Joshua Reynolds MP: speeches

Speeches

• 17 Jun 2026 · Customs (Tariff and Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 4) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  Steel matters for our national security, for our defence and for our critical infrastructure, and it sustains jobs in every single part of the United Kingdom. British Steel supports thousands of jobs and more than £1 billion-worth of economic activity through its own operation and supply chain, as well as underpinning hundreds of thousands of jobs and several more billion pounds-worth of activity across the industries that depend on it. This is an industry that is worth defending. It has been battered by President Trump’s trade war and by years of unfair practices from China. But supporting the goal is not the same as supporting the method, and the method before us today—a flat 50% tariff, sweeping away the preferential rates across 20 categories of steel—gets the balance badly wrong. It risks protecting one part of British industry by punishing another. Two of those categories make the point very sharply: category 14, which covers stainless bars and light sections, and category 27, which covers cold-finished bars. Those are not commodity steel products bought by the tonne; they are long precision products on which aerospace, defence and motorsport rely, machined to fine tolerances and certified to exacting grades. Those are also categories in which Britain has little or no production at the volume that we need. A 50% tariff here will not redirect demand to British mills, because there are no British mills to redirect that demand to; it simply lands a 50% tax on those British businesses that need those products. Hewland Engineering in my constituency is a fine example. It employs more than 120 people and turns over £15 million. It sells precision drivetrains for aerospace, defence and motorsport across the UK, Europe and Japan. The Government’s answer to Hewland and many other businesses is to buy British, but Hewland has looked at the list of approved domestic suppliers, and not a single one meets the grades or certifications that its customers require. This is not a company that is choosing to buy foreign steel over British steel. There is no domestic option, and yet from 1 July, Hewland faces a 50% tariff on the specialist steel that it needs. That is the central flaw in the Government’s proposals: non-domestic availability. The specialist steel that is required for aerospace, defence and other sectors is not made here at the volumes that we need. It therefore should not have this 50% tariff applied to it. Who bears the cost of the 50% tariff that the Government are proposing? All the downstream industries that put steel into engines and aircraft parts. They employ around 300,000 people across the country, but this blanket tariff, which is meant to protect, risks weakening that workforce and making it smaller. The Government know that there is a problem here—that is why Ministers have been meeting industries about this issue for a long time—but it feels as if they are just ignoring these sectors entirely. In an urgent question today, I asked the Industry Minister about this. He said that if I wrote to him, he would help with the quotas and set out the proposals. If we are suggesting that this will happen on 1 July, writing to a Minister on 17 June to ask for some thoughts when we know it will take several weeks to get a response—probably beyond 1 July—will not be of any benefit. This is not a steel strategy; it is a steel tax on domestic business. We will not support the regulations today, but if the Government intend to press ahead with them, I have some questions for the Minister. Will he consider delaying or tapering start dates to agree some mitigations with industry, removing categories with no realistic domestic capability, particularly in categories 14 and 27, and committing to exemptions for specialist steel that cannot be made at scale in the United Kingdom? Those businesses are crying out and sounding the horn to say that they are at risk of going under. I am worried that, if the Government do not listen to them, swathes of organisations and businesses in my constituency and others will just fold overnight.

• 22 Apr 2026 · Pension Schemes · Hansard source

  More

  Capita has failed time and again, yet it is constantly awarded more contracts. Sally, one of my constituents, had been told multiple times that her lump sum payment was coming or had already been paid, but it was not paid. She and other civil servants would have been worried to hear in March that Capita is to be awarded a £700 million contract for the civil service payroll. Is that not just another example of how when Capita fails, the Government award it yet more of our money?

