Harriett Baldwin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 18 Mar 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  One of the first acts of this Government was to take away the winter fuel allowance from millions of pensioners on incomes as low as £13,000 a year, including 44,000 who are—or were—terminally ill. Will the Secretary of State reassure all our constituents that in making these changes, she will not be going after those who have a terminal illness?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Post Office Horizon: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  The Business Secretary met recently in Japan with Fujitsu, which developed the Horizon system and has offered to contribute to the compensation for victims. Can the Minister tell the House how much the Secretary of State has asked it to contribute, so that taxpayers are not on the hook for £1 billion?

• 13 Mar 2025 · Business Support: Rural Areas · Hansard source

  More

  The Business Secretary, the Minister and the Chancellor have all said that they want growth, including in rural areas. I have searched high and low for business growth statistics since the Budget of broken promises, and I find that, in the last quarter, there has been a growth of 50% in the number of businesses that are in critical financial distress. Why does the Minister think that is?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Department for Business and Trade · Hansard source

  More

  I shall try to make my speech short and snappy, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on securing this afternoon’s debate, which has allowed many Members to articulate the concerns that they are hearing from businesses in their constituencies and enabled them to talk about the great importance of growth. Growth is essential. We talk about the importance of defence and of increasing spending on it from 2.5% to 2.7% and then up to 3%, but of course we want the economy to grow at the same time. In the estimates before us today, the Secretary of State has laid out his ambitious goals for his Department. First, on the aim of delivering a comprehensive industrial strategy, I simply ask, eight months in, when will businesses see that. Secondly, on a plan to provide small businesses with tools and support, I simply ask, eight months in, when will small businesses see that. Thirdly, on a trade strategy that recognises that high-quality trade deals are necessary to give businesses access to international markets to boost jobs and deliver economic growth here, I simply ask when businesses will see a change on that front. Fourthly, on delivering sweeping changes to employment law, I have to say that, sadly, businesses have seen that. They have seen that the sweeping changes outlined in the Employment Rights Bill, which we will be scrutinising next week, will take us back to 1970s-style employment laws, adding £1 billion in costs just to the Government’s cost base alone. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether at the end of the debate you might share a few words on whether it would have been appropriate for those hon. Members who receive contributions from unions to have declared them in the debate. We have had an excellent debate, but I did not hear any declarations of interest. I heard excellent contributions from those on the Conservative Benches—from my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). They outlined and summarised the challenges that businesses face up and down the country. In contributions from the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Marton), for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), we heard a range of concerns felt by real businesses that create the wealth of this country. I turn to trade. I note that, in the supplementary estimates, the Department marks an increase under sub-head A4, the account that includes first and foremost the trade policy implementation and negotiations group. The note explains that the increase is owing to “An international reorganisation within DBT which has brought our International Strategy and Development teams into this group from Strategy and Investment.” Strategy and investment, meanwhile, have been cut by almost the same amount that this account has been increased by. I wonder whether there is a little bit of smoke and mirrors going on when it comes to the amount dedicated to increasing trade. Increasing trade is one of the key routes to economic growth. Businesses in our constituencies would really benefit from further opening up of free trade. I note the welcome news that the Prime Minister talked to the President of America about a free trade agreement last week, but as of the end of January, no official or Minister from the Department had made any attempt to engage with the US Administration on trade. The Department has chosen to abandon the position of chief trade negotiator, which is either deliberate self-harm or wilful incompetence. There was almost no public recognition by the Department or its Ministers of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which does indeed trip off the tongue. There is growing evidence that instead of investing in opportunities for trade with the US, Canada and the fast-growing markets of Asia, the Government are reverting to their ideological safeguard, relying on Brussels, and developing a Trojan horse strategy to realign the UK with the European Union. Is the Department actually being given the tools that it needs to deliver on trade deals? If the Government claim to have set their sights higher, should not the resources reflect that? I worry that we are seeing a classic example of big words, big ambitions and Ministers just saying the word “growth”, but nothing taking place that actually delivers growth. It is eight months to the day since those on the Labour Benches entered Government. How many businesses in this country can say that things have got better for them in the last eight months? How many are more confident? How many can say that they expect the trade situation facing the United Kingdom to improve?

