That this House has considered onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I pay tribute to Baroness Lola Young of Hornsey, who is a great champion for this policy area in the Houses of Parliament.
For centuries, the UK was known as a world leader in garment and textiles production, and we retain that global reputation based on quality and craftsmanship. Every region has its speciality, from Nottinghamshire shoes to Scottish tweed and Yorkshire wool—and from Savile Row to Brick Lane, our capital city has been synonymous with fashion throughout the decades. The sector indirectly supports 200,000 jobs in London. People come from all over the world to shop here and many come to study, with 55 UK universities offering fashion and textiles courses. Nothing says more about our place in global culture. In an increasingly uncertain world, our reputation and expertise are everything, and UK soft power opens many doors.
I am sure a lot of people are thinking: what qualifies an MP to talk about fashion? Well, many years ago—in 1985, to be precise—my sister, who is a wonderful seamstress, returned to Australia after a visit to the UK, and with her she brought her most prized Liberty fabric. She made it into a skirt for me, and that is what I am wearing today. Slow ethical fashion is timeless. Had I known in advance that the Minister for Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), was going to respond to this debate, I would have encouraged him to wear his handmade tartan kilt, which we would have loved to have seen. I am sure we will be able to do that next time.
Last month, I sponsored a Backbench Business debate on food inflation and the cost of living. Some might think that onshoring fashion is a completely different topic, but both go to the heart of who I am as a Labour MP, what I came into politics to do and what kind of country we need to be. We need an inclusive economy that works for everyone, where work pays and where anyone, whether they are a young person starting out or a parent returning to work, has access to skilled jobs, training and a bright future for them and their family. In politics, everything we do should start with these most basic of values.
How do we put our values into action? We know that the rapid rise of fast fashion encouraged outsourcing and offshoring, but growing awareness of environmental and social issues in fashion has sparked a revival in the UK industry. Today, the Government have a chance to support slow ethical fashion and invest in home-grown talent and skills. Fashion and textiles manufacturing in Britain could be a key driver of economic growth. The Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. There is huge potential here for UK industry. Onshoring in the fashion and textiles industry could unlock £3.1 billion in GDP, 64,000 new jobs and £1.2 billion in tax receipts. That is vital when we know that the UK services trade has exceeded expectations this quarter, but our goods trade still has some way to catch up. I ask the Minister to support the industry, encourage public procurement of local suppliers, provide support to small firms for capital expenditure and research development, and work with the industry to promote training and apprenticeships.
I was so pleased that in last November’s Budget, the Chancellor announced funding to make apprenticeship training for under-25s completely free for small and medium-sized enterprises. There was also an increase of the minimum wage for 18 to 20-year-olds from April 2026 to over £10 an hour for the first time. We need to give young people the support and opportunities they deserve. The Budget also included new measures to stop overseas online firms from undercutting UK bricks-and-mortar businesses by ensuring that customs duty applies to parcels of any value, and I look forward to seeing the impact of those measures. But before I say more about how the Government can help, let me address the industry, and particularly those brands that are manufacturing offshore.
I know that Brexit has not helped the UK industry. It was a game changer, and many firms have had to reassess their whole business model—from the overnight delivery of buttons and zips to big impacts on the workforce, and many teachers in the world of fashion. There are costs to producing in the UK, but what about the benefits, including more flexibility and agility from local suppliers, faster turnaround times that global competitors cannot match due to distance, and more transparency as customers know exactly where their clothes are made? “Made in the UK” is a point of pride for us all. Ethical manufacturing is an asset to a brand. Particularly with the Government’s new flagship Employment Rights Act 2025, businesses can assure their customers of world-leading workers’ rights and ethical employment standards. Every garment they produce can not only say “Made in the UK” but “Made in the UK under fair conditions”.
Contributing to the circular economy, there is a huge potential for recycling, used garment collection and regenerated fabric, which could set the UK apart as the global capital of truly sustainable fashion. By manufacturing in the UK, manufacturers are also a vital part of our towns and cities. Other Members in this debate will talk about the opportunity for the regions to create jobs directly and indirectly, where money earned stays in local communities and helps every family to thrive.
