British Steel

Clive Jones Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I associate myself with her gratitude towards Mr Speaker, hon. Members, parliamentary staff and, most importantly, the workers and managers of British Steel.

It is incredibly welcome news that both blast furnaces in Scunthorpe will continue to operate, allowing those who are employed at the site, the 35,000-plus families in this country who would have been affected by its closure, and Britain’s national security, to breathe a momentary sigh of relief. Will the Minister join me in thanking the British Steel workforce for ensuring that the furnaces have not been allowed to go cold? It is good to see the Government taking action after the Conservatives spent far too long dithering over what to do.

The Minister has committed to delivering a steel strategy by the end of the spring, so the Government have five weeks left to produce it. Can she confirm that it will be published before 31 May, and that Parliament will have the opportunity to debate it? When we were here a few Saturdays ago, I asked the Secretary of State to confirm that the pension fund of employees and former employees is not in deficit, that all company contributions are up to date, and that assets of the scheme have not been transferred to the holding company or any offshore businesses. I am waiting for confirmation on that.

Finally, can the Minister guarantee that no redundancies will be made as a result of the action taken in the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025?

[Sarah Jones]

I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his support for our interventions and for his helpful questions. We will publish an impact assessment in due course, including classification considerations. He is right to point out that we did not answer his questions last time, and neither am I answering them this time, but I will ensure that I do. We have said that we will come back every four weeks with a statement, but I will write to him separately to ensure that he has the reassurance that he needs.

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a date for the steel strategy, but I assure him that we are working as fast as we can. The issue is difficult because we are talking about spending £2.5 billion of public money. We have to ensure that we do that in the correct way. The roundtables that we have held, the advice from the Steel Council, and the work that we are having done by the Materials Processing Institute and Hatch to consider the economic issues that we need to grapple with, are really important—we must get that right. Of course, when we have a steel strategy, the House must have the opportunity to come and talk about it and be reassured that it is the right thing for the steel industry.

Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill

Clive Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Saturday 12th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

A potential tragedy is unfolding for many people in the Scunthorpe area, not just those at the steelworks, but people in the wider community who work in the supply chain, their customers and workers in the local economy, and the family and friends of those working at the steelworks. Well over 35,000 families in this country could be affected—nearly a whole parliamentary constituency. Trump’s steel tariffs will hurt the UK steel industry. Trump supporters in this House in the two shades of the blue team are strangely silent on the impact of his unnecessary tariffs. Has anyone heard them condemn Trump’s tariffs? No. The Liberal Democrats believe the Government should stand strong against Trump’s 25% tariff.

The relationship between the Jingye company and the Government has clearly broken down, which is why the Secretary of State is taking wide-ranging powers for himself. As it appears that the Bill will be passed today, I have two questions for him. Can he confirm that the pension fund of employees and former employees is not in deficit, that all company contributions are up to date, and that the assets of the scheme have not been transferred to the holding company or any offshore business; and if they have been, will he commence measures to get them back? Can he also confirm that ownership of the assets of the business, such as plant, land and buildings, have not been transferred to any holding company or offshore business?

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Clive Jones Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I declare an interest having spent 40 years in the toy industry and, in another life, having been the chair and the president of the British Toy & Hobby Association. It was a wonderful job—the second-best job. The best job is being the first ever Liberal Democrat MP for Wokingham.

[Graham Stuart]

And the last.

[Clive Jones]

I doubt that very much.

Nearly a decade since the Brexit referendum, this House is still grappling with what it means to be outside of the European Union. Away from the big headlines about trade deals and newly erected borders, the technical nitty-gritty of product safety and metrology is ever more important now that we must decide what we want our policies to be in this area. Our original framework, derived from EU law, must now keep up with fast-evolving technologies and consumer behaviours. Technological changes in the 21st century may have created new opportunities, but they have also left us exposed to new risks, such as AI, battery hazards and e-bike fires.

