Post Office Green Paper

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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.

[Blair McDougall]

I think that if I am praised much more from the Opposition Benches, I will be drummed out of the Brownies.

I welcome the hon. Lady’s response to my statement. I believe that there is consensus across the House on the important role that post offices play in our communities, and particularly in our high streets and remote villages. I join the hon. Lady in welcoming the campaigning of Mail and Express readers, who have voiced very clearly the importance of post offices to their communities. In my capacity as both postal services Minister and small business Minister, I also echo her words about the essential function of post offices in providing a place for small businesses to drop off their takings.

The hon. Lady referred to the costs faced by the Post Office, which is a point well taken. The Government are putting £483 million into the transformation of the Post Office to ensure that it has a financially sustainable future as a business on our high streets and in our villages. She asked specifically about support for the IT transformation. Of the more than £500 million that the Government have committed to transformation, including the money already spent before the Green Paper, £136 million is committed to technology and to replacing the Horizon system, which is a major priority for us. However, that transformation investment—beyond what we are putting into IT—will also enable the Post Office to do new things. The debate about the Post Office often concentrates on the idea of its being the last place to do things, but, having talked to the management of Post Office Ltd, I am greatly encouraged by their wish for it to be the first place that people think of in connection with cash and other high street services.

The hon. Lady asked about the additional 50% trigger, and, entirely fairly, raised the question of what it would mean for rural areas. The criteria for access to the full set of services that a branch provides are being maintained, so those protections are still there. This is very much an additional protection, rather than an alternative to the protections that were already there for rural post offices. For example, “drop and collect branches” that do not offer the full service are included in the 11,500 criterion, but are not included in the access criteria. This is about protecting access to as full a range of services as possible.

Finally, let me respond to the hon. Lady’s question about Fujitsu. When I met Fujitsu representatives shortly before the end of last year, I made very clear our belief that—as they have said themselves—they have a moral responsibility to contribute substantially to the costs of redress. They have said that they wish to wait until Sir Wyn’s inquiry before making a decision on that, but we will continue to have those discussions.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

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.

[Jim Shannon]

May I commend the shadow Minister for what she has said? The Minister referred to discussions with the regional Administrations. UK Export Finance’s industrial support has helped a number of companies in Northern Ireland, including Wrightbus, with guarantees for international sales, to the tune of hundreds of millions of pounds. We in Northern Ireland are of the opinion that we still adhere to EU rules. Does the shadow Minister agree that this needs to be clarified, and that we need the transparency to which she has referred, so that the EU cannot continue to dictate terms to this nation through the back door of Northern Ireland? Does she agree that that is very important, and that the Minister and Government must respond to that?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Madam Chair. I welcome the Bill and, more broadly, the Labour Government’s focus on our modern industrial strategy. In the Black Country, where manufacturing is our tradition, businesses are following this agenda very closely. I am pleased to see that the Bill will result in increased headroom for both industrial financial assistance and UK Export Finance.

However, I have three questions for the Minister on practical points on SMEs’ access to finance in this Bill. First, on access to trade finance for SMEs, I speak to firms in Halesowen and Cradley Heath that can win export work on quality and reputation, but that lose contracts because they cannot bridge the working capital gap between buying inputs and getting paid. A forge may secure a promising overseas order, only to be asked by its bank for levels of security that are simply unrealistic for a business of that size. By the time finance is arranged, the customer may have gone elsewhere. Although I welcome the increased capacity in clause 2, I would like a reassurance from the Minister that UK Export Finance will translate the headroom into products that genuinely work for SMEs in a way that is faster, simpler and more proportionate to their requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

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?

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

Sale of Fireworks

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. I start by offering my gratitude to Robert and Helen, the two petitioners who—forgive the phrase—lit the fuse for these petitions to get the number of signatures they did, and enabled this debate today. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), who eloquently set out the reasons why we need to have this debate and the issues involved, which have also been ably raised by many other representatives in this room.

This is not the first time that the House has discussed whether additional restrictions on the use of fireworks are necessary, but with more than 370,000 signatures on the two petitions, including 632 from West Worcestershire, it is clear that the public want a system that better protects people, animals and communities from the misuse of fireworks.