How can the Government help? First, procurement. As I have said, the Procurement Act 2023 enables public bodies to prioritise ethical sourcing and local manufacturing. The Government’s industrial strategy talks about driving innovation and increasing access to talent. The national procurement policy statement emphasises
“taking into account priorities in local and regional economic growth plans”.
Public bodies can procure in a way that supports the economic needs of the communities they serve, rather than having pounds, shillings and pence as the sole consideration.
One example is uniforms. There are some best practice examples of school uniforms, but what about uniforms that are used in the prison service or even the military, which is one area where we know that there will be growth in public expenditure? Britain is a global leader in camouflage fabric production, yet the majority of military uniforms are manufactured overseas. The House of Commons Library has been very helpful: it has given me information on contract sizes and which firms are procured, but the supply chains are complex and a bit opaque. I am not sure whether the Minister has expertise in this area. If he does not, I am sure he can write to me later, or perhaps I can try with the Ministry of Defence again.
Ministerial questions have revealed that exact details of the quantities and location of where the armed forces’ dress and combat uniforms are produced are not held centrally. An inquiry from 2013—a long time ago, now—revealed that just 6% of UK military uniforms were made in the UK. We see quite a lot of flag waving in politics at the moment, but is not true patriotism about making sure that our young people have a secure future, with opportunities for skilled jobs?
How else can the Government assist? We could also look at how business practices affect small firms. It is impossible for clothing manufacturers to survive if they do not have certainty about production, deliveries and payments. That can be due to a lack of formal agreements with buyers, or any agreements simply not being honoured. That puts manufacturers’ cashflow in difficulties. Materials need to be bought; wages need to be paid. There can be an unfair transfer of risk from brand to manufacturer. Small enterprises can be mistreated by their more powerful business customers. That is why I support the creation of a fashion watchdog, to protect small garment manufacturers. I would welcome the Minister’s assessment of that concept.
On a similar theme, we need to ensure that there is a level playing field for UK manufacturers on ethical working practices, sustainability, transparency and compliance. We know that the Competition and Markets Authority has published guidance for fashion businesses making green claims about their garments. We need to ensure that the online giants comply with all the regulations and are not undercutting UK enterprises with opaque information about how they source their products.
Let me turn to technology and education. I am pleased to welcome Professor Susan Postlethwaite from Manchester Metropolitan University, who may be with us today. Her report “Reshoring UK Garment Manufacturing with Automation” makes the case for agile, small-scale, reshored garment manufacturing systems and a newly trained, highly skilled workforce. The report focuses on technology and education, the potential for new robotic and automated systems in UK fashion manufacturing, and redesigning fashion education to embrace this technology. How can the Government help industry to rise to the challenge and create high-quality jobs across our communities? Most of all, let us kick off the discussion with the industry and the Government working together, so we can focus on what is important: making the UK the global home of sustainable fashion.
My hon. Friend makes fantastic points. The importance of sustainability and the environmental impact of offshored fashion extend into the whole life cycle of our clothes. One of the first meetings I had upon being elected was with Chris Carey’s Collections, a textile recycler in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge, which told me how the widescale proliferation of cheap, imported fast-fashion products with low-quality fabrics was leading to huge declines in its recycling rates and condemning more and more clothes to landfill. Does my hon. Friend agree that when evaluating the feasibility of onshoring, we should consider the whole life cycle of our clothes?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. There is so much going on in our constituencies but with relatively little support from local government or central Government. With a small amount of effort, we could help the sustainable fashion sector to really flourish. As I was saying, we need to focus on making the UK the home of sustainable fashion, delivering high-skilled jobs and creating a truly inclusive economy that works for everyone.
Finally, I have some questions for the Minister. Will the Government promote onshoring across the industry and promote the benefits of manufacturing in the UK? Will they turbocharge public procurement from local suppliers and increase awareness across the public sector? Procurement is no longer just about pounds, shillings and pence, but about best value for communities. What can the Government do to provide support to small firms on capital expenditure for research, development and technology? Will the Minister work with the industry to promote training and apprenticeships—I know that he is a great supporter of that already—and so help parents who want to return to the workforce, as well as youngsters? Will he assess the merits of the fashion watchdog? Finally, UK manufacturers need a level playing field. Are the regulations and guidance about sourcing and transparency up to scratch, or is it time for a review?