Our online marketplaces and the complex digital commerce that facilitates them have reduced barriers to small and medium-sized enterprises sharing their products across the UK and the world, but the internet is still a wild west in many ways, leaving small businesses and consumers exposed. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcome aspects of this Bill. We fully understand and support the need to update the regulatory framework for the UK marketplace to give businesses and consumers confidence in their products. We welcome in principle the powers in the Bill to put new responsibilities on online marketplaces throughout the supply chain, and we support enhanced consumer protection for products that pose a safety risk.

The product regulations falling in scope of this Bill will have an impact on our country’s trade policy, and the Liberal Democrats are clear when it comes to trade: we believe the Government must pull the most powerful and readily available lever at their disposal to kickstart economic growth by urgently launching negotiations for a new UK-EU customs union. That would create jobs, boost our public finances and reverse much of the damage inflicted on our economy by the previous Conservative Government’s terrible trade deal with Europe. I take this opportunity to urge the Government to move in that direction and to commit that, as part of these trade negotiations, they will use the provisions in the Bill to facilitate a new customs union, which could have such a transformative effect on our economy.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am really grateful to the hon. Gentleman for engaging with the issues about product safety and consumer protection in the Bill, and he is making a serious speech in relation to them.

First, on the point of the customs union, which was skilfully woven into his speech, that would preclude us from reaching any arrangements with the United States, India, the Gulf states or other countries. For my money, if we wish to be part of something without a say in how it would affect our trade policy, that would be a very difficult position to take. I will come back to the references made by Conservative MPs, who often feel like they are fighting the old, last war. They cannot get past it—

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I will, Madam Deputy Speaker. In relation to the number of references made to the EU in this Bill, the EU is explicitly referenced simply because UK product regulations are derived from a lot of EU regulations. We have to reference that when looking to the future, particularly when we recognise some of those European standards, but it is wrong to simply look at those references and try to make them out to be something they are not.

[Clive Jones]

Thank you for your intervention, Secretary of State. You are right—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

“He” is right!

[Clive Jones]

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

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

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

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

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

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

and that we should be minimising

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

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

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

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

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

[Clive Jones]

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

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

[Mr Holden]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Clive Jones]

Can I just carry on a bit? Thanks.

Online marketplaces are rapidly expanding in number and popularity, competing with high streets across the nation, but unfortunately, there is no level playing field on which those two competitors can battle it out for consumers’ cash. That is what the Bill should be addressing, because our high streets and our small businesses must contend with regulations that online marketplaces are not equally liable to. That is not a level playing field. For example, unsafe products are flooding online marketplaces. A study by Which? revealed that 90% of toys purchased from Amazon, eBay, AliExpress and Temu were illegal due to choking and strangulation hazards. Another study from the British Toy and Hobby Association found that 85% of toys from online marketplaces were unsafe, with 8% also illegal due to missing warnings. Do we want that situation to continue?

[Sammy Wilson]

I note that the hon. Member has described many of these toys as “illegal”. In other words, the law is there already. This Bill is therefore not necessary to deal with children choking on toys and all the other things he has outlined. The law is already there; the question is, do we actually implement the law?

[Clive Jones]

The law needs to be tightened up. We definitely need to be taking a lot more interest in the unsafe products that online companies are selling.

Do we want to allow unsafe toys to be sold to our precious children by some faceless online operation through an online market? I am sure the answer is no, but the Bill as it is written fails to address that. The problem is not just limited to toys, but extends to heaters, phone chargers and batteries. The Government have signalled an ambition to bring online marketplace liability in line with more traditional models of retail, but an ambition can be easily reversed by a different Government without parliamentary oversight. Without the measure being explicitly put into the Bill, consumers and the high street are not receiving the guarantees they deserve.

This is a serious issue for children and personal safety, and we therefore need explicit guarantees of minimum duties for online marketplaces in the Bill. What is the Minister’s view on whether a duty to notify consumers who have been sold unsafe or illegal products should be placed on online marketplaces? Such a duty could enhance consumers’ rights to seek a refund of the purchase price. Will a requirement to verify the identity and activities of sellers be established? If it is a yes to any of those questions, the Minister should do the right thing and amend the Bill so that those guarantees are enshrined in primary legislation.

