Mr Joshua Reynolds
MP for Maidenhead · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“Once again, the hon. Gentleman is confusing rejoining the single market and customs union with rejoining the European Union. I am glad that the Defence Secretary is in his place, because just days ago, he said that we need to be ready for war by 2030, within 1,000 days.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Together, they would pay for us to expand British shipbuilding and build more frigates to protect our waters. Our European neighbours are investing billions in their defence industries, and Britain must be at the heart of that, not watching from the sidelines.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He should have listened to what I said in the previous 30 seconds. What I said was that we need to join the single market and negotiate a new customs union. I did not say that we need to rejoin the European Union.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Government urgently need to make the case for defence bonds, so that we have the money to rebuild our defences as soon as possible. If we built that capacity alongside our European partners, every pound would go further, and support skilled jobs and British businesses in the supply chain.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That would start now, inside the Defence Secretary’s 1,000 days, and not after them. Meanwhile, the Government are funding their defence investment plan by cutting budgets across Whitehall. Earlier this year, Departments were told to cut 1% from their capital budgets to pay for the first £10.3 billion of the DIP.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the hon. Lady will find that there is an anomaly within the Chancellor’s proposals: a 54% tax rate for certain pensioners on certain incomes. I do not necessarily believe that a 54% tax rate for pensioners is the right thing to be doing. Secondly, Liberal Democrats would make fairer choices about who pays.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
363 held · 353 searchable for Mr Joshua Reynolds. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 8.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“In November, the Chancellor told the House that what we are now seeing in clause 79 would protect about £700 million of tax revenue, ensuring that VAT is paid on fares. Yet, according to The Guardian on 2 January, Uber “has swerved paying millions of pounds” by simply rewriting its contracts with drivers so that it acts “as an agent, rather than as the supplier” outside London. That means that the vast majority of Uber fares outside the capital will avoid the 20% VAT tax on Uber and, as the majority of drivers’ earnings are below the VAT threshold, that money will not come into the Treasury. Meanwhile, passengers in London, where Transport for London has prevented the agency model, will see higher fares. Can the Minister explain how much of the projected £700 million in revenue is actually going to be protected, given Uber’s change?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Minister for his generosity. Will he confirm that if any local authority sees an increase in its spending on SEND transport because of the 20% VAT, the Treasury will work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that those authorities are paid back in full for that extra cost? That reassurance would help to put our minds at ease, along with council leaders and council chief executives across the country who are worried that they might have a hole in their budget come the next financial year.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As someone who is renovating a house at the moment, I am not sure whether many household appliances can be bought for £200 or less, and I do not know whether the Treasury has set that limit deliberately. When buying a tablet or phone, there are very few options under that £200 limit, and I wonder whether the limit has been drawn too narrowly to ensure that the majority of products donated will not fall under it. I would welcome the rationale from the Minister as to why £200 was chosen as the appropriate number, and what consideration the Treasury has given to widening that limit.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats fully support clause 80 and would support amendment 43 if it were pushed to a vote. When I worked in retail, including in grocery retail for a significant number of years, I saw time and again that goods were going in the bin that should have been going to a good home, such as a charity, but that was not happening because it was cheaper to dispose of those goods than to donate them to a worthwhile cause. That is an unacceptable position, and one that we should not be in, so I am really glad that the Government have brought forward clause 80 to help change that. Clause 80 explicitly names the household goods to which the £200 limit applies—household appliances, furniture, flooring, computers, tablets and phones.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Balancing VAT refund rights to ensure fairness for CCAs is, of course, welcome, and we support it. We support the idea that VAT refund rights should be balanced across groups and institutions that are similar and have a similar purpose. That is why I hope you will allow me to share some surprise, Mrs Harris, that the Government have not gone further in balancing refund rights. For example, a school with a sixth form attached can claim its VAT back, but a sixth form college cannot. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) has been campaigning on that for a significant time. In answer to a written question, the Minister confirmed that the Government are not planning to extend the VAT refund right to sixth form colleges, but they have done so for combined county authorities. Will the Minister explain the rationale for that?