Harriett Baldwin MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  It seems to me that there are two different ways in which a Minister can inadvertently mislead this House: one is by the things that they say, and the other is by the things that they do not say. That is why I am particularly interested in the letter from Lord Case that my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) raised, because it seems to have been written to the Prime Minister in November 2024, advising that a political appointment to an ambassadorial role ought to be preceded by full security vetting before being announced. It was announced by the Prime Minister in December 2024. Did he write that he wanted his decision to be subject to Peter Mandelson passing the full security vetting? What did he write on his box note?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for confirming that this Parliament has not ratified the treaty. As Parliament and the British public heard more about the deal, one of the things they found most inexplicable was that it involved us paying a substantial amount of money—how much has not yet been confirmed to Parliament—to the Mauritian Government. Will the Minister confirm from the Dispatch Box today that, because Parliament has not ratified the deal, he will not be paying any money to the Mauritian Government?

• 13 Apr 2026 · Middle East · Hansard source

  More

  When the Prime Minister was in the middle east, did the subject of the UK’s dependence on helium come up? It is an element that we do not produce in the UK, and it is vital for things such as MRI scans in the NHS.

• 25 Mar 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q9. The Prime Minister says that he is concerned about the cost of living, so can he explain why he allowed his Local Government Minister to give permission to Reform-led Worcestershire county council to inflict that 9% council tax hike on my constituents?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  Given the current crisis, does the Chancellor regret in her first Budget increasing unfunded borrowing by £150 billion over this Parliament, which the Office for Budget Responsibility said at the time was “one of the largest fiscal loosenings of any fiscal event in recent decades”?

• 19 Mar 2026 · International Development · Hansard source

  More

  Many of our constituents will want to react to this announcement today by increasing the amount of money they give. Will the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office continue to offer an aid match option? Given that 0.7% is still technically on the statute book, will the Foreign Secretary bring forward a named vote in this Parliament to make the changes she is announcing today?