I could go on. The Bill requires a tighter definition of an online marketplace to ensure that there are no loopholes for platforms to avoid appropriate regulations. That is especially the case for platforms that do not exist solely as an online marketplace, such as TikTok Shop and Facebook Marketplace.

Finally, the Bill does not make explicit reference to e-bikes, e-scooters or lithium-ion battery safety, despite safety being one of the explicit aims of the Bill. E-bike and e-scooter battery fires pose a uniquely high risk to consumers, with the London Fire Brigade estimating that it attends a fire incident caused by one of these devices once every two days. There need to be stronger regulations on these things. Can the Minister explain why they are not included in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justin Madders]

Metrologist. He may well be on the Bill Committee, because he has definitely talked his way on to it with his insight into this issue. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) almost matched him in terms of technical specificity, and his historical knowledge was also very important. He has just finished sitting on a Bill Committee with me, but he is talking his way on to this one as well—perhaps I should not say that, because it might encourage colleagues not to speak in future debates.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), were among a number of Members who talked about the issue of e-bikes, which is a real concern. I am sure the whole House has been moved by the tragic cases of e-bike fires that we too often hear about. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the tragic death of Sofia Duarte. I met her mother last year to talk about what we can do through this Bill to prevent such tragedies from happening again.

In the wake of the increasing number of fires associated with e-bikes and lithium-ion batteries, there have been calls from businesses, trade associations, consumer groups and parliamentarians to tighten up the law. This legislation will allow us to ensure that the UK’s product safety framework can keep up with technological developments, including on e-bikes. The powers in the Bill will allow us to update regulations to ensure the best protections for consumers and consistency with the majority of reputable retailers.

The Government are currently considering how best to use the powers in the Bill to regulate these products in an efficient and proportionate way, in particular to ensure that products that can pose a greater risk, such as lithium-ion batteries and e-bikes and e-scooters, are safe. That includes bringing forward powers in the Bill to better define online marketplaces and confer additional duties on them to help stop the sale of unsafe products, including converter kits. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler) pointed out, this is a fast-moving environment, and the Bill will give us the flexibility to tackle that.

[Clive Jones]

Does the Minister agree that if a UK manufacturer wants to produce a product for the UK market, it should produce it to UK regulations, and if it wants to export it to Europe, it is sensible to produce that product to EU regulations, which will open up a massive market on our doorstep? Keeping up with EU regulations will generally be good for the British business economy and help economic growth.

[Justin Madders]

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson tempts me to set out a statement of policy, which the Bill is not intended to do. We want to give ourselves maximum flexibility in our ability to deal with issues as they arise. He talked in his speech about online marketplaces, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley) talked about unsafe toys and button batteries, citing the fact that investigations have discovered that up to 90% of products purchased in online marketplaces are unsafe. Because we recognise that online marketplaces are in desperate need of regulation, the Bill will give us powers to clarify and modernise responsibilities for online marketplaces in a flexible and proportionate way, to protect consumers and create a fair playing field for law-abiding businesses. It will enable the Government to modernise the responsibilities of online supply chain actors.

While the growth of e-commerce has provided consumers with greater choice and convenience, it cannot be at the expense of consumer safety. We will continue to engage with consumer groups, businesses and online marketplaces in the development of specific online marketplace requirements to ensure that they are proportionate and to mitigate any costs to consumers. I can also confirm that it is the intention of the Government to consult on the duties for online marketplaces soon after Royal Assent and to bring forward subsequent regulations as soon as is practically possible.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) spoke with his customary passion about the ceramics industry in the Potteries. I acknowledge his ideas for protecting the industry. I am not sure whether this Bill is the right vehicle for his suggestion, but I will take it away and come back to him.

It is probably worth talking about the issue that seemed to vex Opposition Members rather a lot, which is whether this Bill is in some way a reset to EU laws by the back door. It is about domestic regulation and we are not rejoining the EU by the back door. The Bill is about giving us flexibility to ensure product regulation, now and in the future, that is tailored to the needs of the UK. Of course, there will be some instances when we will want to take a similar approach to the EU, but there will be other times when we will want to take our own approach. Those decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said, the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 gave significant powers to the Executive, and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Wokingham, quoted me on that Act. It reformed 7,000 regulations, ranging across every function of society. Its regulations were far broader than those proposed in this Bill and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee called it “hyper-skeletal”, which is some way beyond the criticisms it levelled against this Bill.