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an additional cost for the road haulage sector, on top of all these extra costs and the vehicle excise duty increases. For example, we were told on the Business and Trade Committee about a vehicle that was sat in France for almost one month because of paperwork that was not quite correct and small technical challenges. That vehicle being sat in France for one month meant consistent driver changes and meant the freezer compartment having to be kept on to ensure that the goods did not spoil. There was a £6,000 cost to the business because of two stamps being in the incorrect place. If we add that to the £2,000 cost per truck of the changes to vehicle excise duty, we see very clearly that the significant changes that the Government are making in quick succession are not helping the sector, which needs all the support it can get.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The haulage sector has seen significant challenges in recent years: increases in fuel prices, increases in wages and significant changes in the Employment Rights Act 2025, business rates and vehicle excise duty, as we see here. I would not be the investment and trade spokesman for the Liberal Democrats if I did not mention another challenge for the road haulage sector in recent years, which is the significant amount of red tape involved in Brexit, and the cost of that. The Government’s EU reset has not touched the sides, as haulage associations have been telling us recently. The Business and Trade Committee recently heard about some goods moving from the UK to France that required 29 different stamps on their paperwork. If one stamp goes in the wrong place, the vehicle gets stuck in France or sent back.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We are concerned about floods of electric vehicles that are coming in from China, undercutting European and British competitors. We are worried that they will be impacted by that £50,000 change, but several British vehicles will not be. I am sure that we do not want a world in which the Government are unintentionally encouraging British residents to buy electric vehicles made in China rather than electric vehicles from Britain. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point for us.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We welcome the uprating of the expensive car supplement for EVs to the value of £50,000, supporting EVs and EV take-up. However, we are surprised that during the Committee’s first sitting on Tuesday, when I asked about extending zero VAT for charging infrastructure beyond 2027, the Economic Secretary declined to do so. I am aware that the Minister who is present today was not there, but that is slightly confusing. Here, we see the Government supporting electric vehicles and increasing the threshold from £40,000 to £50,000, but not applying the same policy by supporting electric vehicles post 2027 in other clauses of the Bill. The Economic Secretary, who was in the Minister’s place on Tuesday, is now in China; I do not know whether I should commiserate with the Minister for not being invited on that trip.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is dangerous when young people are out on the water or swimming, and in areas not too far from my own we have seen some unfortunate deaths as a result. I am glad that the Government have decided to back down on this and are not going to burden the quarry sector or developments with that proposal. However, can the Minister confirm what the cost would have been to UK infrastructure projects such as High Speed 2, and what the additional cost to the taxpayer would have been?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am very glad that the Government have ditched the plan to converge the rates of landfill tax and to massively hike the charge for inert waste, adding tens of thousands of pounds to the cost of a new build home at a time when the Government want to build 1.5 million new homes. That was not joined-up government, and I am concerned at the lack of joined-up thinking when the Treasury put forward this proposal. There are a number of gravel quarries in my Maidenhead constituency, and converging the rates would have meant that a significant number of those quarries would have gone unfilled, resulting in more quarry lakes in our town. We know that quarry lakes are dangerous: they are quite shallow until they suddenly become incredibly deep.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 99 introduces a very small increase in the rate of aggregates levy, but a small increase when dealing with massive numbers is still quite a large increase. High Speed 2, for example, is predicted to use 20 million tonnes of aggregate during phase 1. That means that the measure will add about £3.2 million to the bill for HS2, which we know is already significantly over budget. Has the Minister worked out the cost associated with money being passed from the Government to HS2 and then from HS2 back to the Government through things like the proposed aggregates levy increase?”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“(11) A direction under sub-paragraph (1) shall cease to have effect if, within the period of 21 sitting days beginning with the day on which the statement under sub-paragraph (10) is laid, either House of Parliament resolves that the direction should be annulled.” This amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide Parliament with an impact statement before directing the TRA to initiate a dumping or subsidisation investigation, and would give Parliament the power to annul such directions within 21 sitting days.