diversity in key bodies, including investment committees, which often have ultimate decision making on where capital is allocated. Too often, investment committees are made up of members with similar characteristics and backgrounds, leading to groupthink and the preservation of the status quo—a status quo that we know is inequitable.

In its July 2023 report, the British Business Bank recommended pushes for greater diversity in these leading committees as a crucial opportunity for greater accessibility and inclusion, with a correlation between diverse investing groups and diverse investment recipients. As recommended by the APPG for ethnic minority business owners, would the Minister consider requiring VC firms to adopt and implement a strategic investment inclusion framework, modelled after the Lending Standards Board framework, to dismantle structural barriers?

In conclusion, the Government have said that their priority in this Parliament is growth, but what good is growth if it is not accessible to all our communities? We are cutting ourselves off from a key source of that growth if we continue to enable barriers to accessing investment for all the excluded groups I have mentioned. The Government are committed to supporting businesses, but what good is that commitment if a number of businesses are excluded, whether deliberately or not, from finance and investment?

Our venture capital system continues to be unrepresentative of our communities, and the Government must do better to tackle the issue. The Government have long championed themselves as a Government of change, but many entrepreneurs looking for venture capital have so far seen more of the same from this Government. I hope that the Minister has heard the points made in this debate and takes meaningful steps to resolve the injustice we see in our venture capital industry, which hinders businesses, damages growth and continues a legacy of inequality.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I will begin in the usual way by congratulating the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) on securing this debate. I also acknowledge the contribution of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who seems to represent the whole of Northern Ireland in Westminster Hall. The hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly referenced the impressive work of Diana Chrouch, as the secretariat for the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners. I am grateful to her for the challenge that she poses to Government on this issue. Perhaps unusually for a Minister, I hope that she will continue to challenge us in this space. She is absolutely right to say that although there has been some progress, we need to do an awful lot more.

It was a pleasure to join the hon. Member for Richmond Park and other members of the APPG for ethnic minority business owners at the King’s awards for enterprise reception in April, recognising current holders of the King’s award and encouraging more ethnic minority business owners to apply. There were some really inspiring stories from some of the ethnic minority business owners there who had won the King’s award. I welcome the work of the APPG in encouraging other ethnic minority business owners to apply for the award.

We do not do enough in this country to encourage and celebrate entrepreneurship among a range of under-represented groups, be it ethnic minority owners, on which the hon. Lady has rightly concentrated, or disabled entrepreneurs, women-led businesses or businesses led by veterans. We know there is more to do in this space, which is one reason why, last month, we launched a call for evidence on access to finance, to look at a range of issues facing small businesses in their access to finance. As part of that, we are considering particular challenges for ethnic minority business owners and other groups that I have referenced.

Preparing for today’s debate, I was struck by the quote from Meghan Stevenson-Krausz, the joint CEO of Diversity VC, summarising the latest findings from the British Private Equity and Venture Capital Association. She said,

“Progress? Absolutely. Enough? Not even close.”

That is an excellent summary of the position and reflects the collective sense of urgency right across the VC industry, which I welcome. The BVCA study, to which Meghan was referring, is a good example of the progress that has been made, but, as a result, it underlines how far we still have to go. That 2025 report on diversity in UK private equity and venture capital covers 370 firms and over 14,000 employees, which is a significant proportion of the industry. It differentiates between roles, such as membership of investment committees, which take the key investment decisions, and junior or middle-ranking posts.

The hon. Member for Richmond Park cited an earlier report from the British Business Bank in her speech. That more recent report focuses on the VC sector itself. I will share some of the most striking findings. The encouraging headline is that 18% of investment professionals in the study are from an ethnic minority background, reflecting the UK population as a whole, and one third of that cohort are women. That matters because the most significant predictor of backing diverse entrepreneurs is the diversity of the decision makers themselves. One argument made is that the 18% overall figure masks a concentration in more junior roles, and there is some truth in that criticism. It takes time to progress to a decision-making position on the investment committee, so one would hope and expect that that disparity lessens as overall numbers improve. It is less pronounced than I expected. The study found that the proportion of ethnic minority staff was 25% in more junior roles, 19% at mid-level and 16% on the investment committee. The numbers at more senior levels have risen since the last survey and the trend is going in the right direction. But, as the hon. Member for Richmond Park rightly said, there is still more progress needed.

