Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Committee of the whole House
Monday 8th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

It is wonderful to see so many people interested in following this debate until 10 pm, which when our scrutiny of the Bill ends today. I will make just a few remarks, if I may. Despite the fact that we still have another day tomorrow, there were a few things in today’s debate that I have not heard sufficiently answered.

First, I pay tribute to the wise remarks from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright). I encourage the Minister to take on board his points about the wide scope of the powers the Minister is taking in this legislation. My right hon. and learned Friend is a former Attorney General, so his remarks should be heeded with a great deal of seriousness. I reiterate the questions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), who sought assurances that the blast furnaces will continue. I am not sure we heard that on the record. When the Minister next gets to the Dispatch Box in these days of debate, will he clarify his intentions as far as that is concerned?

Will the Minister provide clarity on the public interest test? Sensible remarks were made about the Regulatory Reform Committee and how the public interest test is too broadly defined. How can it ever be reversed once it has been invoked? I did not hear anything about limiting the contingent liabilities or the sunset clause, or the possible impact—mentioned in the impact report itself—on investor confidence in this country.

The Minister mentioned that he was willing to meet Members who have concerns about the steel tariffs, which are a separate issue. May I urge him, over the next 24 hours, to try to find some time in his diary so that they can raise specific examples with him?

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

On 21 May, the Business and Trade Committee met representatives of more than 20 steel fabrication companies who were deeply worried about the potential loss of hundreds, or thousands, of jobs. I second that, in respect of the urgency, because 1 July is around the corner, and this represents a major risk to the sector.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Indeed; and, as we have heard, one of the suppliers is still in administration. I think that the Minister needs to rethink that deadline, and I hope he will find time in his diary, perhaps as early as tomorrow, to meet Members on both sides of the House to discuss the issue.

With no more ado, Ms Ghani, I will now attempt to press as many of the amendments as you will allow, and we will test the view of the Committee. However, I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 21.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Sunset for exercise of principal transfer powers

Amendment proposed: 12, in clause 3, page 2, line 10, leave out subsections (3) to (5).—(Dame Harriett Baldwin.)

This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State extending the sunset of the principal transfer powers.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

High Street Businesses: Government Support

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for the interest, passion, desire and ideas that he brought to the debate—I think we all really appreciate that—and I thank my other hon. Friends for all their good ideas. I will give a particular shout-out to the hon. Member for Bolton West (Phil Brickell) for his ideas about enforcement and dealing with illicit businesses on the high street—I think all our constituencies would benefit from those.

It is clear that we have a serious problem. Local pubs, family-owned shops and restaurants matter—they make our communities tick—but up and down the country they are closing at an alarming rate. I want to quantify just what that means: according to figures from the British Beer and Pub Association, 161 pubs—nearly two per day—closed in the first three months of this year across England, Scotland and Wales, taking with them 2,400 jobs, and in 2024 the UK lost 37 shops per day, with almost 13,500 closing. Preliminary figures for 2025 indicate that last year was likely even worse and could surpass 2022, the previous record year for closures. Alarm bells are ringing.

A successful high street is not just about shops; it is about community and connection. As almost everybody in the room has said, it is about bringing community together and giving people opportunity and fun. It is on us as politicians to do our best to make that happen and ensure that it survives. The Lib Dems have been calling consistently for a package of support that recognises the scale of the problem: cutting VAT for hospitality and attractions from 20% to 15%; reforming business rates to reward occupancy; and strengthening the town centre-first principle in planning policy to tackle vacancy rates. That requires applications for main town centre uses to be located in town centres rather than edge-of-centre locations, which should be used only if suitable sites are not available in the town centre. I will give a special shout-out to Witney as an example of a place where decades of support from planning officers and councillors has kept the high street lively, as opposed to everything being dragged out of town. Well done to everybody for doing that over decades.