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.
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). He and I support the same football team, although I am afraid that they are not doing that well at this moment in time—we hope for better things in the future.
I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for setting the scene so well. She referred in her introduction to many places in the United Kingdom, and I am going to refer to Northern Ireland, where linen was one of our major industries—it is something that we are very proud of. I could never be called a fashion icon; I might be a dedicated follower of fashion, but that does not make me a fashion icon by any means. But I can certainly appreciate good craftmanship, which is part of the history and legacy of Northern Ireland, with its world-famous linen industry. The legacy of quality linen work continues to this day throughout Northern Ireland.
I am old enough to remember—it is probably no secret that I am the oldest person in this room—when my constituency of Strangford, particularly in Newtownards, had somewhere between 15 and 20 factories producing textiles, fashion, linen and threads. They are all away now—I think we have only one left. Indeed, it was not unusual for someone to leave a factory on a Friday night and start a new job in another factory on the Monday morning, such was the opportunity, but the world has changed—although I will refer to others in Northern Ireland that still do incredibly important work.
The fashion and textile industry in Northern Ireland has shifted from mass production and is now a specialised, high-end and innovative sector, focusing on luxury linen, technical textiles and advanced garment manufacturing. The remaining firms thrive through digital, sustainable and specialised technology. William Clark and Sons, for example, is leveraging its 300 years of expertise. Key players such as Ulster Carpets use robotics, while others support the niche market for luxury in apparel and homeware.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—there is nobody better to chair a debate on fashion, if I may say so. I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for her excellent opening speech and all the wonderful points she made. I want to get slightly competitive for a moment: I admire her skirt, which her sister made, but I want to draw attention to the top that I am wearing, which I made myself—onshoring fashion in action.
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.
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?
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.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Ms Jardine—twice in one afternoon; a treat for both of us! I congratulate the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) on securing today’s debate, and I have listened with huge interest to the points that have been made.
We are all no doubt proud of what Britain makes, and I certainly agree that we should do all we can to create the environment for businesses to flourish and produce more here. The harsh truth, however, is that production is often offshored due to the UK not being competitive on cost. With sky-high energy costs, labour costs and taxes and all the regulatory burden, we cannot be surprised to see many of our manufacturing businesses packing up and moving elsewhere. However, the good news is that we can still compete when it comes to quality and speed, with many businesses where cost is not the driving motivation choosing to source from the UK—knitwear being a good example.
Despite the challenges, the fashion and textile industry in the UK is significant and important. UK Fashion and Textile Association research commissioned from Oxford Economics found that the wider sector supported a £62 billion contribution to UK GDP, 1.3 million jobs and more than £23 billion in tax revenues. That same work underlined how geographically spread those jobs are—from London to the north-west, Yorkshire and the Humber, the south-west, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—and how important the sector is for younger workers and women.
Many different services and skills are needed to transform fabrics into finished garments. Designers, technicians, machinists, graders, pattern cutters, fabric technologists, dye houses, finishing plants, logistics and aftercare all play an essential role. I saw that at first hand just before I entered politics, when I worked for the retailer Jigsaw, which is also very much known for its knitwear—that seems to be a theme today.
It is an enormous delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Jardine—I cannot imagine a greater delight this afternoon. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing this debate, and for the passion with which she has approached the issue, not just today but over many months; indeed, it is one of the issues that she has talked about throughout her time as an MP. Burberry used to be based in my constituency, and then left, so I feel quite strongly about some of these issues, and I am delighted to stand in for my colleague in the Department this afternoon.
It was great to hear from the hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam). Of course, we all know of Leicester’s strengths in the garments industry over many decades. In fact, many different parts of the garments industry, including parts of the shoe industry, have been based in areas across the midlands and have been intrinsic to its economic success over centuries. We know about some of the problems there have been with working standards and labour standards, and he made a strong argument for his constituency.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said that he is a dedicated follower of fashion. He was of course referring to the song by The Kinks from 1966, which he and I are old enough to remember. I remember one of the lines—it is a polite line; there are others that might not fit him so well—which goes:
“One week he’s in polka dots, the next week he’s in stripe”.
