Onshoring: Fashion and Textiles

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Thursday 12th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

It is wonderful to see you in this place, Ms Ghani. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) not just for securing this important debate but for her commitment in travelling all the way to Leicester, my home town. That shows how seriously she takes this matter.

I will focus my speech on my home town. Leicester is a city rooted in textile heritage, from Tudor hosiery knitters working in their homes to the industrial expansion of the 19th century. In fact, Leicester once proudly claimed to clothe the world. By 1936, it was recognised as the second richest city in Europe, and at its height had more than 1,500 factories employing tens of thousands of people.

As a young boy—this is not just nostalgia—I grew up in the shadows of those factories. I saw at first hand how they powered enterprise, created family wealth for people who had just come to this country, and fostered a culture of community entrepreneurship and philanthropy. The businesses did not just produce garments; they sponsored local events, supported charities, built places of worship and invested in the city. Manufacturing was woven into the social fabric of Leicester, shaping not just livelihoods but lives.

Today, across the county, the garment sector still supports approximately 11,000 jobs. Every component needed to make a complete garment is still available in the city. Leicester offers true end-to-end production— from design concept to finished product—with a speed, flexibility and technical capability that many overseas supply chains simply cannot match. Yet garment manufacturing now accounts for just £375 million of the UK textiles sector’s £25.6 billion; that is less than 2%. Meanwhile, tens of millions of our public procurement pounds are leaving our shores. We surely have to ask why.

The economic case for onshoring is really strong. The British Army clothing budget alone is worth nearly £80 million annually. In previous years—as the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet mentioned, figures are available only from 2013—only a small fraction, 6%, was manufactured in Britain. That means that an overwhelming 94% was being manufactured abroad.

NHS uniform frameworks are worth £125 million over five years. During covid, the Department of Health and Social Care spent more than £13 billion on personal protective equipment, with billions-worth written off as unusable and millions more spent on storage. During the pandemic, we saw that UK factories could pivot rapidly to produce PPE and scrubs at scale. The capacity and skills exist; what is missing is a clear mandate.

Other nations understand this very clearly. In fact, in the United States, military uniforms must be made domestically, for national security reasons. I believe the UK should adopt a similar principle. Military uniforms and NHS clothing should be manufactured in Britain wherever possible. I am not promoting protectionism; it makes perfect economic and strategic sense.

The environmental case for onshoring is also extremely strong, because it reduces carbon miles naturally and allows tighter environmental oversight. Leicester innovators such as Nanofique and Shibori dye house, working alongside De Montfort University, are pioneering waste water treatment methods that demonstrate how environmental responsibility and industry can work hand in hand.

There is also a powerful social case. Garment manufacturing provides flexible employment. That is valuable for all, but particularly for women, enabling many to rejoin the workforce after having children, combating isolation and providing financial independence. I recently met trainees at Fashion Enter’s Leicester hub, alongside Jenny Holloway, and saw at first hand the appetite for skilled ethical production. Community organisations—they have joined me today—such as Wesley Hall and the Shama Women’s Centre offer sewing classes that serve as a pathway to work for many disadvantaged women. Leicester does not lack workforce readiness; it has that in abundance.

I appreciate that the industry in my city has faced negative headlines. We cannot shy away from that, and I agree wholeheartedly that any form of exploitative behaviour must be addressed and rooted out. The Operation Tacit review, launched after those serious allegations, found, yes, some cases of non-compliance, but it made it perfectly clear that the portrayal of an industry dominated by widespread modern slavery was overstated. Enforcement bodies found no evidence of prosecutable modern day slavery offences. The vast majority of Leicester factories are hard-working, skilled and ethical, and they certainly deserve recognition for that, not stigma.