Let me turn to the problems. I will start with the big stuff: at the top is the failure to get our economy moving. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Minehead (Rachel Gilmour) just mentioned, being back inside the European single market and customs union would not cost anything—it makes really good sense. Dealing with tax reform makes really good sense. Those measures would cut the cost of doing business by reducing the cost of food, addressing the chronic vacancy rate in hospitality, easing labour shortages and reducing the cost of energy. This is all doable.

At the top of the charge sheet are national insurance contributions. As an ex-entrepreneur, I feel the horror of this daft tax on headcount. Before getting out of bed in the morning—before generating any revenue, let alone profit—businesses are being whacked, and they do not want to hire people. That is really bad news. Liberal Democrats have consistently opposed the change and think it should be reversed in full. We are also calling for a consultation on a new NICs band from £5,000 to £9,100, with a lower rate to better support part-time workers, on whom the hospitality industry relies heavily.

Then there is VAT—that is the 5% cut—and business rates. The numbers on business rates are terrifying. Statistics from the Valuation Office Agency show rateable values rising by an average of 30% in 2026 for pubs and restaurants in England, and by an average of 70% for pubs with accommodation—imagine if that was your business!—outstripping the still substantial average increase of 19.4% across England for all properties. Those increases are completely unsustainable, and I do not think the Government are doing nearly enough to address them.

In my constituency we have fabulous high streets. We have the medieval wonders of Witney and Burford, which rightly attract visitors from around the world. We have much-loved and much-defended free parking, which matters a lot to people, and we are working hard to better our local transport, whether that is buses, walking or biking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage said, we need all those things, not to pit one against the other. Often-overlooked Carterton and Faringdon have tons of wonderful independent shops and need so much more support than we are currently giving them.

I want to focus on a few examples. Lisa and Kirsty have been running Sassi, a clothing shop on Witney high street, for over 15 years. Their business rates bill has gone up by £1,200 this year. Clive, who runs The Flooring Centre in Witney, has seen his business rates increase by 15% this year. This is not being addressed as a problem. Given the dire economic circumstances, such big increases in rates are a disaster.

Let me turn to solutions and return to the need for a 5% VAT cut, a reversal of the increase in employer NICs, and the proper and fair reform of the business rates system that businesses have long been promised. As an interim support measure, we have called for the Government to keep in place the existing 75% relief for retail, hospitality and leisure until the new system is in place.

Our high streets and town centres are places that we all rely on and depend on, hang out in and have fun in, and they are going in the wrong direction. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s thoughts on what we can do about it.

Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

[Sir Mel Stride]

All these flashbacks to the 1980s are a slightly desperate attempt to get away from the 2020s, I think.

The other thing that socialists love to do is borrow, borrow, borrow, and spend, spend, spend until they have run out of other people’s money. That is precisely what this Government have done. The Secretary of State mentioned the fiscal rules, but of course he failed to mention that in the run-up to the election, the Chancellor said that she would abide by our fiscal rules, and then promptly changed them, so that she could borrow more, flipping the definition of “debt” from public sector net debt to public sector financial liabilities. That allowed her to take her foot off the brake and borrow and spend even more.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Flashing back to the 1980s, would the right hon. Member like to remind us when the Conservatives last balanced a budget?

[Sir Mel Stride]

The current account went into a slight surplus just around 2015-16. [Interruption.] It did, actually. That was on the back of our inheriting a £160 billion deficit in 2010, which was over 10% of GDP—another example of the disasters of a Labour Government.

The Secretary of State rightly spoke of artificial intelligence and the opportunities that it presents, but what we know of artificial intelligence is that it will have a profound and very uncertain effect on the labour market. We need a flexible skills offer to deal with that, and flexible labour markets, but through the Employment Rights Act, the Government are making the labour market more rigid, and that will hurt younger people in particular, who do not have a track record in employment, so do not be surprised if youth unemployment continues to hover around 16% or 17% as a consequence of the actions of this Government.