• 19 Mar 2026 · UK Steel Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives very much believe in a sovereign steel industry, but what we see today is a multibillion-pound shot in the dark, and it heralds the end of primary steel production in the UK. Just to set the record straight, there would no longer be any steel production in Wales without action from the last Government. This steel strategy has no plan to make the industry stand on its own two feet, and it risks a permanent state-funded drain on taxpayers. British Steel was losing £700,000 a day when the Government took emergency action last year, and now the taxpayer is losing an estimated £1.3 million a day and there is a subsidy of £110,000 per job to keep the Scunthorpe blast furnace operational. This steel strategy does not include any exit strategy, risking a permanent drain on taxpayers, and now the Government are negotiating handing taxpayers’ money to a Chinese business that they said was worth nothing, while hitting British users of steel with a 50% tariff hike. Given that the previous Secretary of State said that British Steel had zero value, will the current Secretary of State confirm whether compensation will be paid to Jingye? How are these new tariffs going to affect the cost of living for our constituents? How much will the tariffs raise? They represent a massive tax hike on our world-leading automotive, defence and aerospace sectors, which will make building homes, bridges and railways more expensive. Have the Government carried out any impact assessment on the tariffs, and will jobs not be lost in those other sectors? The Government say in the strategy that electric arc furnaces are the future, but without competitive energy, green steel will simply become no steel. If electric arc furnaces are the future, when will the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe be decommissioned, and how many jobs will be lost in that process? Where will the £2.5 billion go? Is it all going into the Scunthorpe blast furnaces? How is this £2.5 billion spending spree fiscally responsible? What is the Secretary of State cutting to pay for it? The so-called National Wealth Fund is rapidly become the national slush fund. The shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has announced our cheap power plan, which will slash energy bills for businesses and households. The Conservatives will axe the carbon tax, scrap extortionate subsidies for wind and solar, repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, and end the ban on new oil and gas licences to maximise domestic extraction and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. Could the Secretary of State please copy this approach? This is a Government who are subsidising decline and reaching for protectionist tariffs. After the botched nationalisation of Scunthorpe and the surrender of the Chagos islands, we can see from this steel strategy that when Labour negotiates, the British taxpayer loses.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Social Enterprises and Community Ownership · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this important debate. I should declare that I was once on the board of the Social Investment Bank until 2012, and that my brother-in-law is chief executive of the Oversight Trust, which looks after all the dormant asset investments. I think I speak from a position of knowledge when I say how important social enterprises and community-owned organisations are. They are indeed some of the most dynamic, resilient and socially valuable parts of our economy. It was wonderful to hear so many examples from so many contributors in this debate—I will not list them all, but they were all very well described. Social enterprise and community ownership lead to reinvestment of profits locally. They create local jobs and deliver services that strengthen communities—services that might not exist without them. These organisations are more likely to be led by women and, as we have heard, to be located in areas of higher deprivation. I will indulge in this opportunity to mention some great examples in West Worcestershire. I think of two community-owned and volunteer-led shops: one in Alfrick, which I had the honour of opening, and another in Lower Broadheath, where I am on the record as a founding shareholder. We have the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, which is a wonderful community interest company pub. We also have some examples of organisations that used to belong to the county council, but now belong to the community. Two examples in Malvern are the Malvern Cube and Boundless Outdoors Malvern, and they are really thriving now as community assets. As we can see from the House of Commons Library briefing, these organisations are often very much more trusted, much more responsive and more resilient than their commercial counterparts—but they do not operate in a vacuum. They need a stable economic environment, predictable costs, and a Government who understand the pressures that they face. His Majesty’s official Opposition have repeatedly raised concerns, which we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), that recent Government decisions, including increases to national insurance, unresolved business rate pressures, and the impact of the Employment Rights Act on labour costs have created additional financial strain for social enterprises, which are already operating on tight margins. Many in the sector say that those pressures are forcing them to put up prices, scale back their services, delay their investment plans or abandon plans for community asset purchases altogether. What assessment have the Government made of how the recent increases in national insurance contributions are affecting the financial sustainability of social enterprises and community-owned organisations? Business rates are one of the biggest barriers to survival for these organisations. The Government’s approach has left many organisations facing uncertainty and rising costs, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that business rates policy supports, rather than undermines, community ownership and social enterprise growth? Access to finance is also a persistent challenge, so what funding is available for social enterprises and community-owned assets, and what work is being done with the UK’s leading financial sector to address the barriers that social enterprises and community-owned organisations sometimes face? These organisations are there, ready to deliver economic and social renewal, but they face many of the same challenges as other businesses across the UK. It is time for the Government to stop making life harder for businesses of all kinds. It is time for the Government to adopt the Conservative plans for a 100% business rate relief on retail, hospitality and leisure for the benefit of our high streets.

