Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Chris Bryant

Committee of the whole House
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

I was about to sit down, I am afraid. I had finished.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Chris Bryant

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

Yet again, the Business Secretary is not here for his departmental questions. This time, he is in China, trying to sort out the mess that is British steel strategy. He is burning through £2 million a day of taxpayers’ money keeping the Scunthorpe furnace going, the Chinese owners are asking for £1 billion in compensation, and decommissioning could cost more than £2 billion. His steel strategy is literally melting before its long-awaited publication. Given that when the Prime Minister negotiates, Britain loses, what is a good outcome here?

[Chris Bryant]

Honestly! [Laughter.] Sometimes my heart wants to fall through my body when I hear Conservative Members, who seem to have completely and utterly lost the plot, whether it is enormous, multibillion-pound demands for extra cash they are making or anything else. As I understand it, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) is a chartered accountant, but he does not seem to be able to count, while the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) seems to forget that when she was in government, the previous Prime Minister refused even to visit any of the steel companies in this country. We are determined to get a good outcome.

The hon. Member for West Worcestershire attacks the Business Secretary for going to China, but it is important that we engage with all the big economies in the world. China is our fourth biggest export market, and there are lots of businesses doing trade with China. She is absolutely right that we have to get a good set of outcomes for steel, which is why we will soon produce a steel strategy that will answer all her questions. At a previous session of Business and Trade questions, I said that we wanted to publish soon what we will do with our steel trade tariffs after July.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Madam Deputy Speaker, you can see why the Business Secretary needs to be here to answer questions, because I did not hear an answer to my question. I will try a different topic, which is also really important to our constituents. Sixteen million of them got their Royal Mail parcels and letters late this Christmas—my constituents have made many, many complaints. What has the Minister done to hold Royal Mail to account for its unacceptable level of service?

[Chris Bryant]

I think every single Member has heard similar complaints about service delivery. I am aware of people in my constituency receiving letters for NHS appointments after the appointment itself. The Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), is meeting Royal Mail next week. We really need to ensure we get a better service across the whole country, and that is something we are absolutely focused on achieving.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Chris Bryant

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

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

[Chris Bryant]

No, because I want the hon. Lady to apologise for what the Conservatives did to the British economy and British businesses. Why is it that, following the Brexit that they delivered to this country, only one in 10 British businesses are exporting, whereas three out of 10 French businesses and four out of 10 German businesses export? It is because they gave us a Brexit which, frankly, was not fit for purpose. That is precisely what we should be changing.

Of course there are problems for lots of businesses up and down the country, but I note that every single time we ask the Conservatives, “Where is the money to come from to pay for improving the NHS and putting our public services back on their feet?” they always say it will come from some random budget. [Interruption.] Just as when the shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) was the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for Liz Truss, he wanted us to—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, come on. I did cough twice!

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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

[Chris Bryant]

Mr Speaker, I will find some Strepsils for you later.

Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Chris Bryant

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) on securing this important urgent question. I welcome the Minister to his new role, although I will never be able to rival his literary quotations.

This attack on Jaguar Land Rover is extremely concerning. The impact on that world-leading business, and on its suppliers and workers, has been significant. I hope that the whole House agrees that we must use the full force of the state to crack down on cyber-criminals. I appreciate that the Minister is constrained in what he can say, but when were the Government and the National Cyber Security Centre informed of the attack? What kind of support are the Government and law enforcement agencies able to offer Jaguar Land Rover? How much longer do the Government expect the disruption, which is impacting on the supply of vehicles, to continue?

The attack is just another in a series against British brands and iconic institutions—the Minister says that 40% of our businesses have been affected—including the attack earlier this year on Marks & Spencer. Will he elaborate on what the Government are doing to prevent future attacks? Has he identified who is responsible for the attack? Can he rule out its being a state-sponsored attack? If the group responsible for the attacks on Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer are linked, what progress have law enforcement agencies made in pursuing them?

[Chris Bryant]

I am not sure whether the shadow Minister is in a new role—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

She is not; I will not welcome her to her new role, then—I welcome her to the Dispatch Box none the less. She asked a series of questions, and I will try to answer those that I can as precisely as possible.

First, the shadow Minister asked when the NCSC was notified and engaged. It has been engaged since last Wednesday. We have an undertaking that when people get in touch with the NCSC, the response will be very immediate.

The shadow Minister asked what engagement there is from the Government. The primary engagement is through the NCSC, which is fully engaged and devoted to the work. It is also in the public domain that the Information Commissioner’s Office was notified. I should clarify that that was not because JLR was certain that there had been a data breach, but it wanted to ensure that it had dotted every i and crossed every t, which is why it notified the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The shadow Minister asked about a timeline for getting this resolved. I wish that I could provide one, but I cannot. I think she will understand why: this is a very live situation that has been ongoing for a week. I note the points that JLR has been making. As I say, there will be an invitation for all local MPs—my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg) should already have had one—for a Q&A session on Friday morning, when JLR hopes that it will be able to provide more information.

The shadow Minister asked what else we are doing. This summer, the Home Office undertook a consultation on our policy on ransomware. I am not saying that that relates specifically to this case—we do not know that yet and I am not coming to any foregone conclusions—but that is one of the things that we must address, and it was heartening to see resolute support from the vast majority of companies in the UK for our ransomware policy. Maybe we will come to that later.

The hon. Lady asked whether I can say who is responsible. I am afraid that I cannot. I note what is in the public domain, but I have no idea whether that is accurate and I do not want to impede the investigation. She asked whether the attack was state sponsored. Again, I do not want to jump to conclusions, and I can neither confirm nor deny anything. She also asked whether the case is linked with that of M&S. Again, I cannot answer that as fulsomely as I would wish, simply because I do not know, and I do not think anybody has come to any secure decisions on that. In one sense, all cyber-attacks are linked, in that it is the same problem, which is relatively new. The previous Government were seeking to tackle it, and we are seeking to tackle it in broadly the same way. Some of the techniques used are remarkably old-fashioned, such as ringing up helplines, which are designed to be helpful. That is exactly the same as when News of the World was ringing up mobile companies and trying to get PINs to hack other people’s phones. This is an old technique. The new bit is that sometimes people use AI-generated voices, which are remarkably accurate and can lead to further problems. I am not saying that that is what happened in this case, but some of the patterns are across the whole sector.