This article is part of a four-part series examining the PCIAW® UK Manufacturers Round Table sessions held in 2024. The Professional Clothing Industry Association Worldwide (PCIAW®) brought together representatives from various textile and garment manufacturers based in the UK to understand the capabilities and capacities of UK manufacturers and address their concerns about market conditions. This final article examines policy solutions and industry recommendations for revitalising UK textile manufacturing.
The challenges facing UK textile manufacturing demand comprehensive policy responses that address both immediate pressures and long-term structural issues. The PCIAW® round table discussions produced concrete recommendations for government action, industry initiatives, and collaborative approaches that could reverse decades of decline and position UK manufacturing for sustainable growth. These recommendations reflect the collective wisdom of manufacturers who understand both the challenges and the potential of domestic production.
The Need for Active Government Support
Throughout the round table discussions, participants expressed frustration with the disconnect between government rhetoric about supporting British industry and the reality of procurement practices that consistently favour offshore suppliers. The UK government paradoxically promotes domestic industry through “levelling up” schemes and initiatives while simultaneously awarding contracts to international competitors offering lower prices without considering the broader economic and strategic benefits if they offered the contract to UK businesses.
Round table participants reported numerous instances of this disconnect. Government contracts have been withdrawn at the last moment for unclear reasons, while established UK manufacturers lose government tenders to foreign competitors. This pattern sends a clear message that despite public statements about supporting British manufacturing, actual procurement decisions prioritise cost above all other considerations.
The contrast with other nations’ approaches illustrates that this is not the standard approach taken by the UK’s neighbours. For example, one participant raised that during the Paris Olympics the government mandated that all the uniforms for the staff and events had to be made entirely within France. The French organisers even sought special permission from judo authorities in Japan to make the competitor’s judo kimonos in France, as Japan has historically been the only country with that privilege. This demonstrates that when the government supports local manufacturers they can drive significant industry development. Similar examples exist across Europe and the United States, where various forms of domestic priority in public procurement help sustain local manufacturing capabilities.
The Case for a UK ‘Berry Amendment’
Among the most significant recommendations emerging from the round table was the call for UK legislation similar to the United States’ ‘Berry Amendment’. This law requires the US government to procure certain items for public institutions, including textiles and uniforms, from domestic sources. Round table participants argued that implementing similar requirements for UK critical services would provide the stable demand necessary to sustain and grow domestic manufacturing capability.
Rather than demanding 100% domestic manufacturing, a UK version of the Berry Amendment could require that a specified percentage of professional clothing for critical national services be procured from UK manufacturers. This would encompass military uniforms, emergency services clothing, NHS uniforms, and other essential public sector requirements. By guaranteeing a baseline level of domestic demand, such legislation would provide manufacturers with the confidence to invest in equipment, technology, and workforce development.
The security arguments for such legislation prove particularly compelling. As discussed in earlier articles in this series, the pandemic demonstrated the vulnerability of relying on international supply chains for critical items. Maintaining domestic manufacturing capability for essential professional clothing represents a form of national insurance against future disruptions. The cost premium for domestic production should be viewed not as inefficiency but as investment in resilience and security.
Support for SME Navigation of Post-Brexit Trade
The complexity of post-Brexit trade arrangements has disproportionately impacted smaller manufacturers who lack resources to navigate new bureaucratic requirements.
Round table participants called for comprehensive government support to help SMEs manage these challenges. This could include funding for shared customs expertise that multiple smaller companies could access, standardised documentation templates and processes to reduce complexity, and clear guidance on Rules of Origin requirements and how to meet them. Additionally, participants suggested government support for SMEs to establish collaborative European distribution arrangements would allow continued market access without requiring each company to establish its own European branch.
The potential for the UK to join the Pan-Euro-Mediterranean (PEM) Convention emerged as a significant opportunity. Membership would allow diagonal cumulation of origin among member countries, enabling UK manufacturers to use materials and components from other PEM countries while maintaining preferential origin status. This would help maintain integrated supply chains and reduce administrative burdens while supporting export opportunities for UK-made professional clothing.
Investment Incentives and Modernisation Support
UK manufacturers consistently lag behind international competitors in technology and equipment modernisation, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of reduced competitiveness. Round table participants identified the need for targeted investment support to break this cycle. Recommendations included grants for equipment modernisation that would improve efficiency and quality, tax incentives for capital investment in manufacturing technology, and support for research and development in advanced manufacturing techniques.