• 4 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  The art of taxation is extracting the largest amount of money with the lowest amount of squeaking from the goose. Yet the Chancellor will have heard the honking of the tractors on Whitehall today in response to her raising an amount of money that will pay for less than one day of NHS spending. Will she commit to reversing the family farm tax?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the hard yards he is putting in at the moment for our national security. May I suggest another angle on which the House would appreciate an update? Last year, during an inquiry into Russian sanctions, the Treasury Committee received evidence that Russian hydrocarbons are still ending up in the UK. Could he explore the idea of improving our national security by ensuring that the oil and gas that we consume in this country come predominantly from this country?

• 25 Feb 2025 · Groceries Code Adjudicator · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing the debate. It will perhaps come as news to him that I, too, was one of the people who voted for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was a Member during the coalition Government and it was put on the statute book back in 2013 because our farmers wanted an adjudicator to tackle the imbalance between small producers of food and big supermarket buyers. We will always back our farmers for fairness and equity for food producers. The adjudicator regulates relationships between the UK’s largest grocery retailers and their direct suppliers, and it ensures that excessive risks and unexpected costs are not unfairly transferred. It brings fairer prices to the farming community and provides a guardrail for those smaller food producers who do not have a voice in the complicated food production market. It is funded by a pragmatic levy on designated retailers, with a UK annual turnover of more than £1 billion. There are currently 14 retailers covered by the code. The results from the annual survey in 2024 show that the adjudicator is making a difference. More than 3,000 responses to that survey show that the number of suppliers experiencing a code issue has fallen to 33% and that the number of suppliers highlighting a retailer’s response to a cost price increase as an issue almost halved, falling from 28% in 2023 to just 16%. For the first time, the Co-op came top of the 14 retailers for overall code compliance, at 98%. The Co-op and Lidl both experienced a 2% improvement, which was the biggest percentage improvement across the 14 retailers. The adjudicator is there to protect suppliers, such as our precious farmers. However, we are concerned that the Government’s recent actions have done anything but protect our farmers. Food retailers and suppliers of all sizes are under huge pressure because of Labour’s tax on jobs, its increasing red tape around jobs, food inflation and job losses in supermarkets. Labour’s family farm tax is yet another blow. It is a death tax on important family businesses. With no farmers in the UK, there would be no UK-grown food. Under Labour, the family farm will wither and die unless the Chancellor can be persuaded to change her mind. Food producers are at the heart of our communities and the Government should be doing everything they can to support them, not harm them, and to ensure food security in this country. The attack on our farmers is shocking in every way. The Labour MPs who voted for an inheritance tax on family farms simply do not understand where their food comes from. Labour is harming our farms, not prioritising our rural areas. It simply does not understand. The Conservatives believe that good policy needs to be created in collaboration with the farming industry, rather than in isolation. We have always kept the Groceries Code Adjudicator under review since its inception and we urge the Government to continue to do so.

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on the excellent speech that he is making. Only today I heard from a pensioner in West Worcestershire on an income of £13,500 who was stripped of his winter fuel allowance last year. He is having to live in only one room, as that is all he can afford to heat. Is my hon. Friend as shocked as I was to hear that example?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman mentions the important role that third-sector organisations play in our society. Was he as shocked as I was to learn from Marie Curie cancer care not only that the increase in national insurance will cost it several million pounds a year, but that the winter fuel allowance is being taken from 44,000 terminally ill pensioners?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Support for Pensioners · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Dame Siobhain. Is it orderly for me to point out that the NHS is suffering from a number of over-65s who sadly have a high level of mortality—

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Steel Import Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on US steel import tariffs.

