Harriett Baldwin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 27 Jan 2026 · Business Rates · Hansard source

  More

  Putting up a sticker saying “No Labour MPs welcome here” is obviously a successful strategy if you want to get a change from the Treasury. However, what we have ended up with will lead to real complications on our high streets, because a pub that is helped by today’s announcement will be next door to a restaurant that serves alcohol and occasionally has music, which in turn will be next door to a music venue. Businesses on the high street will now be treated in a range of different ways, so why has the Minister chosen to single out pubs and music venues?

• 26 Jan 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I think it is unprecedented at such an event for only one Government Back Bencher to speak, and the hon. Member for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden) very bravely spoke against the deal. It is very important that the sovereignty of these islands remains British. That was highlighted in the Labour manifesto, which stated: “Defending our security also means protecting the British Overseas Territories…Labour will always defend their sovereignty and right to self-determination.” May I suggest a gentle down ramp for the Minister, for whom I have a lot of admiration, which is simply to just not find the time in the other place to progress things and allow Prorogation to gently wash this particular piece of proposed legislation out to sea?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Business Rates: Retail, Hospitality and Leisure · Hansard source

  More

  The problem is that the November Red Book stated: “The high street will benefit from permanently lower business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure”. Businesses up and down the land think that was entirely misleading. We have had briefings to the newspapers that there will be a change, but the Minister is saying that that is not happening, and that change will be made through the normal processes, which I interpret to mean in the next spring statement. Those in businesses are lying awake at night, worried about these increases, so can the Minister tell them when relief will be on its way?

• 19 Jan 2026 · Sale of Fireworks · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I start by offering my gratitude to Robert and Helen, the two petitioners who—forgive the phrase—lit the fuse for these petitions to get the number of signatures they did, and enabled this debate today. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who eloquently set out the reasons why we need to have this debate and the issues involved, which have also been ably raised by many other representatives in this room. This is not the first time that the House has discussed whether additional restrictions on the use of fireworks are necessary, but with more than 370,000 signatures on the two petitions, including 632 from West Worcestershire, it is clear that the public want a system that better protects people, animals and communities from the misuse of fireworks. We have heard from almost everyone who has spoken that fireworks bring joy, and I shout out the many responsible groups up and down this country that are committed to the safe display and enjoyment of fireworks. They often raise money for good local causes. However, as we have heard so often in this debate, we cannot ignore the real problems—the dangerous misuse, the antisocial behaviour and the distress that is caused to pets, livestock, wildlife and many vulnerable people. I welcome the Government’s engagement with stakeholders, and their campaign encouraging responsible use and low-decibel displays. We have heard in all the contributions today that we are a nation of animal lovers. We are also a nation that wants to continue to enjoy firework displays, but we also heard loud and clear that no action is not the answer here. The Government will need to listen to all the points that have been made. We have heard from across the land—from South West Hertfordshire, Dewsbury and Batley, Glastonbury and Somerton, Taunton and Wellington, Morecambe and Lunesdale, Luton North, Scarborough and Whitby, Broxtowe, North West Leicestershire, Edinburgh South West, Warrington South, Bathgate and Linlithgow, Heywood and Middleton North, Shipley, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Richmond Park, Glasgow West, Hartlepool, Aylesbury, Stourbridge, Rochdale, Newport West and Islwyn, Bournemouth East, Cannock Chase, Leeds South West and Morley and York Central. Every Member here this afternoon represented so well the concerns expressed to them by those in their constituency who have written to them. We recognise that fireworks are already heavily regulated, but many of the contributions highlighted gaps in enforcement, weak penalties for illegal sales, problems with stockpiling, and the devastating consequences both for property and in terms of burns when things go wrong. The age limits on purchases, which many believe are no longer appropriate, have been shown to be not properly enforced. There is a clear need for a proper, evidence-led review of the regulations. If reforms are proportionate and grounded in that evidence, I suspect that they will attract unanimous support from across the House. From the point of view of my party, and of many Members in this debate, although a ban on fireworks should not be a first resort, it should not be taken off the table as a last resort. Through the petitions, the public have spoken loudly. Through their representatives in Parliament, people have spoken loudly. Parliament has raised these issues repeatedly, and communities want action. Clearly, the existing regulations are not doing what society wants them to do. I am keen to hear about how the Minister plans to respond.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Dr Huq. Could you clarify whether it is in order for so many Government speakers in the debate to have left the Chamber before the Front-Bench speeches to listen to their beleaguered Prime Minister at the parliamentary Labour party meeting?

