Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, what estimate his Department has made of the potential value to UK exporters of resolving the market access barriers recorded on the Digital Market Access Service in the 2025-26 financial year.
Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Jointly with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
323 market access barriers were reported in the financial year 2025/26. It includes all barriers that have been recorded onto the DMAS within one financial year. Once these have been resolved, the Department publishes their potential value in DBT annual report and accounts as indicators on departmental performance. These are valued using the BIST methodology on valuing market access barriers published on Gov.UK. In the financial year 2025 - 26, the Department resolved 133 barriers in full, worth around £13 billion in potential additional exports to UK businesses over 5 years.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, whether his Department has made an assessment of the potential impact on trade in pound sterling of publishing a sector by sector summary of each trade deal that the UK has signed, including a guide for businesses on how to take full advantage of the potential merits of said deal.
Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Jointly with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
My Department publishes a series of policy and sector guides for new Free Trade Agreements at Entry into Force (EIF). We have recently published guides on the UK-India FTA including nine sector guides. We have also published guides for the UK’s FTAs with Australia, New Zealand, and CPTPP, which can be found on Business.gov.uk market pages. We will continue to publish guides for future FTAs at EIF.
For new FTAs, we publish impact assessments (IAs) to support the parliamentary scrutiny process, including sector assessments. The IAs for FTAs with Australia, New Zealand, CPTPP, and India can be found on gov.uk.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, what estimate his Department has made of the potential impact on the value of UK exports in pound sterling of removing all of the market access barriers reported to his Department in 2025/2026.
Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Jointly with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
323 market access barriers were reported in the financial year 2025/26. In the financial year 2025 - 26, the Department resolved 133 barriers in full, worth around £13 billion in potential additional exports to UK businesses over 5 years. These are valued using the BIST methodology on valuing market access barriers published on Gov.UK.
The impact on UK exports of removing these market access barriers can take several years following the resolution of a barrier. Furthermore, the extent to which UK exporters are able to realise the potential value of the opportunity related to a market access barrier can depend on a variety of wider factors, such as global trading conditions. The Department is monitoring take-up and we will review impact over time in line with standard obligations to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of government interventions.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade, what steps his Department has taken to help rights holders identify when their works have been used to train artificial intelligence models since March 2026.
Answered by Kanishka Narayan - Minister of State (Cabinet Office) (Jointly with the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Technology)
The Government recognises that greater transparency about how AI developers train their models can support licensing, enforcement and creator control.
Our March report on AI and copyright committed to further work on input transparency. Since then, we have engaged 38 stakeholders and continue to engage to understand what information is needed, what can feasibly be provided, and discuss best practice.
We are also taking forward research into tools to help creators understand and manage how their works are used online, including technical solutions and standards. This work will help establish what works and whether there is an appropriate role for government.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what volume of each mineral listed on the UK Critical Minerals List was imported in (a) 2023, (b) 2024 and (c) 2025, broken down by country of origin.
Answered by Chris McDonald - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
Please see table below, derived from HMRC’s Import data by preference bulk dataset, using trade codes as published in the technical annex of the UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy. Countries of origin have been grouped into EU and non-EU for legibility.
Volumes of each critical and growth mineral imported into the UK, tonnes, 2023-25, broken down by those sourced from EU and non-EU countries.
