Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This has been a genuinely important, interesting and lively debate on product regulation and metrology. It has also been a debate about the balance of power between the Executive and us here in Parliament. The UK product safety and metrology framework is derived from European Union law and it developed while the UK was a member of the EU, when we did not have the opportunity here to address product safety in our changing world as rapidly as we do now.

Following our departure from the European Union, the UK established its independent regulatory system, which must be flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and address changes in consumer purchasing behaviours. As the Bill’s explanatory notes state, its purpose is to ensure that the UK is better equipped to tackle modern safety challenges, safeguard consumers, seize opportunities for economic growth and so on.

The Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and I want to emphasise that it was not. I want to offer the Minister the chance to correct the record in his closing remarks, in case the House has been inadvertently misled.

Upon leaving the European Union, the UK created the UK conformity assessed marking, known as the UKCA, to replace the conformité Européenne marking, known as the CE. These markings are used by manufacturers to demonstrate product conformity. The UK still recognises CE markings; however, the EU does not recognise the UKCA. Will the Minister confirm that discussions are happening with the EU, including the resetting of discussions on trade, to ensure that UKCA markings and any products regulated here in the UK are mutually recognised?

Turning to the points raised in today’s excellent debate, we heard fantastic speeches from my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). We also heard powerful voices from Northern Ireland on the adjacent Benches, from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We also heard the expertise that the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) brings from his background in the toy industry.

From the Labour Benches, we heard impassioned speeches often about product safety, including from the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). She described us as sinners repenting, which I hasten to surmise might mean that she is a repenter beginning to sin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is a passionate advocate for ceramics from his constituency. We had the pleasure of hearing a masterclass from Parliament’s first metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), on the ancient history of metrology; it was a very enjoyable speech. We heard speeches from the hon. Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley).

Before embarking on the reason why we will oppose the Bill tonight, I welcome the Government’s U-turn in the other place on their plans to rule over the size of the great British pint or, as the hon. Member for Erewash would describe it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Although they were initially resistant, Ministers eventually recognised that our great British pint should remain untouched. I am afraid that that is all I can welcome about this piece of legislation, because the Opposition are deeply concerned with the Government’s overreach and excessive reliance on delegated powers within the Bill.

Henry VIII would be absolutely delighted by this piece of legislation. Labour Members claim that it will simplify our regulatory framework, yet all we see is the undermining of our sovereignty and the powers of Parliament. This 15-page Bill would give the Secretary of State unchecked powers to amend product safety regulations, change the definition of an online marketplace and introduce new penalties, inspection powers and charges on businesses, driving up the already soaring costs of doing business in the UK. As many hon. Friends have said, it would grant the Government sweeping powers to make us a passive recipient of laws made in Brussels. International trade and co-operation are welcome, but this is not what more than 17 million people voted for in 2016, when we took back control—it is a betrayal of Brexit.

The Bill is not purely technical; part of its purpose is to allow the dynamic alignment of goods with EU single market laws, giving the EU the power to rule on standards for manufactured goods produced in the United Kingdom. This EU Trojan horse Bill could see us readopting a regulatory regime over which we have no influence, input or sanction, leaving us as rule takers, not rule makers.

It is fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes through delegated legislation.

“We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support. Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.”––[Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

These are not my words but those of the Secretary of State.

Tomorrow, the United States could impose tariffs on us. It is paramount that we secure a mutually beneficial UK-US trade deal as soon as possible, but I cannot see how the Bill, which drags us closer to the European Union, would give the United States any incentive to work with us.

In closing, let me ask the Minister a few questions. Can he confirm what the limits will be on ministerial powers? What oversight will Parliament have of regulatory changes made under the Bill? What consultation will occur with the real-world businesses that are affected by the change? Will he confirm that no regulations made under the Bill will prevent or impede UK businesses from trading internationally?