Several participants suggested that such support should be conditional on maintaining UK employment and production, ensuring that public investment translates into sustained domestic capability rather than simply improving profitability before offshoring. The goal should be to create world-class UK manufacturing facilities that can compete on quality and innovation rather than attempting to match offshore labour costs.
Access to capital remains a particular challenge for smaller manufacturers. Traditional lending from banks often fails to recognise the value of domestic manufacturing assets and capabilities, while venture capital typically favours technology companies over traditional manufacturing. Participants recommended establishing specialised manufacturing investment funds that understand the sector’s dynamics and can provide patient capital for modernisation and growth.
Building Industry Visibility and Collaboration
A surprising finding from the round table was the lack of awareness about UK manufacturing capabilities, even among potential domestic customers. As one leading textile processor noted, people are surprised to discover the scale of manufacturing happening behind anonymous industrial facades in business parks. This invisibility prevents potential customers from considering UK options and perpetuates the assumption that domestic manufacturing no longer exists at meaningful scale.
Participants strongly recommended that a third party authority should develop a comprehensive database of UK manufacturers to improve visibility and accessibility. This database could include detailed capability information, capacity data, and specialisations to help potential customers identify suitable partners. Rather than relying on individual company marketing efforts, a centralised resource would demonstrate the collective capability of UK manufacturing and facilitate connections needed to keep manufacturers afloat.
Beyond simple visibility, the industry needs mechanisms for collaboration that allow smaller manufacturers to bid collectively for larger contracts. The round table revealed that UK manufacturers successfully collaborated during the pandemic to meet urgent demand, but such collaboration remains ad hoc rather than systematic. Formal structures for joint bidding, capacity sharing, and collaborative product development could help UK manufacturers compete for contracts that individual companies cannot fulfil alone.
Education and Workforce Development
Addressing the workforce crisis requires fundamental changes to how textile education is delivered and perceived. Round table participants recommended establishing new technical textile courses that balance design creativity with manufacturing knowledge, creating clear pathways from education to employment in manufacturing, and developing industry-recognised qualifications that provide portable credentials for workers.
Government support for apprenticeship programmes specific to textile manufacturing could help attract younger workers while ensuring consistent training quality. These programmes should offer clear progression routes to advanced technical and management roles, demonstrating that manufacturing provides viable long-term career prospects rather than being seen as an unskilled job in a dying industry.
Measuring Success and Ensuring Accountability
Any policy interventions must include clear metrics for success and mechanisms for accountability. The Conservative government’s previous promise to source 25% of public goods from UK companies has had no discernible impact according to round table participants. Future commitments must include transparent reporting on procurement sources, regular review of progress toward stated goals, and consequences for departments that fail to meet targets.
Success metrics should extend beyond simple procurement percentages to include measures such as UK manufacturing employment levels, investment in manufacturing technology and equipment, the number of young people entering manufacturing careers, and export growth for UK-manufactured goods. These broader metrics would ensure that policy support translates into sustained industry development rather than short-term contract wins.
A Call for Coordinated Action
The recommendations emerging from the PCIAW® UK Manufacturers Round Table represent more than a wish list for government support. They constitute a comprehensive framework for revitalising an industry that remains vital for economic resilience, national security, and regional development. The path forward requires coordinated action from government, industry, and educational institutions.
The UK textile manufacturing industry has demonstrated remarkable resilience, maintaining capabilities despite decades of decline and recent shocks including Brexit and the pandemic. With appropriate support and recognition of its strategic value, the industry could experience significant revival.
The message from UK manufacturers is clear and urgent. They don’t want subsidies or protection from competition, but rather a level playing field where the full value of domestic manufacturing is recognised and rewarded. They ask for procurement practices that consider strategic resilience, the enforcement of regulations that prevent “Brit-washing”, and support in navigating the complex post-Brexit trading environment with the EU.
There is still time to act, but the window is closing. With an ageing workforce and continued economic pressures, the industry stands at a cliff edge and without intervention will soon be in freefall.
The recommendations presented through these round table discussions provide a roadmap for action. What remains is the political will to implement them before UK textile manufacturing capabilities are lost forever. The pandemic proved the value of maintaining domestic production; the question now is whether those lessons will translate into the sustained action necessary to preserve and grow this vital capability.
