Westminster Hall
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
UK-EU Agritrade: SPS Agreement
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
We begin with a Select Committee statement. Mr Alistair Carmichael will speak on the publication of the fifth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, HC 1661, “UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work”, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of it, and I will call Mr Alistair Carmichael to respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question each. I call Mr Alistair Carmichael, Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Thank you, Ms Jardine. It is, as ever, an inestimable pleasure to serve under your stewardship in Westminster Hall. May I place on record my appreciation of the Backbench Business Committee for granting time for me to make a statement to mark the publication of our Committee’s fifth report of this Parliament, “UK-EU agritrade: making an SPS agreement work”?
The report is the third major output of our long-term inquiry into animal and plant health. As part of our inquiry, we have spent time in discussion with domestic stakeholders in farming and food production and with officials and parliamentarians in Brussels. It is clear from our time in Brussels that the Prime Minister’s reset in May 2025 has created a political environment in which the early conclusion of a sanitary and phytosanitary agreement with the European Union is a realistic objective.
Progressing towards an agreement at pace brings with it both opportunities and threats. The main threat we identify is that the process of dynamic alignment could result in us aligning with regulations that weaken the position of our food producers, as it might deny them access to products on which they currently rely. That threat is particularly acute in relation to plant protection products used by our arable farmers. This is a complex area where the needs of our farmers must be understood and protected. I do not doubt that in the negotiation of the agreement the Government will seek to do that. I am less convinced, however, that in practice they will have the depth of knowledge necessary to avoid the law of unintended consequences coming into play. That depth of knowledge exists and is readily accessible for the Government from British farmers and other businesses involved in the manufacture of plant protection products. Securing their fullest engagement is the best way to ensure that any agreement is workable and will not leave our food producers at a disadvantage.
On the subject of engagement, I observe in passing that, when in Brussels, the Committee benefited from high-level and good-quality engagement from officials in the Commission and Members of the European Parliament, as well as other relevant organisations. By contrast, our engagement with our own Government has been less straightforward. The Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations declined our invitation to appear before the Committee and has offered instead a private briefing for me as Chair. I am afraid that that offer, while appreciated, rather misses the point of how Select Committees work, and especially how the EFRA Committee works. I am not blind to the sensitivities of a live negotiation, but we are a Select Committee of the House of Commons charged with the scrutiny of the Government. For us not to scrutinise fully the Government’s conduct of these negotiations would be a dereliction of our duty, which I am not prepared to countenance.
Let me place on record that the Committee’s work on this most important of areas for our food producers is continuing and that we look to the Government for better engagement than we have had. If the sensitivities of the negotiation mean that Ministers are unwilling to appear in public—that is not an unreasonable position—other means must be found for the Committee to fulfil its duties. At the very least, I would hope to see a briefing of the whole Committee in private.
A central issue in these negotiations is dynamic regulatory alignment. Under such a model, the UK may be required to adjust domestic laws when the EU changes its own, particularly in areas such as animal welfare, pesticide regulation and precision breeding. We heard deep concerns from the agrifood sector that unqualified dynamic alignment risks placing additional burdens on UK farmers, while undercutting them with cheaper imports produced under weaker standards. Our report therefore recommends that the Government seek a Swiss-style carve-out for animal welfare rules, ensuring that the UK is not compelled to follow every regulatory change that could be to the detriment of higher UK standards in this area.
Similarly, the Government should seek an exemption from dynamic alignment for precision-bred products. Some of the UK is ahead of the EU in this area, with farmers in England already having been enabled to grow and market precision-bred seeds, plants, food and animal feed. Without an exemption, we risk losing the benefits of moving first. Mandatory alignment with future EU rules could undermine our progress and innovation and weaken the UK’s leadership in the sector.
On pesticides and maximum residue levels, we heard evidence that EU rules developed post Brexit may not reflect UK agronomic conditions. Imposing them without consideration of our climate, crops and production systems risks unnecessary burdens for growers, which at best may be impractical, but at worst may be impossible. We therefore recommend that any sanitary and phyto- sanitary agreement must guarantee that UK scientific evidence is fully considered in all risk-based decisions affecting our agriculture.
Our inquiry also highlighted that SPS alignment will not succeed without public understanding and trust. Dynamic alignment involves choices. We need a national conversation between Government and the public to set out the realities, opportunities and constraints of a potential SPS deal.
I turn now to Northern Ireland and the provision of veterinary medicines. Although veterinary medicines are not formally within the scope of the SPS agreement, they remain an unresolved and urgent issue under the Windsor framework. The continued uncertainty about the availability of veterinary medicines in Northern Ireland poses real risks to animal health, farm businesses and trade. We therefore recommend that the Government pursue a veterinary medicines agreement with the EU, concurrently with the SPS discussions, and set out clear timelines and priorities for doing so.
For Parliament, these negotiations raise fundamental questions. If future EU regulatory changes may affect UK law, Parliament must have a clear and meaningful role in scrutinising the negotiations and any subsequent rule changes. We have recommended that the Government publish detailed plans for parliamentary scrutiny, including how EU legislation would be assessed before being considered for assimilation into UK law.
A workable SPS agreement will require careful, phased implementation. Border authorities, the Food Standards Agency, local authorities, port health teams, laboratories and industry all made clear to us that significant regulatory change requires long lead-in times. Staff training, new systems and revised working practices cannot be introduced overnight. We therefore recommend a minimum 24-month implementation period for any major regulatory changes arising from an SPS agreement.
In this report, we have set out the opportunities of an SPS agreement, and they are significant. A well-designed agreement could ease trade, reduce costs and strengthen ties with our largest trading partner. But the risks are also significant. Poorly managed alignment could burden farmers, erode trust, undermine innovation and weaken the UK’s ability to act on its own scientific evidence.
Our recommendations are practical and proportionate. They are designed to ensure that any SPS agreement supports UK agriculture, strengthens biosecurity and commands public and parliamentary confidence. It is crucial that the Government enter these negotiations with absolute clarity and purpose and a determination to safeguard the interests of the UK’s agrifood sector. Farmers need certainty, fairness and a Government who recognise the weight of their responsibility. The stakes for our farmers, food system and national resilience are simply too high for anything less.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I very much welcome the report. In particular, I support the recommendation on an exemption from dynamic alignment for precision breeding. In my part of the country, we are proud to host the Norwich Research Park, the Quadram Institute and the John Innes Centre, which are at the forefront of scientific innovation. They are not only a British success story, but important for local jobs and the local economy. Does the Chair of the Select Committee believe that the Government recognise the value of precision breeding as a scientific advancement?
Mr Carmichael
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I welcome him formally to the Committee and thank him for his contribution to its proceedings. We benefited from our time at the John Innes Centre, and it is not a subject of any controversy to say that the Committee was very impressed with the professionalism of all those who work there and their commitment to improving our commercial advantage in precision breeding and gene editing.
It is fair to say that the position on precision breeding in England is one that farmers in other parts of the United Kingdom look to with a degree of envy, and it would be a great shame if we lost the advantage that England has from being an early adopter. From speaking to people in the Commission, my impression is that they are keen to see the steps the UK has taken as encouragement for their member states to come towards our position, and that dynamic alignment will not necessarily be a one-way process. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point, and any SPS agreement that does not respect and enhance our advantage will miss a most important trick for our farmers.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
I welcome the report and I reiterate the thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us this opportunity. The right. hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report done by the Andersons Centre, on behalf of CropLife UK, which indicates that alignment could wipe out £810 million-worth of farm profits in year one alone and see production of wheat down by 16%, apples down by 7% and potatoes down by 6%, possibly costing 9,000 agricultural jobs. With that in mind, does he agree that it is paramount for the Minister responsible for EU negotiations to come before our Committee, either in public or in private, at the earliest opportunity?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman knows my views on this; in fact, I have touched on them already. I think it is absolutely essential. It is to the benefit of everybody that those responsible for the negotiations have the fullest understanding of the views in Parliament, out there in the production sector—CropLife UK is a good example of that—and of farmers, who have day-to-day responsibility for these issues. A good SPS agreement that gets things right should not have too many unintended consequences. While a cliff-edge implementation would apparently result in the loss of £810 million, a lengthy implementation period would allow us the opportunity to smooth out any wrinkles that we might inadvertently have agreed to. We know from the trade and co-operation agreement that rushing can sometimes make things more difficult in the longer term.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
The SPS is a really positive development and an opportunity for us. If the suggested timescales do come off, it will be impressively quick, but with such fast timescales come the risks mentioned in the report. Does the Chair agree that it is important to not only maintain our higher welfare standards but ensure that our UK farmers are not undercut by imports with lower welfare standards?
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She was on the Committee when we heard from the Swiss representatives in Brussels, and they were successful over a rather longer negotiation period. I give credit to the Prime Minister for having created a political environment in which a negotiated agreement this year is not just possible but expected. I understand all the reasons why the Prime Minister would want to see the earliest possible implementation—there are imperatives coming from the political electoral cycle, shall we say—but at the end of the day it is more important that our farmers get what is necessary to allow them to take advantage of the agreement. If they cannot sell the products into market, we have missed the whole point of having an SPS agreement; it would be an agreement simply for the sake of it. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that, in this agreement, as in any other trade deal we have, leaving ourselves open to the import of food produced to lower standards than we expect of our farmers would be absolute madness.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I am grateful to the Chair of the EFRA Committee for laying out the top lines from this excellent report, and I also commend the Committee for its work on the inquiry into animal and plant health. My right hon. Friend spoke about the Cabinet Office Minister not appearing before his Committee, but the Minister did appear before the Foreign Affairs Committee in September, as part of our inquiry into the UK-EU reset, although that is of course not the place for detail on SPS arrangements. Any alignment with the EU on SPS policy needs to be phased in. Could my right hon. Friend expand on why the shift needs to be a transition, rather than an immediate removal of friction, given that the National Farmers Union has said it is critical that we avoid a cliff edge?
Mr Carmichael
On any objective analysis, it is very important that we get this right, and we can get it right by doing it slowly and carefully. The hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst)—the lobster capital of Europe—referenced the report from CropLife UK. The report seeks to quantify the financial cost of a cliff-edge implementation, and puts it as high as £810 million. CropLife UK is obviously not saying, “Don’t do this,” but simply, “If you do this with no proper implementation period, there will be financial cost attached to it.” At a time when the Government’s central mission is economic growth, and when that growth must be available to every community in the country —rural as well as urban—taking that sort of risk for the political imperative of timing seems an unacceptable way of managing such an important agreement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his clear message on veterinary medicines for Northern Ireland, and for his and the Committee’s encouragement to the Minister to ensure that the agreement is in place as soon as possible. We very much welcome alignment between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and the report highlights that an SPS agreement could significantly reduce regulatory friction between Great Britain and Northern Ireland by aligning standards, which could potentially remove physical checks and “Not for EU” labelling requirements. However, did the right hon. Member and his Committee consider the fact that the Government cannot exercise re-entrance to Europe by the back door? How can the Government ensure that seeking a tailor-made UK deal for all is their approach?
Mr Carmichael
If our ultimate destination were re-entry, whether by the back door or front door, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman and I might struggle to find a common position. Let us be clear what we are dealing with. An SPS agreement is tightly drawn, and is about our food producers having frictionless access so that they can get their products to market in our single biggest market. That is why there is a real opportunity here.