The final point I found striking was the representation of different ethnic groups. Within that 18% total, 11% were from an Asian background, while just 2% identified as African or Caribbean. For a black entrepreneur seeking investment, that 2% is perhaps the most relevant figure. As I am sure the hon. Lady and other hon. Members would agree, it is the individual experience that matters. Each individual has their own identity, which the term “ethnic minority” does not fully capture. When it comes to levels of venture capital itself, I welcome the data that the hon. Lady cites on first-time equity deals, with the number of deals for all-ethnic minority teams rising from 5% in 2013 to 10% in 2022. I share her concerns about the unequal distribution across different ethnic minority communities and agree that there is certainly more to be done, as I have previously alluded to. I was disappointed to hear about the very unfortunate experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent in applying for investment from the Greater London investment fund.

We have said that progress is happening but is insufficient. What more can we then do? The hon. Lady made a very eloquent case for compulsory data gathering and membership of industry codes. I will certainly reflect on the arguments that she makes on each of the different points that she raised. The hon. Lady will understand that I am, sadly, not the only Minister that has to be sympathetic to her case. I will certainly draw the attention of other colleagues in Government to the points she has made.

Taking her example of the investing in women code, that is growing year on year. The hon. Lady noted that signatories already accounted for some 47% of venture capital deals. When this year’s report is published, she will find that that figure has grown further. I have asked my officials to ensure that the hon. Lady gets an advanced copy. The power of a voluntary code or a pledge, such as the women in finance charter, is that it signals a shared commitment. Membership of a compulsory scheme perhaps merely signals compliance. For example, the invest in women taskforce has successfully raised a £255 million fund from its members to invest in women entrepreneurs. This private sector-led, Government-backed initiative has been effective in part because it is voluntary and not constrained by moving at the speed of the slowest.

[Sarah Olney]

I just want to highlight that part of my pitch was that we could do more to encourage that voluntary take up. Anything compulsory would be very much a last resort. We should be encouraging voluntary take up in the first instance.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am completely with the hon. Lady on that point and recognise that is exactly where Government can play a useful role in getting behind industry-led initiatives. We have certainly been doing that in the context of the invest in women taskforce and are also working with the Lending Standards Board on the code that it is developing. More broadly, we have the benefit of world-leading experts in this area, notably Professor Monder Ram, who leads the Centre for Research in Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship at Aston University. Professor Ram’s comprehensive report “Time to Change: A Blueprint For Advancing the UK’s Ethnic Minority Businesses”, which was prepared in partnership with NatWest, was launched in 2022 and sets out the £75 billion potential in unlocking growth of ethnic minority businesses. As a Government committed to growth, that is a huge win for the UK if we can do more to unlock that potential. My Department plans to become an implementation partner for Time to Change, joining organisations such as the West Midlands combined authority and Be the Business. We will be working in partnership with Professor Ram’s centre to implement the recommendations of the report. I can tell the hon. Member for Richmond Park that by happy happenstance, I will visit Professor Ram at Aston University later this week.

To shift the dial, there has to be a shared drive to improve things. I pay tribute to the pressure that the hon. Lady and the all-party parliamentary group for ethnic minority business owners are placing on Government and on the industry more generally. I hope hon. Members will see the issues of access to finance for under-represented groups addressed in the Government’s small business strategy, which we aim to publish later this year.