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member needs to be careful about what he says on that front, frankly. On taxes specifically, I do not think he can point to a single time in history where, in three months, there has been such a dramatic change from what was promised to the public in a general election campaign and what actually happened in the Budget. I am going to focus on the non-tax matters. We have lots of votes on taxes over the next few days; I am going to raise some of the other things that this Government have chosen to do in their first 18 months that were decisively not in the manifesto. Giving away the Chagos islands and paying Mauritius to take them was a particularly egregious example of something not set out in the Labour manifesto. On multiple occasions, incredibly important local elections are being cancelled; that was certainly not in the Labour manifesto. A feature of this Government will be the proposed curtailing of jury trials—I notice silence now on the Government Benches, but that, again, was not in the Labour manifesto. I suppose one could grudgingly accept that purging political opponents from the other place was somewhat in the manifesto, but I do not think that stuffing it with political supporters to replace them was. I do not think cutting press access was in the Labour manifesto, I do not think introducing digital ID was in the Labour manifesto and I do not think rolling out an extensive increase in facial recognition on our streets was in the Labour manifesto. If all those things were happening in another country, one might think they were the route to totalitarianism. These are the kind of things the public are very concerned about: it is not just the huge increase in taxes but the reduction in the freedoms we have taken for granted in this country for years that is causing so many of my constituents to call for another general election.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  That is probably 4 million people who have, in that length of time, signed the petition. I encourage the hon. Member to dream on. Why have we seen the robust signing of these petitions over the past two years? It boils down to the fundamental principle of our democracy, which is based around peoples’ manifestoes. We need to rely on political parties to set out a direction of travel in their manifesto and then to try to deliver it. The problem that has led to all these signatures is to do with not having been told in the manifesto about the Government’s plans for change. I could go on for the whole of this debate about the tax changes alone because we were told in the general election that if they were to win, the Government had no plans to raise taxes beyond what was outlined in their manifesto. Within months, in the first Budget the Chancellor raised taxes by an astonishing £40 billion a year for the duration of this Parliament and public spending by a further £30 billion. In total, that is a £70 billion a year increase in public spending—something that was deliberately not stated during the general election campaign.

• 12 Jan 2026 · Call for General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Sir Edward, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the 1,892 people in my constituency who have signed this petition. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for expounding why this is an important debate. I am in my fifth Parliament now, and I do not recall the Petitions Committee having to call as many debates on calling another general election in any other Parliament. This debate follows last January’s, when 3 million people had signed the petition. Why are we seeing this appetite among our constituents to re-litigate the general election of 2024 so soon after it happened?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Migrants: Safe and Legal Routes · Hansard source

  More

  While the Home Secretary thinks about the safe and legal routes, my constituents are concerned about the unsafe and illegal routes. Will the Home Secretary update the House on how many gangs have been smashed in the first 18 months of this Government?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  Worcestershire’s farmers have had to endure 14 months of sleepless nights over this policy before this partial U-turn. The Minister has hinted, at the Dispatch Box today, that he appreciates he will also have to U-turn on business property rates, because of the transitional relief coming off too quickly. Can he commit to the House that he will do that U-turn in less than 14 months?

• 5 Jan 2026 · Agricultural Property Relief and Business Property Relief · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier the Minister said that agricultural property relief was not available under Margaret Thatcher. In fact, it was Margaret Thatcher’s Government who brought it in under the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, and it was subsequently increased to 100% under John Major. How might I go about getting the Minister to correct the record?

• 17 Dec 2025 · UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  Could the Minister just spell out for the House’s benefit how much taxpayers’ money he has signed up to spending next year and in every year of this Parliament? On where Members of Parliament can read about value for money, which line item of the Budget has this money come out of?

• 16 Dec 2025 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech, with some very colourful analogies, but if I may be prosaic, is it not the case that the Office for Budget Responsibility has not scored a single impact on growth in the overall Budget?

