What manufacturing needs is trade directories backed by government data.

What manufacturing needs is trade directories backed by government data.

Every sector of the economy could probably do with this. If you've ever thought of getting something printed, you will have realised the variety of printing techniques alongside binding and different minimum orders, you will probably have found incomplete trade directories and done a bit of googling. The same is true of services as well, if you want to find the right lawyer or plumber. With manufacturing, there are extra problems and it doesn't matter why, although I think I can describe, it just matters that it's true. I know it's true from trying to sell vegan footwear, mainly in the 2000s 2010s, and trying to find suppliers. A frustration is that if you do strike gold; if you discover your perfect supplier, ig quite likely closes because not enough other people have discovered it!

A year or so ago I wrote something for a government consulation and put the text here because slightly public, which makes it more interesting to edit just in case someone reads! It is also harder to loose than files on my hard disc. I will try to edit a little this June '26 

This is what I wrote.

I propose greater access to raw data on

• employment types,

• industrial classifications (from VAT and income tax records), and

• export data by product classification and manufacturing origin.

Companies House already provides business classification data, which could be refined and supplemented with additional data sources. The goal is to enable the creation of comprehensive UK trade directories, similar to historical resources like The Shoe Trades Directory to identify which firms manufacture specific products in the UK—from footwear and clothing to solar panels.

It looks as though a government consultation suggested this format.

 1. Who looses?
 1. Who gains?
 3. Why government? How much do Google, AI, or private sector directories like Kompass or Checkatrade do the job already? Why don't suppliers all just get good web sites or join a trade association?

 1. Who looses?

• Businesses loose privacy, and might not want orders
  Some sole traders may prefer confidentiality, but might forget to tick a box on their tax form to request this. They might prefer an anonimous kind of contact form instead of a name and address for contact. 
  
  
• Taxpayers loose other services (unless this brings in more tax, which is a bet)
  I think trade directories are a safe bet for raising tax revenue and growing the economy.
  But there is a cost to releasing data - mainly in deciding how.
  
  
• Legal & policy change: Currently, FOI requests for HMRC data are rejected under the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005. However, the Act does allow exceptions where "specified in regulations made by the Treasury" or where "the Commissioners are satisfied that it is in the public interest" (Section 20, UK Legislation). So, ministers and senior people in the treasury have to write regulations or persuade “commissioners”.
  
  
• Bombing targets in a war: The BAE shell manufacturing plant is already capable of being put underground in Wales, I think.

 2. Who gains?

Trade directories benefit...

• Buyers & sellers: Businesses searching for niche products (e.g., wiring looms, speaker cones, footwear components) would have a reliable resource. A past example includes a car manufacturer requesting tariff exemptions due to difficulty sourcing specific UK-made components. Also, when a factory isn't visible, it might not be viable. You can find your speaker cone factory or shoe factory, and then it closes because not enough other people are interested.

• Jobseekers: Easier access to local employers and industry information. Business owners might spot gaps in the market more clearly as well.
  The UK produced non-woven materials for things like weed control fabric, but there was nowhere for buyers to look to find cotton alternatives; there were schemes to try to out- bid other countries and get gowns from China.
  . 
• Economic planners & policymakers: 
  Economists spot inflationary pressures from something like an oil price rise, have a think, and suggest putting the interest rate up. This closes factories. Really, that's how the system works!
  They do talk a little about "the supply side", but tend just to think about wages and a vague "productivity" idea; they don't have information about how to install more solar panels and wind farms to counter-act the oil price rise. I think that if more information were available, at least an economist could point towards an area and say "that's the area of expertise that might help reduce inflation".
  
  
• The UK produced medical ventilators for very ill people during the COVID crisis with the designs already worked-out and ready to make in bigger quantities, but I remember that this information emerged slowly.National security & trade policy: The UK needs resilient supply chains. If the USA restricts weapons exports or trade tensions with China escalate, policymakers must quickly identify local alternatives.
  
  
• MPs and regional development agencies
  ...need to know what is already being made in their areas in order to help if they can or just to consult.
  
  
• Apprenticeship providers
  The Mayor of Manchester boasted that he had got training and demand to match-up better in Manchester so that people could train to do real jobs installing solar panels (if I remember right).
  