The Bill undermines Parliament and risks tying British businesses to EU red tape on which we have no say. We cannot allow these excessive powers to create further uncertainty among British businesses of all sizes, which already face the soaring costs of doing business because of the Chancellor’s tax grab. The Bill is a parliamentary sovereignty sell-out. We got Brexit done; let us keep it that way. The Bill gives away control, and that is why I call on the House to back our amendment and stop it.

Terms and Conditions of Employment

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 25th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I rise to say that we will not oppose the increases to the national minimum wage or the national living wage—the national living wage being something that my party introduced to make work pay. We celebrate the fact that progress was made in ending low pay, and the Minister cited that from the Dispatch Box this evening. But it is also our duty, as His Majesty’s official Opposition, to scrutinise the Government on all matters, so I have several questions for the Minister this evening.

In particular, I want to highlight the fact that the work that the Low Pay Commission has done—for which I also thank it—was done before the Hallowe’en Budget of broken promises last October. After the increases to the national living and minimum wages in the Budget—but also measures such as the increase to national insurance—the Unison assistant general secretary Jon Richards welcomed the increase to the pay measures but said that

“as it stands, the new legal minimum is more than the current lowest hourly rate in the NHS, universities and some other public services. This will give employers multiple headaches.”

So my first question is: what will the Government do to address the pay implications of this rise on those working in the public sector in such important roles?

The second question relates to the national minimum wage for workers above school leaving age but not yet 18 going up by nearly 18%. On 1 April this year, the national insurance threshold for employers drops to £5,000 per year. This means that an employer will have to start paying national insurance on any young person if they work for 13 or more hours a week. Because of this, businesses have warned that they are cutting back on hiring younger workers or reducing the hours that they give to them. That risk, of course, is faced not solely by those in work, but by those seeking to get into work. What assessment has the Minister made since the Hallowe’en Budget of the impact of the increase on young people’s ability to access jobs? What will the Government do to ensure that young people or those looking for a job will not be penalised by this increase?

The increase will significantly affect small and medium-sized enterprises. As usual, it looks like they will bear the brunt of the increased labour costs. It looks that way not just to us; according to the Government’s own impact assessment, SMEs will face 56% of the cost of the increase despite representing only 37% of the share of employment. That is another cost increase on smaller businesses, which already have to pay for this Government’s national insurance jobs tax, for the hike in business rates, and for the impact of the measures from the Employment Rights Bill. In particular, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector are most likely to pay the minimum wage.

I remind the House that the Government’s own impact assessment states that they expect the policies covered within the Bill to impose a direct cost on businesses of up to £5 billion a year. It also notes that, on average, those costs will be greater for those smaller businesses and microbusinesses. Will the Minister provide the House with a figure for the total cost increase of employing someone full time on the previous national living wage because of the other changes introduced by his Government?

The Government have created a challenging business environment. They recognised that themselves when they stated in their impact assessment that

“there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for SMEs”.

Around 42.7% and 36.8% of microbusinesses and small businesses respectively reported having less than three months of cash reserves in September 2024. We support the principle of fair pay for workers and making work pay. However, having listened to businesses, we are concerned that the rises could impact workers and businesses in industries already facing financial challenges through a range of unintended consequences.

It is easy for those in Whitehall to squiggle their pen, but all those measures combined have real-life consequences for businesses across the country. The national insurance jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill are piling additional costs on to businesses and hammering the private sector, which we rely on to grow the economy.

In summary, have the Government considered the full impact of all these increases on businesses that are happening at the same time? I fear that tomorrow’s emergency Budget will be another wakeup call.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Gareth Thomas]

I say gently to the hon. Lady that the difficult decisions that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor had to take in the Budget were, interestingly, particularly well explained by her former colleague Kwasi Kwarteng, who made it clear that he thought they had to be taken because of the mistakes that he and the Conservative party had made when they were in government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Gareth Thomas]

The hon. Lady is right to reference the discussions that my right hon. Friend had with the chief executive officer of Fujitsu. That company has agreed to begin talks about its contribution to the costs of compensation. She will understand that we also need to wait for Sir Wyn Williams’ inquiry to conclude, and for his recommendations regarding compensation from Fujitsu to be heard and understood. I am sure she will also understand that I am not going to give a running commentary on the discussions with Fujitsu, but I welcome the fact that it has agreed to begin talks.