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 107, page 129, line 32, at end insert— “(10) Before giving a direction under sub-paragraph (1), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an impact statement setting out— (a) the evidence on which the Secretary of State has concluded that the conditions in sub-paragraph (1) have been met, (b) an assessment of the potential impact on consumer prices and UK supply chains, (c) the reasons why a direction is considered necessary in the circumstances, and (d) whether coordination with other jurisdictions, including the European Union, has been considered.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendments 44 and 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot and I, strengthen the democratic accountability in our trade remedies system. Trade remedies exist to protect British businesses and workers from unfair foreign competition from goods dumped below cost or artificially subsidised. Since Brexit, the Trade Remedies Authority has operated as our independent investigation body. That independence matters, because trade remedy decisions affect jobs, consumer prices, business costs and our international relations.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is important to remember that one can support both free trade and protection against unfair dumping—they are not mutually exclusive—and I think the amendments strike a balance between them transparently. Amendment 44 gives Parliament meaningful oversight of ministerial decisions to initiate investigations, and amendment 45 ensures that decisions account for impacts on consumers and businesses relying on imported inputs. Together, they strengthen democratic accountability while maintaining our ability to act against unfair trading practices. I ask the Minister to reconsider his thoughts on amendment 44 when we push it to a vote.”
House of Commons29 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Including this requirement in the Bill would promote modernisation and better taxpayer services and would signal that HMRC should consider practical delivery as well as policy. I hope the Minister will support it. New clause 29, also tabled in my name, would require the Chancellor to lay a report before the House on the impact of clause 35 on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is fairly simple. It would explain whether clause 35 is achieving the policy goal by tracking the number of employee-ownership trust transactions compared to previous years. Not until we are in the process will we actually know what the impact will be. By tracking the numbers, we can see whether the policy the Government are undertaking has been a success. I hope the Minister will support it.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 28 in my name would require HMRC to assess the potential benefits of establishing a digital application process for taxpayers to pay capital gains tax by instalments in respect of disposal to employee ownership trusts. The digital application process would make it far easier for taxpayers to apply to pay capital gains tax by instalments, reducing delays and administrative burden. The Government aim to make tax digital—this digital application process would be a small way to help to get there. It would help to ensure that the new relief works in practice, not just in theory, smoothing the implementation process and ensuring that taxpayers know where they stand. The digital process could help improve speed, accuracy and the consistent handling of instalment applications.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a small administrative change but a significant one. I share concerns about awareness on this topic and how the public will know that this has changed. For individuals who have been doing this for a significant period of time, the change will be quite significant for them. I would like to know how the Government will communicate that change to the public—what advice will be put forward, and how people will be made aware of it—rather than them being expected to know that the Government have made changes. I am pretty sure the public have not read all the pages of the Bill and understood them precisely—even though I know we all have. We would all like to how the public will be made aware of this.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Minister has outlined, clause 53 extends the purpose test from one category to all 12 categories. What guidance will HMRC provide for charity trustees to determine where the line is to be drawn between a legitimate investment strategy and those that are seen as having an ulterior purpose, because anti-avoidance should not penalise prudent charitable investment strategies? Can the Minister also confirm exactly which charity sector bodies were consulted on these provisions and how they responded to that consultation, because many charity trustees are volunteers and this seems to place a significantly larger burden on those charity trustee volunteers to determine where to draw the line? It would be interesting to see what the consultation came back with as to where they would see that line and how they would attribute it.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have only one question to the Minister: how can we go further to ensure that once we have implemented the Bill, we will be in a position to say that fantastic UK companies will not head overseas, taking that capital and culture with them?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger, on what is not only my first Finance Bill Committee, but my first Bill Committee—a nice, simple one to start me off. The Liberal Democrats welcome the changes made by clause 13. We need to support our British start-ups and British start-up culture to grow and develop. We would of course like the Government to go further than clause 13 in what they promise. We need to ensure that we have a British start-up culture where start-ups do not, after five or 10 years, head off to the United States, taking that capital and leaving the UK with a brain drain.