  
• Journalists and bloggers 
  This is a few points in one.
  Journalists report on "a previously unknown private mine" if there is an accident or "possibly the last piano manufacturer" when Yamaha ceased production. A story about one of the last two scissor manufacturers caught-on and kept production viable. With this rather puzzled kind of coverage, it is hard er for buyers to enjoy feeling part of the story.
  
  This happened to me last year. I was buying a car battery on ebay, like you do, and found that Lucas batteries are made in Sri Lanca;. UK ones are made by Yuasa in Ebbow Vale. There was even a £2.5 million grant from the Welsh government, and it could hae got a better return on investment if sypathetic buyers had recnised the brand and thought "that's nice", and felt good, rather than scrolling-on down the list. So I am mixing-up buyer sympathy with journalist and blogger exposure and could probably tease the points out more clearly but hope you get the idea
  
  
• Startups & innovators: Smaller firms, particularly those competing against low-cost imports, lack the magin and scale for an advertising budget. As the founder of The Kinky Boot Factory noted in a documentary, imported shoes enter the UK at £15, while the rest of the wholesale cost is advertising. UK manufacturers cannot afford such advertising, and a trade directory would level the playing field.
  
  
• Larger importers who need top-ups trials and remedials done closer to their customers
  Surface mail from Asia can take 2-3 and the cheap suppliers like large orders. For clothing, without UK factories, this can lead to -
  ◦ Rushed Asian orders which can lead to worse working conditions in Asian factories.
  ◦ Expensive & high-emission air freight. This point made  by Addidas who tried publishing their low transport emmisions data for a few years. They gave up. Each year there were a few rushed orders that stopped the data liiking so good.
  ◦ Clearance pricing on the ranges that are missing some sizes.
  Each of these problems can be solved, ideally, with a UK factory willing to do smaller quicker orders while the container loads or the cartons come from Asia.

3. Why government?
How much do Google, AI, or private sector directories like Kompass or Checkatrade do the job already?

The problem is manufactuers, not service providers.

• Historical context:
  A Shoe Trades Directory from 1998 listed nearly every footwear and footwear component manufacturer in the UK, including batch sizes, pricing tiers, and production methods. This allowed buyers to contact the right suppliers with the right questions and most likely get a reply. It was sponsored by a shoe trade magazine where the advertising sales staff had ato make the list anyway. The internet now provides some of this information for free and footwear trade magazines are long-gone in the UK, but the subtle detail of who makes exactly what in what minimum orders and whether they are mass-market, “top end” or in the middle are hard to find.
  
  
• Broad hostoricla context: north v south.
  Everybody knows that industrial areas have suffered after loss of trade to low-wage countries.
  In 1979 a new economic policy managed to control inflation by raising interest rates. Almost by mistake, the transmission mechanism of monetary policy raises exchange rates at the same time and my estimate is that a fifth of manufacturing was lost in five years. Another interest rate spike followed in the mid 80s. (The same exchange rate fluctuations also effect cheap tourism, where the choice between Blackpool and Alicante can depend on the exchange rate.)
  
  The positive way of putting this is that maybe more manufacturing went to cheaper countries than need have done; there could be a chance to get some back if consumers felt good about buying British and buyers were able to find British factories.
  
  
• Manufacturing is rare and subdivided into more specialities than the people on Checkatrade who can probably concentrate on a few postcodes and do more than one kind of job. Manufacturing depends on a set of machines and the product the machines usually make. I suppose that's why it's rarer to find a manufacturer diretory than a service directory.
  
  
• Competition from cheap countries that lack a welfare state. You might expect the UK’s only manufacturer of some particular niche product to be good at sifting emails for customer enquiries. The reality for clothing manufacturers, according to the Make it British web site, is that they are more like some of the plumbers and plasterers on Checkatrade, working without a receptionist or a sales rep and just scanning the emails on a smartphone in-between a load of other jobs. They tend not to list their capabilities online, leading to many ignored inquiries from businesses unaware of minimum order requirements or production methods. 

Trade directories can help, as they have in the past

I propose the creation of an online database of UK manufacturers, based on HMRC records. Businesses could be listed as either:

• “Willing to receive inquiries”, or
• “Opted out of direct contact” 
• " .... " - individuals might want to be ex-directory.

