Harriett Baldwin MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (2). This amendment removes the Secretary of State’s ability to make regulations about the marketing or use of products in the United Kingdom which corresponds, or is similar to, a provision of relevant EU law for the purpose of reducing or mitigating the environmental impact of products.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Well, Sir John, I do have a very noisy fridge, but I am not sure it is helping me to order the milk. The crucial thing about amendment 17 is that it focuses on innovation. I appreciate that the Government Benches are not necessarily always as heavily weighted with those who have run or developed businesses themselves as ours are, but the Minister should recognise that businesses with a good market share are often able to entrench their version of a product into regulations. That prevents innovators from joining the market, because the regulations were put in place to favour those businesses’ approach. That is why the regulations proposed in clause 1 are so important, but also why it is so worrying that the powers that the Secretary of State is taking through this skeleton Bill are so extensive. We are trying here to be helpful to the Government and to prevent that kind of behaviour, where the incumbent tries to get the regulations to work in its favour so that its competition cannot come in, compete against it and help the economy to grow through that process of creative destruction that is so often an important part of economic progress. That is why we have tabled this important amendment. I suggest that the best way for the Government to show their passion for growth—they are clinging to a few recent statistics, but I am afraid that their track record since July is a woeful one, and the forecasts have all been halved by the major forecasters—would be by supporting the amendment. That is why I would seek to divide the Committee on amendment 17. Question put, That the amendment be made.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, leave out subsection (1). This amendment seeks to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State under product regulations, when defining and regulating risks and determining what constitutes efficient or effective product operation.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I seek your guidance, Sir John, as there were a number of amendments that pertained to clause 2 in the first few groupings on which the Committee could divide. Should we do that now?

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is important to highlight the excluded products in the schedule. The powers that the Committee has just agreed to give to the Secretary of State will not cover food, plants, animal by-products, products of animal origin, aircraft, components of aircraft and radio equipment. Importantly, “unmanned aircraft designed or intended…for use in play by children under 14 years old” are not excluded. My eight-year-old grandson was given one of those for his birthday; I am reassured by the fact that, under the schedule, his little radio-controlled aircraft will be something that can be regulated. There are also some exemptions for military equipment and, furthermore, medicines and medical devices. These exemptions are worth highlighting on the record because, in the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, we should appreciate that questions about food, phytosanitary products, medicines, military equipment and radio spectrum products are incredibly important, particularly in relation to trade agreements. When we discuss some of the clauses as part of the line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, those things must be separately considered. It is notable that some of those product lines were ones that were not affected by tariffs when—and I quote —“liberation day” in the United States was announced. It is very important that there is clarity in the legislation. We have not tabled any amendments to the schedule, but it is worth highlighting that what we have been talking about today does not cover those product lines.

• 13 May 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is accepted in the impact statement that that is one potential use of the powers, but if the Minister believes that, he will want to support our amendments in this group. Sir John, I understand that because amendment 14 fell, we were unable to divide on subsequent amendments in the first group. In this group, however, I believe that we can divide the Committee on more of the amendments individually. I seek your guidance on how many amendments in this group we can divide the Committee on.

• 6 May 2025 · Counter Terrorism Policing: Arrests · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to try again, because although I appreciate that the Security Minister has to be very careful about specific aspects of this case, the House and the country need to know whether the Iranian nationals came into the UK illegally or on a legal migration route.