Mineral | Origin | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 |
Aluminium | EU | 492,570 | 468,461 | 468,440 |
non-EU | 387,774 | 420,020 | 426,726 | |
Antimony | EU | 878 | 851 | 576 |
non-EU | 367 | 309 | 162 | |
Beryllium | EU | 0 | 1 | 0 |
non-EU | 28 | 1 | 1 | |
Bismuth | EU | 19 | 44 | 28 |
non-EU | 257 | 143 | 110 | |
Borates | EU | 46 | 151 | 97 |
non-EU | 8,424 | 9,156 | 10,618 | |
Chromium | EU | 11,836 | 9,464 | 11,403 |
non-EU | 59,035 | 67,607 | 52,355 | |
Cobalt | EU | 1,725 | 1,681 | 1,420 |
non-EU | 3,937 | 8,400 | 9,653 | |
Copper | EU | 166,698 | 186,974 | 152,677 |
non-EU | 61,131 | 67,136 | 70,161 | |
Gallium | EU | 0 | 0 | 0 |
non-EU | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
Germanium | EU | 0 | 1 | 2 |
non-EU | 2 | 5 | 1 | |
Graphite | EU | 5,130 | 4,378 | 4,696 |
non-EU | 27,894 | 28,901 | 30,261 | |
Hafnium | EU | 7 | 5 | 16 |
non-EU | 11 | 16 | 39 | |
Helium | EU | 1,218 | 1,121 | 740 |
non-EU | 2,537 | 1,927 | 2,619 | |
Indium | EU | 2 | 1 | 0 |
non-EU | 6 | 2 | 7 | |
Iridium & Ruthenium | EU | 1 | 1 | 1 |
non-EU | 2 | 2 | 2 | |
Iron | EU | 2,308,785 | 2,461,616 | 1,977,632 |
non-EU | 6,673,773 | 3,083,542 | 2,799,234 | |
Lithium | EU | 86 | 94 | 94 |
non-EU | 3,326 | 3,175 | 2,629 | |
Magnesite | EU | 20,296 | 18,790 | 24,737 |
non-EU | 20,995 | 24,602 | 21,282 | |
Magnesium | EU | 37,614 | 37,639 | 33,385 |
non-EU | 29,196 | 27,195 | 36,932 | |
Manganese | EU | 2,536 | 4,709 | 4,333 |
non-EU | 45,494 | 39,504 | 38,948 | |
Nickel | EU | 29,236 | 34,844 | 22,551 |
non-EU | 81,725 | 106,772 | 89,104 | |
Niobium | EU | 158 | 88 | 17 |
non-EU | 796 | 634 | 443 | |
Phosphates | EU | 94,984 | 92,078 | 86,741 |
non-EU | 158,713 | 144,112 | 170,832 | |
Platinum | EU | 1,888 | 2,095 | 2,703 |
non-EU | 290 | 362 | 865 | |
Rare Earth Elements | EU | 344 | 421 | 1,115 |
non-EU | 1,396 | 1,504 | 1,289 | |
Rhenium | EU | 1 | 1 | 4 |
non-EU | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
Rhodium | EU | 2 | 2 | 2 |
non-EU | 3 | 3 | 3 | |
Silicon | EU | 49,192 | 68,729 | 45,208 |
non-EU | 71,052 | 98,374 | 102,744 | |
Sodium | EU | 4,875 | 5,903 | 4,303 |
non-EU | 8,695 | 6,798 | 7,141 | |
Tantalum | EU | 57 | 26 | 27 |
non-EU | 152 | 126 | 197 | |
Tellurium | EU | 3 | 5 | 2 |
non-EU | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Tin | EU | 625 | 693 | 757 |
non-EU | 4,281 | 4,935 | 5,235 | |
Titanium | EU | 8,207 | 6,502 | 4,314 |
non-EU | 193,758 | 247,719 | 151,547 | |
Tungsten | EU | 416 | 471 | 334 |
non-EU | 682 | 638 | 920 | |
Uranium | EU | 11 | 13 | 1,846 |
non-EU | 100 | 7 | 32 | |
Vanadium | EU | 296 | 257 | 253 |
non-EU | 173 | 140 | 244 | |
Zinc | EU | 4,846 | 7,069 | 7,115 |
non-EU | 15,140 | 16,372 | 15,894 |
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what process is available to businesses that require steel grades not available from suppliers on the approved UK domestic supplier list under the UK Steel and Trade Measures.
Answered by Chris McDonald - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The measure is designed to only cover steel requirements that can be made in the UK. In some instances, this is not feasible for technical reasons, for example where single product codes contain different sizes of steel products.
Quotas aim to allow sufficient imports to ensure continued availability of these goods to UK downstream users.
We will monitor implementation of the measure and review after twelve months to ensure it remains effective, and the balance is right for both producers and downstream users.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the notice period provided to businesses in the advanced manufacturing supply chain ahead of the introduction of tariffs on imported steel grades under the UK Steel and Trade Measures.
Answered by Chris McDonald - Minister of State (Department of Health and Social Care)
The Government held extensive engagement with both primary steel producers and downstream users to inform development of the trade measure, including a Call for Evidence in July 2025.
To ease short-term impacts, we are introducing a transitional arrangement under which the new measure would not apply to goods agreed under contract before 14 March 2026 and imported between 1 July and 30 September 2026.
We will continue engaging regularly with companies across the supply chain, including those in the advanced manufacturing sector, and will monitor implementation of the measure ahead of a full review of the measure after 12 months.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, what proportion of UK critical mineral imports in each of the last three years originated from a single country of origin for each listed mineral; and what assessment he has made of the risk of critical mineral supply being concentrated in a single country.
Answered by Chris Bryant - Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Please see table below, derived from HMRC’s Import data by preference bulk dataset, using trade codes as published in the technical annex of the UK’s Critical Minerals Strategy.