When it comes to leaning into these challenges, we know that there is no plan. This Government are not going to do anything. They are just involved in internecine introspection—a civil war, now—within the Labour party. They said that they would tread lightly on our lives; in fact, they are now stampeding all over them. The rivals to the Prime Minister will be looking to double-down on the ruinous policies that I have just set out.

We have seen the real effects of this in recent days. On Friday, after the former Member for Makerfield said that he would step down in order to ease the passage of Andy Burnham to this place, what happened to gilt yields? They spiked up 18 basis points. I have done a little bit of research, and I can tell the House that, if sustained through the forecast period, that would mean over £5 billion of additional debt servicing costs. That is about £300 for every working family in this country. That is the effect of Andy Burnham, and he has not even arrived here yet.

We are on the edge of a precipice economically, leaning into a very turbulent time. These are the policies of the madhouse, yet we are told not to worry. The hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who I believe is an outrider for Andy Burnham, said of the bond markets that they would just have to “fall into line”. Andy Burnham himself said in the New Statesman:

“We’ve got to go beyond this thing”—

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

We all agree that we urgently need to get the economy growing again. However, the Bills in the King’s Speech do not represent the big, bold economic change that the country needs. I will talk today about just two things that would create economic growth: trade, and balancing tax and spending through our fiscal framework.

On trade, our country prospers when fair markets for goods, services, capital and labour operate effectively. Trade makes this country great. Raising barriers to trade makes it harder for the economy to grow and erodes the tax base on which our vital public services depend—and the cost of doing business skyrockets, whether for a small business person in my constituency or for a large financial institution here in London.

The evidence of the damage that Brexit has done is in plain view. America’s National Bureau of Economic Research, which produces non-partisan economic research, estimates that by 2025, the Brexit process had reduced UK GDP per capita by 6% to 8%, investment by 12% to 18%, employment by 3% to 4%, and productivity by 3% to 4%. That comes at enormous human cost.

The UK-EU reset has some good elements, but each element, which is being painfully negotiated, returns merely some of the benefits that we all used to have. Our young people may soon have the opportunity again to travel and work abroad. We may rejoin the EU’s energy market, cutting electricity costs and making both markets greener and more efficient. The Government have been working hard on an SPS agreement on food with the EU. That would hugely reduce costs and delays for our farmers, and the benefits would be felt in Oxfordshire and rural communities across the country. It would bring cheaper food to supermarket shelves, which is good news for all of us. But consider the logic: the Government are now fighting really hard to rejoin the EU’s single market in food products, while remaining resolutely against rejoining the single market for anything else. Where is the logic in that? Two things are painfully clear. We are expending enormous political capital to recover just a fraction of the benefits we once had, and even that goal is wholly insufficient, given the scale of the challenge that our economy faces. We need to be bolder and aim higher.

I turn to the UK’s fiscal framework. Let us have a think about how well it has worked over the last quarter of a century. In the last 25 years—a period spanning at least eight different fiscal frameworks—we have not had a single year in which tax receipts have exceeded spending. The 2024-25 deficit was £153 billion, which was 5.2% of GDP. The consequences of this are severe: our national debt has ballooned to £2.9 trillion, equivalent to 94% of GDP. When I look at our fiscal rules, the words that come to me are, “Lie to me.” The tradition works something like this. The Government of the day assure the country that all targets will be hit—not now, when it actually matters, but at a completely unknowable forecast date, five years hence. That five-year target rolls forward and is never reached. Spending is front-loaded in years one, two and three, and tax rises are backloaded in years four and five—ideally, the other side of a general election.