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  This has been an incredibly powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for their contributions. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. There has been a consistent theme and a consistent message, but I will try not to repeat all the powerful speeches that we have had. I will try to focus my speech on the questions for the Minister. I have had a lot of casework in West Worcestershire on this issue, and it seems to have happened post Ofcom’s decision in July 2025 to allow a change to the universal service obligation. That seems to be the point at which I observed a huge increase in casework. We have heard about really serious consequences on our constituents’ lives. It is incredibly important that the Minister gets to grips in terms of his responsibilities vis-à-vis particularly the regulator. I want to focus on the meeting that the Minister had last week with Ofcom, and I want to add my appreciation for the amazing work that our posties do in West Worcestershire. The meeting with Ofcom came about on the afternoon after last week’s urgent question, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to update us on the action that he is taking. Ofcom agreed that the new Czech owner of Royal Mail could change the universal service obligation, and that change started last July. The new delivery model means that first class should continue to be delivered on a daily basis, and second class should be every other day. But what we have heard loud and clear in this debate today is that that does not seem to be happening. We buy a first-class stamp for a reason—because we want a delivery the next day. How is Ofcom justifying its decision to allow Royal Mail to have higher costs for a service that is clearly getting worse? What did it tell the Minister at the meeting that he had? Did he secure any commitments from Ofcom about its powers vis-à-vis Royal Mail? I know that the Minister also sits down regularly with Royal Mail. What discussions has he had with Royal Mail about the issues that have been so well articulated across the House this morning? Staffing cuts, delivery revisions and operational changes have clearly contributed to this collapse in performance. Does the Minister believe that the current regulatory framework for this precious part of our critical national infrastructure is fit for purpose? Is he considering any reforms to the regulatory framework for Royal Mail? Royal Mail continues to say—I think we have heard it illustrated by the contributions this morning—that the universal service obligation, as currently defined, is impossible to deliver. When the company was bought, the new owner must have done due diligence on what the obligations were. Does the Minister accept the premise that the current universal service obligation is impossible to deliver, or does he think that, with the right regulatory interventions, the owner can meet it? The recent letter that Royal Mail sent to the Business and Trade Committee refers to its contingency plans to prioritise parcels to prevent unsafe build-ups, but I think all of us believe and have heard anecdotally that the prioritisation of parcels is a deliberate business decision, because that is where the margin is seen to be. Can the Minister explain the conversations that he has had with Royal Mail about the threshold for that contingency—Royal Mail claims that it holds it in reserve—for addressing parcels with a higher priority than letters? At what point does a temporary decision to implement that contingency become a permanent de facto policy of deprioritising letters—the very heart of our universal service obligation?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  I look forward to the Minister responding to that, but I think we have heard today that even that weaker delivery obligation is not being met. We also need to consider the wider business context that we are living in. Many businesses like Royal Mail have had to pay this additional jobs tax. The Employment Rights Act is having an impact on hiring across the economy. Does the Minister acknowledge that his own Government’s decisions have affected the situation? What assessment has he made of the impact of Government tax policies on Royal Mail’s financial resilience? In conclusion, this debate is about ensuring that a service relied upon by millions is restored to the standards that the law requires. What steps immediately can the Minister take to restore a reliable six-day service? What action will he take to hold Royal Mail to its legal obligations? What reforms will he pursue to ensure that Ofcom is an active, effective regulator rather than a passive observer? When will the public finally see improvements to the service in the way that they have been promised for years?

• 16 Mar 2026 · Heating Oil Support · Hansard source

  More

  I am curious about the details as I have been raising this issue on behalf of my constituents in West Worcestershire all week, many of whom rely on heating oil and liquefied petroleum gas. How much extra money is going into the crisis and resilience fund in West Worcestershire, and how will local authorities prevent “first come, first served” and instead ensure that those with the emptiest tanks get access to the money first?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Job Creation · Hansard source

  More

  Of course, there are lots of well-paid jobs in the steel sector. In fact, the taxpayer is now subsidising every job at British Steel to the tune of £110,000. Can the Secretary of State update the House on how his negotiations are going with Jingye, and on when he will finally publish his long-awaited steel strategy?

• 12 Mar 2026 · Private Sector Investment · Hansard source

  More

  There was a new private sector investor in the Royal Mail last year. As we heard yesterday in the House, the regulator has let the universal service obligation slip, so will the Minister update the House on how his colleague’s meeting with the regulator went yesterday?

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing it. We can see from the number of Members who are interested in this topic just how serious it is across all our constituencies. I can testify to the fact that I have had an enormous amount of casework on this issue, which started just before Christmas, involving hospital appointments being missed, and children’s birthday cards, condolence cards for recently widowed individuals and postal voting forms not arriving. This is an absolutely critical issue. I reiterate that the universal service obligation is an obligation. It is an obligation set out in statute, and it is an obligation to every household in this country. We can all testify to the fact that it has been systematically broken, and that the turning point was when the new owner bought Royal Mail, with this Government’s approval, in April 2025. The letter from Royal Mail received by the Business and Trade Committee yesterday revealed that over 200 million letters have been delivered late this year. In addition to the meetings the Minister has listed with Ofcom, what assessments has he made of all the stress being caused to our constituents and the impact on people’s wellbeing? Has he had a critical discussion with Ofcom, because it appears that it is not really doing its job as a regulator? The public are paying more but getting less, and the fines he has listed do not reflect the deterioration we have seen recently. In my discussions with Royal Mail, it has said that parcels overwhelm the service at Christmas, but that situation is carrying on into March. Is it not the reality that parcels are much more—