Department for Business and Trade

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I shall try to make my speech short and snappy, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on securing this afternoon’s debate, which has allowed many Members to articulate the concerns that they are hearing from businesses in their constituencies and enabled them to talk about the great importance of growth.

Growth is essential. We talk about the importance of defence and of increasing spending on it from 2.5% to 2.7% and then up to 3%, but of course we want the economy to grow at the same time. In the estimates before us today, the Secretary of State has laid out his ambitious goals for his Department. First, on the aim of delivering a comprehensive industrial strategy, I simply ask, eight months in, when will businesses see that. Secondly, on a plan to provide small businesses with tools and support, I simply ask, eight months in, when will small businesses see that. Thirdly, on a trade strategy that recognises that high-quality trade deals are necessary to give businesses access to international markets to boost jobs and deliver economic growth here, I simply ask when businesses will see a change on that front. Fourthly, on delivering sweeping changes to employment law, I have to say that, sadly, businesses have seen that. They have seen that the sweeping changes outlined in the Employment Rights Bill, which we will be scrutinising next week, will take us back to 1970s-style employment laws, adding £1 billion in costs just to the Government’s cost base alone. I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether at the end of the debate you might share a few words on whether it would have been appropriate for those hon. Members who receive contributions from unions to have declared them in the debate. We have had an excellent debate, but I did not hear any declarations of interest.

I heard excellent contributions from those on the Conservative Benches—from my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). They outlined and summarised the challenges that businesses face up and down the country. In contributions from the hon. Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Marton), for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), we heard a range of concerns felt by real businesses that create the wealth of this country.

I turn to trade. I note that, in the supplementary estimates, the Department marks an increase under sub-head A4, the account that includes first and foremost the trade policy implementation and negotiations group. The note explains that the increase is owing to

“An international reorganisation within DBT which has brought our International Strategy and Development teams into this group from Strategy and Investment.”

Strategy and investment, meanwhile, have been cut by almost the same amount that this account has been increased by. I wonder whether there is a little bit of smoke and mirrors going on when it comes to the amount dedicated to increasing trade.

Increasing trade is one of the key routes to economic growth. Businesses in our constituencies would really benefit from further opening up of free trade. I note the welcome news that the Prime Minister talked to the President of America about a free trade agreement last week, but as of the end of January, no official or Minister from the Department had made any attempt to engage with the US Administration on trade. The Department has chosen to abandon the position of chief trade negotiator, which is either deliberate self-harm or wilful incompetence.

There was almost no public recognition by the Department or its Ministers of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which does indeed trip off the tongue. There is growing evidence that instead of investing in opportunities for trade with the US, Canada and the fast-growing markets of Asia, the Government are reverting to their ideological safeguard, relying on Brussels, and developing a Trojan horse strategy to realign the UK with the European Union.

Is the Department actually being given the tools that it needs to deliver on trade deals? If the Government claim to have set their sights higher, should not the resources reflect that? I worry that we are seeing a classic example of big words, big ambitions and Ministers just saying the word “growth”, but nothing taking place that actually delivers growth. It is eight months to the day since those on the Labour Benches entered Government. How many businesses in this country can say that things have got better for them in the last eight months? How many are more confident? How many can say that they expect the trade situation facing the United Kingdom to improve?

Groceries Code Adjudicator

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe (David Chadwick) on securing the debate. It will perhaps come as news to him that I, too, was one of the people who voted for the Groceries Code Adjudicator. I was a Member during the coalition Government and it was put on the statute book back in 2013 because our farmers wanted an adjudicator to tackle the imbalance between small producers of food and big supermarket buyers. We will always back our farmers for fairness and equity for food producers.