To my mind, the veterinary medicines agreement, for example, goes beyond trade; it is a matter of animal welfare. Allowing questions of constitution to get in the way of providing the animal welfare products we need, in any part of the United Kingdom, would be unforgivable.
Healthy Relationships
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Maya Ellis (Ribble Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for healthy relationships.
It is a pleasure to be under your chairship, Ms Jardine. May I start by wishing you a happy Valentine’s day for Saturday?
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
That is probably the most famous line in British literature, but when it comes to British policy, the role of relationships seems too often to be an afterthought, yet they are the building block of a healthy society. I am the first to jump on our cultural obsession with relationships when there is a new “Bridgerton” season, but it is time that relationships became a political obsession, too.
Valentine’s day is a moment each year when the country reflects on love, partnership and the relationships that underpin our families, communities and society. With public interest high in the pressures facing modern couples and with a growing body of evidence that respect, trust and equality prevent relationship breakdown, this debate offers us a timely opportunity to consider the factors that enable healthy partnerships in Britain today.
Healthy relationships are fundamental to a number of key policy domains. Strong and stable partnerships are associated with improved mental wellbeing, reduced loneliness and better overall health outcomes, while relationship distress is linked to increased demand for NHS and social care services. In education and children’s services, the quality of parental relationships strongly influences children’s emotional development, attainment and long-term life chances. In the economy, relationship stability and equality affect workforce participation, financial security and the capacity of families to balance work and care. In efforts to tackle violence against women and girls, healthy norms, cultures and values are clearly fundamental.
Policy decisions across those and other areas have a significant impact on couples’ abilities to build and sustain equal, healthy relationships. Workplace policies, such as parental leave and access to flexible working, shape how families organise care and employment. Housing affordability and security influence relationship formation and stability. Mental health provision, early years support and the wider social safety net all play a role in reducing pressures that constrain partnerships, while legal and justice frameworks affect how society responds to abuse, coercive control and family breakdown.
The fact is that relationships today look entirely different from those just 20 years ago. Today, more than two thirds of families with dependent children have both parents in employment, meaning that the majority of households are dual income. With divorce well entrenched in our culture, one in four families with dependent children is a single-parent household. There are huge benefits to more people working, especially for women, and it is a good thing that people have access to divorce when relationships are not healthy, but we cannot just take the benefits of these improvements and not mitigate the impacts.
What happens to child development when both parents are working full time, or when a single parent has no capacity outside work and childcare? What happens to our ability to bond with each other as a couple in a romantic relationship? What happens to our capacity to engage in and contribute to our local communities? Those shifts in the roles of couples and households also have negative impacts on relationships. We could mitigate those impacts, but as yet we have struggled to do so. This Government are rightly focused on growth as the key way this country can get back to a time of prosperity, but most parents I know—bear in mind that parents make up a huge part of the working population—are exhausted, and if I know one thing as a parent of small children, it is that nothing good or productive comes of being exhausted. How can we expect great output and productivity from people in the workplace when the strain on couples is so high? We have to pay closer attention to how households are coping.
Relationship challenges impact not only what we produce in the workplace, but how we sustain our population. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has recently highlighted our falling birth rate and has rightly highlighted actions taken by this Government to try to change that, such as better funded childcare and measures on the cost of living and housing. Couples are operating under unprecedented strain to both parent or care and to work full time, yet we barely talk about the psychological toll. Then we are surprised that domestic violence rates increase, that mental health in both men and women is plummeting and adding to our welfare bill, that special educational needs and disabilities issues are skyrocketing and that couples are deciding that one child is enough. As a Government, we give couples screen time advice and encourage them to have more children, but we rarely ask, “What is life like for you right now, and what would make your life easier as a couple and as a parent in 2026?” Let us do that more.
When it comes to domestic violence, the Government have made huge strides in developing a comprehensive strategy to combat violence against women and girls, but the fact remains that 3.8 million people experienced domestic abuse last year, and a quarter of all UK residents have experienced domestic abuse since the age of 16. The time when abuse starts in earnest is during pregnancy and the first 1,001 days of life. Some 30% of domestic abuse begins in pregnancy, rising to 40% in the first 1,001 days, precisely when infant brain development is the most sensitive to stress and trauma, but, terrifyingly, only 0.5% of maternity patients disclose abuse, so those numbers miss the majority of cases. Abuse during that period worsens maternal mental health, increases adverse birth outcomes and damages infants’ socio-emotional development. Those effects shift costs on to the NHS, social care, education and the justice system for years.
Relationships between parents and children can lead to stronger and more secure relationships and behaviour among those children as they grow up, but we know that currently only 55% of infants develop secure attachments, and that insecure attachment is a key driver of poor outcomes later in life. Research this month from the Centre for Mental Health and the Parent-Infant Foundation finds that expanding access to parent-infant relationship teams to support parents in the most deprived areas to bond with their babies could save the Government £1.2 billion annually.
The single most significant thing we could do in this Parliament to change all of this would be to introduce much better paternity leave—ideally at least six weeks at 90% of pay. Paternity leave in this country is truly embarrassing: two weeks is not enough. The UK’s offer of two weeks of unpaid statutory paternity leave is among the least generous in Europe, constraining fathers’ early involvement and entrenching relationship inequality. Modelling by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation found that six weeks at 90% of pay could deliver £2.68 billion to the wider economy, primarily through increased maternal employment and more equal sharing of care. Some 59% of people agreed that bad paternity leave made it difficult to share childcare responsibilities equally, not just in the short term, but in the long term, with patterns proving harder to shift.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. Women are 10% more likely to report that they do the majority of childcare. Some 66% of people surveyed want care to be more equal, and 74% of men want it to be more equal. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can only achieve that greater equality by addressing the fact that two weeks is not enough, and that patterns are laid in from day one that hold women, babies and men back from enjoying family life?
Maya Ellis
I completely agree with my hon. Friend; she is right that both men and women want this. Everyone in society is demanding this, and I really hope that the Government will listen and take action. An even more critical point is that it is not just men and women but children who will benefit from this. Ten to Men found that a loving paternal relationship was the single biggest factor in preventing a boy becoming a man who abuses his partner.
The macro win of all of this is higher labour supply and reduced gender gaps, the fiscal win is higher tax receipts and lower benefit dependency, and the household win is healthier relationships and more resilient income. Imagine the benefits if a dad or a partner could build a bond and confidence with their baby, so that understanding is deepened between parents, bonds are built to strengthen the determination to care for the baby, and a society is developed where protecting your family bubble becomes the pride point.
I will be frank: I truly hope that this Labour Government and the most progressive and gender-balanced Parliament ever will catch us up by committing to six weeks of protected paternity leave at 90% of pay, paid for by Government, and do it soon. If we do not take the single biggest step we can closer to equality, I do not know what we are here for.
The fact that radicalised me more than any other, and that tells me that we are still early on in the journey to equal and healthy relationships, is that before 1991 it was still legal to rape your wife. Anyone who got married before 1991 did so knowing that fact. We are only 35 years into a world that expects men and women to be equal in a marriage, and we are only beginning to work out what that means for us as a society.
One of the biggest hills we have to climb is helping men and boys find newly empowered roles in equal relationships, in the same way that women and girls have been doing. Many colleagues in this place are doing important work on building role models and positive education for boys, and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy includes teacher training to spot the early signs of misogyny in boys. I truly welcome the plans for improved relationships education in schools that the Government are introducing this year, particularly plans to start this earlier in primary schools and to focus on how to develop healthy relationships. None the less, we must remain alive to how early we subconsciously introduce power disparities.
As part of preparing for this debate, our friends at the Dad Shift challenged us to remember couples we admire for their equality, because role models are critical. The couple I admire most is Tom and Barbara Good from “The Good Life”. Amazingly, I only discovered the 1970s show recently and was slightly taken aback by how good they are to each other, in a way that makes me feel we have in some ways regressed from these days.
Natalie Fleet (Bolsover) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. A relationship that I admire for its equality is that of local constituents Mick and Jane Yates. They have been together for 16 years. To watch him go from being a councillor with many political demands, while his wife was not a councillor, to his wife not only becoming a councillor but leading Bolsover district council—a strong and inspiring leader whom he supports to thrive in her role—is just the best. Jane says they do not always agree on things, political or not, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is really important that, even when we disagree, we find ways in a healthy relationship to love and respect each other? That is what is at its core.
Maya Ellis
It is great to hear that Jane and Mick have such a positive relationship. One of the things that I really value is debate. The fact that in our new schools framework, we are introducing oracy—the ability to debate and discuss well—is really important. It has always been possible to have healthy relationships. We must create the right social and policy decisions to make them easier.
At this point, I want to give a quick shout-out to the incredible role models I see talking to women and men about building positive, healthy relationships—people like Neha Ruch, Libby Ward, Joeli Brearley, Ashley James, and so many others who are relentless in making sure we talk about what healthy relationships look like. I know there are similarly strong role models for men out there too, but we still have a long way to go.
Did you know, Ms Jardine, that there are only nine mentions of the term “mental load” in Hansard, yet as a mum on parenting Instagram I see it every other word? In my office we have four core aims, and one of them is to be useful, so I will end by leaving everyone with the most useful tool I have come across to tackle the mental load and promote equality in creating healthier relationships.
In Eve Rodsky’s book “Fair Play”, she says every task has three parts: conception, planning and action. To get something done, you first have to notice that it needs to be done. Then, you have to work out and plan how to do it. Then, you have to do it. It is great to see more couples starting to share actions around the home, but let us see more equal sharing of the noticing and planning too—and yes, that will probably involve realising how big the mental load actually is for some people.
Healthy relationships underpin healthy progress as a society, and whether we want to admit it or not, Government policy underpins healthy relationships. We are doing great things as a Government, with improved relationship education, a powerful VAWG strategy, more flexibility built into employment rights, a huge increase in best start family hubs investment and a strengthened court system, but we have to do more. Ninety per cent. of dads say they want to be more present in family life and have a more equal relationship, but our current paternity leave offer is one of the worst in the world. It blocks them right out of the gate. Stanford research published just this week found that couples who work one day a week from home would have around 0.5 more children on average, moving the current birth rate of 1.4 closer to the replacement rate, yet there are political voices saying that we should not work from home at all.
I hope we put healthy relationships more at the front and centre of all we do here. Our future depends on it. Again, I wish you a very happy Valentine’s day for Saturday, Ms Jardine.
Several hon. Members rose—
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Order. I remind hon. Members that if they wish to speak, they should bob. Informally, speeches should be kept to around five minutes.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing such an important debate.
As someone who, before I was elected, worked in the sector, delivering programmes with and to young people, I understand how key this issue is. When we talk about healthy relationships, we are really talking about the kind of country we want to be. Long before a child sits an exam, applies for a job or decides who they want to spend the rest of their lives with, they are learning how to treat other people and how they expect to be treated themselves. Healthy relationships are therefore the foundation of confidence, safety, educational success and mental wellbeing. If we can get this right early on, we can prevent harm later; if we neglect it, we end up paying the price in poor outcomes and avoidable crises.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this excellent debate. One organisation that does really interesting work in this space—which, I am ashamed to say, I did not know much about until last year—is Soroptimist International, which has developed fantastic “Loves me, Loves me not” bookmarks that it takes into schools and colleges. The bookmarks detail the component parts of a healthy relationship, as well as how to detect whether or not someone is in one. Does my hon. Friend agree that more initiatives like that would take us in exactly the direction we need to go in?