• 11 Mar 2026 · Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation · Hansard source

  More

  We can certainly now end by asking for the Minister’s plan in terms of—

• 10 Mar 2026 · Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; you delivered the title of this legislation with a dryness that belies its purpose and impact on our economy. The instrument looks tiny—there is hardly anything in it—yet I am going to argue that the Committee should vote against it this afternoon. It may look like a technical mechanism, and the Minister described it as such, but it equips the Fair Work Agency with state-level surveillance tools previously reserved for tackling the serious and organised crime that occurs in the gangmaster sector, and applies those investigatory powers across our entire economy. The creation of the Fair Work Agency, a consolidated super-regulator with enhanced snooping powers, represents a significant overreach of the state into the private operations of British businesses. I hope that not only my Conservative colleagues, but possibly Labour colleagues, and certainly Liberal Democrat colleagues, will vote against this instrument. Currently, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority focuses on high-risk industries, such as agriculture and fishing, where there have been abuses. These changes will allow the Fair Work Agency to snoop everywhere across every workplace in this country. We oppose this statutory instrument as it formalises the transition towards a more litigious and more monitored labour market, which will inevitably stifle start-ups and entrepreneurs and increase the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is not a proportionate or balanced approach to enforcement. We have heard repeatedly from business groups about the cumulative pressure that they are under. The British Retail Consortium has warned that margins in retail are already at breaking point. The Confederation of British Industry speaks of a “chilling” effect on hiring as firms brace for more aggressive enforcement. This instrument will give those powers. The Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that tighter scrutiny, combined with rising employment costs, will force many small firms to reduce hours, cut staff or automate roles entirely—something that we are sadly already seeing in the monthly unemployment statistics. The Minister claimed that the statutory instrument simply ensures continuity following the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. Of course it does as far as that sector is concerned, but in so doing widens that to the entire economy via the Fair Work Agency. It is not a like-for-like replacement. We are seeing a super-regulator with a far wider remit and far stronger powers. Those reasons, alongside our commitment to repealing the vast majority of the job-destroying Employment Rights Act, are why we oppose this statutory instrument today. We urge all other hon. Members to do so, too.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am genuinely shocked and surprised to hear the Liberal Democrat line, because I seem to remember when these investigatory powers—including the right to snoop on communications—were first brought in, the hon. Lady’s party was vehemently against them, yet here we are giving these powers to an agency that will cover every job in this land.

• 10 Mar 2026 · HMRC Approved Mileage Rates · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor will review mileage rates, but with her fuel duty freeze coming to an end in September and the next fiscal event not happening until later in the year, will she commit to review that decision at the end of this parliamentary Session if petrol prices are significantly higher than they are today, for the sake of people’s cost of living?

• 9 Mar 2026 · Middle East: Economic Update · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor has announced today that she is not really making any changes at this point, and that she is calling for a de-escalation. What would she say to my rural constituent who uses heating oil and has a virtually empty tank after a long winter, and is facing a 100% increase in the cost of heating oil? I did not hear anything that would help that particular constituent.