The database should be indexed by:

• Manufacturing classification (from VAT/income tax records). Income tax is important as I don't think ministries have information about sole trader businesses that aren't registered for VAT.. We saw this in the way Brexit was negotiated: it's often uneconomic to sort the VAT on a small export to Europe, even if the courier does it. Importing, it's easy to end up ppaying VAT twice.
  
  
• Export/import declarations.
  
  
• Workforce size categories (e.g., "1-10 employees").
  
  
• Companies House classification (improved by prompts on Companies House forms to clarify what "manufacturer" means such as "manufactuer with own workshops in the UK".
  
  
• Optional business self-submissions, including website links, production details, and minimum order requirements.

Such a publicly accessible resource would encourage the private sector to develop value-added directories, including Kompass that already exists, while improving domestic trade efficiency. It's something people expect to find already.

Conclusion

A UK-wide manufacturing database would enhance transparency, strengthen local supply chains, and reduce unnecessary imports, benefiting businesses, workers, and policymakers alike. The key is to ensure privacy safeguards, minimal taxpayer burden, and a user-friendly format to encourage adoption. Would be happy to discuss further.

Government pays for something it calls "fashion". Odd isn't it?

Government pays for something it calls "fashion" already.

The Department for Business and the Greater London Authority (confusingly called "British Fashion Council" for the purpose) help sellers connect to overseas buyers and have used export credit guarantees a lot according to newspaper reports. The British Fashion Council has a web page promoting them. London taxpayers pay half a million or more a year for British Fashion Council; exhibitors pay a lot to exhibit there and at a couple of feeder shows run by art colleges rather than by manufacturers.

There are a couple of problems with the scheme I think.

1. Taxpayers can subsidise asian-made proucts, if a UK "designer" comissions them
   
   UK Trade and Investment helped sell Indian pants, for example, under the Pants to Poverty brand, and there are plenty of other products at London Fashion Week from unknown manufacturers, maybe unknown and in the UK usually unknown and in some sweatshop country or autocracy. That was an odd case because the Department for International Development was keen, but generally the taxpayer gets less bang for their buck by by backing exports of asian-made products. The chances of helping manufacturing areas is low.
   
   
2. Export credit schemes might have been abused
   
   I saw goods priced much higher than usual at London Fashion Week — maybe double. I also saw a newspaper report that they are often sold to the taxpayer in effect, because export credit guarantees given and used for bad debts. Now: imagine you're noughtly. We could dream-up a scheme together couldn't we?

Supply chain resilience is now a thing.

I have not read the policy, but I know that supply of cotton medical gowns was a huge problem during the COVID emergency, while non-woven materials are still made in the UK. "Our problem is that it comes off the machine at so many metres a second," someone told me about an ex-ICI factory making weed-control fabric in Wales. I do not know if this works for medical gowns, but I am sure that nobody checked before setting up supply chains from China in ways that did not work.

National Procurement Policy is a thing.

I have not read the policy. But ministers have spoken and shown interest. How can every tax-funded agency be persuaded to procure in a better way? Buyers are presumably much like the rest of us, used to working in a service economy where plenty of suppliers exist, like applicants for jobs, responding to an advert. But the suppliers and the adverts are not geared to UK manufacturing, and cannot be, because nobody really knows where it is or what it can make.

Representative organisations are a problem mentioned in a post below. In the past, fashion was treated as a creative industry, so publicly funded creative-industry organisations were assumed to “represent” it, particularly on training needs, but they could not get much feedback from manufacturers. Private trade associations exist, such as the British Footwear Association or the Fashion and Textiles Round Table, but small manufacturers don't all have the cash to join, even if they have the time and it's their kind of thing.

How do you “represent” a diffuse supply chain of firms that are quite different from service industries?

• Rare; it is hard to find the last firms that can still do x, y, or z.
• Able to spread money into unusual areas.
• Very lean, often without an advertising budget or sales representatives, so they suffer when consumers buy advertised brands.
• Easily closed down when exchange rates move sharply, as in the 1980s.
• Hard to re-establish once machines and skills have gone.
• Historically reliant on home-market interest, but this now seems old-fashioned and hard to renew.