I think the hon. Member is pretty consistent in his attire: he is smart, elegant and to the point. He made a strong set of points on behalf of his constituents.
I agree with many points made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I am particularly conscious of the issue of people in artisanal or small businesses in particular—sometimes those are hobby business, but sometimes they are more substantial—trying to send packages into Europe and finding it very difficult to do so. That is one reason for needing to get to fiction-less trade—I mean frictionless trade, not the fictional frictionless trade that was promised by some people in another political party when they were in government—and we are seeking to do that as much as we possibly can.
20 of 28 shown
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.
I should have said that I am pleased to see the Minister in his place, as always. Expectations are high, but I am sure we will not be disappointed with his answers to our requests. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), in her place. She is doing a double run today—she did the earlier debate and now she is doing this one, so well done.
The industry has transformed from high-volume production to design-driven, specialised manufacturing. Many of our specialised companies are renowned globally for their luxurious products. We remain incredibly proud of the industry in Northern Ireland, because it does all the things we hoped it would.
The industry has contracted, as I illustrated in Newtownards, the main town in my constituency, although there are examples of factories in many others, including Comber, Ballynahinch, Ballygowan and Killinchy—they are all away, although there does seem to be a focus in Mid Ulster. However, the sector remains a notable part of the local economy. It still accounts for 2,000 firms in Northern Ireland and employs over 10,000 people, with employment heavily centred on textile manufacture—over 40% of that workforce—clothing manufacture and washing and dry-cleaning services. That is an illustration of how the sector has adjusted to the modern age and, at the same time, been able to survive, albeit in a smaller way in terms of the number of factories.
From the Cooneen Group in County Tyrone to individual fashion houses, Northern Ireland continues to produce quality goods with a growing global reach. I am thankful to those who promote the best of British brands globally. I know that the Minister will be careful to ensure that every part of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is included in British brand promotion—I know that is his commitment —and I look forward to the industry going from strength to strength.
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.
We are not going to get to a point anytime soon where every button and zip can be made in this country. Frankly, without a cheap energy plan, we will not even see garments made here either. Warm words are not enough to bring about the change the hon. Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet is calling for, but businesses are now discovering that cheaper production on the other side of the world has its downsides. Major retailers have described how customs-related supply chain frictions, increased admin costs and global events affecting major routes, including disruption around the Suez canal, have impacted transit times and driven up costs across the industry. There is clearly an appetite to address these issues by producing closer to home—maybe even at home—so that does present an opportunity.
Considerations around sustainability can also play to our advantage. The rapid rise of so-called fast fashion has pushed production far from the consumer, and has often pushed environmental and social costs wholly out of sight. Now, though, we are in an era where customers, investors and regulators are far less willing to accept, “We didn’t know,” as an excuse. They want to know that their clothing has been produced ethically. Traceability is becoming a brand asset in and of itself. That is why the UK Fashion and Textile Association points to the opportunity for technology such as QR codes, radio frequency identification or even AI-enabled systems to strengthen transparency and build consumer trust in “Made in the UK” as a mark of ethical production.
If that is the opportunity, we also need to recognise the barriers to us benefiting from it. First, there is cost, which I have mentioned a number of times, given its importance. UKFT’s “Reshoring for Real” report captures a real appetite among brands to source more domestically, but only if the cost model makes sense and if standards can be trusted. It really is not rocket science: if we want companies to onshore production, we need to make it cheaper for them to do so. The Government’s lack of action on bringing the cost of energy down, the imposition of the jobs tax, higher business rates and the disastrous Employment Rights Act 2025 show that they do not get it.
Secondly, there is the issue of skills. When a country loses capacity, it also risks losing the training pipeline. We can talk about onshoring, but if there are not enough skilled people to do the work, the opportunity will be taken elsewhere. That is why, in previous debates, Members in both Houses have raised the need for stronger skills routes relevant to garment and textile manufacturing, and why the engagement with industry on training and technical education undertaken by the previous Government mattered.