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats share the concerns of the SMMT. Given that the sector is struggling with severe uncompetitiveness across the country, anything that undoes the progress that the Government are seeking to make would not be welcome. Nissan tells us that its plant in Sunderland is the most expensive for electricity of any of its plants worldwide. That is not good for British business or for British car manufacturers. The SMMT worries that these proposals will not be good for British car manufacturers either. On clause 18, we would like some draft guidance on proposed new section 116A to be published this year and consulted on. A number of the definitions could be clarified to give the industry some certainty about what will and will not be included.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 21 will increase unfairness. Those required to work from home are currently divided into two groups: one group who receive reimbursement for costs without incurring income tax but are not reimbursed by their employer, and another group who take that via a taxation route. This measure will exacerbate that split and create a greater divide between the two. Where two employees hold exactly the same position or role, but in different companies, one may receive the payment and the other may not. The figures suggest that about 300,000 people will be affected by this measure. Can the Minister comment on how we can be in a position whereby two employees in the same job, but with different employers, are treated differently for tax purposes?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Is it right that someone who has already settled should be ineligible for the loan charge settlement? Surely, that tells people that in future they should just hold off and not settle or come to agreement, because that will leave them in a better position.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“New clause 25, which I hope to press to a Division, would require the Government to undertake a report to consider a number of issues pertinent to the loan charge settlement scheme outlined in the Bill. The Liberal Democrats are clear that the settlement opportunity should be fair to everybody affected, including those who have already paid or settled, so as to ensure that people outside the loan charge years are not treated differently without clear reason. Unequal treatment can create the perception of unfairness, even if the policy is technically and soundly legal. It seems to us that if perceived unfairness in the system could be reduced, we should strive to do so, in order to protect the public’s trust in HMRC and the wider tax system.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The report required by new clause 25 would outline a range of things, including whether the loan charge settlement opportunity is available to individuals who have settled, which is really important and something that we need to ensure; whether the settlement opportunity applies to individuals with disguised remuneration outside the loan charge years; and the extent of the impact of differential treatment between those two groups and those who are eligible. The extent of the impact is the most important thing, because for those individuals it will be severe. The report would also include an assessment of whether extending more favourable settlement terms to excluded groups would improve fairness and consistency with HMRC overall.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is completely correct. The place we are in now is that someone who settled and came to an agreement with HMRC is excluded from the opportunity laid out in the Bill. That means that when something like this happens again—and we all know that it will—those individuals will not want to come to an agreement with HMRC. They will know that if they hold off, a better solution and a better agreement will come through.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“One-year extensions on top of one-year extensions do not give the certainty that businesses need to invest in the electrification of fleets—they need to do it this year or not at all. Once we take away that capital bid, it is very difficult to get back, so I would like to see that changed.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Liberal Democrats wholeheartedly support electrifying our vehicle fleet. It is a shame that some other political parties and politicians have stopped at a red traffic light when it comes to electrification. [Hon. Members: “More!”] I will not make any more traffic jokes—apologies. That is why it is quite concerning to see the 2027 expiry date for the capital allowance. When potential EV owners are surveyed, their biggest concern is charging their vehicles, and it is the same for big employers. We all know that businesses need long-term security and a long-term commitment. That is why businesses were not doing well under the last Government, and why they retreated when the 2024 Budget brought in so many changes for businesses. Long-term security is clearly what businesses need to invest.”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We can look into whether to support new clause 3 in a few weeks’ time. There seems to be very little in the new clause that we as Liberal Democrats would not support. Let us face it: we need to review the impact of the 2027 expiry date. We do not believe that the allowance should expire in 2027; it needs to be extended significantly further, so we would certainly consider supporting a review of whether 2027 is the right place. That is my question for the Minister, really: why are we saying that the expiry date will be in 2027? Will we all be sitting here excitedly after the next Budget, looking at a 2028 expiry date, and so on for 2029 and 2030?”