The adjudicator regulates relationships between the UK’s largest grocery retailers and their direct suppliers, and it ensures that excessive risks and unexpected costs are not unfairly transferred. It brings fairer prices to the farming community and provides a guardrail for those smaller food producers who do not have a voice in the complicated food production market. It is funded by a pragmatic levy on designated retailers, with a UK annual turnover of more than £1 billion. There are currently 14 retailers covered by the code.

The results from the annual survey in 2024 show that the adjudicator is making a difference. More than 3,000 responses to that survey show that the number of suppliers experiencing a code issue has fallen to 33% and that the number of suppliers highlighting a retailer’s response to a cost price increase as an issue almost halved, falling from 28% in 2023 to just 16%. For the first time, the Co-op came top of the 14 retailers for overall code compliance, at 98%. The Co-op and Lidl both experienced a 2% improvement, which was the biggest percentage improvement across the 14 retailers.

The adjudicator is there to protect suppliers, such as our precious farmers. However, we are concerned that the Government’s recent actions have done anything but protect our farmers. Food retailers and suppliers of all sizes are under huge pressure because of Labour’s tax on jobs, its increasing red tape around jobs, food inflation and job losses in supermarkets. Labour’s family farm tax is yet another blow. It is a death tax on important family businesses. With no farmers in the UK, there would be no UK-grown food. Under Labour, the family farm will wither and die unless the Chancellor can be persuaded to change her mind.

Food producers are at the heart of our communities and the Government should be doing everything they can to support them, not harm them, and to ensure food security in this country. The attack on our farmers is shocking in every way. The Labour MPs who voted for an inheritance tax on family farms simply do not understand where their food comes from. Labour is harming our farms, not prioritising our rural areas. It simply does not understand.

The Conservatives believe that good policy needs to be created in collaboration with the farming industry, rather than in isolation. We have always kept the Groceries Code Adjudicator under review since its inception and we urge the Government to continue to do so.

[Derek Twigg (in the Chair)]

If the Minister can leave a bit of time at the end for David Chadwick to wind up, that would be great.

Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you for calling me to speak, Ms Vaz.

This debate on the petition has highlighted an unimaginably difficult situation when one’s child is seriously ill. In a series of important speeches and interventions, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), and the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) have highlighted specific examples of the very difficult situation that arises when one’s child is sick, not only in one’s own family, but with one’s employment.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford highlighted, his constituent Christina Harris has campaigned on behalf of this cause after experiencing a very difficult situation when her daughter Skye fell ill. The reality of this situation has really hit home across the country.

One is immediately prompted to think, “What employer would not be incredibly supportive of an employee who finds themselves in this hopefully rare situation?” However, as we have heard in today’s debate, not every employer is necessarily supportive, there is inconsistent support, and many employers do not know the law in this area. For the benefit of the record, I will set out the statutory support that parents currently receive.

Through the Maternity and Parental Leave etc. Regulations 1999, after one year’s qualifying service, all employees are given the right to take unpaid parental leave. This entitlement is for up to 18 weeks in total at any point in the child’s first 18 years of life, with up to a maximum of four weeks in any individual year. This leave can be taken for any purpose connected with looking after a child, which would of course include caring for a seriously ill child.

I understand that this provision is set to change with the Government’s Employment Rights Bill, which will give parents a right from day one of their employment to start taking 18 weeks of unpaid leave to care for their child until the child turns 18. However, it is important to note that although the Bill will provide a day one right, it will not address the circumstances outlined in the petition, which calls for a career break specifically for parents of seriously ill children.

Also, although some measures in the Employment Rights Bill are well-intentioned, the Bill as a whole is problematic because it increases the already heightened pressure that employers and businesses are facing, further to Labour’s Budget of broken promises. Through the national insurance jobs tax, the hike in business rates and the incoming employment regulations, the Labour Government are sharply hiking up the cost of doing business and employing staff. Indeed, the Bill alone is set to cost £156 per employee.