Traditionally, voters have been lied to because the alternative means politicians confronting and explaining a financial situation that nobody wants to face. Is this failure inevitable? No, it is not. Other countries have moved in the other direction and cut their debt-to-GDP ratios. Sweden had a financial crisis in the 1990s, with a debt to GDP ratio of above 80%. Its response was the 1996 Budget Act, one of the most rigorous fiscal frameworks in Europe, which fundamentally reshaped how taxation and parliamentary scrutiny interact. Most importantly for our situation today, the principles of this framework continue to command very strong cross-party support. That does not mean that there is agreement on specific spending or tax decisions—these remain contested—but the framework rules themselves are treated as largely above partisan dispute. That is precisely why the Swedish model is so frequently cited internationally. I am asking everyone in this Chamber and everyone listening to think seriously about whether we could do something similar here. After all, we are far better off addressing this very large problem now, before a financial crisis forces our hand later.

Royal Mail: Performance

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg, and I thank the hon. Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing this important debate.

I also thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) and for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for highlighting all the impacts on their constituents, in the form of missed medical appointments, financial appointments or legal appointments. Exactly the same is true in my Witney constituency. Obviously, I speak for the whole Chamber; we are all getting correspondence about this issue in our mailbox, because it is causing so much trouble. The other thing that has come out so strongly in this debate is the stress, the distrust and the unfairness that the posties themselves have to live with. That situation causes a huge amount of unhappiness, but there seems to be no end to it in sight, which is a real problem.

The turnover rate of new Royal Mail employees is extremely high and the work practices are harsh. Yet we rely on our local posties, and almost without exception they take their responsibilities extremely seriously. I will give a particular shout out to my postie, Tony, who on Christmas eve worked way beyond his scheduled hours. He should not have had to do that and should have been paid for it. However, he is representative of everybody working for Royal Mail around the country, and that situation does not just happen on Christmas eve; it happens week in, week out.

The work practices are just getting tougher and tougher. That comes out in the latest quarterly report, which makes for miserable reading. For example, delivery targets were not met in a single postcode across the first three quarters of 2025-26. In Oxfordshire, just 67.2% of first-class mail arrived, against the target of 93%.

In October 2025, Ofcom fined Royal Mail £21 million, saying that it urgently needed an improvement plan. However, five months later Royal Mail is still saying that it cannot publish that plan until talks with the postal workers union—the CWU—conclude. All the while, our constituents and our posties are left paying more and suffering more for an inadequate and wholly unreliable service.

[Andy McDonald]

Was privatisation a mistake?

[Charlie Maynard]

I have been here for 17 months. We could rehash things from 14 or 17 years ago. I believe that in 2009 the Labour Government sought to take a 30% stake out of the Royal Mail, but I am not interested in going back through that because we are where we are. Let me try to finish my speech, and I will talk about where I think we should be heading now.

The Government and Ofcom need to urgently make it clear to Royal Mail executives that they must get a grip on the situation. Although letter numbers have fallen, there is still plenty of demand for Royal Mail’s delivery services. Crucially, everyone across the country and all of us here in Parliament place huge value on retaining the universal service obligation. What seems clear is that the incentives are wrong.

The new owner of Royal Mail is a commercial operator that bought International Distribution Services, the holding company of Royal Mail, in June 2025 with a full understanding of the Royal Mail’s USO requirement. The business seems to be prioritising its profitable parcel business, General Logistics Systems. The owner also has a clear commercial incentive to cut costs on the Royal Mail side of the business and to keep lobbying Ofcom to continue to loosen the USO requirements even further. Such a strategy serves the owner of Royal Mail very nicely, but is a terrible outcome for the many millions of people up and down the country who depend on the USO, and for the posties.

I am sure the Minister and Ofcom recognise that predicament and also recognise that the USO is a key public good. I am interested in the extent to which the Minister considers the situation similar to or different from the telecoms industry levy, which is used to fund the broadband universal service obligation. Does the Minister agree that insisting on much clearer operational transparency from the Royal Mail would be good to establish more detail on whether parcels are being prioritised over letters and the impact of that? It could be managed by Ofcom requiring root-level data on delivery performance and clear reporting on parcels versus letters prioritisation to make it harder for USO traffic to be quietly deprioritised. What steps is the Minister considering taking to stop a situation where Royal Mail keeps trying to bounce Ofcom into cutting the USO further?