If we are serious about ethical supply chains, we must also be serious about ethical purchasing. That is why proposals for a garment trading adjudicator—a fashion watchdog modelled on the Groceries Code Adjudicator—deserve serious consideration. Research recently presented at a Fair Work and Supply Chains in the UK Garment Industry event showed the strain that purchasers are put under by brands: 100% of suppliers pay for audits, yet only 6% are guaranteed future orders. Lead times can drop at the drop of a hat, halving from 30 days to 14 days, and payment terms are lengthened without warning. Orders are cancelled or altered mid-production. In fact, 67% of manufacturers are reporting that brands refuse to cover the cost of any of these changes. That volatility destabilises factories and workers alike and is simply not fair or sustainable.

[Christine Jardine in the Chair]

Leicester Made, through its Leicester Textiles Renewal project, is already bringing together expertise to strengthen UK supply chains, celebrate regional skills and accelerate sustainable, tech-driven onshore production. Fashion Enter is leading calls for public procurement reform. These are not abstract campaigns, but practical and deliverable solutions.

We must also target packaging waste and introduce penalties for firms that produce large volumes to bring down unit costs, only for much of it to remain unsold 12 months later. Changing what waste means may force retailers and brands to stop volume of production, because the current carrots are simply not working. Let us incentivise our manufacturers by creating tax breaks for companies that are making clothing from waste and deadstock. The cost of dealing with fashion waste, especially from low-cost Chinese retailers such as Shein, is rising exponentially. Introducing an incentive for UK manufacturers to create garments from deadstock would help to tackle that issue and create a steady stream of business for UK companies.

We need to create a uniform national body to advocate for the sector, and a national director of manufacturers. That would help to join the dots to create competitive clusters. It is already happening at the Sheffield and Manchester city councils, which are developing local cluster productions and competitive local supply chains. We must also ensure awareness; we must fund a consumer awareness campaign. Multiple research projects show that people will pay more to support local communities and businesses. We should create a new “Made in the UK” trademark that only the businesses making clothes in the UK can use. Currently, “Made in the UK” does not mean that something is made in the UK; it can be made somewhere else and packaged here, and still count.

Onshoring increases our economic prosperity, reduces carbon footprint, strengthens labour standards, enhances national security and restores community pride. Leicester and other garment manufacturers do not need charity, they need fair enforcement, responsible sourcing and Government leadership in procurement. A modest increase, raising the share of UK-manufactured clothing sold domestically to just 10%, would be transformational. It would create thousands of skilled jobs, rebuild capacity and create enormous revenue for the Treasury. Leicester once clothed the world. With the right policy direction, it can clothe Britain again, ethically, sustainably and proudly.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Olney]

The Minister’s sedentary intervention gives me a good opportunity to say that the hand knitting industry supports many jobs in many rural areas, right across the country, including Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. However, I have spoken to the people who own Knit With Me, the amazing knitting shop on Richmond Hill of which I am a regular customer, and they tell me how much harder it has become to send some of their amazing products abroad since Brexit. Of course, pure wool is an animal product, which falls under those regulations, so the customs requirements to send packages to the EU have become so much more challenging for them. I am therefore here just as much to stand up for the knitting industry—I am literally standing up in my hand knitted top—although that is not quite what the debate is about, so I beg your pardon, Ms Jardine.

The Liberal Democrats recognise the urgency to transform the way in which fashion operates. We must reduce pollution, curtail environmental damage and tackle unethical practices in the supply chain. The fast fashion industry has been linked to unethical labour practices and modern slavery, tarnishing the appeal of the garments people wear. We urgently need a more sustainable fashion industry. Increasing domestic production is an important aspect of that, as the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) so passionately set out when talking about his own constituency.

Onshoring is the process of bringing fashion and textile manufacturing back to the UK from overseas. It aims to shorten supply chains and rebuild domestic production capacity that has been lost through decades of offshoring. There are many benefits to onshoring production: it could create local jobs and support British manufacturers and suppliers. More domestic production would also strengthen the UK’s supply chain, reducing reliance on distant producers and the risk of global disruption. There are also benefits to brands seeking agile, flexible production—especially smaller and emerging labels that value local partners—not to mention the reduction of carbon emissions by minimising long-distance shipping. It also fits with growing consumer demand for climate-friendly products, while allowing better quality control and adherence to environmental and labour standards.