But hon. Members do not have to listen to me; the chairman of the CBI has also stated that the new employment regulations would hamper growth and cause job losses. The Government’s own impact assessment of its workers’ rights package estimates that it will cost business £5 billion a year. Furthermore, I think that employers will not only not employ new people; they will also let people go. There could be quite an ugly rush before some of these measures come into force—arguably, we have begun to see some of that in the recent employment statistics, which have been disappointing.

The previous Government supported legislation that provides support for parents, including those caring for ill children or facing other difficult circumstances. To summarise some of the measures that the previous Government took, first they supported the Neonatal Care (Leave and Pay) Act 2023, which gained Royal Assent in May of that year. In January 2025, the Government announced that, from April 2025, parents with babies in neonatal care would receive a day one right to additional time off. The regulations build on the work of the previous Government, and we welcome this Government continuing it. The previous Government also supported the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023, which was passed in July of that year. The Act increases the number of requests for flexible working that an employee can make in a year, reduces the time an employer has to administer a request, and requires an employer to consult with the employee if they are going to reject the request.

The previous Government also supported the Carer’s Leave Act 2023. Since it came into force, all employees are entitled to up to one week’s unpaid carer’s leave every year to provide or arrange care for any dependants with care needs due to a disability, old age, physical or mental illness, or injury expected to last at least three months. That could give some parents of seriously ill children an additional week’s leave each year on top of their unpaid parental leave entitlement. That is a summary of things as they currently stand.

The petition was submitted during the previous Parliament, and the previous Government replied:

“The Government understands the difficulties, worry and challenges faced by parents with seriously ill children. While the Government is very sympathetic, it is not practical to provide a specific right”

for them to take a career break. They continued:

“Nonetheless, we would encourage employers to go further and consider what compassionate leave policies, flexible working arrangements and supportive work environment they may be able to offer beyond that required by legislation alone.”

We left it there at the time of the election, and so I leave it to the new Minister to outline what his Government plan to do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

[Sarah Jones]

I am disappointed by the hon. Lady’s approach to this matter, and I am disappointed by the Conservative party’s overall abandonment of previously strongly held views about the need to balance climate change with our economy. It is a fact that we are moving faster towards renewable energy. Last year, 50% of our energy came from renewables for the first time. We are growing them at pace because they are cheaper. Onshore wind is the cheapest form of energy we have, solar is very cheap and floating offshore wind brings us huge opportunities. Renewables will bring our costs down and make sure we are energy secure, and they go hand in glove with growth, as the Chancellor set out in her speech yesterday.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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

[Sarah Jones]

I sit jointly in the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, so the hon. Lady can be reassured that I talk to my colleagues and am working with them. Indeed, I am leading on hydrogen and carbon capture, which is an important part of the mix. We are clear that nuclear is an important part of our future and that the strongest approach to deliver energy security and bring prices down is to have all the opportunities available to us and to build at pace. That is why we are trebling our solar, doubling our wind and supporting big nuclear as well as small modular reactors. She can be reassured that we are putting a strategy in place, which the previous Government failed to do.

Local Post Offices

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

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

This has been an excellent debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) on securing it and thank the Backbench Business Committee for awarding it. A consistent theme throughout the debate has been the important role the post office plays in communities across our land, providing what the hon. Member beautifully described as friendly access to key services that connect people, that service communities, particularly those without banks, and that help those unable to use the internet to connect to Government services. In West Worcestershire, we are fortunate enough to have 31 post offices, including some mobile services, and I put on record my thanks to all the friendly sub-postmasters and mistresses who provide those services.

Over the course of the debate we heard about places across the UK: Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, South West Devon, South East Cornwall, Orkney and Shetland, Bermondsey and Old Southwark, South West Hertfordshire, Chelsea and Fulham, Didcot and Wantage, Glasgow North East, Stockton West, North Durham, Boston and Skegness, Bournemouth West, Thornbury and Yate, Leeds South West and Morley, and Wokingham, and in interventions we heard about Newton Abbot, Dawlish, Teignmouth, Basildon and Billericay, Dulwich, and Tiverton and Minehead. And I dare say, Madam Deputy Speaker, you feel strongly about the post office in Romsey. We can see just how incredibly valuable that network of friendly institutions is across the country.