Leigh Ingham
I agree with my hon. Friend. Soroptimist does incredible work in my constituency on supporting healthy relationships, as well as work to support women in prisons, which I have worked with it on, so I completely agree.
Schools in Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages are working really hard to get this right. I will speak to a couple of specific examples. At Tillington Manor primary school, healthy relationships are not an occasional lesson: they are woven through the culture of the school. Through a structured personal, social, health and economic education curriculum, children learn about friendship, family, communication, conflict resolution and how to recognise healthy and unhealthy behaviours.
The lessons are all age appropriate, and they build year on year. They are delivered through safe discussion, role play and reflection in a safe environment. But what really stands out to me is the whole-school approach. The school has dedicated spaces, such as the nook and the hive, where emotional support is provided for children and families, and the staff are trained in emotional literacy and wellbeing. As a result, the pupils are more confident in identifying healthy relationships and more likely to seek help from trusted adults. The school has found that, as a result of the programmes, repeated conflict has reduced over time. That is what prevention can look like in practice.
At secondary level, Sir Graham Balfour school teaches relationships and sex education from years 7 to 13 as a spiral curriculum. Students are learning about consent, safety, what healthy relationships look like and what toxic dynamics look like. The school also runs focused workshops on toxic relationships and masculinity for groups of pupils who might be struggling.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the debate around boys and young men. The discussion often becomes incredibly polarised, but the reality is that many boys and young men are navigating a confusing online landscape where extreme and harmful messages about masculinity are only a click away—and then not even a click away, because algorithms amplify extremist content, and it gets worse and worse.
We need to create spaces where boys can talk honestly about respect, emotions and what it means to be a man, because we know that if we do not, someone else will fill the vacuum. Teaching children about healthy relationships is not about blaming boys; it is about equipping them and helping them to build the skills to form respectful partnerships, handle rejection and understand that strong men do not prey on the weakest in society. The healthy relationship that my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet) spoke about was a wonderful example of that.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the pressures facing girls and young women. Schools in my constituency report increasing concerns about body image, self-esteem and unrealistic expectations, fuelled by social media. Girls are measuring themselves against edited, filtered versions of reality that are being presented as the norm on their phone screens.
When another school in my constituency strengthened its RSE curriculum, students began to come forward about inappropriate touching that had previously gone unreported. That was a significant step in creating the foundations of healthy relationships, and it makes it crystal clear why such lessons are so important.
Last week, I visited Burleyfields primary school, where four and five-year-olds told me how they keep their brains happy and healthy. They suggested—we all need to know this—baking, reading books, imaginative play and spending less time on our devices. Let us be honest: we could all do with a bit of that. Even at that age, the children knew what a healthy relationship and healthy activities could look like.
But schools cannot do it alone. Our Government have a real opportunity to build on the strong foundations that are already in place. Continued investment in high-quality PSHE and professional development will help to ensure consistency across the system, and strengthening early intervention mental health services would support children and families before things escalate.
I welcome the Government’s focus on attendance, behaviour and school improvement, which is helping to create conditions for healthier relationships in schools. With 140,000 fewer children persistently absent, and the new attendance and behaviour hubs spreading really good practice, we are seeing how structure and support can work effectively together.
In Stafford, our schools are already leading the way. They are demonstrating that when healthy relationships are embedded across the whole school, culture changes, behaviour improves and children feel safer. What steps is the Minister taking to advance the progress the Government have already made and build on the incredible work that is already being done in schools such as those in my constituency?
We all know that healthy relationships are not a luxury; they are a vital fabric underpinning our society. They define so many of the debates we have in this place, from academic attainment to mental health and public safety. If we want to create a generation that is resilient, respectful and ready to contribute, we must invest accordingly.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this debate. I know from the work we do together on the all-party parliamentary group on babies that she is a powerful advocate for babies in particular, and I am grateful for her input to the APPG for fatherhood, which I chair.
I want to use my time to zoom in on three issues that put stress and strain on relationships that are otherwise very healthy: parenthood, in particular the role of the father; caring for a child with SEND needs; and couples experiencing challenges with fertility.
First, on parenthood, there is no doubt that sleepless nights and the massive demand on time, energy and the emotional resilience that is required to raise a child leaves relationships on the back foot. All that is normal, of course, I am told, but the demands of modern life —the rising costs of living, the crippling costs of nursery and the need for couples to maintain two full-time jobs just to stay afloat—pile on the pressure and increase the scope for conflict. Couples can experience a loss of connection, becoming little more than roommates, and passing ships in the night.
One thing that would help is better parental leave and pay. The UK paternity offer is the lowest in Europe. Two weeks is not enough. The lack of leave paid at a liveable level leaves men and birthing partners less connected to their child and less able to make an equal contribution to parenting. That can drive resentment and disconnection in relationships, bake in traditional gender roles from the start, and leave children with lower-quality relationships with their fathers.
Research shows that fathers who take extended leave are more involved in their children’s lives long term, and that higher involvement improves cognitive and emotional outcomes for children. Higher paternal affection has been identified as the single biggest determinant from boyhood in preventing violence against women and girls. Paternity leave should increase to at least six weeks at 90% of earnings, and eligibility should be extended to self-employed parents.
I welcome the parental leave and pay review; however, I am concerned by the pace at which it is moving. Families have already struggled so long under the existing offer, and they do not have time to wait further for the Government’s extended deliberation. I have already pressed the Minister for Employment Rights, the hon. Member for Halifax (Kate Dearden), on the speed of the review, and will continue to do so.
On caring for a child with SEND needs, I am sure that other Members will be familiar with the SEND crisis in their constituencies. The Government are not providing upper-tier authorities with enough funding for SEND care. In Oxfordshire, there is a lack of specialist places in schools, and mainstream schools are struggling to cope. The funding attached to education, health and care plans does not cover the cost of SEND provision, including teaching support. Small schools in rural areas are least able to cover the cost from elsewhere in their budgets.
The whole system treats children as a burden to be managed and minimised. Parents must therefore fight with the system, often to tribunal, to get the support they need. Understandably, that places an immense burden on the parents’ relationship, which leads to higher rates of separation among parents with SEND children.
Finally, let me turn to the strain on relationships caused by fertility issues. Under the Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and Berkshire West integrated care board, in vitro fertilisation treatment is restricted to women under 35, and only one cycle of treatment is provided. Guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend that women under 40 should be offered at least three cycles. Given that the average age at which a woman will begin IVF is 35, the current offer in my area is unreflective of demographic and scientific evidence.
The ICB says that its decision is based on the unaffordability of providing IVF to patients over 35, but in what other area of health do we allow ICBs simply to ignore NICE guidelines because of affordability? The cost of going private places additional strain on relationships at a time when physical, mental and emotional burdens are high.
It is often cited that at least 50% of marriages end in divorce, but are we setting up couples to succeed when they start families? Starting a family and raising a child is not for everyone, but it is in everyone’s interest to support those who want to do so. We should not place all the burden on individual couples to maintain healthy relationships when so many structural barriers lie in their way.
Unhealthy relationships rarely exist in isolation. If we are serious about prevention, rather than simply picking up the pieces we must look honestly at the structural pressures and strains that families face, long before crisis ever surfaces. The relationships I really admire are those that endure through hardship by focusing on mutual support, empathy and understanding, but let us, in this place, give them a helping hand.
I have spoken about what can be done to help couples to stay together, but ending unhealthy relationships that have broken down is just as important. The state has a role here, too, where marriage, property and children are involved. I hope the Minister will consider improvements in the areas I have outlined.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine.
I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for setting the scene incredibly well and allowing us all to participate in this debate. As a husband, father and grandfather, the motion urged me to take a moment to think: what is a healthy relationship? I posed this question to myself before I came here, and I have been thinking about it in relation to how we might contribute to the debate. It is a question we should all ask ourselves, so I thank the hon. Lady for giving us pause today. If we are honest, we can all work on healthy relationships to make them that bit better and more successful. From partners to children, friends and colleagues, finding a healthier balance is something we all can and must do.
It is a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I wish her well. We very much look forward to hearing her responses to our questions.
Many have referred to grandchildren, and my two grandchildren are staying with me at the minute. We live on a farm, and my son—along with his wife and the two children—is going to build a house on the farm. I always think about this when I come home after a hard week—and sometimes the weeks are incredibly difficult, with the pressures of life. Wee Freya is only five, and she always tells you that she loves you. Wee Ezra is only three, but he has that big smile. Both those things show just how important grandchildren are. These relationships are incredibly important for us all, and I so value the opportunity to have grandchildren who can lift you when you do not feel very much like being lifted. I know that the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) has her children, and they lift her, and others in this Chamber will know the importance of those things.
It is also clear that part of having healthy relationships is ensuring that our children and grandchildren understand what healthy is. To me, a healthy relationship is a respectful one, which I think is incredible. Am I perfect? I am far from perfect. I probably say things I should not say and do things I should not do—I regret it often—but I understand that respecting a loved one means watching our words and actions. If we respect them as we should, and as I do, we will be at pains to control our tempers or hurtful words.
I have three sons who are each married and have two children, and I know that my daughters-in-law and my sons are teaching their children that they are worth more than harsh words or actions, and that they are treasures worthy of a mutually respectful relationship. Where does that happen? It is done in the home, first of all, and we do it in our own lives, as we should, but it is also done in schools. Many schools in my area are always talking about how we build relationships. As a Christian, I should mention the importance of churches when it comes to a young man meeting a young woman, or vice versa. Churches give couples time to build their relationships and try to guide them in a way that they can understand and use in their lives. There is so much out there that we need to do.
We have incredible problems in Northern Ireland. There are probably problems across all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but the message does not seem to have landed well in Northern Ireland. We have struggled with unhealthy relationships and, notably, both genders are the perpetrators. Domestic abuse remains a critical issue in Northern Ireland, according for nearly 20% of all recorded crime. I know the Minister does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland—it is a devolved matter—but it is worth giving the figures to add to the debate.
While reported incidents have overall shown a slight decline recently, certain categories such as sexual offences have seen an increase. Police recorded almost 30,000 domestic abuse incidents and almost 18,500 domestic abuse crimes in the 2024-25 financial year. Wow, that is incredible. That is scary. On average, the Police Service of Northern Ireland responds to domestic abuse incidents every 17 minutes. Females represent some 67% of victims, while males represent some 33%. That is the highest male proportion recorded to date. One in four women in Northern Ireland will experience domestic abuse in their lifetime.
There are a number of tragedies that must be recorded. There were eight domestic abuse motivated homicides recorded between 2024 and 2025, compared to six during the previous 12-month period. That is simply too many lives lost. That is too many children devastated, because there are those that are left behind, too. Sometimes we look at the person—the individual—but there are those that are left behind: the children, the mums and dads and all of the families who are mourning. It simply did not need to happen.
A further disturbing aspect of domestic abuse is the effect that it has on children. Over 23,000 referrals were made to support children affected by domestic abuse through school-based programmes in the past year in Northern Ireland. Boards of governors are now tabling Operation Encompass on each meeting agenda. Again, I underline the importance of schools to try and help in that area. That is a partnership between the PSNI and schools. If the police attend domestic incidents where a child is present, they notify the child’s school by the next morning so that immediate trauma-informed support can be provided. That wee child could be greatly disturbed by what they may have witnessed the night or day before. It is really important that these things are put in place.