We have heard from almost everyone who has spoken that fireworks bring joy, and I shout out the many responsible groups up and down this country that are committed to the safe display and enjoyment of fireworks. They often raise money for good local causes. However, as we have heard so often in this debate, we cannot ignore the real problems—the dangerous misuse, the antisocial behaviour and the distress that is caused to pets, livestock, wildlife and many vulnerable people. I welcome the Government’s engagement with stakeholders, and their campaign encouraging responsible use and low-decibel displays.

We have heard in all the contributions today that we are a nation of animal lovers. We are also a nation that wants to continue to enjoy firework displays, but we also heard loud and clear that no action is not the answer here. The Government will need to listen to all the points that have been made.

We have heard from across the land—from South West Hertfordshire, Dewsbury and Batley, Glastonbury and Somerton, Taunton and Wellington, Morecambe and Lunesdale, Luton North, Scarborough and Whitby, Broxtowe, North West Leicestershire, Edinburgh South West, Warrington South, Bathgate and Linlithgow, Heywood and Middleton North, Shipley, Ellesmere Port and Bromborough, Richmond Park, Glasgow West, Hartlepool, Aylesbury, Stourbridge, Rochdale, Newport West and Islwyn, Bournemouth East, Cannock Chase, Leeds South West and Morley and York Central. Every Member here this afternoon represented so well the concerns expressed to them by those in their constituency who have written to them.

We recognise that fireworks are already heavily regulated, but many of the contributions highlighted gaps in enforcement, weak penalties for illegal sales, problems with stockpiling, and the devastating consequences both for property and in terms of burns when things go wrong. The age limits on purchases, which many believe are no longer appropriate, have been shown to be not properly enforced.

There is a clear need for a proper, evidence-led review of the regulations. If reforms are proportionate and grounded in that evidence, I suspect that they will attract unanimous support from across the House. From the point of view of my party, and of many Members in this debate, although a ban on fireworks should not be a first resort, it should not be taken off the table as a last resort.

Through the petitions, the public have spoken loudly. Through their representatives in Parliament, people have spoken loudly. Parliament has raised these issues repeatedly, and communities want action. Clearly, the existing regulations are not doing what society wants them to do. I am keen to hear about how the Minister plans to respond.

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 15th December 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am delighted to respond on behalf of the Conservatives, who have always championed British businesses. We believe very much in the ingenuity of our entrepreneurs, the skill of our engineers and the global reputation of our exporters. The Bill amends Acts dating from 1982 and 1991, and we believe that, time and again, our companies have shown that, with the right conditions, they can compete and win on the world stage. Updating those Acts will ensure that the Government have the tools to support our industries and exporters.

We should take pride in the extraordinary success of British exporters. The latest UK Export Finance annual report shows the scale of their achievements. Rolls-Royce and Airbus have together secured guarantees worth £165 million for supplying Ethiopian Airlines, £102 million for Avolon in Ireland and £66 million for Emirates in Dubai. That gives the House a flavour of the kind of deals supported through this finance. Defence exports remain significant too, with BAE Systems and MBDA receiving over £120 million per major contract, including support for the very important air defence systems in Poland. These figures demonstrate the global demand for British engineering, aerospace and defence expertise.

However, as the Minister pointed out in his opening remarks, beyond the headline numbers, 80% of firms supported by UK Export Finance are small and medium-sized businesses, which often supply the more global contracts. With their innovation and resilience, they are the backbone of our export economy, and they also deserve support and visibility.

The UK has a leading export and finance sector, and it can usually cover the commercial risks involved in exports, so UK export finance should be deployed only when no private sector solution is available. Generally, we are in favour of reducing subsidies, rather than increasing them, so we do not support additional taxpayer funding for the industrial strategy until the Government get the fundamentals of energy prices, tax and regulation right. Without tackling those basics, no amount of subsidy will ever deliver the competitiveness that our businesses need.

I have a few questions for the Minister. Can he assure the House that UK Export Finance will continue to be deployed only where no private sector funding can be secured? If this Bill is to meet its aims, export assistance must be spread across the regions. We saw from the autumn “Santander Trade Barometer” that three quarters of businesses that want targeted export support are beyond our capital. Optimism is high in sectors such as technology and media, but firms in Scotland and energy, construction and engineering companies are much more cautious. So there are regional disparities in economic outlook that the Government must address.