• 11 Feb 2025 · US Steel Import Tariffs · Hansard source

  More

  The United States is our greatest ally and our greatest single trading partner. The UK and the United States are the biggest investors in each other’s economies. Yet this is a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry, because the Government have failed to engage with gusto with the new US Administration. The Prime Minister has not, despite his many air miles, got on a flight to the States at the first possible opportunity, and years of student politics-style insults hurled at the President by Government Front Benchers has put our relationship in jeopardy. And that was before the embarrassment of the Chagos islands situation showed that we have terrible negotiators running the country. Can the Minister confirm what conversations he or the Secretary of State have had with their counterparts in the United States about steel tariffs? How many times has the Minister spoken with US trade representatives about this matter since Sunday? Will he confirm that the first 500,000 tonnes of steel to the US will be tariff-free, as they were under President Trump’s previous Administration? What economic analysis has the Department produced on the impact of the tariffs on jobs and on the wider UK economy, and what plans do the Government have to reciprocate with tariffs on US steel and aluminium, or on any other US goods? What are the Minister’s plans for the safeguarding measures against steel dumping, which expire in June? We on the Conservative Benches have been calling on the Government to strain every sinew for a trade deal with the United States. Much work was done by the Department last time President Trump was in the White House. Will the Minister finally set out what plans the Government have to obtain a big, beautiful free-trade agreement with the United States?