• 6 May 2025 · Trade Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This deal marks a landmark moment for the UK and its global trading relationships because it is the largest trade deal secured by this country. I was therefore shocked that the Minister did not acknowledge that progression of the deal was possible only thanks to our Brexit freedoms. After all, the European Union does not have a free trade agreement with India—something the Minister must bear in mind as he follows the orders of the Prime Minister on the EU reset. We have not seen the minutiae of the detail in the agreement that the Government are announcing today, so we will reserve our full judgment on the deal until we have had the opportunity to scrutinise it at length. However, I will take this opportunity to highlight some questions. First, what concessions did the Government make that their predecessors were not willing to make to get the deal over the line? Secondly, I was shocked that a very significant piece of information was left out of the Minister’s statement today—one that we only found out from the Indian Government’s statement. Why did Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi make a point of announcing the agreement of a double contribution convention between India and the UK, while the Minister has not even made a passing reference to it today in his statement or his press release? A double contribution convention will come at a significant cost to the British taxpayer and British businesses. Workers who enter the UK under such conventions are eligible to only pay national insurance contributions in their home country—in this case, India. Again, we only know from the Indian Government’s press release that the exemption for national insurance contributions for Indian workers will be for three years. Does that mean that Indian workers currently in Britain will get a refund from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or does it mean that new Indian workers will not pay any contributions in the first place? Did the Exchequer effectively give away a massive subsidy to get this trade deal over the line? Will it really be 20% cheaper for businesses in the UK to hire Indian workers than British workers? Will the convention apply only to seconded employees of Indian companies, or will it apply more broadly to all Indian workers in the UK, and if so, from when? How many additional work visas will be issued to Indian workers under this agreement? Will the convention really mean that, for example, an Indian-owned restaurant chain in the UK could pay no national insurance here for its chef, while the British pub next door pays full national insurance for its curry chef? Will this deal reduce the incentive for the Indian millionaires who are currently fleeing the UK for tax reasons—a subset of the many millionaires who are doing the same—to do so? Can the Minister outline what the cost of this agreement is to the Treasury? How many British nationals do the Government anticipate will make use of the reciprocal rights in India? I fear that when it comes to British workers, we have gone from two-tier Keir to two-tier-taxes Keir. This Government are literally putting up taxes for British workers while cutting them for Indian workers. I am aware that India has expressed concerns about the UK becoming a rule-taker to the EU, so will the Minister confirm what commitments and assurances he made on that matter during the negotiations? While Conservative Members will never talk down the benefits of free trade, agreements such as this one have to be made on fair terms for both parties. As it stands, this deal looks like it is subsidising Indian labour while undercutting British workers. Will the Government back our domestic market by scrapping their jobs tax? I look forward to hearing from the Minister a reply that actually answers these questions. If he chooses—as he sometimes does—to bat away genuine questions from the Dispatch Box, could he follow up in writing?

• 1 May 2025 · Exports: Small Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  The Government are far from supporting small businesses to export. Businesses of every size, up and down the country, are failing at a rate not seen since the 2008 financial crash, when Labour was last in power. Confidence is slumping, family businesses are closing, millionaires are fleeing the country—and that is before tariffs hit. What representations is the Minister making to the Chancellor about reversing some of the measures that hit business in her Hallowe’en Budget?

• 1 May 2025 · UK-Europe Trade · Hansard source

  More

  The Product Regulation and Metrology Bill, which is about to start its Committee stage in the House, may sound a little dry, but it would give the Secretary of State unfettered power to sign up to dynamic alignment with the European Union at the 19th summit. Given that voters are going to the polls today, will the Minister take the opportunity at the Dispatch Box to rule out the UK becoming an EU rule-taker?

• 1 May 2025 · Trade Agreements · Hansard source

  More

  It is good to hear that the trade negotiations with India, which began when we were in government, are progressing well. There must surely now be an opportunity to reopen talks with Canada, so it can buy more wonderful cheese from the UK. With the tariff clock ticking, I am sure the Secretary of State recognises that the US deal is the most urgent; many UK jobs are at risk. However, we heard recently from the Chancellor, when she was in the States, that her bigger priority is discussions with the EU, where we already have zero tariffs and zero quotas. Does the Secretary of State share the Chancellor’s priorities, or does he think the US is more urgent?