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests regarding the business that I founded in 1996, BDA partners, in which I still hold a stake but have no role or responsibility.

Economically, this agreement offers some benefits. As per the Government’s impact assessment, and as the Minister stated, the UK’s gross domestic product is estimated to increase by 0.13% as a result of this FTA. That is equivalent to £4.8 billion. That is in the long run— 0.13% by 2040. Let us put that into context: the hit to our economy from Brexit is around 6% to 8% of GDP—in the region of £210 billion—so its impact is 44 times larger. That is now, compared with the 0.13% we get in 15 years’ time.

[Sir Ashley Fox]

The hon. Gentleman quotes a Brexit hit of 6% to 8% of GDP. Has he just invented that figure or has he got some evidence for it?

[Charlie Maynard]

The National Bureau of Economic Research, in the United States.

[Andrew Griffith]

But you don’t like the States.

[Charlie Maynard]

I certainly like the States.

While we are making comparisons with Europe, I note that under the UK’s free trade agreement 92% of our exports to India will enter tariff-free. Under the EU’s deal, 96.6% of its exports can enter India tariff-free. Perhaps there is some logic, after all, to bigger trade blocs having more leverage. I wholeheartedly agree with the comments from the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) about national insurance contributions. I am also deeply concerned about that, as is my party. I also take the Minister’s point about visa fees and everything else, but by the time we add all those together, I think that UK Inc—whether in my constituency of Witney or across the UK—will still be at a major disadvantage. This risks undermining British labour—

[Chris Bryant]

Wrong.

[Charlie Maynard]

I really hope I am wrong, but I don’t think I am.

Moving beyond the numbers, I highlight the concerns of civil society groups, which many Members have mentioned, about clauses in the agreement on labour, the environment and human rights being characterised by a pattern of aspirational language and a lack of enforceability, with the result that they are not subject to the dispute settlement mechanism—cute words but no teeth. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a set of minimum standards to benchmark future trade agreements, which would include human rights, conflict and oppression and environmental, labour and safety standards, where they can be negotiated, based on a UK trade and human rights policy and a trade and development policy.

I want to ask some question about India’s role in busting the trade sanctions that the UK has put on Russia. To recap: Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, and both the UK and the EU banned direct imports of Russian oil and petroleum products in December 2022. However, a loophole stayed open that allowed derivative products including petrochemicals imported from third countries into the UK to continue using Russian-origin crude oil and gas. In July 2025, the EU amended its sanctions legislation to target imports of petrochemicals from third countries that used Russian-origin oil. This has now taken effect in the EU. The EU has blocked this loophole. In October 2025, the UK announced a further sanctions package targeting specific third-country entities that supported Russian fossil fuels. That included India’s Nayara Energy, which is part-owned by Russia’s state oil company Rosneft.

On 2 December 2025, the Trade Minister told the Business and Trade Committee, of which I am a member,

“we want India to do less business with Russia because we want Russia’s machine to be debilitated. There are lots of things that I want to achieve in the world and not all of them can be achieved through FTAs.”

The Trade Minister and the trade team fully understood, therefore, that India was, and is, selling Russia-originated petchems into the UK. We had leverage when we were negotiating the FTA, but instead the UK decided to turn a blind eye to India’s sanction-busting, helping Russia’s war effort. This continues right now, with the UK importing jet fuel and other petrochemicals from India that are manufactured with Russian oil and gas. The refining loophole is still there because His Majesty’s Government have not yet legislated to ban imports of derivatives from Russian crude. The Government say that they expect a ban to be enforced in spring 2026, whenever that is.