My heart, and indeed, all our hearts ache for the children who are living with bad examples of healthy relationships. They may witness that every day. They have been conditioned to accept what is unacceptable. We all have a duty to ensure that schools have funding available to put on programmes and take time to provide a safe space and a listening ear. Again, that is not the Minister’s responsibility, but I am keen to hear what her thoughts are, because that is the only way that we can help to break the generational acceptance of the unacceptable. That is something that each of us in this Chamber, both individually and collectively as a House, strives for. It is something that I believe we can and will change. I have no doubt whatever that those who are present, and many who were not able to be, are committed to that change. I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, who has done us all a massive favour by giving us the opportunity to come and make a contribution.
Christine Jardine (in the Chair)
Before I move to the Front Benches, does anyone else wish to speak?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I think it is the first time I have spoken in a debate that you have chaired and it is wonderful to see you there.
I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for securing this important debate today. Before I get going, I just want to say what an honour it is to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). We often joke in this place that he is at every debate, speaking on everything; today it is truly an honour to see the emotion and passion with which he spoke about being a grandfather. I sadly never got to know either of my grandfathers, and I would have been delighted to have had someone like the hon. Member for Strangford as my granddad. I thank him for that.
To be honest, when preparing for today, I thought, as the education team were asked to cover the debate, that we would largely be talking about relationships and sex education. I see that the Conservative Front Bench thought that too, and maybe even the Minister, so there we go.
I will go a little bit off script, because the hon. Member for Ribble Valley was much broader in her speech, talking about family policy and how we support and champion families. I am the education, children and family spokesperson for the Lib Dems. That is very deliberate, because as a party we believe that we should look at children and families much more holistically and not just through the prism of education. We are very keen on championing family policy, not just as a party but cross-party.
As several hon. Members have pointed out today, healthy relationships are difficult to build when we are living in such challenging times. There is a cost of living crisis; there are parents who are working full-time jobs and sometimes juggling two or three jobs, while trying to put food on the table and looking after children, and all the pressures that brings.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley and my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame (Freddie van Mierlo) both talked about parental rights. I recognise the fiscal situation that this Government find themselves in, but we need to find the money to spend on parental rights and parental leave. All the evidence tells us that, in those early weeks and months after a baby is born, and in the early years, parental involvement at home can make a massive difference.
That is not making a judgment on those who want to go out to work—I say this as a working parent myself. I was very clear with my husband from the get-go—“I am not staying at home even part time, once I finish my maternity leave. I want to be back in the workplace.” He actually wanted to take the decision to go part time with our first child and was largely full time, apart from being a local councillor, with our son.
Munira Wilson
I will just get to the end of my point, and then am very happy to give way. The time at which my husband wanted to take more parental leave when our first child was born was towards the end of the coalition Government, before the new parental leave rights had come into place. He could not take any paid leave, although we were able to afford for him to do that. I will come on to what I think we should be doing on parental leave and paternity pay, but will give way first.
Sarah Smith
An important element that maybe has not come through so far in the debate is the class impact of the current policy situation. Currently, 90% of paternity leave claims are made by the top 50% of earners. It is very rare that low-income earners are able to even access the current system. Unfortunately, the challenge of the policies laid out under the coalition is that parental leave is only accessible to those who were better off to start with.
If we are going to get this right going forward, we have to design a policy framework and put forward legislation that puts those fathers and those families first. If we are not achieving parental leave for the families who are, if we are honest, those who are often dealing with the most complex situations, we are letting down the children that need us the most.
Munira Wilson
The hon. Lady makes a powerful point. I am not suggesting that the parental leave policy was perfect by any stretch of the imagination. If it was perfect, we would have far more fathers taking more parental leave, but typically it is mothers who take most parental leave. It is far from perfect, but the Government have an opportunity now, with their parental leave and pay review, to consider the situation holistically.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Henley and Thame has already set out, we as a party would like to see all parents being able to share parental leave. There would be six weeks of “use it or lose it” parental leave each, so that fathers, as much as mothers, have an entitlement of six weeks. However, the rest of the 46 weeks—taking us up to 52 weeks—would be for a mother and father to share as they wish.
Again, recognising that that is challenging fiscally at the moment, frankly we have an ambition to try and double the rates of statutory maternity pay, which is also parental pay. That probably relates to the point made by the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), because at the moment the rates of statutory pay are, frankly, less than the minimum wage and lots of parents just cannot afford to take time off, and feel driven back into the workplace, often before they are ready to return to it. Therefore, I respectfully disagree with the Leader of the Opposition, who at one point said that maternity pay was “excessive”. I think that it is far from “excessive”; indeed, it is far too low and we have a long way to go to improve it.
While we are discussing the parental leave and pay review, we should not forget about kinship families. Lots of families are not conventional families. Many children cannot grow up with their parents, but other family members look after them. Kinship carers step up overnight to look after children, frequently giving up jobs and careers, and incurring costs that they do not necessarily have a statutory right to receive any support for. Also, they are not allowed to take leave; often, they are excluded from adoption leave as well as from parental leave. When we are discussing family policy and building healthy relationships, that is a real gap in the system that needs to be fixed.
I will move on to what I was originally going to say today, which is about trying to build good relationships. We cannot take for granted that children growing up today will necessarily have access to the right sources of knowledge. The rise of technology and social media has put our children at increased risk of encountering extreme and harmful content that distorts their understanding of how they should interact with each other, what romantic relationships look like, and—frankly—what sex looks like.
We know that women are 27 times more likely than men to be harassed online, and that a third of young women between the ages of 17 and 21 have received unwanted sexual images online. We know that the online world needs to be reined in, with tech companies and influencers alike profiteering by exploiting the insecurities that men and boys often have, through the use of addictive algorithms that often promote radicalising content and monetise misogynistic content.
It might have been the hon. Member for Ribble Valley who said that we should not stereotype our image of what men and boys are like at the moment. However, I think it is true that many men and boys feel increasingly lonely and isolated, and struggle with all sorts of issues, whether the cost of living or a lack of access to other positive activities. So, we need to look at men and boys as well as at women and girls, and to consider the different needs of each.
I said in a debate on relationship education last year that we need a culture change in all aspects of society. We must encourage the men in our lives—our brothers, fathers, friends, boyfriends, husbands and sons—to stand up against the toxic masculinity that we have seen, and to demonstrate to other men in their lives, particularly young men, what it means to be compassionate and kind in all relationships, and to realise that compassion is a strength and not a weakness.
Given the significant amount of online content that promotes violence against women and girls, which is particularly targeted at men and boys, we need to ensure that we protect our children and young people, not only because of the risk of harm to their mental and physical wellbeing but because of the impact on their social development and how they build relationships.
That is why we, as a party, have called very strongly for a ban on harmful social media for under-16s. Different political parties have different proposals on how such a ban could be implemented, but I think it needs to go hand in hand with getting people off their devices and into other activities, as the hon. Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) mentioned. We cannot start restricting things for children and young people if we do not give them alternatives. I have seen that at youth facilities that are easy and cheap, or free, to access. When the young people at those facilities were asked, “What did you do before you came here?”, they said, “We would be on our screens, in our bedroom, on our phones.” We have to provide those third spaces for young people.
Leigh Ingham
During the years in which Staffordshire had a Conservative-led county council, which coincided with the Conservative Government, we suffered the third-worst youth service cuts in the country. One of the things most regularly brought up with me when I meet constituents is how few activities there are for young people.
Indeed, I spoke to the vicar of a church in Eccleshall who told me that he had made a map of the activities in Eccleshall for older people and those for younger people. He came up with 112 things for older people to do in that part of my constituency, but none for younger people. Does the hon. Member agree that, while we are considering healthy relationships—and youth workers are key to modelling this behaviour, because they give a safe space to talk—we must focus on equipping our local authorities, in my case a Reform-led local authority, to prioritise the needs of young people?
Munira Wilson
I could not agree more. Youth services are critical and youth workers are amazing, whether they are employed by local authorities, our churches or voluntary groups up and down the country. I am the parent of an 11-year-old who is at the age where, in the holidays, she absolutely does not want to go to holiday clubs. I am trying to persuade her to go to some of the youth venues in the area. We are lucky that we still have two or three of those facilities, but I recognise that in some areas of the country there is not very much. I welcome that the Government have made announcements in this area—the Culture Secretary has made some very positive announcements on this issue. I would like to see a longer-term strategy to support those announcements, particularly in relation to the workforce.
In the classroom, relationships and sex education is so important for tackling and preventing violence against women and girls. I see amazing examples in my constituency, where schools are working hard on this issue. I am proud that our local authority, Richmond council, is White Ribbon-accredited and does lots of work with schools and lots of awareness-raising work in the area.
However, age-appropriate relationships and sex education at school has a crucial role to play, alongside the role of parents and carers, in giving children the knowledge and information they need to keep them safe by teaching them about consent, healthy relationships and online risks such as pornography and sexting. That is essential for safeguarding. Yet, according to a report by Internet Matters, many children say that they have
“received no specific education in relation to sexual image sharing or only very superficial coverage”
in relationships and sex education lessons, and that they do not feel able to get the information they want in whole-class groups. Many children felt that they were not offered enough information when the issue was discussed and that, when information was delivered by teachers who were not subject specialists, those teachers
“often sped through the topic because they found it ‘awkward’”.
[Interruption.] Was that a cough to say that I need to wind up, Ms Jardine?
Munira Wilson
Okay. I was not sure whether you were struggling. I will bring my remarks to a close.
The Liberal Democrats believe that an age-appropriate RSE curriculum should be led by a qualified teacher, be delivered in a safe, non-judgmental setting, and include teaching about sexual consent, LGBT+ relationships and issues surrounding explicit images. All young people deserve access to high-quality education that empowers them to make safe and informed choices. That obviously also means proper funding, training and resources to deliver high-quality RSE. I have already set out some of the family policies we would like to see. If we want to achieve a society in which all can flourish and have happy, healthy relationships, we need to invest in our families and in our education system.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) on a refreshing, measured, fantastic speech. Like the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I expected a slightly different topic, but it was pleasing to hear so much about the importance of strong families. Maybe we can do this debate again and I will write a slightly different speech. Between us all, we will cover various aspects that are relevant and important. I would also like hon. Members to know that I, too, am watching season 4 of “Bridgerton”—a classic Cinderella tale—which is very enjoyable.
Healthy relationships are underpinned by respect. In most cases, the way we would wish to be treated ourselves is probably a good place to start our relationships with others, but we continue to see high levels of violence against women and girls, as well as other kinds of abuse such as coercive control, with no real signs of reduction. That suggests something is going badly wrong, and the Government have rightly set challenging ambitions to address this huge societal problem.
We very much welcome the Government’s recently published VAWG strategy and their ambition to halve such violence, and we hope it will build on the work undertaken by the previous Government. The Conservatives elevated violence against women and girls to a crime type that policing leaders must treat as a national threat, and we committed over £230 million to the tackling domestic abuse plan from 2022 to 2025. That included quadrupling the funding for victim and witness support services by 2024-25, and it complemented the £300 million investment in the 2021 tackling VAWG strategy as part of the goal to drive down the prevalence of domestic abuse.