I am afraid to say, however—and I break it gently to the Minister—that Labour’s Budget of broken promises is threatening that network. Through the national insurance jobs tax, the hike in business rates and the incoming employment regulations, Labour is hiking the cost of doing business, as swathes of post offices are facing tens of millions more in tax and red tape. Those pressures mean that the Post Office has been forced into assessing the future of more than 100 Crown post office branches. Rumours abound that when the Green Paper is published, it may include a consultation on the reduction in the number of post offices to below 11,500. Will the Minister put paid to that speculation by telling the House when the Green Paper will be published?

As the Post Office and its branch network are major employers, with more than 50,000 full-time equivalent workers, another impact is that the Post Office could face an extra £45 million bill as a result of the national insurance hike, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Post offices are often eligible for retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief, and they face a huge increase in their business rates as the relief falls from 75% to 40%. According to the Government’s own impact assessment, the Employment Rights Bill will cost businesses across the country £4.5 billion. Proportionately, given that Post Office has 50,000 employees, the Bill will cost the Post Office over £8 million. The House does not have to take that from me; I will quote the chairman of the Post Office, Nigel Railton:

“It almost goes without saying: we are a business in need of a fresh start – and urgently… And at the recent Budget, we saw…costs rise with National Insurance Contributions, National Living Wage and business rates.”

[Neil Coyle]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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

[Neil Coyle]

It has nothing to do with hearing the news. I just wonder whether the shadow Minister can remind us how of many Crown post offices were lost while she was in government.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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

[Neil Coyle]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

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

[Neil Coyle]

But you did not answer my question.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I have given way.

The previous Government worked to enter into a new partnership with post offices and came up with the idea that people could confirm their identity in person. That is a way of using that valuable network across the land. We recognise that vulnerable people sometimes struggle to verify their identity online. We also began the initiative to help communities dealing with bank closures by setting up a network of banking hubs. I was pleased to hear the Minister confirm earlier today that he will continue backing banking hub delivery through the Post Office, but does he consider that the framework negotiations between the Post Office and the banks, which are in their final stages, are going well?

One year on from ITV’s historic programme “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, I want to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for all he did to address the issues raised in that programme. Can the Minister detail the progress his Government are making on the compensation for sub-postmasters?

I want to raise the issue of Fujitsu, which designed the Horizon IT system that has destroyed so many lives and livelihoods. Under the previous Government, there were discussions with Fujitsu about providing a share of the compensation to the victims of the Horizon scandal, and Fujitsu confirmed that it will pause bids for Government contracts until the public inquiry is concluded. However, this month it was reported that the Government have awarded new contracts to Fujitsu. When Labour was in opposition, many Labour Members criticised awards made to Fujitsu, so can the Minister provide an update on the Government’s current approach?

[Ben Coleman]

The hon. Lady mentions the Horizon scandal. Is she of the opinion that the previous Government’s failure to address the Horizon scandal over such a long period of time and the billions of pounds that have had to be spent sorting out the mess since then have nothing to do with the financial problems that the Post Office now finds itself in?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I do not want to politicise this too much, because I think that had gone on for a long period of time, and the inquiry took a lot of evidence last year. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton played a remarkable role in exonerating so many people, and in setting up the public inquiry.

My next question to the Minister is: could he provide an update on what he is hearing through his channels about when the inquiry may publish its report. It finished taking public evidence at the end of last year, and I anticipate it may publish that later this year, but does he have an update on that for the House? Does he have any plans to compensate sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who were victims of Horizon’s predecessor systems—the Capture and ECCO systems that predated Horizon—and does he have plans to quash any convictions arising from those two systems?