• 15 Apr 2026 · Single Status of Worker · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders), with whom I sit on the Business and Trade Committee, for securing this debate. The world of work has changed beyond recognition in the past several decades, but our employment laws have been severely left behind. We still sort people in work into three rigid categories—employees, workers and the self-employed. The framework for that was built in a different era, when people had one job, one employer and the reasonable expectation that the law would protect them if things went wrong. That is obviously not the reality for millions of people today. It is not the reality for the delivery drivers who log into apps and spend hours under the management of an algorithm; they cannot set their prices and they are disciplined if their ratings drop, yet when they fall ill or are injured on the job, they are told, “Sorry, you are self-employed—you are on your own.” It is also not the reality for the agency care worker who has been looking after the same vulnerable residents for years without ever accruing a single day of redundancy protection, and it is not the reality for the freelance designer who depends entirely on one client but has no holiday pay, parental leave or pension contributions. These people are trapped in a gap in the law. They are doing essential work, but they are being denied the essential rights that go along with that. The legal case that created those gaps was rooted in case law going back to 1968 and relied on concepts designed for the factory floor, not for the platform economy. It means that the rights of many workers depend not on the work they do or the hours they put in but on how cleverly designed their contract is. Let us be completely honest about who benefits from those contracts and that complexity: it is most certainly not the worker. The problem has not gone unexamined. The Taylor review reported in July 2017 and recommended significant reforms. The Government of the day responded with the “Good Work Plan” in December 2018 and committed to legislate. Although the previous Government identified the problem and promised to fix it, they never did, and that has left people waiting for far too long. The current Government have taken important steps in the Employment Rights Act 2025: guaranteed hours for workers if they want them, a day one right to make flexible working requests and the establishment of the Fair Work Agency. Those steps are all welcome, but the Act did not address the fundamental structural problem that the categories themselves are broken. The Government can strengthen the rights attached to the “worker” category, but if people cannot tell which category they fall into, those rights remain words on the page. The Government’s next steps document commits to consulting on a simpler two-part framework for employment status, but we have been here before, and consultation commitments alone are not enough. The Liberal Democrats believe that reform in this area should be built on clear principles. First, we need a dependent contractor status that sits between those who are fully employed and those who are genuinely self-employed. If someone works personally for another party and is not guaranteed business on their own account, they should have access to minimum levels of earnings, sick pay and holiday entitlement. The idea that someone can work full time for a single company and have fewer rights than a Saturday shop assistant is an indictment of our current system. Secondly, the tax and national insurance treatment for employers in different categories must be aligned, because the current framework creates fiscal incentives for businesses to push people out of the protections they deserve. When it is cheaper to classify someone as self-employed, that is exactly what happens, and the cost is borne by the worker, and ultimately the Government. The third principle concerns the burden of proof in disputes, which should shift from the individual to the employer, because asking someone on low or irregular pay with no savings and no legal protection to take on that legal risk against the company that controls their livelihood is not a fair fight. If an employer has classified someone as self-employed, it should be for the employer to justify that decision. Fourthly, the Liberal Democrats believe that pension provision for those in non-standard work must be addressed urgently. Far too many people in the gig economy sector are building no retirement security whatever. They are invisible to the auto-enrolment system, and when they reach retirement with nothing, that cost will fall on us. In the Commons, we are currently going through the Lords amendments to the Pensions Schemes Bill. The Government should be acting on the issue in the Bill. Finally, where zero-hours contracts remain, there is a strong case for a higher minimum wage at times of normal demand to begin rebalancing the risk that currently falls entirely on the shoulders of those people who are least able to bear it. I urge the Minister to confirm when the promised consultation on employment status reform will come forward and to commit to a timetable for legislation that does not repeat the sorry patterns of promises and retreats that we have seen from Government time and again, because the people caught in the gap have been patient for a long time. They have been told time and again that reform is coming and they deserve more than warm words; they deserve the law to be on their side.

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak briefly to clause 78, and then I will ask the Minister some questions, specifically on the definition of “substantially and permanently adapted”, which is slightly lacking in the Bill. Disability is not just about wheelchairs and stretchers; many individuals use and require adapted vehicles that may not be seen as substantially or permanently adapted. The Liberal Democrats do not aim to change or amend the clauses, but some clarification would be helpful. Could the Minister clarify the definition of substantially adapted vehicles, and confirm what consultation has happened with disability groups about those definitions? Could he also confirm what impact assessment has been done on the additional costs for individuals who will no longer receive insurance premium tax relief?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to clause 55 and new clause 27, but I can tell the hon. Member for North West Norfolk that if he does press amendment 41, he will have the support of the Liberal Democrats. Countless pensioners were forced to choose between heating and eating last year while the Government buried their head in the sand for months on end, ignoring those who really were suffering. The Government’s changes to winter fuel payments only added to those people’s worries. The delay to the warm homes grant scheme has meant that no household has benefited from support that could have made their homes more sustainable and cheaper to heat over the last winter. The Liberal Democrats opposed the announcement to cancel winter fuel payments, which caused many millions of the most vulnerable residents in our society to lose out on vital support. We welcome the fact that those over state pension age in England and Wales with an income of £35,000 or less will now receive their winter fuel payment. However, as new clause 27 lays out, we have some serious concerns. Quite simply, it aims to review the practical impact of the winter fuel payment changes, especially on those individuals who exceeded the income threshold by only a small amount. The cliff edge of £35,000 means that someone on that income will keep the entire payment, but someone at £35,001 will have the entire amount clawed back. We would like to examine the behavioural effects and whether the charge and cliff edge will discourage additional work, savings or income reporting. Would it be fairer to have the amount tapered so that we can get to a fairer place? We also want to consider the implications of making the charge a notifiable tax liability, including penalties for a failure to notify, and how that would interact with PAYE and self-assessment rules. Right now, most people, especially pensioners, do not have to actively tell HMRC about certain things, because tax is sorted through PAYE or the benefits system. If winter fuel payments become notifiable, individuals would be legally responsible for reporting to HMRC. Evaluating the effectiveness of these measures will help to ensure that we have a smooth and fair process for taxpayers overall.

• 15 Dec 2025 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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. 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. 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. 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.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 9 Jul 2025 · Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Will the hon. Lady give way?