Thirdly—I was shocked to learn that this was an issue—past labour compliance issues in British factories have damaged trust to the point that some companies will remain wary of, or keep in place concrete policies against, UK sourcing until they are confident that these issues are resolved. Such circumstances make further basing or investment into the UK a difficult proposition for reputation-conscious firms. That clearly needs to be addressed, but with a careful eye on not heaping even more regulatory burdens on compliant, law-abiding businesses.
In 2023, the then Business and Trade Secretary, who has now gone on to greater things, set out that her Department was engaging and promoting fashion and textile companies domestically and internationally, noting that fashion, footwear and textiles exports totalled £7.5 billion in 2022, and that Government funding was supporting London Fashion Week through the British Fashion Council, and supporting UKFT activity at key international trade shows. I hope the current Government will be as robust in their support. Such support matters, because onshoring does not sit in a silo. A stronger domestic manufacturing base goes hand in hand with strong exports and with a globally respected brand Britain. If we have a solid local supply chain, we attract design talent. If we attract design talent, we build brands. If we build brands, we export. If we export, we grow.
A point in the application for the debate referenced UKFT estimates that suggest that onshoring could unlock substantial additional growth, jobs and tax receipts. There is a real prize here, particularly in places where manufacturing capability already exists or could be rebuilt. For communities that have lived through the loss of industrial jobs, modern textile manufacturing, technical fabrics and high-value apparel production can be part of a new story: one compatible with innovation, automation and clean growth. However, that can happen only if the right environment is created for those businesses.
On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I commit that we will continue to press for a serious, pro-growth approach to business and trade that would allow industries such as fashion and textiles to flourish. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about the Government’s approach.
I am focused on how we can enable the whole value chain in the UK to discover ways of exporting into the European Union, which still represents around 45% of our export opportunities, and more widely around the world. We know that a UK business that is able to find a second market and to export is more likely to pay its staff better, be more resilient, grow faster and still be there in 10, 15 and 20 years’ time. For all those reasons, we want to do everything we can to enable more of that sector to export.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park referred to responsible business conduct, which I will come on to a little later. I will also come to some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), who has a slightly fanciful memory of what the previous Government was like, in my humble opinion—I think if we had a vote on that, we would win; it would be all versus one.
We all know that fashion is about as British as tea and crumpets. There are so many massive household names: Ted Baker, Paul Smith, Superdry, which I never knew was British, Barbour, ASOS, Alexander McQueen, Stella McCartney, All Saints, Dunhill, admittedly owned by a Swiss company at the moment but nonetheless a very British brand, and Richard James—and I am just talking about the clothes I am wearing today. [Laughter.] I am not wearing all those, obviously.
It is similar with shoes. I used to be the youth officer for the diocese of Peterborough, living in Northampton. In Northamptonshire, as well as in neighbouring counties, shoe manufacturing has been so much a part of their history. Whether it is Dr Martens, Dune, Cheaney, though I never know how to say it, Tricker’s, Joseph Azagury, Yull, Church’s, Clarks, Grenson, Loake, John Lobb, Crockett and Jones, or Jeffery-West—these boots were made for walking, and that’s just what they are going to do. Whenever we go anywhere in the world, we see so many British shoe brands on every major high street, in airports and elsewhere, and we are immensely proud of that. Quite a lot of those, though not all, are made in the UK.
It is easy to talk about big brands, but part of this debate is precisely to say that there are lots of smaller brands making their way, and that we as a Government must do everything we can to help. One of my favourites, which I have referred to before in the House, is Howies. It was originally based in London and is now in Cardigan in Wales. It is ethically based, and produces a whole range, including sporting clothing and other things. Original Fibres, too, is a London brand; it is ethically sourced, and is trying to bring forward the best in British styling as well as manufacture.
There is Shrimps, Saint and Sofia, Talia Byre, Peachy Den, Black and Beech, and perhaps one for the hon. Member for Strangford, Sleazy Rider.