Currently, less than 3% of the clothing worn in the UK is made domestically, which shows the scale of the decline. However, the UK fashion and textiles sector retains a base of skilled mills, heritage factories and emerging micro-factories that could support scaled-up onshoring. As such, it has significant potential for domestic growth. UK labour, energy and running costs are, however, significantly higher than in many overseas locations, which makes price competition difficult, and small businesses may struggle with the high initial investment required to rebuild facilities.

Many of the challenges of growing the sector are compounded by a shortage of skilled workers such as sewing machinists. There is a risk of losing these kinds of specialist crafts if they are not actively rebuilt and supported. More broadly, access to training, and hiring and retaining a skilled workforce are issues that affect businesses of all kinds across the country. The Liberal Democrats welcomed the industrial strategy at the beginning of the Parliament, and the commitment to an increase in skills and training.

We would introduce a general duty of care for the environment and human rights in business operations and supply chains. We would introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions, as well as the introduction of joint liability for sub-contractors in the fashion and fabric industry.

The UK imports around £20 million-worth of clothing from countries around the world every year, and around 25% of that is estimated to come from China. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Chinese Government’s actions in Xinjiang constitute a genocide. The National Crime Agency decided not to launch an investigation into the importation of cotton products manufactured by forced labour in the Xinjiang province of China. The Court of Appeal found that to be unlawful, a decision that the Liberal Democrats welcome. All human beings should be treated with decency and have their human rights respected. With 19 billion units of clothing produced in China yearly, it is not unbelievable that much of that is produced by detainees in Xinjiang.

[Shockat Adam]

Does the hon. Lady agree that any company found to be utilising cotton produced through slave labour should not be allowed to list themselves on the stock market in this country?

[Sarah Olney]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need to take much firmer action to ensure that no products traded in the supply chain in this country—or, as he says, stocks listed on the stock market—are produced through any kind of forced labour. The use of forced labour is an affront to human rights; but also, and more pragmatically, it does not create a level playing field for producers who are treating their workers fairly and using ethical processes in their production.

The Global Legal Action Network, which brought the case forward, says that there is abundant evidence that UK companies import cotton made with forced labour from China, and that 85% of Chinese cotton is grown in the Xinjiang region. Slavery is not an issue of the past. Today, almost 50 million people are trapped in slavery worldwide. We call on the Government to reverse the Conservatives’ roll-backs of modern slavery protections, and introduce legislation obliging retailers to guarantee full traceability in their supply chains, ensuring ethically sourced materials, decent livelihoods and safe working conditions. We want to champion human rights and support survivors.

The Liberal Democrats are calling for the Government to issue a comprehensive China strategy that places human rights and effective, rules-based multilateralism at its centre. My colleagues and I will continue to stand up for people’s human rights in the UK and across the globe, including in China, where much of the UK’s fashion comes from. But in order to encourage onshoring, the UK Government must do more to help UK business. They must champion start-ups and the UK’s entrepreneurs, do more to help small and medium-sized enterprises with costs for things such as energy and people, and upskill our workforce to be able to do the jobs created.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that important case. He is my neighbouring colleague in wonderful Calder Valley, and our constituencies have some of the best pubs in the country. As he knows, the pubs code in England and Wales regulates the relationship between pub-owning businesses with 500 or more tied pubs, including Stonegate and its tied-pub tenants, and it aims to ensure that tenants are treated fairly. The Government are currently undertaking the third statutory review of the effectiveness of the code, and it may help to inform the review if my hon. Friend could write to me setting out the details of the example he mentioned.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

When will the Government announce the results of their British industrial competitiveness scheme consultation, and provide the fabulous manufacturing industry in my constituency with some much-needed help towards its energy costs?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the British industrial competitiveness scheme will provide a significant discount to up to 7,000 manufacturing businesses of up to 25% of their energy costs. It will certainly help manufacturing businesses in his constituency and across the whole UK. I encourage businesses in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency to contribute to the consultation, the results of which we will announce in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Martin McCluskey]