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

  More

  I am delighted to respond on behalf of the Conservatives, who have always championed British businesses. We believe very much in the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, the skill of our engineers and the global reputation of our exporters. The Bill amends Acts dating from 1982 and 1991, and we believe that, time and again, our companies have shown that, with the right conditions, they can compete and win on the world stage. Updating those Acts will ensure that the Government have the tools to support our industries and exporters. We should take pride in the extraordinary success of British exporters. The latest UK Export Finance annual report shows the scale of their achievements. Rolls-Royce and Airbus have together secured guarantees worth £165 million for supplying Ethiopian Airlines, £102 million for Avolon in Ireland and £66 million for Emirates in Dubai. That gives the House a flavour of the kind of deals supported through this finance. Defence exports remain significant too, with BAE Systems and MBDA receiving over £120 million per major contract, including support for the very important air defence systems in Poland. These figures demonstrate the global demand for British engineering, aerospace and defence expertise. However, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, beyond the headline numbers, 80% of firms supported by UK Export Finance are small and medium-sized businesses, which often supply the more global contracts. With their innovation and resilience, they are the backbone of our export economy, and they also deserve support and visibility. The UK has a leading export and finance sector, and it can usually cover the commercial risks involved in exports, so UK export finance should be deployed only when no private sector solution is available. Generally, we are in favour of reducing subsidies, rather than increasing them, so we do not support additional taxpayer funding for the industrial strategy until the Government get the fundamentals of energy prices, tax and regulation right. Without tackling those basics, no amount of subsidy will ever deliver the competitiveness that our businesses need. I have a few questions for the Minister. Can he assure the House that UK Export Finance will continue to be deployed only where no private sector funding can be secured? If this Bill is to meet its aims, export assistance must be spread across the regions. We saw from the autumn “Santander Trade Barometer” that three quarters of businesses that want targeted export support are beyond our capital. Optimism is high in sectors such as technology and media, but firms in Scotland and energy, construction and engineering companies are much more cautious. So there are regional disparities in economic outlook that the Government must address. UK Export Finance is there to guarantee exports when the private sector cannot, and we would expect it to focus on countries where credit risks are higher. What new markets is the funding likely to be used for, and will some of the additional capacity be reserved for small and medium-sized businesses? Can the Minister reassure the House that none of this finance would ever be used to support exports to countries that could allow such goods to get around the sanctions on Russia, and that they are not used to export to any country that would wish us harm? Can he also reassure the House that, as the Foreign Office undergoes a restructuring, our fine network of embassies and high commissions are made aware of this so that we make the most of this export finance opportunity and have the right teams in place to support UK plc? Those are my opening questions for the Minister.

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

  More

  I would like to pick up on some of the points made in today’s interesting debate and to reiterate that, as Conservatives, we have always stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain’s businesses and great exporters. In my opening remarks, I asked some questions of the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his replies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for all the work they are doing as trade envoys to the west and south of Africa. I remember when I was Africa Minister thinking how enormous the potential is for us to do more business with these nations, so it is interesting to hear how that work is moving forward. A number of Members highlighted the excellent export work done by small and medium-sized businesses, and we heard some excellent examples from the north-east in particular. We also heard the case made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for the importance of small and medium-sized businesses. I reiterate to the Minister, so that he is aware, the importance for the House of this money not just getting swallowed up by some of the larger household names, such as Rolls-Royce, Airbus and BAE Systems, but it giving that fighting chance to some of the smaller exporters. I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about the customs union. The House will recognise how much work was put in to getting landmark trade agreements with 70 countries that give UK exporters preferential access to markets worth trillions of pounds. It is work that the Minister continues energetically around the world, and he will no doubt in his closing remarks point to the India and US free trade deals, which are important pieces of work that he has been involved in. Those free trade agreements that the UK has managed to negotiate would not be possible if we were in the European Union customs union. I challenge the hon. Member to point to where the research is on this fabled £25 billion. In conclusion, the words of Ronald Reagan keep popping into my head during debates in this Parliament. He famously said: “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” I hope to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box how he will ensure that this additional money is used in the way that I said in my opening remarks, where it crowds in private sector investment and is there as a last resort to get a deal over the line, rather than crowding out private sector funding that would have been there were it not for the Government funds. Without further ado, having got my favourite Reagan quote about this Government on the record, I can assure the House that we will not be opposing the Bill.

• 11 Dec 2025 · Small and Medium-sized Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Last month in Business and Trade questions, I asked the Secretary of State to show some backbone and stand up to the Chancellor and say, “No more business taxes”. But he did not: far from permanently lower business rates, small and medium-sized businesses on our high streets are experiencing enormous rate hikes. Will the Minister apologise to those retail and hospitality businesses who feel so misled?

• 11 Dec 2025 · Small and Medium-sized Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I did not hear an answer to my question. To add insult to injury to the retail and hospitality businesses on our high streets, the letter that has gone out from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about the change in business rates gives completely different information from the guidance on the Treasury website. The difference means thousands and thousands of pounds. Will the Minister commit today to getting in touch with his Cabinet colleague to ensure that those letters are corrected?