• 25 Feb 2026 · Post Office Green Paper · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and—I do not often say these words—I warmly welcome the decision that he has announced. It seems that the Government have abandoned the risk, posed by their earlier proposals, that they would shutter thousands of local post offices, especially in rural areas. It is a great relief to those in villages and high streets that the Government have listened to the people who engaged with the consultation and the 180,000 who signed our petition, and have heard the calls from the readers of The Mail on Sunday , the Express , The Daily Telegraph and other media outlets, all of whom were outraged by the possibility that the Government would close their much-valued local post offices. By keeping the minimum network size at 11,500 branches, as it was throughout the 14 years we were in government, and by retaining all the geographical access criteria, the Minister has avoided a U-turn. In fact, I would describe what he has done as avoiding a chasm that was opening up in the road in front of him, and avoiding it niftily. The campaign that we led showed how important it is to voice the concerns of the vulnerable, those who are digitally excluded and the small businesses that rely so much on our precious post office network. May I add my thanks for the hard work of every postmaster and postmistress in Britain who keeps that network going? However, it is not all sweetness and light for me today. The post office network, like so many retailers, faces a tax hike—in this case, a hike of £45 million—because of the national insurance increase. Many post offices are also seeing increases of more than 100% in their business rates. The chairman of Post Office Ltd, Nigel Railton, made it clear that it was precisely because of the rising costs resulting from the changes in national insurance and the national living wage that the business needed a fresh start. We cannot claim to support the backbone of the network while breaking its back with tax hikes. The Conservatives have always stood up for our nation’s high streets, and we would introduce a permanent 100% business rate relief for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses whose premises are under the rateable value threshold of £110,000. I have a few questions for the Minister. He announced a requirement for at least 50% of the network to be full-time and full-service. I believe that the number today is 79%. Is that not a downgrade, and what does he expect from the other 29%? Will he confirm that no small rural branches will be consolidated and replaced by city-centre hubs under the guise of this new 50% full-service requirement? Will he please expand on the minimum service that he would expect those smaller branches to deliver? The Minister committed himself to a technology transformation programme to replace the Horizon system within the next five years. I heard about the first two years of funding, but will he give us some details about how the current system will be maintained after those first two years? He mentioned the importance of the post office network, given the number of banks that are closing branches all over the country. Has a new, specific agreement been made with the banks to provide additional support for post office branches in areas where banks are closing? What update can he give the House about the discussions with Fujitsu and its financial contribution towards Post Office redress? The Minister has clearly been forced to listen. He has been forced to do a pre-U-turn on the proposals to reduce the size of our precious post office network. He has been forced to admit that our high streets deserve better than the managed decline that was a risk under those earlier proposals, and this is a victory for all our constituents.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  This is a short Bill, but it involves potentially raising and spending a huge amount of public money, so in the interests of thorough scrutiny, I will speak to Opposition amendments 3 and 4 to clause 2, concerning the use of public finance for exports that may ultimately be re-exported to sanctioned destinations. Our amendments would prevent the Government from providing export finance or insurance where there is reason to believe that goods may be re-exported to Russia, or to any other country subject to UK sanctions. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s financial commitments would be capped at zero. These amendments are not abstract. They respond to a very real problem in our world today that has been highlighted by independent analysis. For example, Sky’s Ed Conway has done extensive reporting showing that although direct exports to Russia have collapsed since sanctions were imposed, goods of UK origin are still reaching Russia through third countries. Exports to states such as Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Uzbekistan have surged by extraordinary amounts—sometimes more than 1,000%. Obviously, these are not normal market movements; they are clear indications of diversion routes being used to circumvent sanctions. These are not just trade flows on a spreadsheet. Sky News has shown that components of UK origin have been found inside Russian military equipment used on the battlefield in Ukraine. Among the items that have been identified in Russian systems are British-made microchips found in Russian drones, UK-origin electronic components inside Russian missiles and dual-use technology that should never have been able to reach Russia under the sanctions regime. Those components were not