Turning to the reasoned amendment tabled by the official Opposition, it is worth restating that the Bill is not about rejoining the EU. David Cameron commented that he wanted the Conservative party to

“stop banging on about Europe”,

but there seems to be some way to go before his words reach fruition, despite the fact that we left five years ago. The Bill gives us the necessary powers to ensure public regulation, now and in the future, meets the interests of the UK. The powers set out in the Bill will be used solely and exclusively in the best interests of UK businesses and consumers.

I recognise that the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Select Committee raised concerns about this being a skeleton Bill, but the Government have considered those concerns and other representations made by Members in the other place. Our existing product regulations are necessary to keep consumers safe, and to provide clarity and a level playing field for businesses. They extend to many thousands of pages and cover a huge amount of technical detail. As the noble and learned Lord Pannick said in the other place,

“the practical reality is that technical regulations of the breadth and complexity that will be produced cannot sensibly be enacted by primary legislation.”

He went on to say that if we are required to use primary legislation every time we wanted to make a regulation on product safety, there would be

“little, if any, time for anything else.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 February 2025; Vol. 843, c. 1716.]

Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that since the Consumer Protection Act 1987, Governments of all stripes have recognised the need to make product safety regulations by secondary legislation. Since 1987, the Conservatives have been in power for 24 years, so they had more than enough time to find another way of dealing with product safety, but they did not choose to do that. We are taking a pragmatic approach. We have taken notice of some of the concerns raised about the powers of the Bill: we have removed a number of Henry VIII powers, introduced a consultation requirement, added additional affirmative resolution procedures and published a code of conduct that sets out the controls that we will have to ensure regulations are proportionate and evidence based. I am grateful to Members of the other place for setting out some of their concerns.

As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), pointed out, the Conservatives did not introduce the Bill in the last Parliament; I am happy to confirm that that was the case. That shows that there was a gap in the law that needed filling and the Conservatives failed to act on it.

Some of the important consumer groups in this country, such as Which?, recognised that action was needed. Sue Davies, head of consumer rights, protections and food policy said:

“It’s encouraging that the government is prioritising a Bill that should address the huge gap in consumer protections which allows online marketplaces to facilitate the sale of unsafe and illegal products without facing repercussions.”

If Members vote for the reasoned amendment, we will not be having any of those protections. I do not think any responsible party would move an amendment along those lines.

This Government are never going to compromise on safety. The Bill is essential to strengthening the rules and regulations needed to protect consumers, businesses and the public. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Scunthorpe Steelworks

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Like the Minister, my thoughts are with the British steelworkers and their families following the closure of the Scunthorpe site.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is not closed yet.

[Clive Jones]

It is going to.

From electric vehicles to wind turbines, high-quality green steel is an important component of our transition to a low-carbon economy. The Government need to move rapidly from the Conservative’s legacy of a patchwork of last-minute rescues to a genuinely long-term approach that is effective for British industry and does not harm British workers. What are the Government doing to ensure that communities in Teesside and Scunthorpe are supported against job losses? When will the Government realise that sitting on our hands and hoping that Trump will not hit us with even more tariffs is not a good negotiating strategy? Will the Minister take a stronger approach and bring forward retaliatory measures against Donald Trump’s political allies such as his co-President Elon Musk and his company Tesla?

[Sarah Jones]

I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that we are not sitting on our hands, and there is a good reason why it would not be right to comment in this place on the internal negotiations between this Government and the United States. We will rightly keep a cool head in those conversations and ensure that we are ultimately doing what is right for our industry and our people, but we are in a good position in that we are engaged in deep conversations with the US and will continue to do that.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the support for local people. There are various stages. The starting point is that we very much hope that we can come to a deal and negotiate with British Steel—that it will accept what we are offering and that we can move forward on those terms. In the short term, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Education will be there on the ground ensuring that people are getting the immediate support they need. If the consultation continues and there is a closure, of course much more intervention to support local people would need to kick in. We are already working on all manner of contingencies to ensure that we support people as we are doing in Port Talbot, but our aim is absolutely not to get to that point.