In the spending review, how much public money is the Minister requesting to put in a replacement for the Horizon system? Can he tell us how many post offices currently benefit from small business rate relief, and what are the Government plans about continuing that throughout this Parliament? Further to the question from the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) about today’s worrying announcement from Ofcom that second class post may be delivered only every other weekday and not on Saturdays, what discussions is the Minister having with Ofcom to prevent this further attack on the demand for our precious postal services?

To conclude, we have heard how incredibly important this precious network of friendly people across our land is to this country, with those 11,500 post offices and the distance requirements that are in place. After hearing from so many colleagues, will the Minister reassure the House that he will sustain that network throughout the life of this Parliament. Prevention is so much better than cure. Let us all focus on supporting our much-loved post offices in any way we can to continue the wonderful work that they do up and down the country.

Draft Reporting on Payment Practices and Performance (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2024

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 General Committees

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

It is a very great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Ms McVey. I just note that the Minister highlighted the fact that, in fact, this initiative had been started under the previous Government, and so you would not expect me to be objecting to its passage today. But I do have, in the interest of scrutiny, a few questions for the Minister.

The explanatory memorandum accompanying the statutory instrument highlights the improvements that have occurred in the time that it takes to pay invoices since these measures were brought in in 2018. There was strong support in the consultation for extending the reporting requirements to these retention payments. Could the Minister summarise for the record what the objections were in the consultation and from whom they came—the people who did not support moving forward with these measures?

The Department will generally, it says in the explanatory memorandum, seek to encourage businesses to comply with the regulation by encouraging them, getting in touch with them rather than prosecuting them for non-compliance. Could the Minister highlight if there have actually been any prosecutions at all under the previous payment regulations, and, if so, who the holdouts or the big contractors that have resisted these measures have been?

Most companies say that this regulation will be an ongoing cost to their business. It is estimated to be a small amount of £10 million per year. Can the Minister outline for the committee any measures that he is planning that will reduce costs for businesses? Businesses are telling me that the extra cost of national insurance and the Employment Rights Bill are adding costs to their businesses that can be seen from space. The last Government introduced new requirements for firms bidding for large Government contracts to make sure that they pay small businesses on time, and those bidding for Government contracts over £5 million will have to demonstrate that they pay their own invoices within an average of 55 days, tightening to 45 days and then to 30 days in the coming years. Can the Minister confirm that he is planning to continue with that approach?

The last Government overhauled the voluntary prompt payment code, halving the time signatories have to pay small businesses to 30 days. Is the Minister planning to update us on the progress he has made on this matter in the last six months, and has the number of signatories gone up or down—it was 2,800 voluntary signatories. I look forward to the Minister’s answers and we support the measures today.

Royal Mail Takeover

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

May I start by thanking the Minister for advance sight of his statement? Before I get into my questions, can we take a moment to thank every postman and postwoman up and down this country for their hard work, particularly at this time of year? In all the challenging weather, they are out there putting letters through every letterbox in the land and collecting thousands of letters from the red pillar boxes in every corner of our country. I take the opportunity, especially in this Christmas season, to say thank you on behalf of all of us.

Every colleague here will recognise the importance of Royal Mail, both as an institution and as a provider of a vital nationwide service. It has been in existence for more than 500 years, and it has seen a lot of change over those years, but the one consistent thing is that it is still a service on which we all depend every day. It is not the only way we communicate any more, but it is a vital one, and it will continue to be needed, including by Government. What a shame it is that one of the biggest postal deliveries done by Royal Mail this year was from the Government. It was a letter to many pensioners—often on low incomes—cancelling their winter fuel payments.

The dwindling number of letters sent has eroded the base on which the success of Royal Mail was built. The inevitable consequence is that Royal Mail has been facing serious financial challenges, and amid those challenges the service received by people across Britain has become worse, whether that is deliveries missing their deadlines, letters going missing or occasionally, in some areas, people going weeks at a time without post. The example of that failure was shown last week by the fines that Royal Mail received. The cost of this poor service cannot be overstated, whether it is for those who subscribe for services by mail, those who rely on business deliveries or those who miss appointments with their general practitioner, impacting their health and costing the Government. That poor service cannot be allowed to continue.