UK Export Finance is there to guarantee exports when the private sector cannot, and we would expect it to focus on countries where credit risks are higher. What new markets is the funding likely to be used for, and will some of the additional capacity be reserved for small and medium-sized businesses? Can the Minister reassure the House that none of this finance would ever be used to support exports to countries that could allow such goods to get around the sanctions on Russia, and that they are not used to export to any country that would wish us harm? Can he also reassure the House that, as the Foreign Office undergoes a restructuring, our fine network of embassies and high commissions are made aware of this so that we make the most of this export finance opportunity and have the right teams in place to support UK plc? Those are my opening questions for the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I would like to pick up on some of the points made in today’s interesting debate and to reiterate that, as Conservatives, we have always stood shoulder to shoulder with Britain’s businesses and great exporters. In my opening remarks, I asked some questions of the Minister, and I look forward to hearing his replies. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) and the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) for all the work they are doing as trade envoys to the west and south of Africa. I remember when I was Africa Minister thinking how enormous the potential is for us to do more business with these nations, so it is interesting to hear how that work is moving forward.

A number of Members highlighted the excellent export work done by small and medium-sized businesses, and we heard some excellent examples from the north-east in particular. We also heard the case made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) for the importance of small and medium-sized businesses. I reiterate to the Minister, so that he is aware, the importance for the House of this money not just getting swallowed up by some of the larger household names, such as Rolls-Royce, Airbus and BAE Systems, but it giving that fighting chance to some of the smaller exporters.

I want to pick up on the point that the hon. Member for Maidenhead made about the customs union. The House will recognise how much work was put in to getting landmark trade agreements with 70 countries that give UK exporters preferential access to markets worth trillions of pounds. It is work that the Minister continues energetically around the world, and he will no doubt in his closing remarks point to the India and US free trade deals, which are important pieces of work that he has been involved in. Those free trade agreements that the UK has managed to negotiate would not be possible if we were in the European Union customs union. I challenge the hon. Member to point to where the research is on this fabled £25 billion.

In conclusion, the words of Ronald Reagan keep popping into my head during debates in this Parliament. He famously said:

“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”

I hope to hear from the Minister at the Dispatch Box how he will ensure that this additional money is used in the way that I said in my opening remarks, where it crowds in private sector investment and is there as a last resort to get a deal over the line, rather than crowding out private sector funding that would have been there were it not for the Government funds. Without further ado, having got my favourite Reagan quote about this Government on the record, I can assure the House that we will not be opposing the Bill.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With the leave of the House, I call the Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 11th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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.

Critical Minerals Strategy

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I will definitely be paying close attention. I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Critical minerals are vital to our national security. In submarines, missiles, jet fighters and radar, we need critical minerals for our national defence. Critical minerals in electric vehicles and wind turbines are also vital for clean energy generation.

It is striking, however, that the Government’s critical minerals strategy does not mention China once. That is despite that fact that China, which has built an almost global monopoly on processing, recently imposed export licence requirements on seven rare earth elements: samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium. Can the Minister say whether the Department has made any assessment of China’s dominance in the critical minerals market and whether the Government consider it a threat?

The UK “Critical Minerals Strategy” document seems to have been written in a bit of a rush. It is sloppy, riddled with spelling mistakes and has inconsistent statistics and errors in geography. Why should industry trust a Government who cannot even proofread? For instance, according to the Cobalt Institute, current global demand is 200,000 tonnes and is set to grow by 14% a year, meaning that by 2030, the global demand for cobalt is forecast to be 438,000 tonnes. In the Government’s document, however, UK domestic demand will be 636,000 tonnes in 2030. Could the Minister kindly proofread the document and place a corrected version of the whole strategy in the Library?

The strategy recognises the impact that high energy prices have had on the critical minerals industry, but under Labour, our energy bills are up. Why do the Government not just adopt our cheap power plan to cut electricity bills by 20%? Oil and gas are key inputs in the production of critical minerals. What impact does the Minister believe this Government’s policy of closing down the North sea will have on domestic critical minerals production?