The previous Government also created two new offences: stalking and stalking involving fear of violence, serious alarm or distress. That made it easier for victims to hold stalkers to account. On top of that, we also outlawed upskirting to further protect women and girls, criminalised revenge porn and deepfakes, and introduced the Domestic Abuse Act 2021 and, accordingly, domestic abuse protection notices and orders. We are clear that robust action against offenders is vital in the fight against VAWG.
Although relationship education in schools can go only so far in addressing male violence against women and girls, it nevertheless plays an important role in educating young people on what positive and healthy relationships looks like, and the importance of putting in place clear boundaries. Those skills are vital in navigating relationships, recognising potential abuse, including coercive control, and knowing how and when to seek help when needed.
Relationship education was made compulsory in all primary and secondary schools in 2020. It has several core objectives: to foster pupil wellbeing, to develop resilience and character, and to ensure that pupils are happy, successful and productive members of society. In spite of that, shockingly, nearly three women every single week are killed by men, and many, many more are raped and abused.
The risks and harms arising from the online world are feeding this problem. Pornography is available online at the touch of a button on smartphones. Let me be clear: this is harmful stuff that depicts strangulation, rape, violence and degrading acts such as spitting on young women. Any young man seeing such misogynistic content day in, day out will inevitably view women and girls differently. They will be more likely to see them as an object to use and degrade. By comparison, the relatively trivial amount of time spent learning the opposite in a classroom cannot hope to offset that. The single best thing we can do to stem the tide is to introduce a ban on smartphones in schools for under-16s and increase the age limit for social media to 16. That will not address the whole issue, of course, but it will massively help. The Conservatives have backed it all the way, and I ask the Minister to do so too. The Government’s proposal to ban strangulation content is welcome and a positive step forward.
I am concerned that our strong desire to eradicate VAWG has led to boys and men being unnecessarily demonised. There is a difference between calling out abusive behaviour and labelling a whole set of masculine attributes as toxic. Masculinity is a wonderful thing—the yang to femininity’s yin—and it is certainly not toxic in the great majority of cases, particularly when it is not fuelled by online porn.
Our answer to a genuine question about the abuse of girls has been to tell a generation of boys, “You are the problem,” and then we are surprised when that approach, instead of nurturing healthy relationships, creates resentment and pushes more young men towards the very online subcultures that feed off grievance and rejection. Instead, we need to positively embrace what being a good man, a good partner and a good father look like. Fundamentally, boys need positive role models from which to learn and model their own relationships. That is why fathers and other male role models are so important. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on that.
When it comes to education on healthy relationships, we have seen an ever-growing load of subject matter covering issues from relationships to mental health. Good RSHE can be a protective factor when it is age-appropriate, factual and taught impartially, but it is also important to recognise that schools should not try to replace the education that should be the family’s role. There is a careful balance to be struck.
As well as confident, self-assured boys, we need confident, self-assured girls who are clear about their boundaries and what behaviours they are willing to accept and not accept. That means not telling them that selling their bodies is empowering, not expecting them always to be kind, and not telling them that the feelings of men are more important than their safety. On that point, I hope we might hear something today about the Government’s unresolved approach to gender-questioning guidance for schools and the release of the long-awaited code of practice on single-sex spaces following the recent Supreme Court ruling.
The Government cannot claim to support healthy relationships so long as they leave schools to navigate the issue without proper guidance. It is incumbent on this Government to reinforce rules that entitle our girls and women to privacy from males when they are getting changed—that is basic safeguarding.
We received the draft non-statutory guidance on gender-questioning children back in December 2023, but two years later, schools and parents are still waiting for it to be published. Will the Minister confirm when we can expect to see both the gender-questioning guidance and the revised code of practice from the Equality and Human Rights Commission?
My final point is on the need to be honest about where the deeper formation of relationships happens. Schools matter and good teachers can be life-changing, but let us not lose sight of the fact that children spend most of their time outside the classroom. The attitudes that shape relationships are forged primarily at home, as well as online and in peer groups. If we want healthy relationships, we cannot pretend that a curriculum document can substitute for a loving and nurturing family structure. Families can come in all different shapes and sizes, but the important thing is that they are loving, nurturing and respectful. Children learn how to interact with others from their main caregivers. What are the Minister’s plans to support strong families, given that it is likely to be the most impactful way a Government can ensure healthier relationships?
Jade Botterill (Ossett and Denby Dale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis) for opening this debate on the Government’s support for healthy relationships. It was great to hear hon. Members talking about what healthy relationships mean to them, and it is wonderful to see both Movember and Dad Shift in the Gallery today.
This debate could not come at a more welcome time. We have recently published our groundbreaking strategy for halving violence against women and girls in the next 10 years, backed by at least £1 billion of Government funding. We published updated relationships, sex and health education guidance last summer, which will be implemented in all schools from September, and we have committed £8 million to support schools to maximise the impact of curriculum changes. The importance of healthy relationships was written in our manifesto, and we are proud of the action this Labour Government are taking in this area.
The new curriculum reflects the importance of supporting young children to build the skills for healthy relationships from the start of primary. We should not pretend that relationships are easy, and the reason we are having this conversation is because we know they are not. We will support children to learn the difficult skills of setting and recognising healthy boundaries, balancing different people’s needs and preferences, managing conflict and communicating with kindness and respect.
In secondary school, we will move away from an exclusive focus on consent, which has led to a culture of “anything goes, so long as I’ve got a yes.” Young people must understand the importance of consent, but they must also understand that consent alone is not enough. We want to raise a generation of young people who value kindness, who pay attention, who notice power imbalances and who look out for vulnerability. This is fundamentally about how we approach our relationships. Are we out there trying to get what we want from other people, or are we here to be kind and take care of each other?
We will teach young people how to turn a critical lens on content that encourages harmful attitudes or prejudice in any form of media. In the online world of Andrew Tate’s AI deepfakes and hatred presented as brotherly advice, we will ensure that young people can identify misogyny and recognise how social media influencers capitalise on it to the detriment of men and women and boys and girls. We have to be absolutely clear that this does not mean stigmatising boys, or making boys feel that they are the enemy. Where society polarises, the job of schools is to help young people find their common ground. Where boys and young men feel lost or isolated, the job of schools is to ensure they have a safe space where they feel they belong. None of that is easy and we are not saying teachers hold all the answers, but they clearly need support. That is why we are investing £11 million in support for schools; £8 million to support the RSE curriculum and £3 million to provide targeted support for children who are displaying harmful behaviours. We believe that every child deserves the support needed to develop healthy relationships.
Hon. Members have rightly drawn attention to the importance of strong, loving families, and many have discussed the need for stronger paternity leave. The Government have launched a full review of the parental leave system. It is a chance to look at how the whole framework can better support working families and reflect the realities of modern work and childcare. Equitable childcare arrangements not only promote family stability, but help address the gender pay gap.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley rightly raised, what it means to grow up in a typical family has fundamentally changed; divorce rates have grown, more women are in the workforce, and households are much more likely to have two earners. Government policy must reflect and support families as they exist in modern working Britain. That is why, through our strategy for giving every child the best start in life, we have set out our first steps to expand and strengthen family services. It will make early education and childcare more accessible and affordable, and improve the quality of early education and childcare to make real change happen for families and children across the country.
We are already delivering support to working families. Eligible working parents of children aged nine months and older are now benefitting from 30 hours of funded childcare per week, which can save families up to £7,000 per eligible child every year. We are improving access by creating tens of thousands of places in new and expanded school-based nurseries. Schools have already reported that more than 5,000 places have been made available through the first phase of that programme. Backed by £45 million of funding, phase 2 will deliver at least 300 new or expanded school-based nurseries that will be ready to offer new childcare places in the 2026-27 academic year. There will be an increased focus on supporting families from disadvantaged areas to access early years provision.
Phase 3 will be led by local authorities, who have been invited to develop multi-year funding proposals. The Government continue to prioritise and protect investment in the early years. That is why we are investing more than £1 billion more in the early years entitlements year on year, and we will continue to go further. From next year, we will give additional funding to extend the early years pupil premium in the areas most in need, testing new approaches to maximise its impact and ensuring that children most at risk of falling behind receive high-quality, evidence-informed support. To make sure that the early years funding system is hardwired to benefit those children in parts of the country that have higher levels of additional need, we will review early years funding, including national funding formulas, and consult the sector on the changes by this summer.
As part of the child poverty strategy, we will work with the Department for Work and Pensions to make it easier for parents to use universal credit childcare and the funded hours together, helping them to access work. Those changes are made with modern families in mind. The 30 hours of childcare entitlement is designed to help families get on, not just get by. It is assessed on a per-person basis to ensure there is no incentive for the lower earner in the household to reduce their income to be eligible.
Not every child gets the chance to be born in a safe and stable family. Domestic violence can sometimes begin during pregnancy. Refuge has reported that
“1 in 3 pregnant women experience domestic abuse”
and between April 2024 and March 2025,
“14% of Refuge’s service users reported being pregnant.”
That is why NICE guidelines are clear that all women accessing maternity services should routinely be asked about domestic abuse, typically at their first antenatal booking appointment, so they can be referred to specialist services. As our strategy for halving violence against women and girls makes clear, tackling domestic abuse is a whole-society effort. When proximity to such violence begins in childhood, my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley is correct that Best Start family hubs can be vital for identifying and tackling it. When parents are struggling to support their children, family hubs can give them new skills to help their children’s social, cognitive and emotional development. That is why we are building on this year’s £126 million funding boost for family hubs and the Start for Life programme. We will be rolling out our Best Start family hubs to every local authority from April.
Children also learn from their peers, and that is why we are actively considering the evidence on peer-to-peer and trusted adult relationships as we develop our pupil engagement framework. That framework will help all schools measure and improve the key factors that determine pupils’ engagement in education. That includes a sense of belonging, safety and inclusion, and relationships with teachers and fellow pupils.
Rich, healthy relationships thrive in a context of shared purpose and understanding. We all know that from our experiences of taking part in sport, putting on plays or even confronting and understanding differing points of view. That is why we are supporting schools and colleges to develop strong and strategic enrichment offers through our upcoming enrichment framework, which will encourage a sense of belonging and enable children and young people to form communities, explore their interests and develop their skills.
I was really touched to hear of the couples admired by Members across the House. Their contributions reminded me of my own parents, who worked so hard to raise me and my two siblings. They both worked long shifts, put food on the table and, around that table, made decisions together. They taught me the values I carry with me today. I grew up with the benefit of healthy relationships at home, at school and in my community. Every child deserves that chance, and has such capacity to enjoy positive, healthy relationships when given the opportunity. Through our childcare expansion, our strategy to tackle violence against women and girls, our work in schools, our review of parental leave and our plans to support and nurture boys, this Government are committed to helping everyone benefit.
Maya Ellis
It has been a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. This has been an important opportunity for us to reflect on what healthy, equal relationships look like in Britain today, the pressures that couples face and how policy can better support them. I am grateful to all hon. Members who contributed, and I pay special tribute to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his beautiful tribute to his grandchildren. Children learn from what they see, and his grandchildren are clearly growing up in a loving family to reflect such love to him. I also acknowledge the spokespeople in the Chamber, the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). The topic of healthy relationships spans multiple Departments, and part of the challenge is ensuring that it does not fall between the gaps, for that reason.
Some days we carry the load, and some days we are carried. I am grateful for all the relationships in the Chamber, and all those at home, that carry me on a regular basis. On that note, I give final thanks to my husband, who I called just before the debate to tell him that the holiday I thought I had booked for Saturday in fact starts tomorrow, to which he just laughed and said, “I’ll start packing.” That is sharing the load, and that is what we all deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government support for healthy relationships.
Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles
(2 days, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Lola Young of Hornsey, who is a great champion for this policy area in the Houses of Parliament.
For centuries, the UK was known as a world leader in garment and textiles production, and we retain that global reputation based on quality and craftsmanship. Every region has its speciality, from Nottinghamshire shoes to Scottish tweed and Yorkshire wool—and from Savile Row to Brick Lane, our capital city has been synonymous with fashion throughout the decades. The sector indirectly supports 200,000 jobs in London. People come from all over the world to shop here and many come to study, with 55 UK universities offering fashion and textiles courses. Nothing says more about our place in global culture. In an increasingly uncertain world, our reputation and expertise are everything, and UK soft power opens many doors.
I am sure a lot of people are thinking: what qualifies an MP to talk about fashion? Well, many years ago—in 1985, to be precise—my sister, who is a wonderful seamstress, returned to Australia after a visit to the UK, and with her she brought her most prized Liberty fabric. She made it into a skirt for me, and that is what I am wearing today. Slow ethical fashion is timeless. Had I known in advance that the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), was going to respond to this debate, I would have encouraged him to wear his handmade tartan kilt, which we would have loved to have seen. I am sure we will be able to do that next time.
Last month, I sponsored a Backbench Business debate on food inflation and the cost of living. Some might think that onshoring fashion is a completely different topic, but both go to the heart of who I am as a Labour MP, what I came into politics to do and what kind of country we need to be. We need an inclusive economy that works for everyone, where work pays and where anyone, whether they are a young person starting out or a parent returning to work, has access to skilled jobs, training and a bright future for them and their family. In politics, everything we do should start with these most basic of values.
How do we put our values into action? We know that the rapid rise of fast fashion encouraged outsourcing and offshoring, but growing awareness of environmental and social issues in fashion has sparked a revival in the UK industry. Today, the Government have a chance to support slow ethical fashion and invest in home-grown talent and skills. Fashion and textiles manufacturing in Britain could be a key driver of economic growth. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. There is huge potential here for UK industry. Onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs and £1.2 billion in tax receipts. That is vital when we know that the UK services trade has exceeded expectations this quarter, but our goods trade still has some way to catch up. I ask the Minister to support the industry, encourage public procurement of local suppliers, provide support to small firms for capital expenditure and research development, and work with the industry to promote training and apprenticeships.
I was so pleased that in last November’s Budget, the Chancellor announced funding to make apprenticeship training for under-25s completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises. There was also an increase of the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds from April 2026 to over £10 an hour for the first time. We need to give young people the support and opportunities they deserve. The Budget also included new measures to stop overseas online firms from undercutting UK bricks-and-mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duty applies to parcels of any value, and I look forward to seeing the impact of those measures. But before I say more about how the Government can help, let me address the industry, and particularly those brands that are manufacturing offshore.
I know that Brexit has not helped the UK industry. It was a game changer, and many firms have had to reassess their whole business model—from the overnight delivery of buttons and zips to big impacts on the workforce, and many teachers in the world of fashion. There are costs to producing in the UK, but what about the benefits, including more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times that global competitors cannot match due to distance, and more transparency as customers know exactly where their clothes are made? “Made in the UK” is a point of pride for us all. Ethical manufacturing is an asset to a brand. Particularly with the Government’s new flagship Employment Rights Act 2025, businesses can assure their customers of world-leading workers’ rights and ethical employment standards. Every garment they produce can not only say “Made in the UK” but “Made in the UK under fair conditions”.
Contributing to the circular economy, there is a huge potential for recycling, used garment collection and regenerated fabric, which could set the UK apart as the global capital of truly sustainable fashion. By manufacturing in the UK, manufacturers are also a vital part of our towns and cities. Other Members in this debate will talk about the opportunity for the regions to create jobs directly and indirectly, where money earned stays in local communities and helps every family to thrive.
How can the Government help? First, procurement. As I have said, the Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. The Government’s industrial strategy talks about driving innovation and increasing access to talent. The national procurement policy statement emphasises
“taking into account priorities in local and regional economic growth plans”.
Public bodies can procure in a way that supports the economic needs of the communities they serve, rather than having pounds, shillings and pence as the sole consideration.
One example is uniforms. There are some best practice examples of school uniforms, but what about uniforms that are used in the prison service or even the military, which is one area where we know that there will be growth in public expenditure? Britain is a global leader in camouflage fabric production, yet the majority of military uniforms are manufactured overseas. The House of Commons Library has been very helpful: it has given me information on contract sizes and which firms are procured, but the supply chains are complex and a bit opaque. I am not sure whether the Minister has expertise in this area. If he does not, I am sure he can write to me later, or perhaps I can try with the Ministry of Defence again.
Ministerial questions have revealed that exact details of the quantities and location of where the armed forces’ dress and combat uniforms are produced are not held centrally. An inquiry from 2013—a long time ago, now—revealed that just 6% of UK military uniforms were made in the UK. We see quite a lot of flag waving in politics at the moment, but is not true patriotism about making sure that our young people have a secure future, with opportunities for skilled jobs?
How else can the Government assist? We could also look at how business practices affect small firms. It is impossible for clothing manufacturers to survive if they do not have certainty about production, deliveries and payments. That can be due to a lack of formal agreements with buyers, or any agreements simply not being honoured. That puts manufacturers’ cashflow in difficulties. Materials need to be bought; wages need to be paid. There can be an unfair transfer of risk from brand to manufacturer. Small enterprises can be mistreated by their more powerful business customers. That is why I support the creation of a fashion watchdog, to protect small garment manufacturers. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of that concept.
On a similar theme, we need to ensure that there is a level playing field for UK manufacturers on ethical working practices, sustainability, transparency and compliance. We know that the Competition and Markets Authority has published guidance for fashion businesses making green claims about their garments. We need to ensure that the online giants comply with all the regulations and are not undercutting UK enterprises with opaque information about how they source their products.
Let me turn to technology and education. I am pleased to welcome Professor Susan Postlethwaite from Manchester Metropolitan University, who may be with us today. Her report “Reshoring UK Garment Manufacturing with Automation” makes the case for agile, small-scale, reshored garment manufacturing systems and a newly trained, highly skilled workforce. The report focuses on technology and education, the potential for new robotic and automated systems in UK fashion manufacturing, and redesigning fashion education to embrace this technology. How can the Government help industry to rise to the challenge and create high-quality jobs across our communities? Most of all, let us kick off the discussion with the industry and the Government working together, so we can focus on what is important: making the UK the global home of sustainable fashion.
Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes fantastic points. The importance of sustainability and the environmental impact of offshored fashion extend into the whole life cycle of our clothes. One of the first meetings I had upon being elected was with Chris Carey’s Collections, a textile recycler in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge, which told me how the widescale proliferation of cheap, imported fast-fashion products with low-quality fabrics was leading to huge declines in its recycling rates and condemning more and more clothes to landfill. Does my hon. Friend agree that when evaluating the feasibility of onshoring, we should consider the whole life cycle of our clothes?
Catherine West
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is so much going on in our constituencies but with relatively little support from local government or central Government. With a small amount of effort, we could help the sustainable fashion sector to really flourish. As I was saying, we need to focus on making the UK the home of sustainable fashion, delivering high-skilled jobs and creating a truly inclusive economy that works for everyone.
Finally, I have some questions for the Minister. Will the Government promote onshoring across the industry and promote the benefits of manufacturing in the UK? Will they turbocharge public procurement from local suppliers and increase awareness across the public sector? Procurement is no longer just about pounds, shillings and pence, but about best value for communities. What can the Government do to provide support to small firms on capital expenditure for research, development and technology? Will the Minister work with the industry to promote training and apprenticeships—I know that he is a great supporter of that already—and so help parents who want to return to the workforce, as well as youngsters? Will he assess the merits of the fashion watchdog? Finally, UK manufacturers need a level playing field. Are the regulations and guidance about sourcing and transparency up to scratch, or is it time for a review?
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is wonderful to see you in this place, Ms Ghani. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) not just for securing this important debate but for her commitment in travelling all the way to Leicester, my home town. That shows how seriously she takes this matter.
I will focus my speech on my home town. Leicester is a city rooted in textile heritage, from Tudor hosiery knitters working in their homes to the industrial expansion of the 19th century. In fact, Leicester once proudly claimed to clothe the world. By 1936, it was recognised as the second richest city in Europe, and at its height had more than 1,500 factories employing tens of thousands of people.
As a young boy—this is not just nostalgia—I grew up in the shadows of those factories. I saw at first hand how they powered enterprise, created family wealth for people who had just come to this country, and fostered a culture of community entrepreneurship and philanthropy. The businesses did not just produce garments; they sponsored local events, supported charities, built places of worship and invested in the city. Manufacturing was woven into the social fabric of Leicester, shaping not just livelihoods but lives.
Today, across the county, the garment sector still supports approximately 11,000 jobs. Every component needed to make a complete garment is still available in the city. Leicester offers true end-to-end production— from design concept to finished product—with a speed, flexibility and technical capability that many overseas supply chains simply cannot match. Yet garment manufacturing now accounts for just £375 million of the UK textiles sector’s £25.6 billion; that is less than 2%. Meanwhile, tens of millions of our public procurement pounds are leaving our shores. We surely have to ask why.
The economic case for onshoring is really strong. The British Army clothing budget alone is worth nearly £80 million annually. In previous years—as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet mentioned, figures are available only from 2013—only a small fraction, 6%, was manufactured in Britain. That means that an overwhelming 94% was being manufactured abroad.
NHS uniform frameworks are worth £125 million over five years. During covid, the Department of Health and Social Care spent more than £13 billion on personal protective equipment, with billions-worth written off as unusable and millions more spent on storage. During the pandemic, we saw that UK factories could pivot rapidly to produce PPE and scrubs at scale. The capacity and skills exist; what is missing is a clear mandate.
Other nations understand this very clearly. In fact, in the United States, military uniforms must be made domestically, for national security reasons. I believe the UK should adopt a similar principle. Military uniforms and NHS clothing should be manufactured in Britain wherever possible. I am not promoting protectionism; it makes perfect economic and strategic sense.
The environmental case for onshoring is also extremely strong, because it reduces carbon miles naturally and allows tighter environmental oversight. Leicester innovators such as Nanofique and Shibori dye house, working alongside De Montfort University, are pioneering waste water treatment methods that demonstrate how environmental responsibility and industry can work hand in hand.
There is also a powerful social case. Garment manufacturing provides flexible employment. That is valuable for all, but particularly for women, enabling many to rejoin the workforce after having children, combating isolation and providing financial independence. I recently met trainees at Fashion Enter’s Leicester hub, alongside Jenny Holloway, and saw at first hand the appetite for skilled ethical production. Community organisations—they have joined me today—such as Wesley Hall and the Shama Women’s Centre offer sewing classes that serve as a pathway to work for many disadvantaged women. Leicester does not lack workforce readiness; it has that in abundance.
I appreciate that the industry in my city has faced negative headlines. We cannot shy away from that, and I agree wholeheartedly that any form of exploitative behaviour must be addressed and rooted out. The Operation Tacit review, launched after those serious allegations, found, yes, some cases of non-compliance, but it made it perfectly clear that the portrayal of an industry dominated by widespread modern slavery was overstated. Enforcement bodies found no evidence of prosecutable modern day slavery offences. The vast majority of Leicester factories are hard-working, skilled and ethical, and they certainly deserve recognition for that, not stigma.