Oral Answers to Questions

Clive Jones Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Small businesses are the backbone of the British economy. Up and down the country, we have success stories of innovative start-ups and family-run businesses that should be part of the Government’s plan to get Britain growing again. Under the Conservatives, the number of small businesses in my constituency decreased by 360 between 2021 and 2024. The Tories messed up our national and local economy. Is the Minister concerned that his Government’s national insurance rises will damage the economy, just as the Conservatives did?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

If we were listing the difficult things that small businesses had to deal with in the previous 14 years, we would be here for most of the day and the weekend, if we are being honest. Whether it is how the Conservatives handled Brexit, the mini-Budget or austerity, we could go on and on. I say to the hon. Member that we are not casual about what we have had to ask of business because of the unenviable situation we inherited, but the fundamentals of the UK are incredibly strong in political stability and openness to the world, and we have the changes we are making to planning, skills, regulation and energy to make sure we are delivering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

If the Government have to push forward with retaliatory measures against the United States for its steel tariffs, they must strike at the political allies of the President to meaningfully move on the conversation. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether Elon Musk’s Tesla is being considered as a potential target for retaliatory measures?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

We reserve the right to take any action in response to any changes to our trading relationships, but I do think we can look to the opportunity for the UK, which is greater than for any other country, to get to an agreement that improves our terms of trade with the US. I reserve the right to take any action, but I think we can look forward in a positive way to improving that trading relationship, and that right now is my message and focus.

Department for Business and Trade

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

I offer my thanks to the Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), for delivering a powerful opening speech and for securing this important debate. I absolutely agree that public procurement should be more focused on buying British, and that access to finance needs to be improved sooner rather than later, so that our defence industries can upskill and respond to what is going to be a growing need. The Department for Business and Trade is synonymous with what Britain truly needs. Britain needs growth—most of us in this Chamber will agree with that. Businesses need confidence in the UK as a place to invest.

We have a Government who are staring stagnation in the face and failing to learn the lessons from the Conservative party’s economic vandalism, which stretched household finances to the brink. Businesses are now left bracing for further pain once the Chancellor’s job tax comes into force. Like many others, I am particularly concerned about the impact it will have on the hospitality sector and the great British pub. Last Saturday, I visited the Station Tap in my constituency, which has been a pub for 150 years. While I pulled one of the worst pints of my life, the owners shared their concerns about the Budget. The rise in national insurance contributions for just this one pub will add £12,000 to its business costs every year. It is no wonder that in a survey by the British Chambers of Commerce, 82% of firms said that the rise in national insurance contributions will impact their business, forcing them to change their plans, make redundancies and stop investing in people and in growth.

Changes to NICs were not the only issue with the Budget that the Station Tap’s owners raised with me. It is overwhelmingly obvious that business rates are broken. They asked me to give a clear message to the Minister that business rates are outdated and need meaningful reform—most importantly, sooner rather than later. We would not be in a position where I seemingly have a new business raising this matter with me every week if the Government were getting on with the work quickly. The owners are especially concerned about the planned reduction in relief for hospitality, which could cost independent publicans £3,000 to £5,000 a year.

Other businesses in Wokingham warned that the loss of the relief could see their businesses pushed to the brink. Wokingham has some of the best pubs in the country—The Queen’s Head, the Queen’s Oak, the Duke’s Head and the Walter Arms, to name just a few. The Government should be championing those pubs. What steps are they taking to monitor the impact of the reduction in business rates relief, and the rise in national insurance contributions on pubs? If the Minister’s monitoring reveals that this Government’s policies are leading to a higher rate of business closures or are deterring investment, will he implore the Treasury to reverse the taxes and, instead, tax the big banks, implement a proper tax on the super-profits of oil and gas companies and tackle tax avoidance by properly investing in His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs?