Under Labour, foreign direct investment into this country has fallen to an all-time low. How do the Government expect to build a critical minerals industry if no one is investing? Can the Minister therefore today rule out any tax rises heading towards this industry on Wednesday? The national insurance jobs tax and the unemployment Bill are set to cost the critical minerals industry £50 million, which is exactly the same figure as the funding pledged by the Government today—the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the 330-page job-killing Employment Rights Bill are costing businesses £1,000 per worker, and there are a total of 50,000 people employed in the critical minerals industry. Is this a recognition from the Minister that the Government’s tax rises are crippling British industry?

In summary, the first duty of any Government is to keep our country safe. Refreshing the critical minerals strategy is an essential part of that mission. Given the scale of global competition and the risks of supply chain disruption, does the Minister agree that there is still a great deal of work to do to ensure that Britain is secure in the critical minerals we need for our future?

[Chris McDonald]

I start by saying that if there are indeed any spelling or factual errors in the document, I offer my apologies to the House; that is clearly unacceptable, and I will ensure that any corrections are made and that a new copy is laid before the House. I thank the hon. Lady for bringing those matters to my attention.

On the substantive issues raised by the shadow spokesperson, the point about China is clearly very important. The Government are well aware of China’s dominance of critical minerals supply chains. In some areas—particularly in processing, as she will be aware—China controls 70% to 90% of the market. Our critical minerals strategy is designed precisely to provide greater diversity of supply, both at home, through primary and secondary extraction where we have the materials to do that, and through our G7, G20, NATO partners and others, as I mentioned in my statement. A critical point to note is that the supply of secondary raw materials is a natural resource that the UK has. We currently offer those resources for processing overseas, which are then returned to the UK at considerable cost. A focus of this strategy is ensuring that we have those resources in the UK.

The shadow spokesperson mentions electricity bills. I think that my statement is best read in conjunction with the written statement on the British industrial competitiveness scheme, which aims to reduce electricity bills for industry by 25% compared with current levels—a reduction of £40 per MWh. The British industrial competitiveness scheme and the critical minerals strategy are both part of this Government’s relentless focus on growth and our success in attracting inward investment.

As to the points about taxation, I am afraid that the hon. Lady will have to wait 48 hours for the Budget.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I welcome the all-new ministerial team to their positions. They have inherited a crisis, because business confidence has plunged to a record low since the Chancellor’s Halloween budget a year ago today. Will the Business Secretary assure this House that he will find and demonstrate his backbone, stand up to the Chancellor, and encourage business investment by following Conservative plans to reduce welfare spending so that we can scrap the family business tax and cut small business rates?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I associate myself with the remarks about British Beauty Week. In addition to beauty businesses, one of the key ingredients for growth on our high streets is having a post office in the mix. As Post Office Minister, he has inherited a network of 11,500 post offices across the country and a consultation on the size of that network. Can he echo what his predecessor said at the Dispatch Box, and commit to supporting our high streets by maintaining the scale of the post office network throughout this Parliament?

[Blair McDougall]

I thank the shadow Minister for her welcome. She is absolutely right about the anchoring effect of post offices on high streets all over the country. We know not just that, as we mentioned in the Green Paper, if people go to their post office they are likely to spend money in local shops, but that post offices are essential—as I found out during a visit to one the day before yesterday—in giving small businesses somewhere to take their takings. The Green Paper set out the options for maintenance of the post office network, and it is certainly our intention to maintain it.

Employment Rights: Impact on Businesses

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 16th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) on securing the debate. I welcome the Minister to her position; I believe that this is her first opportunity to contribute from the Dispatch Box. I heartily congratulate her on her achievement.

We have had an interesting debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne set out clearly some of the issues with the Employment Rights Bill from his constituents’ perspective. I then heard the completely opposite view from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), who inexplicably has not been readmitted into the bosom of the Labour party. I hope her readmission is imminent, because she put the governing party lines across very clearly.

The clue is in the name of the debate: we have to focus on employment. Today’s labour market data was sobering and should serve as a wake-up call to the Labour Government. Payroll employment has fallen by 142,000—more people than any one of our constituencies contains—and has declined in every quarter. It is not a blip. Sadly, it is a trend, and it is happening on this Government’s watch because of measures such as the Employment Rights Bill and the jobs tax. Vacancies are also falling. My first question to the Minister is how she reconciles that with Labour’s mission to deliver economic growth.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Does the hon. Gentleman wish to deny the employment facts from the Office for National Statistics?