If we are serious about ethical supply chains, we must also be serious about ethical purchasing. That is why proposals for a garment trading adjudicator—a fashion watchdog modelled on the Groceries Code Adjudicator—deserve serious consideration. Research recently presented at a Fair Work and Supply Chains in the UK Garment Industry event showed the strain that purchasers are put under by brands: 100% of suppliers pay for audits, yet only 6% are guaranteed future orders. Lead times can drop at the drop of a hat, halving from 30 days to 14 days, and payment terms are lengthened without warning. Orders are cancelled or altered mid-production. In fact, 67% of manufacturers are reporting that brands refuse to cover the cost of any of these changes. That volatility destabilises factories and workers alike and is simply not fair or sustainable.
[Christine Jardine in the Chair]
Leicester Made, through its Leicester Textiles Renewal project, is already bringing together expertise to strengthen UK supply chains, celebrate regional skills and accelerate sustainable, tech-driven onshore production. Fashion Enter is leading calls for public procurement reform. These are not abstract campaigns, but practical and deliverable solutions.
We must also target packaging waste and introduce penalties for firms that produce large volumes to bring down unit costs, only for much of it to remain unsold 12 months later. Changing what waste means may force retailers and brands to stop volume of production, because the current carrots are simply not working. Let us incentivise our manufacturers by creating tax breaks for companies that are making clothing from waste and deadstock. The cost of dealing with fashion waste, especially from low-cost Chinese retailers such as Shein, is rising exponentially. Introducing an incentive for UK manufacturers to create garments from deadstock would help to tackle that issue and create a steady stream of business for UK companies.
We need to create a uniform national body to advocate for the sector, and a national director of manufacturers. That would help to join the dots to create competitive clusters. It is already happening at the Sheffield and Manchester city councils, which are developing local cluster productions and competitive local supply chains. We must also ensure awareness; we must fund a consumer awareness campaign. Multiple research projects show that people will pay more to support local communities and businesses. We should create a new “Made in the UK” trademark that only the businesses making clothes in the UK can use. Currently, “Made in the UK” does not mean that something is made in the UK; it can be made somewhere else and packaged here, and still count.
Onshoring increases our economic prosperity, reduces carbon footprint, strengthens labour standards, enhances national security and restores community pride. Leicester and other garment manufacturers do not need charity, they need fair enforcement, responsible sourcing and Government leadership in procurement. A modest increase, raising the share of UK-manufactured clothing sold domestically to just 10%, would be transformational. It would create thousands of skilled jobs, rebuild capacity and create enormous revenue for the Treasury. Leicester once clothed the world. With the right policy direction, it can clothe Britain again, ethically, sustainably and proudly.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He and I support the same football team, although I am afraid that they are not doing that well at this moment in time—we hope for better things in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for setting the scene so well. She referred in her introduction to many places in the United Kingdom, and I am going to refer to Northern Ireland, where linen was one of our major industries—it is something that we are very proud of. I could never be called a fashion icon; I might be a dedicated follower of fashion, but that does not make me a fashion icon by any means. But I can certainly appreciate good craftmanship, which is part of the history and legacy of Northern Ireland, with its world-famous linen industry. The legacy of quality linen work continues to this day throughout Northern Ireland.
I am old enough to remember—it is probably no secret that I am the oldest person in this room—when my constituency of Strangford, particularly in Newtownards, had somewhere between 15 and 20 factories producing textiles, fashion, linen and threads. They are all away now—I think we have only one left. Indeed, it was not unusual for someone to leave a factory on a Friday night and start a new job in another factory on the Monday morning, such was the opportunity, but the world has changed—although I will refer to others in Northern Ireland that still do incredibly important work.
The fashion and textile industry in Northern Ireland has shifted from mass production and is now a specialised, high-end and innovative sector, focusing on luxury linen, technical textiles and advanced garment manufacturing. The remaining firms thrive through digital, sustainable and specialised technology. William Clark and Sons, for example, is leveraging its 300 years of expertise. Key players such as Ulster Carpets use robotics, while others support the niche market for luxury in apparel and homeware.
I should have said that I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, as always. Expectations are high, but I am sure we will not be disappointed with his answers to our requests. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), in her place. She is doing a double run today—she did the earlier debate and now she is doing this one, so well done.
The industry has transformed from high-volume production to design-driven, specialised manufacturing. Many of our specialised companies are renowned globally for their luxurious products. We remain incredibly proud of the industry in Northern Ireland, because it does all the things we hoped it would.
The industry has contracted, as I illustrated in Newtownards, the main town in my constituency, although there are examples of factories in many others, including Comber, Ballynahinch, Ballygowan and Killinchy—they are all away, although there does seem to be a focus in Mid Ulster. However, the sector remains a notable part of the local economy. It still accounts for 2,000 firms in Northern Ireland and employs over 10,000 people, with employment heavily centred on textile manufacture—over 40% of that workforce—clothing manufacture and washing and dry-cleaning services. That is an illustration of how the sector has adjusted to the modern age and, at the same time, been able to survive, albeit in a smaller way in terms of the number of factories.
From the Cooneen Group in County Tyrone to individual fashion houses, Northern Ireland continues to produce quality goods with a growing global reach. I am thankful to those who promote the best of British brands globally. I know that the Minister will be careful to ensure that every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is included in British brand promotion—I know that is his commitment —and I look forward to the industry going from strength to strength.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—there is nobody better to chair a debate on fashion, if I may say so. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for her excellent opening speech and all the wonderful points she made. I want to get slightly competitive for a moment: I admire her skirt, which her sister made, but I want to draw attention to the top that I am wearing, which I made myself—onshoring fashion in action.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
You’re taking other people’s jobs—typical Lib Dem!
Sarah Olney
The Minister’s sedentary intervention gives me a good opportunity to say that the hand knitting industry supports many jobs in many rural areas, right across the country, including Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, I have spoken to the people who own Knit With Me, the amazing knitting shop on Richmond Hill of which I am a regular customer, and they tell me how much harder it has become to send some of their amazing products abroad since Brexit. Of course, pure wool is an animal product, which falls under those regulations, so the customs requirements to send packages to the EU have become so much more challenging for them. I am therefore here just as much to stand up for the knitting industry—I am literally standing up in my hand knitted top—although that is not quite what the debate is about, so I beg your pardon, Ms Jardine.
The Liberal Democrats recognise the urgency to transform the way in which fashion operates. We must reduce pollution, curtail environmental damage and tackle unethical practices in the supply chain. The fast fashion industry has been linked to unethical labour practices and modern slavery, tarnishing the appeal of the garments people wear. We urgently need a more sustainable fashion industry. Increasing domestic production is an important aspect of that, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) so passionately set out when talking about his own constituency.
Onshoring is the process of bringing fashion and textile manufacturing back to the UK from overseas. It aims to shorten supply chains and rebuild domestic production capacity that has been lost through decades of offshoring. There are many benefits to onshoring production: it could create local jobs and support British manufacturers and suppliers. More domestic production would also strengthen the UK’s supply chain, reducing reliance on distant producers and the risk of global disruption. There are also benefits to brands seeking agile, flexible production—especially smaller and emerging labels that value local partners—not to mention the reduction of carbon emissions by minimising long-distance shipping. It also fits with growing consumer demand for climate-friendly products, while allowing better quality control and adherence to environmental and labour standards.
Currently, less than 3% of the clothing worn in the UK is made domestically, which shows the scale of the decline. However, the UK fashion and textiles sector retains a base of skilled mills, heritage factories and emerging micro-factories that could support scaled-up onshoring. As such, it has significant potential for domestic growth. UK labour, energy and running costs are, however, significantly higher than in many overseas locations, which makes price competition difficult, and small businesses may struggle with the high initial investment required to rebuild facilities.
Many of the challenges of growing the sector are compounded by a shortage of skilled workers such as sewing machinists. There is a risk of losing these kinds of specialist crafts if they are not actively rebuilt and supported. More broadly, access to training, and hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy at the beginning of the Parliament, and the commitment to an increase in skills and training.
We would introduce a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. We would introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions, as well as the introduction of joint liability for sub-contractors in the fashion and fabric industry.
The UK imports around £20 million-worth of clothing from countries around the world every year, and around 25% of that is estimated to come from China. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Chinese Government’s actions in Xinjiang constitute a genocide. The National Crime Agency decided not to launch an investigation into the importation of cotton products manufactured by forced labour in the Xinjiang province of China. The Court of Appeal found that to be unlawful, a decision that the Liberal Democrats welcome. All human beings should be treated with decency and have their human rights respected. With 19 billion units of clothing produced in China yearly, it is not unbelievable that much of that is produced by detainees in Xinjiang.
Shockat Adam
Does the hon. Lady agree that any company found to be utilising cotton produced through slave labour should not be allowed to list themselves on the stock market in this country?
Sarah Olney
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to take much firmer action to ensure that no products traded in the supply chain in this country—or, as he says, stocks listed on the stock market—are produced through any kind of forced labour. The use of forced labour is an affront to human rights; but also, and more pragmatically, it does not create a level playing field for producers who are treating their workers fairly and using ethical processes in their production.
The Global Legal Action Network, which brought the case forward, says that there is abundant evidence that UK companies import cotton made with forced labour from China, and that 85% of Chinese cotton is grown in the Xinjiang region. Slavery is not an issue of the past. Today, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide. We call on the Government to reverse the Conservatives’ roll-backs of modern slavery protections, and introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions. We want to champion human rights and support survivors.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to issue a comprehensive China strategy that places human rights and effective, rules-based multilateralism at its centre. My colleagues and I will continue to stand up for people’s human rights in the UK and across the globe, including in China, where much of the UK’s fashion comes from. But in order to encourage onshoring, the UK Government must do more to help UK business. They must champion start-ups and the UK’s entrepreneurs, do more to help small and medium-sized enterprises with costs for things such as energy and people, and upskill our workforce to be able to do the jobs created.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made.
We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example.
Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women.
Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today.
We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity.
Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production.
If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it.
Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered.
Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses.
In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow.
A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses.
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.
The Minister for Trade (Chris Bryant)
It is an enormous delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—I cannot imagine a greater delight this afternoon. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate, and for the passion with which she has approached the issue, not just today but over many months; indeed, it is one of the issues that she has talked about throughout her time as an MP. Burberry used to be based in my constituency, and then left, so I feel quite strongly about some of these issues, and I am delighted to stand in for my colleague in the Department this afternoon.
It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). Of course, we all know of Leicester’s strengths in the garments industry over many decades. In fact, many different parts of the garments industry, including parts of the shoe industry, have been based in areas across the midlands and have been intrinsic to its economic success over centuries. We know about some of the problems there have been with working standards and labour standards, and he made a strong argument for his constituency.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he is a dedicated follower of fashion. He was of course referring to the song by The Kinks from 1966, which he and I are old enough to remember. I remember one of the lines—it is a polite line; there are others that might not fit him so well—which goes:
“One week he’s in polka dots, the next week he’s in stripe”.
I think the hon. Member is pretty consistent in his attire: he is smart, elegant and to the point. He made a strong set of points on behalf of his constituents.