exported directly from the UK to Russia; they were routed through intermediary countries, often the same countries to which UK exports have suddenly spiked. President Zelensky has publicly raised concerns that UK goods are still making their way into Russia, despite sanctions. That is why we believe that amendments 3 and 4 are necessary. They represent a simple but important safeguard. The UK must ensure that its export finance system does not inadvertently support supply chains that undermine our sanctions regime. In the case of Russia, we must be absolutely certain that no UK-backed goods are being diverted in ways that could support its illegal war against Ukraine. The Minister has spoken about the need to expand UK Export Finance’s capacity and to support small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. We agree that export finance has an important role to play, but it must be deployed responsibly. I am sure that the whole Committee agrees that public money should never be used in ways that conflict with our foreign policy or national security objectives. Our amendments would ensure that the Government exercise due diligence, and that UK Export Finance support is aligned with the UK’s sanctions framework. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a constructive and proportionate proposal, and will want to support it tonight. New clause 2, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, is about the steel industry. We can all agree that steel made in the UK is a strategic foundation sector for the United Kingdom. It supports thousands of skilled jobs and underpins supply chains across manufacturing, construction and defence. We did not oppose the Government’s emergency legislation last April, although we warned that it was rushed, and that the Government did not have a proper plan. Nearly a year on from that emergency legislation, and nearly two years into this Government, we are still waiting for the long-promised steel strategy. The Government have still not been able to agree a deal with the Chinese, despite the Prime Minister’s visit to China. There has been secret meeting after secret meeting between Ministers and Jingye—meetings on which the Government have refused to update Parliament. New clause 2 would simply require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the increased financial assistance limits on the UK steel industry. That report would set out, first, the amount of financial assistance provided each month to UK steel undertakings under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and secondly, the number of full-time equivalent steel jobs that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would have been lost without the increased limit. It is a straightforward accountability measure. If public money is being used to support the steel sector, Parliament and the public deserve to know how much is being spent, why it is necessary and what outcomes it is delivering. The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of steel, and we agree that steel is very important, but without a clear strategy or transparent reporting, it is impossible to judge whether interventions are effective, and whether they represent value for money. How do we know that we are not providing a limitless amount of funding that will crowd out support for other industries, and how can we assess whether it is good value for the taxpayer? New clause 2 would not constrain the Government’s ability to act; it would simply ensure that support is justified, targeted and effective. I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of this additional transparency and accept the new clause. I turn to amendments 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We believe that they are sensible and straightforward. If the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking is likely to be present in the supply chain of a business receiving export-supported goods, obviously the amount of public financial support should be zero. That is surely the only responsible position that this House can take. We are inherently supportive of the need for transparency in supply chains, and will support the amendments. I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Providing transparency on the amounts that are allocated across the whole United Kingdom would seem to be helpful assistance to this House.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I sense that this is an occasion when the House would appreciate it if I were quite brief, but I am grateful to set out our support for the principles of the Bill, and we will not oppose it on Third Reading. The Bill raises the statutory limits in a way that will enable the Government to provide UK industry with additional support, and as His Majesty’s official Opposition we of course want exports to grow, investment to increase and UK firms to thrive. We also believe that public money must be used responsibly, transparently and only where it is genuinely needed, which is why we regret that the Government opposed our amendments this evening. The Government did not accept our amendments, but we will continue to press for greater transparency around these large sums and expenditure of public money. We will press for stronger safeguards and a more coherent industrial strategy, particularly in the steel sector. We want British businesses to succeed, and exporters to have the support they need. We want public money to be used wisely and in the national interest, so while we will not oppose the Bill today, we will continue to scrutinise closely the work of the Department.