• 5 Feb 2025 · Chagos Islands · Hansard source

  More

  It is outrageous that we only know the detailed speculation about this deal because of the briefing from the Mauritian Prime Minister to his Members of Parliament. It is outrageous that the amount of money being talked about now is £18 billion, which is enough to pay for the winter fuel allowance for all our pensioners for the next 12 years. The Minister will not tell this House the actual quantum of money that he is discussing with Mauritius. Can he put it on the record now, and can he tell us out of which departmental budget it needs to be paid?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Vaz. This debate on the petition has highlighted an unimaginably difficult situation when one’s child is seriously ill. In a series of important speeches and interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) have highlighted specific examples of the very difficult situation that arises when one’s child is sick, not only in one’s own family, but with one’s employment. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford highlighted, his constituent Christina Harris has campaigned on behalf of this cause after experiencing a very difficult situation when her daughter Skye fell ill. The reality of this situation has really hit home across the country. One is immediately prompted to think, “What employer would not be incredibly supportive of an employee who finds themselves in this hopefully rare situation?” However, as we have heard in today’s debate, not every employer is necessarily supportive, there is inconsistent support, and many employers do not know the law in this area. For the benefit of the record, I will set out the statutory support that parents currently receive. Through the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, after one year’s qualifying service, all employees are given the right to take unpaid parental leave. This entitlement is for up to 18 weeks in total at any point in the child’s first 18 years of life, with up to a maximum of four weeks in any individual year. This leave can be taken for any purpose connected with looking after a child, which would of course include caring for a seriously ill child. I understand that this provision is set to change with the Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which will give parents a right from day one of their employment to start taking 18 weeks of unpaid leave to care for their child until the child turns 18. However, it is important to note that although the Bill will provide a day one right, it will not address the circumstances outlined in the petition, which calls for a career break specifically for parents of seriously ill children. Also, although some measures in the Employment Rights Bill are well-intentioned, the Bill as a whole is problematic because it increases the already heightened pressure that employers and businesses are facing, further to Labour’s Budget of broken promises. Through the national insurance jobs tax, the hike in business rates and the incoming employment regulations, the Labour Government are sharply hiking up the cost of doing business and employing staff. Indeed, the Bill alone is set to cost £156 per employee. But hon. Members do not have to listen to me; the chairman of the CBI has also stated that the new employment regulations would hamper growth and cause job losses. The Government’s own impact assessment of its workers’ rights package estimates that it will cost business £5 billion a year. Furthermore, I think that employers will not only not employ new people; they will also let people go. There could be quite an ugly rush before some of these measures come into force—arguably, we have begun to see some of that in the recent employment statistics, which have been disappointing. The previous Government supported legislation that provides support for parents, including those caring for ill children or facing other difficult circumstances. To summarise some of the measures that the previous Government took, first they supported the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which gained Royal Assent in May of that year. In January 2025, the Government announced that, from April 2025, parents with babies in neonatal care would receive a day one right to additional time off. The regulations build on the work of the previous Government, and we welcome this Government continuing it. The previous Government also supported the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, which was passed in July of that year. The Act increases the number of requests for flexible working that an employee can make in a year, reduces the time an employer has to administer a request, and requires an employer to consult with the employee if they are going to reject the request. The previous Government also supported the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. Since it came into force, all employees are entitled to up to one week’s unpaid carer’s leave every year to provide or arrange care for any dependants with care needs due to a disability, old age, physical or mental illness, or injury expected to last at least three months. That could give some parents of seriously ill children an additional week’s leave each year on top of their unpaid parental leave entitlement. That is a summary of things as they currently stand. The petition was submitted during the previous Parliament, and the previous Government replied: “The Government understands the difficulties, worry and challenges faced by parents with seriously ill children. While the Government is very sympathetic, it is not practical to provide a specific right” for them to take a career break. They continued: “Nonetheless, we would encourage employers to go further and consider what compassionate leave policies, flexible working arrangements and supportive work environment they may be able to offer beyond that required by legislation alone.” We left it there at the time of the election, and so I leave it to the new Minister to outline what his Government plan to do.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I have given way. The previous Government worked to enter into a new partnership with post offices and came up with the idea that people could confirm their identity in person. That is a way of using that valuable network across the land. We recognise that vulnerable people sometimes struggle to verify their identity online. We also began the initiative to help communities dealing with bank closures by setting up a network of banking hubs. I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm earlier today that he will continue backing banking hub delivery through the Post Office, but does he consider that the framework negotiations between the Post Office and the banks, which are in their final stages, are going well? One year on from ITV’s historic programme “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for all he did to address the issues raised in that programme. Can the Minister detail the progress his Government are making on the compensation for sub-postmasters? I want to raise the issue of Fujitsu, which designed the Horizon IT system that has destroyed so many lives and livelihoods. Under the previous Government, there were discussions with Fujitsu about providing a share of the compensation to the victims of the Horizon scandal, and Fujitsu confirmed that it will pause bids for Government contracts until the public inquiry is concluded. However, this month it was reported that the Government have awarded new contracts to Fujitsu. When Labour was in opposition, many Labour Members criticised awards made to Fujitsu, so can the Minister provide an update on the Government’s current approach?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I do not want to politicise this too much, because I think that had gone on for a long period of time, and the inquiry took a lot of evidence last year. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton played a remarkable role in exonerating so many people, and in setting up the public inquiry. My next question to the Minister is: could he provide an update on what he is hearing through his channels about when the inquiry may publish its report. It finished taking public evidence at the end of last year, and I anticipate it may publish that later this year, but does he have an update on that for the House? Does he have any plans to compensate sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who were victims of Horizon’s predecessor systems—the Capture and ECCO systems that predated Horizon—and does he have plans to quash any convictions arising from those two systems? In the spending review, how much public money is the Minister requesting to put in a replacement for the Horizon system? Can he tell us how many post offices currently benefit from small business rate relief, and what are the Government plans about continuing that throughout this Parliament? Further to the question from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about today’s worrying announcement from Ofcom that second class post may be delivered only every other weekday and not on Saturdays, what discussions is the Minister having with Ofcom to prevent this further attack on the demand for our precious postal services? To conclude, we have heard how incredibly important this precious network of friendly people across our land is to this country, with those 11,500 post offices and the distance requirements that are in place. After hearing from so many colleagues, will the Minister reassure the House that he will sustain that network throughout the life of this Parliament. Prevention is so much better than cure. Let us all focus on supporting our much-loved post offices in any way we can to continue the wonderful work that they do up and down the country.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I will. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not like hearing that news.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I am just getting to that—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely on point with where I am going. Sadly, it was under the previous Labour Government that the network really shrank in a major way, when the number of post offices went into sharp decline, before it then stabilised in the 2010s. In fact, during the entire time that we were in coalition with our Liberal Democrat colleagues, and then in government ourselves, the network remained above that 11,500 figure. It takes action, as we have heard clearly this afternoon, to maintain that precious network.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, thank you very much.