Just yesterday I had the pleasure of attending the launch of the Lilac review here in Parliament. Its report considers the experience of disabled entrepreneurs and how investors and the financial services sector can better meet their needs. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Michelle Ovens and Small Business Britain for their work in driving that review. It was a genuine pleasure to co-chair the review and in a similar way to this, many of the issues that came up around access to finance in that work generate significant questions for Government that we will seek to address in the months ahead. There are obviously similarities between our discussion here today around the needs of ethnic minority business owners and the needs of disabled entrepreneurs. For example, we know from research published by the British Business Bank that ethnic minority-led businesses are not as likely to be using external finance as white-led businesses. There is no lack of demand, but what ethnic minority-led businesses are pointing out to us is that when they apply for bank loans they are significantly more likely to be turned down, at 49% compared to 32% for white-led businesses. That appears to reflect differences in credit ratings, which suggests that that form of assessment may be insufficient. That view is supported by the fact that community development finance institutions, which are relationship-based, perform much better. In 2023, 24% of CDFIs’ business lending went to ethnic minority-led businesses and 41% went to women-led businesses. Similarly, the British Business Bank offers start-up loans for new businesses, of which 21% have gone to ethnic minority entrepreneurs and 40% to women.

Information is a key enabler to closing the finance gap. The British Business Bank research that I referred to earlier found that under-represented entrepreneurs are, overall, less confident about obtaining information on the different finance types and providers available. I urge all Members to point ethnic minority-led businesses in their constituencies to the resources available to them—particularly to start-up loans if the business is less than three years old, which are run through the British Business Bank, the CDFI that serves their local area, and more generally to the range of online information available from the British Business Bank.

The small business strategy, which the Government are working on, will begin to address the information gap and enhance our business support offer later this year. In the meantime, my Department has participated in events such as the UK Black Business Show, and we will join Founderfest 2025 to support entrepreneurs. We will continue collaborating with NatWest, Professor Monder Ram and the all-party group for ethnic minority business owners and others to advance this agenda.

I return to the summary from Diversity VC:

“Progress? Absolutely. Enough? Not even close.”

I welcome the constructive challenge that the hon. Member for Richmond Park posed of Government policies, and I share her sense of urgency on this issue. Through our industrial strategy and small business strategy, and partnerships with the private sector, we will seek to accelerate progress so that all entrepreneurs have a fair chance to secure the investment they seek to unlock the potential of their businesses.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Industry (Sarah Jones)]

My hon. Friend and several other Welsh colleagues have been talking to me about this. We renegotiated the deal with Port Talbot and the £500 million that goes alongside that. I had a good meeting this week with Blastr, which is looking to build an iron pellet plant at the Port Talbot site if possible, and we are trying to support that. Of course, our focus in recent weeks has been on Scunthorpe and British Steel, but the steel fund remains. The steel plan is still being worked on, which is very broad and hopes to lift the entire UK steel industry.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Sheen Uncovered is a clothing business in my constituency that the Secretary of State is welcome to visit any time. It has been significantly affected by the need to pay import duty up front, thanks to the Conservatives’ terrible Brexit deal, and that duty ranges between 6% and 12% and greatly impacts its cash flow. What are the Government doing to support businesses such as Sheen Uncovered to reduce the challenge of import costs?

[Mr Alexander]

I assure the hon. Lady that we are looking at how we can improve that relationship, and she is right to recognise that a whole number of barriers were created as a consequence of choices made previously, which are causing significant challenges to businesses small, medium and large. As the Secretary of State made clear, we cannot give a running commentary on discussions that are under way, but I assure her that the needs and concerns of British business are uppermost in our minds in those discussions.

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Sarah Olney Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones]

Sorry. The Secretary of State is right when he talks about us needing to keep up with EU regulations. We definitely need to do that.

Despite the potential in this Bill, unfortunately it contains very little actual policy. It relies far too heavily on secondary legislation, which limits opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny and provides little clarity on what the Government actually intend to do with the powers they are giving themselves. The Bill hurls us into a hokey-cokey trade policy in which, at Ministers’ political whims, we can stick ourselves into aligning with the EU just as easily as we can throw ourselves out of it all over again if another Government decided they wanted to do that. It will also hurt business confidence, because the underlying regulations of our country can be easily altered without the appropriate levels of scrutiny from Parliament.