• 23 Apr 2025 · Hair and Beauty Sector: Government Policy · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) for securing this important debate, and for clearly setting out the issues with Government policy for the hair and beauty sector. It is truly SOS time—save our salons. In the debate, we have heard from across the country—from Ribble Valley, Bromsgrove, Stourbridge, Gosport, Strangford, South Northamptonshire, Solihull and Chippenham—about how important these businesses are to our constituents. They make not only a huge economic contribution but an enormous contribution to our personal wellbeing, to fostering community spirit and to tackling loneliness. We have heard about the economic contribution of over £8 billion, but the impact of salons in giving people an opportunity for a moment of peace in a frantic life should not be underestimated. It is regretful that the Government’s recent decisions have put such uncertainty into the sector. We all acknowledge that the sector has had a long-standing issue that VAT cannot be reclaimed on its biggest expense: labour. We have also heard that, given about 60% of the sector’s costs are wages, the Government’s decisions in the Hallowe’en Budget, particularly the change in the national insurance threshold, have made things considerably worse for businesses in the sector. Many of the businesses are small or medium-sized, and they add so much to our high streets. They are being gravely affected by the Budget. The British Beauty Council states that the assumption that these businesses “can simply absorb the costs is hugely misguided. Instead, it will most likely prevent wage increases and deter people from hiring more staff therefore stifling growth”, which is the very growth that the Government wish to see. Additional pressure has come from the rise in the national minimum wage, and another impact of the Hallowe’en Budget was that, as we have heard, the Chancellor reduced retail, hospitality and leisure relief from a 75% discount to a 40% discount. That has been another major hammer blow to the sector’s financial wellbeing. We know that the Budget has had a big impact on the hair and beauty sector because the National Hair & Beauty Federation has just published a report examining it. It says that businesses in the sector are expected to incur an additional £139 million in costs, and that is before making any operational adjustments. Labour expenses alone will rise by £100 million. The report revealed that, as a result, 72% of businesses anticipate having to raise prices; no wonder the IMF is calling out the inflationary impact of this Budget. Furthermore, 45% of the businesses intend to cut their staff hours and another 45% plan to reduce their workforce. On average, each business expects to lay off 2.7 full-time equivalent employees and an apprentice. Overall, the sector’s profits are expected to decrease by 15%, with turnover down by £20 million and corporation tax therefore decreasing from £240 million to £200 million. Indeed, the sector’s total tax contribution is anticipated to fall by £44 million, which is a great example of the Laffer curve in reverse. Following the Budget, the Hair and Barber Council polled hair professionals across the country. Of the 2,000 respondents, 42% are now considering closing their businesses in the next 12 months, 80% said they are now being forced to consider moving to self-employment, 94% said they are either extremely concerned for the future, or believe that a generation of apprenticeships will be lost, and 98% do not believe that the sector is valued by this Government. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government commissioned any kind of impact assessment of the potential impact of the changes to national insurance in the Halloween Budget on the number of apprenticeships offered by high street businesses? We already know that the Employment Rights Bill will add a further £5 billion of costs across the whole of UK businesses, so what assessment has he made of the potential impact of the 2024 Halloween Budget on the level of employment of women in the hairdressing and beauty industries? Another long-standing concern that we heard raised in the debate was about tax avoidance and criminal activity, particularly by illegal barber shops linked to money laundering. I tabled a written question to the Home Office on this subject and received the following response: “According to a report by the Local Data Company and Green Street, the average number of barber shops per 10,000 people has more than doubled in the last 10 years, from 1.4 per 10,000 people in 2013 to 3.1 per 10,000 in 2023.” What assessment has the Minister made of criminal activity among barber shops and what steps are the Government taking to tackle it? We have heard today how important the hair and beauty sector is to our high streets and to everyone in our constituencies who uses it. The Government’s Halloween Budget has delivered a devastating blow to the sector and put its future in jeopardy. Will the Minister commit to reversing these damaging tax increases?

• 22 Apr 2025 · “For Women Scotland” Supreme Court Ruling · Hansard source

  More

  I would be grateful if the Minister focused on her Government and the future implications of this judgment. In her statement, she said that “NHS England will soon publish guidance on how trans patients should be accommodated in clinical settings.” I will read to her what the Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust has in its guidance: “Patients should always be treated as the gender they identify as, regardless of what their transition looks like or how long they have shared their gender identity with others… Patients should always be in an environment that aligns with their gender identity.” Would she say to this trust that it needs to act very quickly to change that guidance?