Sorry, Mr Speaker.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to ensure approved suppliers providing home improvements under the ECO4 scheme continue to meet TrustMark standards.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Martin McCluskey)]

Having inherited a flawed system of oversight and regulation established by the previous Government, we now have much closer oversight of TrustMark, including a board observer and clear reporting requirements. TrustMark has also improved its processes and systems, and our warm homes plan will set out a strengthened consumer protection regime for the ECO4 scheme shortly.

[Shockat Adam]

Hundreds of my constituents in Leicester South installed external cladding as part of the ECO4 scheme. Despite using TrustMark contractors, my constituents have been left to pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in fines because those contractors failed to obtain correct planning permission. To make matters worse, when these homeowners approach the contractors to complain, they discover—surprise, surprise—that they have all gone bust. These are not rich people, and they now face stress and financial hardship, so will the Minister please meet me and my Highfields residents to discuss how this issue can be redressed?

[Martin McCluskey]

I share the hon. Member’s concerns about this issue, which is the result of a shocking dereliction of duty by the previous Government in the oversight of these schemes. I am aware of the particular situation in Leicester, and we are undertaking specific work to engage with the community there to ensure that people take up the offer of an audit and therefore get their homes remediated. I am more than happy to meet the hon. Member and any affected Members who have this situation with ECO4 in their constituency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point about what further measures we can take to bear down on the cost of regulation for small businesses. It is one reason the Chancellor set up a licensing taskforce that has brought forward a series of recommendations and will shortly publish its conclusions, which the Government will respond to quickly. We are absolutely determined to do what we can to bear down on the cost of regulation for SMEs.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I refer the House to my registered interest as a small business owner. Retailers in my constituency, including city centre retailers, tell me that they are on their knees, crippled by soaring costs, rising national insurance contributions, rising antisocial behaviour, expensive and poor parking, and a lack of any city centre regeneration. These long-standing independent businesses—the lifeblood of our community—are now considering closure. Has the Minister considered their clear ask, which is reducing or freezing business rates, and having affordable and accessible parking and community-focused events to revive our high streets?

[Gareth Thomas]

One measure that the hon. Gentleman referenced was business rates. As I said in answer to previous questions, we are determined to introduce permanently lower business rates for the retail sector for businesses with properties under a value of £500,000. I hope that will make a difference to businesses not only in Leicester in his constituency, but more generally across the country.

Budget Resolutions

Shockat Adam Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Like everyone else, I would like to extend my congratulations to those who have made their maiden speech, and to say what a pleasure and honour it is to share the Chamber with them. I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which details my professional career as an optometrist providing NHS services and owning small businesses.

This is my first Budget, just as it is for many other Members in the Chamber, and I have listened carefully to Members dissecting it and weighing up the details—as always, the devil is in the detail. As an NHS care worker, I welcome the increase in the NHS budget, but I am concerned by the absence of specific measures to address the funding crisis in professions such as dentistry, pharmacy and optometry, all of which have important roles to play in providing care to patients. Investment in such services will save millions in the long run. In my constituency, there is a real disparity in patient and GP numbers; in fact, it is the second largest such disparity in the country. For every GP, there are 3,262 patients. That is untenable. As a result, many people cannot see their GP, and that is where optometry, dentistry and pharmacy play a huge role, serving those who do not even have a registered GP. I am sorry that there is a need to do more to promote the contribution that those professions make to the NHS, and ensure that they are properly funded in the future.

I welcome the increase in funding for social care and special educational needs and disabilities, and in the national minimum wage. However, in placing a burden on pensioners and small business owners, the Budget has missed an opportunity. The Government could have used wealth taxes on those in our society with the broadest shoulders to raise the revenue necessary to fund improvements in our public services. Instead, they allowed the money to be raised from small businesses and those who are most vulnerable, such as our pensioners.