On the other hand, a government answer to an MP was that they do not want to “tell people what to buy”. So the question becomes: how do you promote interest in UK-made goods without patronising consumers?

Industrial Strategy: does it give UK suppliers a chance to sell to government?

A quick scan of Government statements suggests a slow change of procurement systems, they hope, to allow British products a chance. It came up in a debate about the Industrial Strategy (which I have not read) just recently.

I wrote the next few paragraphs without realising there's a change in procurement law that I ought to check-out, but the old freedom of information response below still gives an idea of the problem.

Years ago in 2019 I wrote a blog post now lost about Merseyside Police procurement of Firebikes – a kind of boys' dream of motorbike & fire extinguisher. I counted the number of UK motorbike manufacturers on Wikipedia and I hoped to find some statement about whether Merseyside Police gave these smaller enthusiast firms a chance before buying BMW. The answer looked like a "no", combined with a certification process and a need to apply. The motorcycle workshop that works in some other niche market has to know that the

1. tender exists and roughly how long it takes to apply
2. they are in with a chance (maybe someone like them got a contract before or BMW are expensive compared to their pricing)
3. certification is possible; maybe a tender can be granted subject to certification to reduce application costs

and all of these are possible but, if you are running a workshop along with tax and employment and the rest, would you think it plausible enough to spend time?

There are similar things about footwear, the trade I worked in. A process defines how you certify a safety boot, but the people doing the certification are expensive. Government could help by encouraging more people to go into the certification business and emphasising how simple some of the tests are. Government could even help with the cost. If you are applying to supply ceremonial footwear, the process is murky and nobody really knows how a certain firm gets the contract. If you want to supply air crew footwear – that had just changed when I looked.

This is the reply to the freedom of information request:

Firexpress:  The bikes complete with Firexpress system and personal protective equipment were purchased from the sole UK distributor for Firexpress, Depot Rail.  We do not get a choice of the motorbike that Depot Rail have had certified for use.

Motorcycles (General use).  These are purchased through the PITO Framework (Police Information Technology Organisation) which is a national framework for the purchase of cars, vans and motorcycles, and is available for Police and Fire Authorities to utilize and has followed the appropriate procurement process for the establishment of the Framework. Our Contract Standing Orders are published and are in the public domain.

I didn't dig deeper.

Now, some civil servant might be given the job as the current government is interested in using procurement more creatively. By chance it's my local MP who popped the question about Industrial Strategy. I will pop her question here at some point but meanwhile she got this reply

"there is a commitment among Ministers to ensure that Government procurement is targeted at British companies. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made a strong commitment to reduce regulation and bureaucracy, so we can ensure that these contracts are awarded more efficiently and more easily to small businesses in the UK"

Nobody stated which civil servant is given the job of reviewing The Police Information Technology Network's framework for procuring bikes, or uniforms, or anything else, or how to get positive suggestions into their in-tray and some of the catch phrases are from the USA. My MP, asking the question, said "nobody ever got the sack for specifying IBM". Another catch phrase: "Will the last person out of Chicago please turn out the lights?", followed by attempts by the remaining institutions like colleges, hospitals and local government to hire local people and use local production.

From my own experience in working with agencies commissioned by local government trying to re-generate and support local employment, the attempts are often wildly botched and entirely the wrong people are hired to do a terrible job (I was in finge social work and the contractors were firms like NACRO or housing associations) but the idea is good even if past experience is mixed.

---

After writing the text above, I realise that there have been changes in procurement law and guidance since 2023 which I know very little about. The guidance is called the National Procurement Policy Statement and I don't know if it is also law. An introduction says

"This new NPPS ensures that public money spent on public procurement supports delivery of the Government’s missions, delivers economic growth, supports small businesses, champions innovation, and creates good jobs and opportunities across the country"

the UK fashion and textiles industry - something just isn't clicking. What is it?

Why is the UK fashion industry so fragmented and under-supported—and what structure or system would actually make it coherent, represented, and properly funded? (that's an AI one line summery of these notes in progress from someone who runs Fashion Roundtable and wrote some notes in progress below. I'll comment in my next post)