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I wholeheartedly endorse what my right hon. Friend said. All new Government Members should be aware that the explanatory notes to the Bill, which have only just been circulated to colleagues, make it very clear— [ Interruption. ] I hear cries of “Shame!” from behind me. On the financial implications of the Bill, the explanatory notes say that there has been no impact assessment of the effect on the country’s finances, and nothing has been prepared for this House while we make this decision today. The Bill is a sticking plaster for a Government who, in opposition, had years to come up with a plan, but they have dithered and delayed. Ultimately, nothing will change for UK steel until the Government understand the damage that unrealistic and impossible “net zero by 2050” targets have done to British business and industry. We have heard a range of really excellent contributions from my hon. Friends. From the Father of the House, we heard an excellent exposition of the importance of this industry to his constituents in Lincolnshire and the impact of energy costs on the industry. We heard from the great champion of the industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, who has regularly brought this issue to the forefront of Members’ consideration. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who raised incredibly important issues to do with tariffs and China. We then heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who raised some important legal questions. If I may in the time available to me, I would like to raise a few further detailed questions for the Minister to respond to when she gets to the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State has said that he does not want these powers indefinitely, so why will Labour Members not back our amendment to implement a sunset clause for this Bill? We have heard from a range of voices in the debate about the confusion over the territorial extent of this legislation. It makes it very clear that the territorial extent applies to England and Wales only, yet clause 2 refers clearly just to England. There is another thing I would like the Minister to make clear at the Dispatch Box: if a new provider came into the UK and decided to set up a new steel-making enterprise in England or Wales, would that new enterprise be covered by this legislation? Can the Minister also tell the House what the Attorney General has advised on compliance with international law, including article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights, the World Trade Organisation subsidies agreement, and the trade and co-operation agreement, particularly with reference to state aid? The Secretary of State was unable to tell the House this morning how much this intervention will cost. We are being asked this afternoon to sign off on a bottomless pit of money. How often will this House be given an update on how much taxpayer money is being sent into this bottomless pit? Families across the country are already being hit in the pocket every day. Can the Minister give the House a ballpark figure from the Dispatch Box? Are we talking about £100 million a year? Are we talking about a billion? Are we talking about more than a billion? It is a fact that the Government themselves have made the situation worse for the steel industry with their determination to impose higher energy prices, higher taxes and higher business rates. Where is the steel strategy that they have had nine months to develop? What we can say with certainty about today’s legislation is that this is no way to govern the country. Whenever Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We can see for ourselves that this is a Government controlled by events; they are not in control of events. Yet, according to the Secretary of State, it is everyone else’s problem and nothing to do with them. This Government have treated Parliament with disdain. We have had nine months of dither and delay for these workers at Scunthorpe. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses. I look forward to hearing the answers to all those questions from the Minister.

• 12 Apr 2025 · Steel Industry (Special Measures) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I add my thanks to everyone who has enabled us to be here this afternoon, but the fact is that this is a bungled way to do parliamentary legislation, following a bungled set of negotiations, and we are likely to end up with a bungled nationalisation. The Labour Government have landed themselves in a steel crisis entirely of their own making. They have made poor decisions and let the unions dictate their actions. The fact is that the union-led Labour Government have bungled the whole negotiation, insisting on a Scunthorpe-only deal that is not viable. Frankly, the Government should have seen this coming. In fact, instead of addressing it 16 days ago, when British Steel announced its plans to close the site and Parliament was sitting, their incompetence has led to this last-minute emergency recall. Colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen and Councillor Rob Waltham of North Lincolnshire Council have been warning about the issues at British Steel. But no: Labour Ministers thought they knew better. The British public can now see the Government scrambling for a solution to a problem they created and could have resolved months ago.