People across the UK are watching with concern as the United States engages in economic sabotage of the global economy. In the UK, Britain’s steel sector is bracing itself for the pain of Trump’s tariffs, which are set to be applied next week. This will negatively impact our manufacturers, forcing price rises or reduced sales to the United States. Will the Minister urgently update the House on his Department’s efforts to ensure that the UK is excluded from the steel and aluminium tariffs?

It would also be helpful to understand what retaliatory action the Government would take if these tariffs were applied and whether it would include some action against Elon Musk’s Tesla. Nobody wants a trade war. It is bad for business, bad for consumers and bad for diplomatic relations. However, if we are to be attacked, we must ensure that we simply do not take it on the chin. That is why I admire the confidence of our great Commonwealth and NATO ally, Canada.

Donald Trump is trying to undo our western alliance, threatening to annex a nation that shares our King, and seeking to weaken its economy as a staging ground for that proposed takeover. The Canadian Prime Minister and the Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition in Canada are united in wanting to be at the negotiating table to get the deal done with the UK as soon as possible. As for Canada becoming the 51st state of the USA, I do not know any Canadians who are interested in that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I remind the Liberal Democrat spokesman to bring his remarks to a close so that we have time to hear from the Minister and the shadow Minister.

[Clive Jones]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

We need to take action to deepen bilateral trade with Canada. Does the Minister share Canada’s sentiment about strengthening our economies? Does he agree that we need to take tougher action to stand up for our Canadian friends? Will the UK return to the negotiating table and start working on a trade deal with Canada as soon as possible?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

Business and Trade

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Written Corrections

The following extracts are from the urgent question on the Plant Oxford site on 24 February 2025.

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

This is yet another failure in the Government’s main aim of getting Britain growing again. Zero-emission vehicles are too expensive and, it appears, too hard to manufacture in the UK. That forces us into an unfortunate reality in which we are reliant on Elon Musk for our supply of EVs, and are funnelling money into his already very deep pockets, rather than promoting a productive domestic market with good jobs. We need to show ambition and make it easier for ordinary families to buy EVs. What measures will the Government take to support and encourage consumer demand for electric vehicles?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government’s policies for growing the economy. A few months ago, we held an international investment summit, at which £63 billion of investment was announced. As I have mentioned, there was £2 billion announced in the Budget for the automotive industry. Interest rates have been cut three times, wages are up, and more than 70,000 jobs have been secured in the UK since the Government came to power. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD predict that the UK will be Europe’s fastest-growing economy over the next few years. The industrial strategy was scrapped under the last Government; our industrial strategy will be the backbone of ensuring that we deliver growth…

[Official Report, 24 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 509.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for Industry, the hon. Member for Croydon West (Sarah Jones):

Plant Oxford Site

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

This is yet another failure in the Government’s main aim of getting Britain growing again. Zero-emission vehicles are too expensive and, it appears, too hard to manufacture in the UK. That forces us into an unfortunate reality in which we are reliant on Elon Musk for our supply of EVs, and are funnelling money into his already very deep pockets, rather than promoting a productive domestic market with good jobs. We need to show ambition and make it easier for ordinary families to buy EVs. What measures will the Government take to support and encourage consumer demand for electric vehicles?

[Sarah Jones]

The hon. Gentleman talks about the Government’s policies for growing the economy. A few months ago, we held an international investment summit, at which £63 billion of investment was announced. As I have mentioned, there was £2 billion announced in the Budget for the automotive industry. Interest rates have been cut three times, wages are up, and more than 70,000 jobs have been secured in the UK since the Government came to power. The International Monetary Fund and the OECD predict that the UK will be Europe’s fastest-growing economy over the next few years. The industrial strategy was scrapped under the last Government; our industrial strategy will be the backbone of ensuring that we deliver growth.

The hon. Gentleman asked what we were doing. I have already set out the stability, investment and reform that we are bringing to the sector to make sure that it can thrive. Hundreds of thousands of people rely on the automotive industry through their work in it, or in its supply chains. Those are good, well-paid jobs, and we are absolutely determined to ensure that the sector grows.