Analysis by the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air shows that between the ban on direct imports coming into force in 2022 and the end of 2025, the UK has imported £4 billion-worth of jet fuel and other oil products made at refineries in India and Turkey, which run partially on Russian crude, and that every month the UK delays banning oil products made from Russian crude, it is effectively writing the Kremlin a cheque for around £44 million.

It gets worse. Four of the five largest oil refiners in India are majority-owned by the Indian Government, with Reliance being the fifth, so it is not just the Indian refiners that are helping Russia by selling us petchems; the state of India itself is right now selling jet fuel and other petrochemicals derived from Russian oil and gas into the UK. What have we done about it? We have signed a free trade agreement with India. To add insult to injury, the loophole to be closed, as far as I can tell, just covers oil derivatives, but petrochemicals are derived from natural gas, too. What is happening with those?

I have five questions for the Minister. First, what is his justification for signing an FTA with a country that is helping Russia to breach its sanctions? Secondly, was this issue discussed in the FTA negotiations? Thirdly, does the planned ban cover petrochemicals imported from India and other third countries derived from either oil or gas? Fourthly, please will the Minister tell us the specific date on which the ban will come into force, what steps will be required to effect it and what the timeline is for each of those steps? Finally, what are the reasons for the delay in implementing the ban? Why have the Government not already closed the loophole?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Bryant]

I am as committed to remaining within the European convention on human rights as I ever was, as are the UK Government. It would be a derogation of our international standing around the world if we departed from it. That is one of the many reasons that I oppose not only the Conservative party, which seems to have gone doolally in recent years, but those Members who were elected as Conservatives and have now joined another political party.

I want to make it absolutely clear to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East and to others who have referred to these issues that Kashmiri Britons are of course listened to. The kind of stories that we have heard concern us.

The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) pushed in the other direction on Brexit, but he made a good point with which I completely agree. I might slightly disagree with him about the precise amount of harm that Brexit has done to our trade opportunities in the UK, but I note that a very large number of UK businesses no longer export to the European Union, and that is a massive failure for the UK. That is why we are keen to secure a better deal with the European Union, and that is what we are working on. He talked about sanctions and Russia. I am appearing before the Select Committee on which he sits, so he gets many bites of the cherry. I say to the Chair of the Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), that when I come to talk about trade sanctions in the next few weeks, I will be happy to go into the specific details that he has raised on Russia.

I gently say to the hon. Member for Witney that I get a bit irritated when I hear Lib Dems talking about Russia, because I remember being in this House in 2014 when Russia first invaded Crimea. I know he was not in the House, but the Liberal Democrats were part of the Government. It was not just that Government but many other Governments who essentially allowed Putin to take Crimea with impunity, which has left us with some of the problems we have today. I completely agree with him that we need to debilitate the Russian system as much as possible. We have introduced sanctions on entities, including India’s Nayara Energy Ltd, to ensure that we disrupt Russia’s energy revenues. We are undermining the shadow fleet wherever possible. We have announced a further 500 sanctions.

[Charlie Maynard]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Bryant]

I am reluctant to give way, because I have only another four minutes. The hon. Member is on the Select Committee, so he will soon be able to ask me as many questions as he wants.

[Charlie Maynard]

It will take one second.

[Chris Bryant]

It will not be one second; that is an untruth.

On 25 October, we said that we will extend our ban on the import of oil products refined in third countries using Russian crude oil.

I will refer specifically to the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). It is that constituent’s 39th birthday today. My hon. Friend knows that I have met his constituent’s family. It is good that some of the charges against him have already been dealt with and he has been acquitted. We want to see the rest of the charges—I think another eight charges have been laid against him—dealt with as swiftly as possible. We make that argument to the Indian Government as frequently as we can. My hon. Friend did not refer to this, but I think he would agree that there should be a full investigation into his constituent’s allegations of torture. That is an important part of us maintaining an open relationship with India.