Taking a step back from the issue of EU alignment, this principle can apply across any of the areas that this Bill seeks to regulate. It is developing opaque mechanisms on which the Government expect us to trust them to do better. However, Government Members must contend with the fact that they will not be there forever. All the potentially positive things they could do with this legislation could be reversed or made worse by a different Government.

It is at this point that I must recognise the excellent work of the Liberal Democrat peers. For example, a Lib Dem lord introduced an amendment that protected the use of the unique British pint measurement, ensuring that the Bill could not prevent or restrict its use for beer, cider, or milk in the iconic pint bottle. Liberal Democrat peers pressed the Government to introduce stronger protections against lithium-ion batteries, and a Liberal Democrat peer also ensured that the Government included an important amendment that requires the Secretary of State to publish a statement setting out how the Government expect to identify and assess product safety risks before legislation is laid. Put simply, this will ensure greater scrutiny of regulations that are designed to make products safe.

Despite those improvements, the Bill is still ultimately a skeleton framework that shifts legislative authority from Parliament to the Executive without the necessary level of scrutiny. Many great Ministers agree with me that skeleton Bills are the wrong way to deliver legislation. In fact, in 2023—a mere two years ago—one shadow Minister stated that such Bills were not

“a model example of how Parliament would like to see legislation brought forward”,

and that we should be minimising

“the use of delegated powers where possible”.—[Official Report, 18 January 2023; Vol. 726, c. 409.]

I agree with that then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), who is now sitting next to the Secretary of State who has brought forward today’s Bill. I am sorry that he does not agree with himself any more.

I also note the assurances that the Government gave to my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the other place that a process for editing statutory instruments will be brought forward. We will be pushing for details of that pre-legislative consultation as the Bill progresses through the Commons. Any Government will say that they are acting in our best interests, but all of the things that this Bill could do—such as enhance consumer safety, reduce trade barriers and build an economy fit for the future—could be undone at the stroke of a pen. That is a pen that Parliament should hold, not Ministers.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The use of hazardous chemical flame retardants in domestic furniture has been criticised by the Association of Master Upholsterers and Soft Furnishers and in a 2019 Environmental Audit Committee report, because those chemicals have been shown to cause more toxic smoke, increase the production of carbon monoxide and hydrogen cyanide and increase the prevalence of health conditions, including developmental disorders, breathing difficulties and reproductive disorders. As this Bill would provide the Government with more powers to act on that issue, does my hon. Friend agree that Ministers should outline how the Government plan to address the dangers associated with CFRs?

[Clive Jones]

I agree with my hon. Friend, and I hope that Ministers will address her question—if they heard it. The Bill makes it possible for the Government to use those new powers, and that would be a good place for them to start.

The Minister in the other place stated that this Government are not looking to reduce consumer protections. However, what measures in this Bill make sure that parliamentary scrutiny cannot be bypassed to weaken those protections? The skeletal nature of the Bill also makes clear what is missing—the very heart of our changing economy is nowhere to be seen.

Port Talbot Transition Project

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Wednesday 11th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

Steelmaking is of vital strategic importance to the UK. We need it to build the crucial infrastructure necessary to generate sustainable growth and safeguard our national security. The neglect of the steel industry in recent years is just another part of the previous Government’s disastrous legacy.

Today’s announcement is a welcome sign of change. The steps the Government have outlined to help protect jobs and, crucially, to develop a steel strategy are long overdue. We need to finally move on from a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a long-term plan that will set the industry on a sustainable footing. This is true of the steel industry and across our economy. We desperately need a real industrial strategy that works in tandem with this plan for steel.