Closure of High Street Services: Rural Areas

Clive Jones Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate.

In opening the debate, my hon. Friend spoke eloquently about the losses suffered in his constituency. I commend him for championing this issue, because the story is similar across much of the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate, but the Great British high street is struggling, and nowhere can that be seen more clearly than in our rural communities. The high street is the lifeblood of a village or small town, and it is often the reason it grew in that location in the first place, yet across the country, from Cumbria to Somerset to Norfolk, many high streets are struggling to keep their businesses open, producing a cycle of decline in which vital services close their doors and the local population is left worse off.

My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I are concerned that closures of bank branches and free-to-use cash machines are making it increasingly difficult for some people to get cash and to do their banking in person. In last week’s post office debate, I explained how my constituents and I were awaiting a decision on an appeal to Link following its rejection of a banking hub in Wokingham. Our appeal was rejected. The frustration of dedicated campaigners in Wokingham, such as Lynn Forbes, is palpable and I share it. However, we will keep going to get a banking hub. The existing banking services in Wokingham are not suitable and I am concerned that if the post office in WHSmith, which offers banking services, has to close due to external factors, the situation will be made much worse. One constituent wrote to tell me that they waited 45 minutes to withdraw £15 from the post office. That is just unacceptable.

Link stated in its review of the appeal that, under the Financial Conduct Authority’s rules, its assessment criteria are based on access to cash and not access to banking. That is wrong. Can the Minister explain why consideration of bank access is excluded when determining the location of a banking hub? Will he commit to introducing further legislation to require protection of bank access? I also call on the Government to make changes to the Financial Services and Markets Act to help foster more community banking hubs.

The impact of losing these services on our rural communities is clear, as older and vulnerable people, who rely on face-to-face services, become lonelier and experience great difficulty in accessing essential services. The situation is entrenched by digital exclusion; not all residents can use online banking or shopping, particularly in areas with poor broadband. House of Commons Library data shows that my constituency of Wokingham has above-average download speeds. I recognise the fortune of our circumstances, but the village of Finchampstead in the constituency is in the bottom 30% of UK download speeds. Wargrave, Hurst, Swallowfield and Spencers Wood are also in the bottom 30% for superfast availability. Does the Minister agree that we need to prioritise rural areas when rolling out broadband improvements?

As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, there is urgent need to reform business rates. Proper reform should help the viability of many high street retailers. Local councils can and should work with town centre businesses to keep the high street as lively as possible. I am very pleased that my local Liberal Democrat council in Wokingham is taking the initiative on trying to improve our high streets.

Transport is also key. When the community loses its nearby centre, people must travel further, adding transport costs and inconvenience. The increase in the fare cap to £3 is a bus tax that will hit working people, rural communities and people on low incomes especially. It is a decision that will make congestion worse and travel by public transport more expensive. While the Government have been left to make difficult choices, they cannot allow the burden of fixing the Tories’ mess to fall on working people and small businesses. Bus services are the backbone of economic activity in communities across our country. If the Government were serious about growth, they would invest in services that will boost our struggling town centres and high streets. What steps are the Government taking to support rural bus services and the provision of alternatives to conventional bus services where they are not viable, such as dial-a-ride and on-demand services?

Finally, rural health services are under strain, and some local GP practices are shutting down or merging into larger, harder-to-reach facilities. Others were simply not there in the first place, such as in Arborfield Green in Wokingham. Wokingham is in the Berkshire West integrated care board area and we have 2,105 patients per GP, nearly 500 more than the English average. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there is adequate space for primary care facilities across new build developments and in rural areas?

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Clive Jones Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I extend my thanks to the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening the debate so eloquently.

Like so many others in this debate, I want to start by acknowledging Christina’s heartbreaking story. Receiving my cancer diagnosis was hard; it changed my life and the lives of family members. Although it was happening to me, it had an equal or greater effect on my two teenage daughters. I just cannot imagine having those roles reversed—that must be very, very difficult. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I send our sincerest hopes and best wishes for a full recovery to Skye. I am so pleased that she has had the opportunity to ring the bell.