[Andy McDonald]

I wish to intervene, not to have the shadow Minister shape the terms of my intervention. She is talking about the impact of the Employment Rights Bill. How can that be? Has it yet been enacted?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates the rest of my contribution. Has the hon. Gentleman read the impact assessment that the Labour Government have put out for the Bill? It estimates that the cost on businesses will be £5 billion. I ask him how he thinks that will end up. It will not end with a hiring spree, I can assure him.

Against the background of rising unemployment, what is the Government’s answer? It is more regulation, more costs and more pressure on employers, as we saw last night when we debated the Employment Rights Bill. It would be more apt to call it the unemployment rights Bill. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of today’s rising unemployment and slowing job creation on those who really need an employer to give them their first chance, particularly young and entry-level workers?

If the Government are serious about making work pay, they must stop making it harder for businesses to hire, invest and grow. The British people deserve better than a shrinking jobs market and a Government who have clearly let the trade unions take the wheel. Yesterday, the Government chose to vote down all the amendments that had been agreed in the other place. They voted to reject the requirement to consult small businesses about the impact of the Bill. They voted against reinstating the requirement for the trade unions to choose to opt into the political fund. The Bill changes it to an opt-out. It is a vote for endless trade union payments. I hope that the Minister will declare her interest in relation to contributions from the unions to her election campaign.

Yesterday, the Government voted against the reinstatement of a 50% trade union member threshold for voting for industrial action. I am afraid that that is a vote for more strikes. How can the public trust that the Employment Rights Bill serves the national interest when over 200 Labour MPs have taken millions from the unions, and when the Bill appears to prioritise union access and strike powers over the much-desired economic growth?

As I have mentioned, the Government’s own impact assessment says that there will be a £5 billion cost to business. The Prime Minister’s new economic adviser, Minouche Shafik, has admitted that Labour’s Employment Rights Bill will lead to fewer jobs. We need not listen just to her. The National Farmers Union has warned that the Bill ignores the seasonal nature of agricultural work. The UK Cinema Association has said that it is “no exaggeration to say” that this Bill will bring the viability of some operators into question. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has highlighted the risk to small businesses: it is all but guaranteed, it says, that small businesses will adopt more risk-averse recruitment practices in response, if they are confident about taking on any new talent at all.

My heart goes out—my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne made this point passionately—to all those people who need an employer to take a chance on them. I am thinking of the people who are perhaps a little riskier to take into an organisation and who really need someone to give them that chance—possibly their first chance. One well-known employer is exceptional in that regard: the large employer Mitie. It warns of higher costs and tribunal pressures, and that the right in relation to unfair dismissal will cripple smaller organisations. It adds that it is crucial that the Government permit some flexibility for employers that need to adapt to fluctuating demand.

These are not fringe concerns. These are the voices of employers across agriculture, culture, services and finance, who are united in their message that this employment rights legislation will make it harder to hire, harder for the country to grow and harder to serve the public. The Labour Government’s refusal to listen to these voices is not just reckless; it is simply ideological. I think we heard some of that in this afternoon’s debate.

The Bill is not about improving rights. It is about empowering the paymasters, the unions, and about punishing enterprise. What I can say to the country is that under Conservative leadership, we will stand with business, grow jobs and deliver growth in the overall economy, because that is the only way to build a stronger, fairer economy that gives everyone an opportunity.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)]

It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Murrison, in what I am proud to say is my first time responding for the Department in a Westminster Hall debate. I thank the shadow Minister and all other Members for their kind words and welcome. I am grateful for all the thoughtful and considered contributions from both sides of the Chamber.

Business impact rightly remains a recurring theme in discussions on the Employment Rights Bill. I pay tribute to the SMEs and businesses that all Members have mentioned today, and particularly to those in my constituency that I have had the pleasure to meet over the past year, as their Member of Parliament. I am delighted to have the opportunity to reiterate this Bill’s positive impact on employers, workers and the wider economy.

I also pay tribute to the work done by those before us, not least that of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders)—

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Dr Murrison. I appreciate that this is the Minister’s first time responding to a debate in Westminster Hall. My point of order is simply that she may wish to consider putting her entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on the record.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (in the Chair)]

Minister?