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  I would love to, but I am going to try to really race through what I have to say. There is a track record here of saying one thing and then doing another. What we see is a revealed preference from our Chancellor for tax hikes. She was unable to deliver the welfare reforms she sought, and she has been unable to deliver much in the way of savings from any Department, so she is always going to go for tax hikes. We have seen that in her behaviour, despite her assurances to the contrary. I just want to point out how damaging all this speculation has been to decision makers in the British economy. These authorised leaks have led to changes in behaviour across the UK economy; people have made real-world, real-life decisions. Now we know that at every fiscal event during this Parliament the Chancellor will have a default position to tax more: to tax homes more; to tax cars more; to tax pensions more; to tax savings more; to tax jobs; to tax the farm that farmers want to pass on to their children; to tax anything she can justify. That is the lasting legacy of this period of shenanigans, selective leaking and manipulating behaviour. I believe it has done lasting damage to our Chancellor, and we are right to condemn her conduct today.

• 10 Dec 2025 · Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer · Hansard source

  More

  I am the former Chair of that Committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I appreciate the chance to make a couple of additional points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) set out an extensive case. In the speech I made right after the Budget, I mentioned that shenanigans had happened with regard to the Budget. I think we are beginning to find out a bit more about what those shenanigans were. The OBR has published a full analysis of the error that led to it publishing the Budget before it was delivered by the Chancellor. On 1 December, the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility rightly resigned for that technical breach. I think he showed real leadership, and I thank him for his service. However, it has distracted us from a much more serious breach that happened. The Chancellor clarified this morning in evidence to the Treasury Committee that there are, apparently, two categories of leaks from the Treasury: authorised leaks and unauthorised leaks. We are going to hear a report from the permanent secretary about the unauthorised leaks, but I think the authorised leaks also need focus. Let us face it: this all started in the run-up to the general election, when the Chancellor promised many, many times not to raise taxes. Then, in what was probably one of the greatest robberies since Ronnie Biggs and the great train robbery, she managed to increase taxes by £40 billion a year in her first Budget, before increasing them by a further £26 billion a year in this recent Budget.

• 8 Dec 2025 · Child Poverty Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  Last year, the Secretary of State, her Front-Bench colleagues and pretty much everyone behind her voted against lifting the two-child benefit cap—[Hon. Members: “No, we didn’t.”] Those who rebelled had the Whip withdrawn. What would she say to those rebels now? What has changed since that vote last year?

• 3 Dec 2025 · OBR: Resignation of Chair · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the fact that the Minister has just confirmed a leak inquiry is under way at the Treasury, and I will be paying close attention to that inquiry. Richard Hughes was an outstanding public servant, and he was truly independent. Will the Minister confirm that the person the Chancellor nominates to this position has to be endorsed by the Treasury Committee? Will he commit to someone of equal independence and stature being nominated to this position?

• 1 Dec 2025 · Office for Budget Responsibility Forecasts · Hansard source

  More

  The leak of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and financial forecasts on Wednesday was obviously shocking, and it has rightly come up with a swift and complete report on how that happened. The partial information and the leaks from the Treasury over the many months in the run-up to the Budget were, in my opinion, equally shocking, and they caused real-life choices to be made in the economy and dampened confidence. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury therefore commit to an equally thorough and equally rapid leak report to be presented to this House?