Will the Secretary of State assure us that his steel strategy will be fully aligned with a wider industrial strategy, and will take a view on steel’s importance to our economy and society as a whole? Will it aim to balance the need for infrastructure, national security and net zero commitments? Will he assure us that he will bring the strategy to this House by spring next year for scrutiny and debate, so that the industry can finally move on with certainty?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I very much welcome the hon. Member’s words and her recognition of the improvements that we have made with this deal. Fundamentally, we have recognised the need for a better business environment, moving away from relatively short-term responses to that much better, more secure long-term framework. She will understand that the significant increase in investment that this new Government are willing to make can make a substantial difference. However, the emphasis must be on long-term investments for the future, so that we can secure those long-term secure jobs. There are several different ways that we can do that. I absolutely agree that our method should be aligned with the industrial strategy, and we will be able to make some announcements on that in the near future, leading up to the launch of the steel strategy next year.

Oral Answers to Questions

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrat party.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to see the Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box. Recent years have seen our SMEs struggling with reams of red tape when they attempt to trade with the rest of the world. Reporting this week has detailed the chaos and extortionate expense that small businesses in the agrifood industries have been dealing with since April’s introduction of the common user charge. I appreciate that this is yet another occasion on which the Government must deal with a mess not of their making, but what concrete steps is the Minister taking to support and empower our small businesses to trade internationally?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words. I recognise that the Liberal Democrat manifesto shows that we have many common areas of interest, particularly on industrial strategy and trade. Under this Government, trade policy will match our domestic, economic and business priorities. We will be able to reset our relationship with the European Union because, to be frank, we are unencumbered by some of the internal politics of the last Government. We believe that we can make the most of opportunities around the world. Businesses tell me, as I am sure they tell every hon. Member here, that for many years, politics has been driving the agenda, rather than what businesses need. That will change, and has already begun to change. We will work with anyone in the House who is keen to provide a platform for success on knocking down barriers and getting businesses what they need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

For too long, our high streets have been hostages to an outdated and damaging business rates system. Empty shopfronts and shuttered windows should never become the norm in our town centres. Small businesses in desperate need of a helping hand will have been deeply concerned not to see any mention of business rates system reform in the King’s Speech. Can the Minister assure us that business rates system reform is coming soon and that, when it does, it will be a comprehensive replacement of that damaging system?

[Gareth Thomas]

As I have said in response to previous questions, we are looking at that with Treasury colleagues. In opposition, we made commitments to introduce a fairer business rates system. Work on that is being led by Treasury colleagues, who will bring forward proposals in due course.

UK Steel Manufacturing

Sarah Olney Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

The steel industry has been left in a mess after years of mismanagement. The abandonment of the industrial strategy by the previous Government has been a disaster right across our economy, but nowhere more so than in strategic heavy industries such as steel, which face many complex and interconnected challenges. We can all agree on the vital importance of steel production, whether that is in terms of national security or of providing the materials that we need for a green economy. It is equally clear that the steel industry needs to be supported to move towards greener methods of production and a more sustainable footing, while ensuring that jobs are protected.

The sector desperately needs the certainty of a new industrial strategy. Can the Minister give a clear timeline for exactly when we will see that industrial strategy? Can she confirm that when the Industrial Strategy Council is rebooted, it will be placed on a statutory footing through legislation so that it is properly empowered to support our industries in the long term?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the hon. Lady for a very sensible and thoughtful list of questions. We will be putting the Industrial Strategy Council on a statutory footing, which is important. The points she makes about decarbonisation and support for the industry are really important. The previous Government supported the aims of dealing with the climate crisis and the need for decarbonisation, but they did not put in place any strategy to help anybody do anything on that front. We need a proper industrial strategy and, alongside that, a proper industrial decarbonisation strategy. How will our heavy industries decarbonise in a way that does not de-industrialise and does not mean that they shut up shop and go elsewhere? How will we make sure that we enable all these industries to thrive? The hon. Lady is right to say that it is not just about the steel industry. We are looking at a much broader range of industries by sector and by geography, to work out the best way to get this done in a way that protects jobs and protects our industry.