House of Commons27 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have raised multiple times with the Government the harassment of a constituent of mine, Carmen Lau, by the Chinese authorities. This has included bounty letters, deepfake pornography and her family being interrogated by national security agents in Hong Kong. Every time I am told that the safety of Hongkongers is of the utmost importance to the Government. Given that, does the Minister accept that to approve this application while China is still committing transnational repression would be a kick in the teeth to Hongkongers such as Carmen?”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister just said that the Government are pro-pubs, but any pub she speaks to in my constituency will tell her that this Government are not pro-pubs. The amount of profit left at the end of a pint for a pub is minuscule, and it is so far from reality to say that the Government are pro-pubs. How does she respond to all the pubs across the country that are crying out for change?”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Does the shadow Minister agree that if this Labour climbdown is happening, it is not enough for there to be a smaller increase than the one that was planned? There needs to be no increase in business rates.”
House of Commons13 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Has the Treasury done any analysis of the amount of that tax increase that will be passed on to renters, and if it has, what has it come out with?”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will be brief—the Minister might even be able to give me a one-word answer. In 2024, the Chancellor said that she had come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. Does the Minister agree, then, that he is proposing to hurt working people?”
House of Commons12 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Citizens Advice notes that the warm home discount has not kept pace with rising energy bills and will struggle to touch the sides for families in energy debt. Will the Minister therefore commit to a Government review of whether the £150 discount provides sufficient support for the families who really need it right now?”
House of Commons6 January 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this is about choices, but will he accept one of the choices that the Chancellor has made? Even though hospitality employs less than 7% of people in the UK, since she has come into office, the number of jobs lost in that sector is almost 100,000—50% of total job losses? The Chancellor has made a choice in the Budget, and that choice is to lose swathes of jobs throughout hospitality, including making many young people—whose first jobs are often in the hospitality industry—unemployable.”
House of Commons16 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Vaccination rates among the over-65s are not where we would like them to be, so will the Secretary of State adopt an emergency vaccination scheme in village halls, supermarkets and—if needed—jab vans to get to the people who have been missed?”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Carmen Lau is a Hong Kong democracy campaigner, and a constituent of mine. Earlier this year, her neighbours received letters asking them to take her to the Chinese embassy in exchange for £100,000. Last month her neighbours also received fake sexually explicit photographs of her, with a Macao postage stamp. May I ask the Foreign Secretary when she last met Carmen to discuss those concerns, and how she can reassure Hongkongers living in Britain that they will be safe?”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“More than half of former exporters surveyed gave up because of the barriers to trade with Europe. We are not talking about businesses that have failed to break into distant markets; we are talking about established exporters abandoning our nearest and largest market because the barriers have become insurmountable. The priority for small manufacturers is assistance in navigating customs declarations and rules of origin to sell in Europe. These are markets they have served for decades, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a fundamental reset of our relationship with Europe—a new bespoke UK-EU customs union that would cut through red tape, boost gross domestic product by an estimated 2.2% and generate roughly £25 billion in tax revenues, according to the House of Commons Library.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) said, we also need to understand the elephant in the room, which is that we are discussing expanding capacity of UK Export Finance at precisely the moment when British exporters face unprecedented challenges with our largest trading partner, the EU. The Chartered Institute of Export and International Trade has documented the impact, saying that among the smallest firms—those with six employees or fewer—the value of their exports to the EU fell by 30% after the trade and co-operation agreement was struck; meanwhile, firms with more than 107 employees were largely unaffected. The Institute of Directors’ January 2025 “Policy Voice” survey found that 54.8% of businesses that previously exported and have stopped cited as a reason the UK’s trading relationship with the EU.