The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) made a speech primarily about one specific issue. It was brief and to the point, for which I commend her—if only I could learn to do the same. She referred to the double contributions convention. I just point out to her that the previous Conservative Government made almost identical arrangements with a large number of countries, including Chile, Japan, South Korea, all of the EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, Barbados, Canada, Jamaica, Mauritius, the Philippines, Bosnia and Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro, Kosovo, Turkey and the United States of America. This deal will not undermine British workers—that is the Select Committee’s finding—and it will not make it cheaper to use Indian workers. This agreement is about highly skilled workers employed by Indian companies on a temporary basis paying contributions to their own country rather than in the UK. The deal has not finally been struck; negotiations are ongoing. That deal will be subject to its own process of going through the House, during which Members will be able to raise points.

Business and Trade Committee

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liam Byrne]

This is a very good point. We want to ensure that there is an enshrinement of the principles of the Bill, so that the private sector has clarity, certainty and confidence in the durability of the economic security regime that we operate in this country. In the inquiry, we heard overwhelming evidence that businesses frankly do not know whom to ring when there is a problem. They did not know whether there were particular spaces where they could work together, certainly with agencies but also with economic security services more generally. Providing clarity, certainty and durability is the only way in which we will be able to mobilise the scale of long-term finance that we will need in order to upgrade the resilience of this country for new times.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his help and work on this issue. I want to ask his opinion on the efficacy of our arms export control regime. We had two sessions in which we were looking into the F-35 in Gaza, and essentially it seems like the UK has outsourced its arms export controls to the Americans for F-35 replacement parts. Also, we continue to sell a lot of weapons to the United Arab Emirates, and it has been widely reported in the international press that the UAE is arming the Rapid Support Forces, which is creating enormous numbers of atrocities in Sudan. Does the right hon. Member think that our arms export control criteria are up to scratch?

[Liam Byrne]

I think there is a real opportunity in the course of the next year to modernise the way we export arms, and we will need to do that because of the simple reality that the definition of an arm in new times is very different. Many of our allies talk to us, as members of the Committee, about the need to strengthen in particular intellectual property export controls in the future. In a world where ideas can be weapons if they are, for example, novel artificial intelligence programmes, we have to take a much broader approach to this in the future. It is not clear to us that the way we license weapons and control adherence to licence conditions is strong enough, so it is an area to which the Select Committee will need to return. Again, if we are upgrading our economic security defences, I do not think we can do that, in the world in which we live, without comprehensively upgrading our arms control systems too.

Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

New small modular reactors have real potential to help reduce our reliance on foreign gas and bring down energy bills, as well as bringing a welcome boost to jobs and investment in Anglesey. SMRs should be where the focus is when it comes to nuclear, not big, expensive nuclear power stations that cost multiples more and take far longer to build.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased to see SMRs coming forward as part of a mix of cost-effective and safe decarbonised power generation, but will the Government please confirm that they will also maintain focus on boosting wind and solar power generation in order to bring down everyone’s energy bills? My hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) has been working closely with constituents who will now be disappointed that the alternative site of Oldbury has not gone forward, so can the Minister clarify what the future is for that site?

[Michael Shanks]

The hon. Gentleman is right to say how important this next generation of nuclear is—but alongside other technologies. The Government have been really clear that our clean power mission is about wind, solar and storage, but it is also about nuclear. That combination is how we deliver our energy security and get away from the volatility of fossil fuels, and it is how we create thousands of jobs across the country. We need all of that.