The Strategy recognises that supply chains are increasingly concentrated and sets out a clear ambition to diversify supply, including ensuring that no more than 60% of any critical mineral is sourced from a single country. This will be achieved by strengthening domestic production and recycling, building international partnerships to diversify supply, and leveraging finance and innovation to support more resilient global supply chains.
Single largest country of origin for UK imports of critical and growth minerals, by proportion of the total mass imported, 2023-2025.
Mineral | 2023 | 2024 | 2025 | |||
Aluminium | Germany | 18% | Germany | 16% | Germany | 16% |
Antimony | France | 46% | France | 48% | France | 48% |
Beryllium | Russia | 89% | China | 39% | United States | 100% |
Bismuth | China | 88% | China | 64% | China | 43% |
Borates | Turkey | 72% | Turkey | 67% | Turkey | 64% |
Chromium | South Africa | 39% | South Africa | 56% | South Africa | 39% |
Cobalt | Canada | 18% | China | 39% | China | 48% |
Copper | Belgium | 20% | Belgium | 15% | Germany | 17% |
Gallium | China | 70% | United States | 36% | United States | 35% |
Germanium | China | 46% | China | 85% | Belgium | 34% |
Graphite | China | 60% | China | 59% | China | 69% |
Hafnium | China | 35% | China | 42% | United States | 44% |
Helium | Canada | 30% | China | 38% | China | 38% |
Indium | Canada | 32% | Taiwan | 45% | Taiwan | 40% |
Iridium & Ruthenium | South Africa | 35% | South Africa | 35% | South Africa | 34% |
Iron | Brazil | 14% | Sweden | 12% | Sweden | 19% |
Lithium | Chile | 75% | Chile | 87% | Chile | 68% |
Magnesite | China | 31% | China | 33% | China | 31% |
Magnesium | Germany | 33% | Germany | 41% | China | 40% |
Manganese | Norway | 44% | Norway | 35% | Norway | 42% |
Nickel | Indonesia | 41% | Indonesia | 49% | Indonesia | 54% |
Niobium | Brazil | 54% | Brazil | 66% | Brazil | 55% |
Phosphates | Israel | 35% | Israel | 29% | Israel | 28% |
Platinum | Germany | 57% | Germany | 39% | Germany | 40% |
Rare Earth Elements | China | 70% | China | 72% | China | 47% |
Rhenium | Ireland | 41% | Germany | 40% | France | 74% |
Rhodium | South Africa | 62% | South Africa | 48% | South Africa | 58% |
Silicon | Brazil | 27% | China | 19% | China | 27% |
Sodium | China | 41% | China | 32% | China | 37% |
Tantalum | China | 37% | China | 61% | China | 63% |
Tellurium | Italy | 21% | Italy | 30% | Belgium | 49% |
Tin | China | 25% | China | 37% | China | 42% |
Titanium | Australia | 35% | Australia | 31% | South Africa | 32% |
Tungsten | China | 32% | China | 30% | China | 49% |
Uranium | United States | 90% | Belgium | 56% | Netherlands | 98% |
Vanadium | Germany | 50% | Germany | 55% | Germany | 44% |
Zinc | Norway | 31% | United States | 28% | Norway | 37% |
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, whether his Department keeps a formal record or minutes of the monthly financial monitoring meetings held between his Department, UK Government Investments and Post Office Limited to review funding requests relating to the franchising of formerly Directly Managed Branches.
Answered by Blair McDougall - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade) (Jointly with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero)
The Department funds Post Office Limited’s (POL) Strategic Transformation Plan (STP), including activities to franchise former Directly Managed Branches.
Funding approvals are based on monthly requests from POL, detailing actual and forecast spend across all STP activity. These are analysed internally and informed by discussions at monthly financial monitoring meetings with POL. Outcomes from these discussions are reflected in advice to release funding.
Formal records or separate minutes are not kept for discussions specifically relating to the franchising of formerly Directly Managed Branches.
Asked by: Joshua Reynolds (Liberal Democrat - Maidenhead)
Question to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade:
To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, when the Canada-UK Economic Working Group last met, and whether he plans to publish a timeline for its future meetings.
Answered by Chris Bryant - Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
In line with the commitment made between our Prime Ministers at June 2025, the UK-Canada Economic and Trade Working Group has met a few times since its establishment in order to identify ways in which the UK and Canada can deepen cooperation and grow our bilateral trading relationship, which was worth around ÂŁ34bn in 2025. The Working Group last met in April 2026 and will continue to meet when needed to discuss new ideas and tackle barriers to trade. I have also met with my Canadian counterpart several times this year.