The emotional turmoil that Christina and her wider family must have gone through in those first few hours, weeks and months is unimaginable. Yet through all that she has campaigned to correct an injustice and ensure that people receive better support than she did. That is selfless and brave. She has identified a real problem that exists in our society, which is that families of chronically ill children are not adequately supported by the Government. Families are forced to stop focusing exclusively on their child and instead stress about finances from day one.

A cancer diagnosis introduces new, unavoidable costs, from transport and energy to food and accommodation, which Young Lives vs Cancer predicts costs an average extra £700 a month on top of household incomes falling by an average of £6,000 a year. Although there are options such as taking sick leave, compassionate leave or reducing working hours, those eventually become exhausted, and not everybody can take them up. Those provisions are not intended to be used when someone has an unwell child. The losses in income and steps taken to try to juggle work and caring come despite there being a social security system. It is a distinctly difficult experience to navigate, and the existing support available is just not enough.

There are numerous problems with the existing system that categorically mean that it does not work. The three-month qualifying period that young cancer patients go through leaves families waiting for support after diagnosis, incurring an average of £2,000 in additional cancer-related costs and losing an average of £1,500 to £2,500 of household income before they can even apply for any support. Some families have to remortgage their house because the costs have been overwhelming. Research from Young Lives vs Cancer also highlights that nearly half of parents could not access flexible working arrangements, and three in five parents felt they had to go back to work before they were ready. Many will have found that extremely stressful, and that is why I support the campaign for Hugh’s law. There needs to be some form of day-one financial support for parents, instead of them having to battle through bureaucracy and impossible choices.

There is a precedent for providing that support. When a child is born, parents who stop working to care for newborns receive financial support through maternity leave. The Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023 provides parents of sick newborns with up to 12 weeks’ paid leave in addition to maternity or paternity leave. Why should it be different for those parents who need to stay with their seriously ill child who is no longer a small baby? I call on the Government to look further into the proposals set forward in the petition and to refer them back to the House so that their full merits can be debated.

Throughout this debate, Members have said that the United Kingdom needs to thoroughly modernise its employment rights and improve workplace protections that would benefit parents of seriously ill children. The Liberal Democrats have led the way on that debate—not this particular one, but the overall debate. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) introduced the Carer’s Leave Act 2023, which created an entitlement for employees to be absent from work on unpaid leave to provide or arrange care for a dependant with a long-term care need.

Unpaid carers are the backbone of our society. Millions of people care for loved ones, doing everything involved in day-to-day physical caring, including washing, dressing and feeding, yet far too many unpaid carers go without adequate support and struggle to balance caring responsibilities and work. Many people across the country have made the difficult decision to leave their jobs because they simply cannot make it work. I am proud that the Carer’s Leave Act provided greater support and the flexibility that people need. Let us also be clear that those changes benefit employers as well, leading to reduced recruitment costs and improved retention and wellbeing.

[Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate. Demelza hospice in my constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey has come to me a lot on this issue. When it comes to employers, the interactions between employment and health and wellbeing are complicated and multifaceted. Some of the things that parents, or any worker, get from their employment include structure, relationships, support in the workplace and a sense of wellbeing. How does the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) envisage juggling those dynamics, so that people do not lose all the benefits they get from employment and employers? They include not just the financial benefits, but the wider package—where people sit in society and how they operate in their day-to-day lives. Some of these conditions last a long time, so there is obviously a danger of them losing those connections with the workplace, as well as their acuity in the work space.

[Clive Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Where somebody is off work for quite a long time, they will need the support of their employer. Very often, they could have been working for that for quite some time, so they have built up a history with them, and 99.9% of the time it will be a good history. They should be supported, but the Government have to help with that; it cannot just fall on the employer, especially over an extended period.

I would like to know what steps the Government are taking to encourage employers to do the right thing and offer career breaks. Will the Government review the proposal in the petition and come back to the House with a debate to discuss its merits? What additional support are they considering offering the families of seriously ill children?