• 30 Jan 2025 · Local Post Offices · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing it and thank the Backbench Business Committee for awarding it. A consistent theme throughout the debate has been the important role the post office plays in communities across our land, providing what the hon. Member beautifully described as friendly access to key services that connect people, that service communities, particularly those without banks, and that help those unable to use the internet to connect to Government services. In West Worcestershire, we are fortunate enough to have 31 post offices, including some mobile services, and I put on record my thanks to all the friendly sub-postmasters and mistresses who provide those services. Over the course of the debate we heard about places across the UK: Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, South West Devon, South East Cornwall, Orkney and Shetland, Bermondsey and Old Southwark, South West Hertfordshire, Chelsea and Fulham, Didcot and Wantage, Glasgow North East, Stockton West, North Durham, Boston and Skegness, Bournemouth West, Thornbury and Yate, Leeds South West and Morley, and Wokingham, and in interventions we heard about Newton Abbot, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Basildon and Billericay, Dulwich, and Tiverton and Minehead. And I dare say, Madam Deputy Speaker, you feel strongly about the post office in Romsey. We can see just how incredibly valuable that network of friendly institutions is across the country. I am afraid to say, however—and I break it gently to the Minister—that Labour’s Budget of broken promises is threatening that network. Through the national insurance jobs tax, the hike in business rates and the incoming employment regulations, Labour is hiking the cost of doing business, as swathes of post offices are facing tens of millions more in tax and red tape. Those pressures mean that the Post Office has been forced into assessing the future of more than 100 Crown post office branches. Rumours abound that when the Green Paper is published, it may include a consultation on the reduction in the number of post offices to below 11,500. Will the Minister put paid to that speculation by telling the House when the Green Paper will be published? As the Post Office and its branch network are major employers, with more than 50,000 full-time equivalent workers, another impact is that the Post Office could face an extra £45 million bill as a result of the national insurance hike, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Post offices are often eligible for retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief, and they face a huge increase in their business rates as the relief falls from 75% to 40%. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the Employment Rights Bill will cost businesses across the country £4.5 billion. Proportionately, given that Post Office has 50,000 employees, the Bill will cost the Post Office over £8 million. The House does not have to take that from me; I will quote the chairman of the Post Office, Nigel Railton: “It almost goes without saying: we are a business in need of a fresh start – and urgently… And at the recent Budget, we saw…costs rise with National Insurance Contributions, National Living Wage and business rates.”

• 30 Jan 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I will try to avoid a word salad. We have heard from various different industrial sectors how important it is to have stable and predictable energy costs. This month has seen little sun and only intermittent wind, so we have been heavily dependent on imported oil and gas. Are Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade challenging the Energy Secretary over his policies?

• 30 Jan 2025 · Industrial Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s Government have changed policy to not issue any new licences for domestic oil and gas, so we will become more dependent on imports at times when solar and wind are not working, unless we can increase nuclear generation. It is Nuclear Week in Parliament, so what pressure is she putting on the Energy Secretary to make new nuclear an important part of our industrial strategy?

• 29 Jan 2025 · Growing the UK Economy · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure the Chief Secretary knows and admires the plan for growth of Conservative-led Worcestershire county council. It has been working through the plan, and it has built a new train station on the North Cotswold line, which connects Worcestershire to Oxford, but a lot of that line is still single track. Will he urge the Oxford growth commission to look at the extensive work done by Oxfordshire county council and Worcestershire county council to find a way to double the frequency of the train services on that stretch of track?