The hon. Member is right to highlight Oldbury, which is a hugely important nuclear site that is owned by Great British Energy Nuclear. We continue to look at the future potential for Oldbury and other sites. This is not the limit of the Government’s ambition on nuclear; it is the next stage of that ambition. Wylfa was judged as the best possible site for the SMR programme and it is right that we put our flagship programme on the best possible site, but we are ambitious about the future of nuclear and Great British Energy Nuclear is looking at a range of sites across the UK—including both Oldbury and sites in Scotland—for potential future projects.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I thank my hon. Friend warmly for his question. I am excited about this. The strategic sites accelerator will prepare and accelerate sites for development by using Government tools, such as land acquisition, planning certainty and infrastructure support, to overcome existing barriers to investment on sites. It is designed to create jobs, to attract investment and to support our industrial and net zero priorities. It will work alongside other initiatives such as the connections accelerator service, which will streamline grid connections for major investment projects. It is about going faster, being bigger and being more ambitious for new investments, such as those that could come to my hon. Friend’s area. I can tell him that the Office for Investment is working jointly with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and Ofgem to take this vital work forward. I expect capital to be deployed initially under this programme in 2026-27.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

4. If he will suspend the export of UK-produced F-35 components to Israel.

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

I am conscious of the hon. Member’s long-standing interest in these matters. I can assure him that exports of F-35 components directly to Israel are already suspended where they are for use by Israel and not for re-export to other countries.

[Charlie Maynard]

Our strategic export licensing criteria state specifically that licences should not be granted where there is

“a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”

Given that the courts have sent this question back to Parliament, does the Minister accept that Israel is committing breaches of international humanitarian law; does he accept that the export of F-35 components is aiding in the commission of these wrongful acts; and if he maintains that we are not in breach of our own arms export laws, will he explain on the Floor of this House the basis for how he thinks we are compliant with our own laws?

UK Modern Industrial Strategy

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Select Committee Member Charlie Maynard.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

The Secretary of State said,

“The UK has long been and will remain a champion of free trade”

—if only! It is not on the big stuff or the important stuff. Leaving the EU’s customs union and single market has reduced UK GDP by between 2% and 4%. The deal with India is good news, but according to the UK Government’s own estimate, it adds 0.1% in the long term—that is, 20 to 40 times smaller. UK exports are down 13% since the trading co-operation agreement took effect. That impacts people in my constituency and all hon. Members’ constituencies. When will the Government move faster to repair the enormous economic damage of a hard Brexit?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. This was the question that faced the nation at the time of the referendum. If a country leaves a single market and customs union, there will of course be economic consequences, particularly when there is the free movement of people, but that is the decision the country took. Let’s look to the future, not the past. We could have this argument forever. We would have a situation where the business uncertainty created by never fundamentally coming to a settlement on Brexit would in itself become as big a problem as the impact of leaving the single market that he talks about.

Of course, if we were in a customs union without being part of the EU, could a G7 economy subcontract that area of policy entirely to other countries and not have control of a key aspect of our economy? Honestly, I do not think that is reasonable. I appreciate the Liberal position is almost certainly to go back into the European Union—there is consistency there—but I say again that doing so would mean, for instance, denying us the benefits of the India trade deal and services access to India, the reduction of tariffs on agriculture, whisky and cars, and the benefits of the US agreement, which has saved tens of thousands of jobs.

Oral Answers to Questions

Charlie Maynard Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Justin Madders]

Microbusinesses such as that of Mr Stevens are central to the Government’s growth mission. We are committed to strengthening our relationship with the EU and to tackle trade barriers and frictions, and we regularly engage directly with businesses and their representative organisations to understand the difficulties they face. Our export support services help small and medium-sized enterprises navigate opportunities in EU markets and get the practical help they need to do so. For example, the Unlock Europe programme, which was launched in December as part of the export academy, offers practical guidance to help UK businesses enhance their exporting potential to the EU.

[Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)]

Our country’s very high electricity costs are another huge problem facing businesses in my constituency and nationally. Reintegrating our power markets with Europe’s through the single-day ahead coupling system would cost our country nothing, save costs for businesses, reduce carbon dioxide and make our power markets more efficient. Will the Minister take fast steps to reintegrate our electricity markets with those of our European neighbours?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the hon. Member for his tangential question relating to GPSR. He makes an important point about energy costs, and we are working closely with the EU on how to build on that, and of course the industrial strategy will also be looking very closely at how energy costs can be brought down for businesses.