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“UK Export Finance’s criteria state clearly that in any one of the last three years at least 20%, or in each of the last three years at least 5%, of a business’s annual turnover needs to be made up from export sales, but those thresholds mean that businesses trying to break into the export market, or those growing still quite modest export activity, cannot access support. As we expand UK Export Finance’s capacity, let us make sure that the commitment made is about not just bigger deals and bigger companies, but making UK Export Finance work for smaller businesses—the backbone of British exports—with simpler application processes, lower eligibility thresholds for SMEs and dedicated support teams made up of those who really understand SMEs the best. As the hon.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Let me be clear at the outset that the Liberal Democrats support the Bill. We do so because we recognise that British businesses need backing to compete globally, and both the industrial support package and the export finance package have vital roles to play in that. The increases proposed in the Bill represent a major expansion in Government capacity and give us the opportunity to ensure that that expansion serves our priorities as a country: supporting small businesses, driving green growth and maintaining proper democratic oversight. Small business owners have told me that the current system simply does not work for them. UK Export Finance’s processes are designed for larger transactions, larger businesses and those that are already exporting.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We need to have regular parliamentary scrutiny of spending decisions, transparent criteria for allocating support and proper impact assessments that show whether the funding is actually working. The assessments must show not just how much has been spent but whether it is reaching the businesses that need it the most and delivering the economic growth that we were promised. We support the Bill. The Government have brought forward legislation that recognises that British businesses need backing, but British businesses need proper industry and export support that is strategically directed, environmentally responsible, democratically accountable and rooted in the challenges that they actually face. I hope that the Bill will deliver that.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would value the Minister’s thoughts on whether that target of 1,000 is his target and whether it can be improved. It is my hope that the Bill will ultimately support a more ambitious target for UK Export Finance. It would be stronger if we acknowledged the reality of supporting small businesses and removed the practical barriers that stop SMEs from exporting. That brings me to my final point: parliamentary oversight. We are to spend £20 billion on industry assistance and guarantee up to £160 billion for export finance. This House deserves more than just retrospective annual reports. Fundamentally, these are political decisions about which sectors succeed, which regions benefit and how Britain competes globally.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite the fundamental barriers to the markets, the Government’s answer is simply to expand capacity, without addressing whether that capacity will be able to reach the businesses that need it most. While I appreciate that, according to its 2024-25 annual report, UK Export Finance put in £14.5 billion of new finance, that only supported 667 UK businesses to grow and invest. UK Export Finance’s business plan for 2024 to 2029 clearly states its five-year milestones, including that it wants to support an extra 1,000 SMEs to export every year until 2029. That target was introduced under the previous Government, but it has not been amended under the current Government. Considering that there are 5.7 million SMEs in the UK and that facilitating export is a critical tool for economic growth, that number seems pitifully small.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In reality, we need to look at the positions that were on the table at the time. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do the positions that both our parties took when the votes were happening. Obviously I was not in the House at the time, but I recall watching and listening to colleagues on the Labour Benches opposing various things that we put forward. The proposal that the Liberal Democrats are putting forward today would add £25 billion a year to the revenue coming into the Treasury. That money is not to be sniffed at, and it should be supported across the whole House. In discussing the doubling of UK Export Finance’s capacity to £160 billion, we need to ask ourselves whether that extra money is going to address the export challenges that British businesses actually face.”
House of Commons15 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What steps will be taken across Government while this inquiry is ongoing to ensure that the victims of these horrible crimes are given proper support during the process?”
House of Commons9 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It took the Government a year and a half to confirm that they were going to scrap the two-child benefit cap. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of children who, during that time, were unnecessarily kept in poverty because of it?”
House of Commons8 December 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