The inward investment into the service announced today will be scrutinised by shareholders, but given that they are the golden shareholder, I have questions for the Government. What guarantees has the Minister received about the service provision? What commitments has he received about the level of jobs across Royal Mail? How much of Royal Mail do the employees themselves now own? In some places it has been reported that the commitment to the tax residency guarantee is for five years, but I heard the Minister say at the Dispatch Box that it was perpetual. Can he clarify that?

What ongoing role will the Government have in making sure that Ofcom ensures that Royal Mail delivers the service expected by customers? The fines do not seem to be doing it. An important part of the service offered by Royal Mail is the universal service obligation, which now requires post to be delivered six days a week and parcels to be delivered five days a week. When the Royal Mail is working well, the universal service obligation provides an outstanding service. However, Royal Mail wishes for it to be reformed. Does the Minister believe that the obligation must be maintained in its current form? Can he confirm what discussions he has held with EP Group about the obligation? Will he confirm whether there is a sunset on the obligation? He mentioned that there potentially was with a transfer of ownership.

The value of Royal Mail goes far beyond the universal service obligation. Can the Minister outline whether he expects any of the other services provided by Royal Mail to be impacted? For example, can my rural constituents continue to count on their letters being collected from every post box? What risks has he identified with the takeover itself? Although the Post Office and Royal Mail are separate entities, they are closely tied. Just over a month ago, the Government announced that more than 100 post office branches were at risk of closure, with hundreds of jobs lost. Can the Minister explain what assessment he has made of the risks facing the Post Office and how they will be impacted by the sale of Royal Mail?

Royal Mail faces the same headwinds, often created by this Government, as other businesses. Whether it is Labour’s employment regulations or the national insurance jobs tax, businesses have warned that they may be forced to put up prices and cut jobs, because of the very actions of this Government. Finally, can the Minister confirm whether Royal Mail has expressed concerns over the Budget or the Employment Rights Bill?

[Justin Madders]

I thank the shadow Minister for her comments, and I start by joining her in thanking all those postal workers who throughout the year—not just at this time of year, when it is particular busy, but 12 months a year—come rain or shine, sleet or snow, deliver those much-needed communications from friends, family and loved ones. I was pleased to be able to go to my own depot in Ellesmere Port last Friday. I will go to another one in my constituency, in New Ferry, this Friday. All hon. Members should be encouraged to make those visits, because they really show how much we appreciate the work that our postmen and women do.

The hon. Lady is right that the Royal Mail is a service that we all depend on. I agree that performance has not been good enough in recent years. That is why we have had a number of discussions with the company and with Ofcom about how we will get things back on track. That is why the agreement is so important, because the deal will get in the investment needed to try to drive up that performance.

I turn to some of the hon. Lady’s specific questions. On guarantees of service provision, the legislative framework is already there for the universal service obligation, and I see the takeover having no impact on that. It has not been part of the discussions—it is an entirely separate issue—but Parliament will have its say on that if needed. Next year, Ofcom will have a consultation on the universal service obligation. I think it is recognised that an awful lot of work is needed to bring standards up to the level that we would like, and one of the protections in the agreement will hopefully deliver on that.

On jobs guarantees, the hon. Lady will be aware that the general secretary of the Communication Workers Union has spoken positively about the agreement reached. He believes that sufficient assurances have been given on jobs. On employee engagement, she asked whether the employees will own the company. That is not the case, but they will have a say in governance in future as a result of an agreement between the Communication Workers Union and EP Group. That is to be ratified by the Communication Workers Union executive, but that will be a groundbreaking arrangement that we did not have previously. She also asked about tax residency in perpetuity, which is what the golden share does indeed intend to deliver.