• 1 Apr 2025 · Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  This has been a genuinely important, interesting and lively debate on product regulation and metrology. It has also been a debate about the balance of power between the Executive and us here in Parliament. The UK product safety and metrology framework is derived from European Union law and it developed while the UK was a member of the EU, when we did not have the opportunity here to address product safety in our changing world as rapidly as we do now. Following our departure from the European Union, the UK established its independent regulatory system, which must be flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and address changes in consumer purchasing behaviours. As the Bill’s explanatory notes state, its purpose is to ensure that the UK is better equipped to tackle modern safety challenges, safeguard consumers, seize opportunities for economic growth and so on. The Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and I want to emphasise that it was not. I want to offer the Minister the chance to correct the record in his closing remarks, in case the House has been inadvertently misled. Upon leaving the European Union, the UK created the UK conformity assessed marking, known as the UKCA, to replace the conformité Européenne marking, known as the CE. These markings are used by manufacturers to demonstrate product conformity. The UK still recognises CE markings; however, the EU does not recognise the UKCA. Will the Minister confirm that discussions are happening with the EU, including the resetting of discussions on trade, to ensure that UKCA markings and any products regulated here in the UK are mutually recognised? Turning to the points raised in today’s excellent debate, we heard fantastic speeches from my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). We also heard powerful voices from Northern Ireland on the adjacent Benches, from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We also heard the expertise that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) brings from his background in the toy industry. From the Labour Benches, we heard impassioned speeches often about product safety, including from the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). She described us as sinners repenting, which I hasten to surmise might mean that she is a repenter beginning to sin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is a passionate advocate for ceramics from his constituency. We had the pleasure of hearing a masterclass from Parliament’s first metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), on the ancient history of metrology; it was a very enjoyable speech. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Before embarking on the reason why we will oppose the Bill tonight, I welcome the Government’s U-turn in the other place on their plans to rule over the size of the great British pint or, as the hon. Member for Erewash would describe it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Although they were initially resistant, Ministers eventually recognised that our great British pint should remain untouched. I am afraid that that is all I can welcome about this piece of legislation, because the Opposition are deeply concerned with the Government’s overreach and excessive reliance on delegated powers within the Bill. Henry VIII would be absolutely delighted by this piece of legislation. Labour Members claim that it will simplify our regulatory framework, yet all we see is the undermining of our sovereignty and the powers of Parliament. This 15-page Bill would give the Secretary of State unchecked powers to amend product safety regulations, change the definition of an online marketplace and introduce new penalties, inspection powers and charges on businesses, driving up the already soaring costs of doing business in the UK. As many hon. Friends have said, it would grant the Government sweeping powers to make us a passive recipient of laws made in Brussels. International trade and co-operation are welcome, but this is not what more than 17 million people voted for in 2016, when we took back control—it is a betrayal of Brexit. The Bill is not purely technical; part of its purpose is to allow the dynamic alignment of goods with EU single market laws, giving the EU the power to rule on standards for manufactured goods produced in the United Kingdom. This EU Trojan horse Bill could see us readopting a regulatory regime over which we have no influence, input or sanction, leaving us as rule takers, not rule makers. It is fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes through delegated legislation. “We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.” –– [ Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.] These are not my words but those of the Secretary of State. Tomorrow, the United States could impose tariffs on us. It is paramount that we secure a mutually beneficial UK-US trade deal as soon as possible, but I cannot see how the Bill, which drags us closer to the European Union, would give the United States any incentive to work with us. In closing, let me ask the Minister a few questions. Can he confirm what the limits will be on ministerial powers? What oversight will Parliament have of regulatory changes made under the Bill? What consultation will occur with the real-world businesses that are affected by the change? Will he confirm that no regulations made under the Bill will prevent or impede UK businesses from trading internationally? The Bill undermines Parliament and risks tying British businesses to EU red tape on which we have no say. We cannot allow these excessive powers to create further uncertainty among British businesses of all sizes, which already face the soaring costs of doing business because of the Chancellor’s tax grab. The Bill is a parliamentary sovereignty sell-out. We got Brexit done; let us keep it that way. The Bill gives away control, and that is why I call on the House to back our amendment and stop it.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Myanmar Earthquake · Hansard source

  More

  Many, many compassionate people across West Worcestershire and the whole of the United Kingdom will be wanting to know what they can do to help in this situation, so will the Minister give us some further information on how UK taxpayers may donate and whether there will be an aid match?

• 31 Mar 2025 · Bosnia and Herzegovina · Hansard source

  More

  Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), and knowing how much the Minister values soft power, can he reassure the House that there will be no further cuts to the British Council or the World Service in the Balkans on his watch?