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I am looking forward to the Minister’s winding-up speech at the end of the debate, and I will not give way at the moment. Given the skulduggery that the Treasury seems to have engaged in during the run-up to this Budget, the lingering impression will be that the spectre of further tax hikes looms. The floating of the income tax idea and all the other tax ideas, and all the taxes, will come back like a ghoul in Budgets to come.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Waugh). I will be picking up on some of the points he made later in my remarks, but I will start by characterising the whole Budget in the way that we heard from the Leader of the Opposition, which is that this was the “Nightmare Before Christmas” Budget. After last year’s Halloween Budget, another Budget has come back for more and more tax on the strivers, the entrepreneurs, the hard workers and the pensioners across our land. In our scrutiny of the Budget as the Treasury Committee, we will be trying to draw out some of these decisions that the Chancellor announced yesterday from the Dispatch Box. It is clear that last year’s Halloween Budget was the biggest tax-raising Budget in UK history, and yesterday’s Budget was the third-biggest tax-raising Budget in UK history. It is an enormous burden that we have put on our country. What we saw in the run-up to the Budget was also extraordinary, including the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s report was leaked during Prime Minister’s questions. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be aware that the Chairman of Ways and Means was rightly outraged about that on behalf of Parliament. For the benefit of the House, I will outline the role that the Treasury Committee plays in relation to the Office for Budget Responsibility. It will appear before the Committee on Tuesday. We received a letter today from the chief executive, Richard Hughes, outlining the fact that he is undertaking an investigation. That has been published, but the House may not be aware that the Treasury Committee has a veto over the appointment of all three senior members of the Office for Budget Responsibility and, importantly, their dismissal. That is written into legislation. We take our responsibility to get to the bottom of what happened incredibly seriously, because on behalf of Parliament we have to find out. There was a lot of skulduggery in the run-up to this Budget, with all these kites being flown by the Treasury. There was possibly speculation by the media, but all these ideas culminated on the morning of 4 November with the Chancellor breaking into the nation’s breakfast with her doom-laden pronouncements about the upcoming Budget. It was extraordinary and unprecedented, and it was rightly the subject of an urgent question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride). After that, we had a story in the Financial Times on the evening of 13 November that moved the gilt market the minute it opened on the morning of the 14th. It was about the decision not to proceed with an income tax switch with national insurance. Extraordinary skulduggery has been going on somewhere in the Treasury. I hope that when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury responds to this debate later, he can provide clarity on the instructions that the Chancellor has given to the permanent secretary to do a full skulduggery investigation of the Treasury. It should not just be a leak inquiry, as something significantly more widespread has happened in the run-up to this Budget, and I do not think that Parliament can accept it. We need to draw a line under this behaviour, and we need to get to the bottom of it. Apparently the Chancellor herself said to Labour Back Benchers that this decision—that she would not have to increase income tax—was going to be the rabbit she would pull out of her hat at the Dispatch Box yesterday. Some of the briefing that Treasury spokespeople did after this leak to the Financial Times related to the fact that the OBR had improved its economic forecasts, but we saw in its document yesterday that it had not changed its main economic forecasts since 31 October, so that cannot be right either. There has been some unbelievable leaking or briefing—“skulduggery” seems to sum it up—from Treasury special advisers, and the role of the Office for Budget Responsibility has been tainted. We as a Committee, on behalf of Parliament, take our responsibility in relation to the OBR incredibly seriously. I want to highlight a couple of the measures in the Budget, and the first relates to productivity. Both Front Benchers mentioned the importance of focusing on productivity and the impact that the downward revision in productivity had on the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast, but everyone knows that this country’s private sector has continued to become more productive, whereas the problem with productivity in the public sector was very much exacerbated in the last Parliament and during the pandemic. Public sector productivity has still not recovered to the kinds of levels that we had before the pandemic. There is some incredible productivity scarring in our public sector, and I think it would be welcome if the Minister could outline from the Dispatch Box how the Government plan to tackle public sector productivity. If productivity in the national health service returned to pre-pandemic levels, it would be worth £20 billion. Possibly all the tax rises in yesterday’s Budget could be removed if we got to that level of productivity again. I do not think that giving NHS doctors a 30% pay rise, with no requirement for them not to strike again, helps productivity. I do not think that the Government’s decisions align with getting better productivity out of our public sector, but I am sure that the Minister will be able to elaborate on that. Finally, I will pick up on the powerful speech that the hon. Member for Rochdale made about child poverty. He will be aware that over the last 14 years, absolute child poverty—not in his constituency, but in aggregate across the country—has fallen. That is largely down to higher employment but also, importantly, more help with childcare. Those are important things to focus on in terms of people’s ability to work and to earn more. Last week, the Treasury Committee asked experts what the child poverty line is in this country, and it is important for the House to understand the figures that we got back from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. After a household with two children and two adults have paid all their taxes and housing costs, the relative poverty line, which is what the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, is £24,650 a year. For a household with three children and two adults—again, after they have paid their taxes and housing costs—the figure is £28,176. We need to recognise that many people who will be caught by the tax rises in the Budget have much lower incomes than that. Widowers who have a small widow’s pension will pay more tax because of the decisions in yesterday’s Budget.

• 27 Nov 2025 · Budget Resolutions · Hansard source

  More

  I liked the introduction to the shadow Chancellor’s speech. Would a better film analogy perhaps be “The Nightmare Before Christmas”?