• 23 Feb 2026 · Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member makes a very important point, and I know that the House will be eager to hear how enthusiastic the Minister is about all the amendments that have been tabled. I am sure we will shortly hear whether he supports them, or why he does not and why he will urge his colleagues to vote against them this evening.

• 9 Feb 2026 · UK-India Free Trade Agreement · Hansard source

  More

  Soggy poppadoms, buses, a lot of whisky, pottery, bricks, some Galloway cheddar and even an aircraft carrier promoting whisky—those are some of the colourful items mentioned in this debate, which brings to life the impact across all our constituencies of this UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. As such, it is a pleasure to close today’s debate on the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This debate forms part of the process of constitutional reform and governance that Parliament has adopted, whereby we spend 21 sitting days scrutinising agreements such as this one. Despite the fact that other things happening in this building this evening have perhaps distracted the attention of some Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, we have heard that this agreement carries a lot of significance. In particular, I draw attention to the excellent and detailed speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); she highlighted some of the economic incentives this agreement will create when it comes to employing British people versus Indian people to do the same jobs here in the UK. When the Minister responds to the debate, I would be interested to hear him answer those points. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) also raised an important issue about dairy. As I understand it, there are currently no licences for dairy products coming into the UK from India, but that could change in the future, so it would be interesting to know what process the Government would adopt to address that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said in his opening speech, free trade is a key belief among Conservative Members. That is why we pursued trade agreements with the EU, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, as well as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Indeed, it was predecessors in the previous Government who laid the groundwork for the agreement that is before us today. As has rightly been acknowledged in many speeches this evening, this agreement represents a Brexit dividend—the ability to pursue an independent trade policy and to deepen our relationship with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies. However, recognising that achievement does not mean we can ignore the areas in which this agreement falls short. Many of those points were raised by other Members in this debate. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), made the point that the Government risk undermining the benefits of the agreement through their planned 40% cuts in UK export support staff. I invite the Minister to once again reconfirm to the House that those cuts do not include staff in India who will be working on the implementation of this deal. The House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee report highlights the stark disparity between goods and services in this agreement. For a country whose economy is so overwhelmingly services-based, that imbalance matters. The agreement contains no meaningful advance on mutual recognition of qualifications; the deal establishes a 36-month target for reaching a conclusion in that area, but what will happen if no agreement is reached within that 36-month period? As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs highlighted, the sequencing of market access is deeply asymmetric, with many Indian exporters gaining from immediate tariff reductions in this country while UK exporters face phased access and quotas. A striking omission is that of legal services, as the House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee has said: “We view this as a missed opportunity given that legal services comprise a strategically important and growing sector of trade, both in their own terms and in relation to supporting trade in other sectors.” As others have noted, another concerning omission is the absence of any investment protection. The bilaterial investment treaty that was expected to be agreed at the same time as this deal remains undelivered, so can the Minister confirm for UK firms investing in India what his plans and deadline are for implementing an agreement along those lines? When we compare this agreement with the EU-India free trade agreement, the contrast is quite clear; the EU managed to achieve a full investment protection agreement, and its investors will have stronger legal certainty than their UK competitors. On agricultural products, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway was absolutely right to highlight farmers’ concerns about dairy being an issue in the future. I invite the Minister to offer farmers up and down this country the assurances they need about the effect that these provisions might have on them in the future. Finally, we must again address the double contribution convention. We do not know very much detail about it, but we do know that Indian workers posted to the UK will pay no national insurance, and nor will their employers. At a time when British businesses are being asked to shoulder increased national insurance contributions, it is hard to see how Ministers can defend a framework that makes it cheaper to hire from abroad than to employ a worker here at home. Can the Minister explain why the Government have created a two-tier tax system in which British businesses pay more in national insurance while employers hiring workers from India pay nothing at all, and what will he do if he sees British workers losing out in large numbers when this measure comes into force? In conclusion, this deal is a welcome opportunity for British exporters to explore new markets, but one with many missed opportunities in areas where the UK should be leading, not lagging. The task now is to ensure that this agreement becomes a foundation and not a ceiling, so will the Government treat it as a living agreement? Will they return to the negotiating table and deliver the services access, investment protections and sectoral safeguards that British businesses and workers deserve, and what metrics and milestones can we in Parliament use to continue to hold the Government to account as they implement this agreement?

• 29 Jan 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill that we sent to the other place is being scrutinised extensively, and it has been reported this morning that the Parliament Act 1911 may be invoked to force the Bill through to become an Act. Given that it is a private Member’s Bill and was not in the Labour manifesto, can the Leader of the House assure the House that he will not allocate Government time to do that?