• 26 Mar 2025 · Spring Statement · Hansard source

  More

  At the general election, the Chancellor promised growth and no increase in taxes, but as Chancellor, she has delivered no growth and a record increase in taxes. Now, the Office for Budget Responsibility is halving her growth forecast this year, with cumulatively half a percent less over the forecast period. More worryingly, it is forecasting a more than 1% reduction in productivity growth. Why does she think that is?

• 25 Mar 2025 · Terms and Conditions of Employment · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to say that we will not oppose the increases to the national minimum wage or the national living wage—the national living wage being something that my party introduced to make work pay. We celebrate the fact that progress was made in ending low pay, and the Minister cited that from the Dispatch Box this evening. But it is also our duty, as His Majesty’s official Opposition, to scrutinise the Government on all matters, so I have several questions for the Minister this evening. In particular, I want to highlight the fact that the work that the Low Pay Commission has done—for which I also thank it—was done before the Hallowe’en Budget of broken promises last October. After the increases to the national living and minimum wages in the Budget—but also measures such as the increase to national insurance—the Unison assistant general secretary Jon Richards welcomed the increase to the pay measures but said that “as it stands, the new legal minimum is more than the current lowest hourly rate in the NHS, universities and some other public services. This will give employers multiple headaches.” So my first question is: what will the Government do to address the pay implications of this rise on those working in the public sector in such important roles? The second question relates to the national minimum wage for workers above school leaving age but not yet 18 going up by nearly 18%. On 1 April this year, the national insurance threshold for employers drops to £5,000 per year. This means that an employer will have to start paying national insurance on any young person if they work for 13 or more hours a week. Because of this, businesses have warned that they are cutting back on hiring younger workers or reducing the hours that they give to them. That risk, of course, is faced not solely by those in work, but by those seeking to get into work. What assessment has the Minister made since the Hallowe’en Budget of the impact of the increase on young people’s ability to access jobs? What will the Government do to ensure that young people or those looking for a job will not be penalised by this increase? The increase will significantly affect small and medium-sized enterprises. As usual, it looks like they will bear the brunt of the increased labour costs. It looks that way not just to us; according to the Government’s own impact assessment, SMEs will face 56% of the cost of the increase despite representing only 37% of the share of employment. That is another cost increase on smaller businesses, which already have to pay for this Government’s national insurance jobs tax, for the hike in business rates, and for the impact of the measures from the Employment Rights Bill. In particular, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector are most likely to pay the minimum wage. I remind the House that the Government’s own impact assessment states that they expect the policies covered within the Bill to impose a direct cost on businesses of up to £5 billion a year. It also notes that, on average, those costs will be greater for those smaller businesses and microbusinesses. Will the Minister provide the House with a figure for the total cost increase of employing someone full time on the previous national living wage because of the other changes introduced by his Government? The Government have created a challenging business environment. They recognised that themselves when they stated in their impact assessment that “there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for SMEs”. Around 42.7% and 36.8% of microbusinesses and small businesses respectively reported having less than three months of cash reserves in September 2024. We support the principle of fair pay for workers and making work pay. However, having listened to businesses, we are concerned that the rises could impact workers and businesses in industries already facing financial challenges through a range of unintended consequences. It is easy for those in Whitehall to squiggle their pen, but all those measures combined have real-life consequences for businesses across the country. The national insurance jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill are piling additional costs on to businesses and hammering the private sector, which we rely on to grow the economy. In summary, have the Government considered the full impact of all these increases on businesses that are happening at the same time? I fear that tomorrow’s emergency Budget will be another wakeup call.

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that, as it is an Opposition day debate, he will speak exclusively about what the Opposition think and say. Is it your understanding, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is in order for a Minister at the Dispatch Box not to defend the track record of his own Government?

• 19 Mar 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is absolutely right that we ask the questions we are asking today. The statistic that has shocked me most in this debate is that of the millions of pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment, 44,000 are estimated to have been terminally ill. Is she as shocked as I am by that statistic?

• 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?