I agree with many points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I am particularly conscious of the issue of people in artisanal or small businesses in particular—sometimes those are hobby business, but sometimes they are more substantial—trying to send packages into Europe and finding it very difficult to do so. That is one reason for needing to get to fiction-less trade—I mean frictionless trade, not the fictional frictionless trade that was promised by some people in another political party when they were in government—and we are seeking to do that as much as we possibly can.
I am focused on how we can enable the whole value chain in the UK to discover ways of exporting into the European Union, which still represents around 45% of our export opportunities, and more widely around the world. We know that a UK business that is able to find a second market and to export is more likely to pay its staff better, be more resilient, grow faster and still be there in 10, 15 and 20 years’ time. For all those reasons, we want to do everything we can to enable more of that sector to export.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to responsible business conduct, which I will come on to a little later. I will also come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who has a slightly fanciful memory of what the previous Government was like, in my humble opinion—I think if we had a vote on that, we would win; it would be all versus one.
We all know that fashion is about as British as tea and crumpets. There are so many massive household names: Ted Baker, Paul Smith, Superdry, which I never knew was British, Barbour, ASOS, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, All Saints, Dunhill, admittedly owned by a Swiss company at the moment but nonetheless a very British brand, and Richard James—and I am just talking about the clothes I am wearing today. [Laughter.] I am not wearing all those, obviously.
It is similar with shoes. I used to be the youth officer for the diocese of Peterborough, living in Northampton. In Northamptonshire, as well as in neighbouring counties, shoe manufacturing has been so much a part of their history. Whether it is Dr Martens, Dune, Cheaney, though I never know how to say it, Tricker’s, Joseph Azagury, Yull, Church’s, Clarks, Grenson, Loake, John Lobb, Crockett and Jones, or Jeffery-West—these boots were made for walking, and that’s just what they are going to do. Whenever we go anywhere in the world, we see so many British shoe brands on every major high street, in airports and elsewhere, and we are immensely proud of that. Quite a lot of those, though not all, are made in the UK.
It is easy to talk about big brands, but part of this debate is precisely to say that there are lots of smaller brands making their way, and that we as a Government must do everything we can to help. One of my favourites, which I have referred to before in the House, is Howies. It was originally based in London and is now in Cardigan in Wales. It is ethically based, and produces a whole range, including sporting clothing and other things. Original Fibres, too, is a London brand; it is ethically sourced, and is trying to bring forward the best in British styling as well as manufacture.
There is Shrimps, Saint and Sofia, Talia Byre, Peachy Den, Black and Beech, and perhaps one for the hon. Member for Strangford, Sleazy Rider.
Chris Bryant
The hon. Gentleman is saying no to that, but he does not know what it is like.
In Edinburgh, of course, there are lots of other brands; perhaps the most famous is Pringle. We have talked a little about knitwear brands such as Beira, Rowanjoy and Mackenzie. We really want those smaller brands to prosper, because so many of them know that part of their key selling point is that they are British and bring something special to the market. They have a particular eye and source their materials in an ethical way. It just gives us a buzz to wear some of their clothes. That is precisely the kind of industry that we want to support.
When I was shadow Minister for Culture, Media and Sport, one of my best days was going down to see the Royal School of Needlework. Hon. Members may think of this as a rather posh thing that puts together items for royal coronations and things like that, but it is the only place in Europe where one can gain a qualification in needlework that is essential to some of the higher fashion brands in the UK. I thought I was going to meet lots of very posh people from Reigate or wherever it may be, but I was absolutely delighted when I walked in to find that the first two young women I met were both from the Rhondda. They wanted to go into the fashion industry, and they knew that by acquiring all the skills they could from the Royal School of Needlework, they were really going to flourish.
The sector is worth bazillions—that is an official term. The statistics people in the Department will probably want me to correct the record on that later. This sector is worth £62 billion to the UK economy, and it supports 1.3 million jobs and generates £23 billion in tax revenue every year. As the hon. Member for Reigate mentioned, there are major manufacturing hubs in many parts of the land—for instance, in Leicester, as we have already heard, across the midlands and in the highlands. I have not yet mentioned Harris Tweed, from which I have a very splendid waistcoat, or Favourbrook—another great British brand.
We are not just talking about textiles for clothing; camouflage has been mentioned, and high tech and new developments in the sector are really important. Yesterday, I met representatives of Panaz Ltd from Burnley, which produces a series of fabrics, including antimicrobial and fire retardant textiles. It is very much at the cutting edge—that sounds wrong, because that is a metaphor from the textile industry—of innovation in the sector, and it sells across the world, which is brilliant.
There are of course connections between the sector and many others we excel in. That is why they are integral to our industrial strategy. One has only to watch 10 minutes of “Bridgerton” to know that fashion and textiles are a really important part of what we are selling to the whole world. One could say the same about Bond, though I would prefer it if he wore British tailoring, even though Bond is now owned by Amazon.
Incidentally, British tailoring is so big that the biggest supermarket in Spain is called El Corte Inglés, which means “The English Cut”. Founded in 1890, it got its name because tailors in Madrid knew that the best tailoring in the world was British and they wanted to sell on the basis of that. It was bought up in 1934 and became an enormous chain in Spain. That just shows our connection. One final connection I would like to make is with British jewellery. We have some of the best jewellers in the world, and often the connection between fashion and jewellery is a really important part of the things that we excel at.
Some specific points were made about procurement. I had not heard the point about uniforms before. It is a really good one, and I am going to chase it down. My hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet does not have to go and metaphorically beat up the Ministers in the Ministry of Defence. I will do that for her, and I will get all the details. It would be good if more of our British servicemen and women were dressed in British uniforms. I remember once being in Sarajevo and being introduced to the new Italian uniforms, which I think are done by Dolce & Gabbana. They had previously been Armani, but they thought they would upgrade to Dolce & Gabbana, or it may have been the other way round. I am not sure—I might have to correct the record again. My hon. Friend spoke about the Procurement Act 2023, which gives public bodies greater ability to prioritise ethical and local sourcing. One would think that that would apply to the whole of Government rather than just parts of the Government, so let us see whether we can make that happen.
My hon. Friend asked about Government investment. We have set aside £4.3 billion to support manufacturers over the next five years, and up to £2.8 billion of that is for research and development. Quite often, the creative industries such as fashion are hesitant about seeking research and development money, because they think that there is nothing new under the skies and that they therefore would not qualify for it, but one has only to watch “Kinky Boots” to know that research and development is just as essential in fashion as it is in any other sector.
We have revamped our support for businesses to make it more effective, including through the development of the business growth service. I urge any business to seek help and advice when they need it. We are very keen on enhancing our trade promotion work. The spring version of London Fashion Week is coming up; unfortunately, it is just for women. I would like us to get back to having a spring fashion week that has both male and female fashions, though the economics of that do not necessarily add up at the moment. We are very supportive of the autumn London Fashion Week.
Of all the big fashion weeks around the world, the UK goes for the edgier part of the market, as Members may already know. That is precisely where we should be, which is why it is so important that we provide financial support for what we call “newgen”, which has produced a suite of new designers in recent years, many of whom are now breaking into much bigger markets. Of course, we continue our support through the British Fashion Council.
We also produced a small business strategy last year, which is really important, not only because many fashion and textiles businesses suffer from late payments, which is something that we definitely need to work on far more effectively than we have in the past, but because of the lack of availability of cash, whether that is for significant investment or for export investment. On both of those issues, we have set aside additional financial support to make sure that that is available for small and medium-sized enterprises.
I come on to the issue of responsible business conduct. Several hon. Members referred to issues such as forced labour or sustainability, but we have not talked about palm oil or deforestation or the production of cotton in different parts of the world, and so on. Hon. Members will know that we have been engaged in a responsible business conduct review, which is nearing completion. I hope we will be able to announce our conclusions fairly soon.
My aim is not to load businesses with more regulation but to try to make sure that the regulation they are subject to is truly effective. One of my anxieties is that sometimes we just get businesses to produce reports; somebody is employed to produce lots of different reports, which get bunged in the annual report and nobody in the world reads them ever. I just do not think that is as effective as other measures that we might be able to introduce. We are trying to curtail the regulatory burden, while at the same time making regulation more effective.
Sarah Olney
Does the Minister agree that effective regulation is not about putting burdens on business, but about ensuring a level playing field, so that ethical businesses and those that have committed to the welfare of their employees and to sourcing good quality materials have a level playing field to sell their products and are not being undercut by people who do not observe those standards?
Chris Bryant
I completely agree with that, but I would make another point. As we put together our trade strategy, we also have to consider whether there might be unfair subsidies in other parts of the world that make it impossible for British businesses to compete in the market. Dumping and other unfair trade practices around the world are part of the set of issues that I want to be able to take to the World Trade Organisation for proper consideration.
I end with a couple of thoughts. We have all loved the fast fashion industry, and shopping is a pastime for many. For many, the availability of cheap clothing is an absolutely essential part of being able to dress themselves. At a time of global crises and financial difficulties for many families, where parents might be worrying about being able to pay the next bill that comes through the door, making sure that the clothes they buy for their kids to go to school and so on are affordable is essential. I get all of that, but I do rejoice in my heart when I talk to younger generations, including my nieces, who are as much in love with preloved clothes as they are with stuff that they might buy new today—with discovering something that has been around for a very long time, and not just buying something and chucking it out two months later.
There is joy and an economic opportunity for all of us if we can manage to onshore more in a variety of different ways, such as enabling people to recycle their own clothes a bit more often, to recycle the clothes of others, and to invest in ethical brands who really do the business in this country. Of course, that means that we have to invest in skills so that there are people able to develop these things—I think the hon. Member for Richmond Park is offering to provide knitting classes for all of her constituents.
Incidentally, I should say I do love “The Great British Sewing Bee”. It is a great television programme. It shows lots of people that we can make our own clothes, and that ethical and sustainable products are an important part of making sure that we live in a world that we want to pass on to our children and grandchildren, or our nieces and nephews.
Catherine West
I thank the Backbench Business Committee again for giving me this opportunity to promote sustainable fashion in the UK and to ask the Minister some questions.
I enjoyed hearing about the picture in Leicester, as well as my visit to Leicester. I also enjoyed hearing about the recycling operations in Beckenham and Penge, and about luxury linen production in Northern Ireland. We heard, of course, about the human rights considerations. The key point to make is that some of our really good retailers are complying with the Government’s guidelines, but others are not doing so, and I think that is what is meant by trying to level things a little bit, so that not all of the cost goes on to our really good retailers and in the shops things are a bit more seamless—[Laughter]—so to speak.
I also thank the Minister for exhibiting his usual flair—[Laughter.] He did so to talk about the importance of frictionless trade with the EU and to explain how he is straining every sinew to achieve that. The importance of research and development cash or funding was also discussed. I thank him for his offer to approach the MOD on military uniforms—hopefully, he will get his officials to do some digging for me on that issue—but there are prison uniforms and other places where it is necessary to wear uniforms. Of course the late payment strategy is so important for small business, as is cash availability for trade abroad by SMEs, which is another vital element of the trade strategy. We look forward to the responsible business review and hopefully we will be at the launch of it, whenever that is; we will come and applaud.
I also thank Fashion Roundtable, Fashion Enter and Baroness Young of Hornsey for all they do to promote the understanding of and up-to-date information about all that is happening in the UK on sustainable fashion, so that we can be really accurate in our debates.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry.