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?

Consumer Affairs

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 11th September 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition in this interesting debate; I congratulate the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) on securing it. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall) on his appointment. I look forward to potentially confronting him, but sometimes agreeing with him, at the Dispatch Box on numerous occasions.

It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is right to raise concerns about a range of different challenges with pricing practices. Consumers often find them confusing and frustrating, and sometimes find themselves completely out of pocket, which is a very annoying feeling. I think we can all agree that transparency and fairness need to be at the heart of our consumer markets. My particular pet peeves, quite a few of which were listed by the hon. Member, include subscription traps—they have definitely got me quite a few times—and the meal deal where I think I have the elements right but have not, and end up paying more than I should. Unclear sizes is another issue. There are also the three-for-two offers where we do not buy the right three things but do not realise that until we are in the queue for the checkout. The one thing that I think is probably a good thing, though, is the shrinkflation of the Mars Bar; we probably need to welcome that as a sign of human progress.

We have also heard some really interesting contributions this afternoon from the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier). I have the honour of serving on the Treasury Committee, which is chaired by the hon. Lady, and today she outlined many of the different ways in which consumers can encounter challenges in the financial sector. The hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) also made a very interesting speech.

The one thing that I want to pick up on in my remarks is flexible or variable pricing, because the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington outlined some of the drawbacks of such pricing, and how we can feel—particularly if we have to use the railway at peak times—how unfair it is. However, I will just caution colleagues against throwing the baby out with the bathwater regarding flexible pricing, because the flipside of it is that it allows businesses to offer much cheaper prices when demand is low. Consequently, it helps consumers to access goods and services at a price they can afford that they might otherwise miss, and it enables venues to fill their seats, airlines to fill their planes and retailers to manage their stocks efficiently. So long as flexible pricing is transparent, there are benefits for consumers and businesses.

Key to consumers getting good prices is creating good competition in markets and keeping inflation down but, frankly, both those things are being exacerbated by the Government’s current economic approach, particularly inflation, because last year’s Halloween Budget included the tax hikes, the increased national insurance contributions and the reduced business rates relief that are pricing a lot of small businesses out of the market. Those are the very businesses that drive competition, and that can keep prices down. Without them, consumers face fewer choices and therefore higher costs.

I will give an example from the night-time economy. According to the Night Time Industries Association, we have seen a worrying decline in venues across the UK. Recent research has revealed that over a quarter of our towns and cities that had a nightclub before the pandemic now have none, and that 16% of our towns and cities across this country have lost all their late-night venues entirely.

We will hear from the Minister about the Government’s plans to cap ticket resales. Those plans risk making things worse. Capping resale profits at 10% might sound like a fair idea, but in practice it risks harming small venues and up-and-coming artists. It places additional costs on already stretched businesses, and opens the door to the black market and scams. We have seen this play out. We can learn from the state of Victoria in Australia, where a 10% profit cap on ticket resellers did not stop tickets from being sold above the price cap; it just resulted in a spike in the number of scammers, and tickets only being available to international buyers. So, the Minister might want to ask his team about that situation.

We have also seen that in Ireland, a 10% tax on ticket resellers caused an increase in scams. And last year, at the wonderful Paris Olympics, viagogo was banned. Because viagogo is a ticket resale company, that meant that there were empty seats at many Olympic events. So, the ban deprived fans of spontaneous access to the Olympics, and athletes of full audiences.

I urge the Minister to be wary of unintended consequences and to look closely at the proposals. The Government’s approach, as we understand it, risks penalising fans, artists and venues alike. This issue is not just about ticket touts; it is about ensuring a vibrant cultural sector, in which people can access live events safely and affordably. Regulation, if it is done badly, risks moving all of this activity underground.

I wholeheartedly endorse what the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington said about keeping consumers informed, making sure that information is clear and ensuring that consumers are not misled. Let us support competition; let us enable a thriving small business sector and not stifle it; and let us back businesses that make our economy dynamic, diverse and responsive to consumer needs.

In summary, I agree that we need to be vigilant about unfair practices, but we must also be pragmatic. The best protection for consumers is thriving, competitive markets, not ones burdened by excessive regulation and shrinking opportunity.

Jaguar Land Rover Cyber-attack

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

[Chris Bryant]

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

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

indicated dissent.

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft Limited Liability Partnerships (Application and Modification of Company Law) Regulations 2025 Draft Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (Consequential, Incidental and Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2025 Draft Register of People with Significant Control (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd September 2025 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to discuss these three measures, which implement reforms from the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023. It was interesting to hear from the Minister the latest statistics on the impact that the Act has already had at Companies House. These measures will require limited liability partnerships to have increased reporting requirements and to carry out further checks on their staff by barring disqualified directors from roles within LLPs. The instruments also abolish local registers in favour of a central Companies House database and create criminal offences for non-compliance.

Will the Minister elaborate on what he expects the criminal offences for non-compliance to be? What capacity is there in the criminal justice system to add to its activities? The Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, which he and I spent so many happy hours discussing before the summer recess, has added further criminal penalties, so I am concerned about the pressure that some perhaps inadvertent breaches of these measures will add to our hard-pressed criminal justice system.

Will the Minister update the Committee on the benefits of these measures in terms of reduction of harm? He acknowledges in the explanatory memorandum that this is a further cost burden on a business sector that is already groaning under the additional tax and red tape added by this Government in their first 14 months. It is not just the unprecedented tax hikes on business from the Halloween Budget and the regulatory burden from the Product Regulation and Metrology Act, but the upcoming £5 billion cost of the Employment—or should I say unemployment—Rights Bill, which is looming like a tsunami on the horizon for businesses, jobs and start-ups.

While these measures may seem noble in their aims, they add an additional cost to businesses, including the most precious of businesses: new businesses, start-ups, innovators and investors—the future of our business sector. These measures are just another example of this Government’s increasing red tape on business. According to the Government’s own figures, just a slice of the measures that we are assessing today will cost businesses another £19.5 million every year. That excludes some of the other measures before us this afternoon, which the Government have not itemised in their impact assessment. While £19.5 million may sound small compared with the £5 billion cost of the Employment Rights Bill, I remind the Minister of the risk of incremental regulatory creep—an impact that is focused on partnerships, which are driving up costs on small businesses such as law firms. Will the Minister commit this afternoon to publishing the outcome of these measures in a year’s time? How will he measure how many LLPs have been put off registering here and have gone to other jurisdictions?

The impact of this creep of red tape is something that the Opposition understand, but clearly the Government are at risk of forgetting. Red tape deadens growth. Red tape costs jobs. We will not actively vote against these specific measures, but let me emphasise that the businesses and entrepreneurs of this country cannot take any more regulatory creep, or any more of the taxes that this Government are inflicting on them. I urge the Government not to come back here with more. His Majesty’s loyal Opposition will demand some deregulation measures in future before supporting more incremental burdens like these measures.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

It is not just cycle manufacturers that are having to pedal hard to survive under this Government. With business survey after business survey stating that tax is the biggest worry for business, will the Minister take this opportunity to assure businesses that the Chancellor will not be coming back to burden them with more in her Budget this autumn?

[Gareth Thomas]

First, I commend the hon. Lady for the humour in her question. As she will recognise, this is Business and Trade Question Time, not Treasury Question Time, where tax measures are usually dealt with, but I am sure that the Treasury will note her comments. I should perhaps point her to recent surveys of business confidence: the Lloyds Bank business barometer pointed out that business confidence is at a nine-year high. I am sure she will be delighted by that news.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Well, except for the fact that the whole House will have heard that the Government are not prepared to rule out saddling cycle manufacturers and other businesses with more taxes this autumn. Will the Minister at the very least assure the House that he and his fellow Business Ministers are making representations to the Treasury that businesses really cannot take any more tax rises?

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her suspicion that I have considerable influence with the Treasury. We are always in discussions with Treasury colleagues, and indeed colleagues across Government, about what more we can do to support business. Another indicator of improving business confidence is a survey by the American Express business barometer, which pointed out that almost three quarters of small and medium-sized enterprise bosses are confident about the future—again, up from last year.

Future of the Post Office

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 14th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. The Post Office really is the Heineken of Government services: it reaches parts of the UK that other arms of government do not. The Post Office is much more than a business; it is a vital part of the UK’s social and economic fabric. It connects communities, supports local economies and ensures access to essential services across the country. From rural villages in constituencies like mine to inner cities, postmasters are trusted figures who provide a lifeline for people who rely on face-to-face services, particularly the elderly, the digitally excluded and small businesses. The network plays an increasingly important role delivering banking services and hubs as the traditional bank network continues to close. While the number of letters sent has declined and more Government services are online or direct to bank accounts, there are areas where the Post Office has seen strong growth: bank deposits to post offices are up by 68%, parcels up by 68% and tracked priority mail has risen by 72%.

The Minister promised that the Government would publish the Green Paper on the Post Office in the first half of 2025, so I will give him that—it was nearly there. The Government clearly want to get this consultation out before recess when there is arguably less parliamentary scrutiny. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage the public to respond to the consultation over the summer.

The Green Paper seeks to reduce the taxpayer subsidy over time, but of course, with 50,000 workers throughout Britain, the Post Office itself faces a £45 million hike in its bill from the national insurance jobs tax. The post offices that are eligible for retail, hospitality and leisure business rates relief have seen a 140% increase in their business rates. The Employment Rights Bill will cost the Post Office another £8 million. It is no wonder that Nigel Railton, the Post Office chairman, blamed the autumn Budget for increasing costs and said that it was why the Post Office needs a fresh start.

The Minister told the House on 8 April that

“access criteria have already been published that commit the Government to provide 11,500 post offices.”—[Official Report, 8 April 2025; Vol. 765, c. 750.]

He says in the Green Paper that his preference is to maintain the size of the network. Will he commit today to there being 11,500 post office outlets at the end of this Parliament? Did the Government consider reducing the branch requirement in the Green Paper? If so, why did they change their mind? Was he advised by his officials that it would take the closure of one in five post offices to end the network subsidy? If that is not what he was told, what was he told? Where is the cut-off point for that subsidy?

The Minister says that the Government will consult on a change to access requirements as it could be argued that they are too stringent, but for rural areas they are not. Approximately 14% of post office branches are the last shop in the village—there are many such branches in my constituency—so will the Minister confirm that rural branches will not be closed just to be replaced by others in city centres? Does he not realise that for many rural areas, the post office is the only shop for miles around and is therefore the only place one can access free cash?

How much did the Post Office get from the framework agreement with the banks? Should it not get a better and more long-term agreement? How much will the Government ask Fujitsu to pay towards the £2 billion estimated cost of compensating the postmasters who were wrongly accused over the Horizon system? The Minister appears to have kicked Post Office mutualisation into the long grass. I can see why he would not want to do it during the time of the inquiry, but could there be a pilot during this Parliament?

Post offices and the postmasters who run them are the backbone of our local communities, so I urge the public to take this opportunity to champion their local post office and reply to this summer consultation.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for encouraging sub-postmasters and anyone who is interested in the future of the Post Office to contribute their views to the Green Paper.

As the hon. Lady rightly set out, and as I hope I underlined in my statement—the Green Paper is certainly very clear on this—we think that branches up and down the country are a vital part of our country’s economic and social fabric, and we are determined to strengthen the post office network so that they can play a continuing and even more effective role in our economic and social lives.

The hon. Lady rightly underlined the significance of banking services going forward. As an aside, she mentioned the decline of other traditional post offices—letter volumes have halved since 2011. That helps to underline the significance of banking to the future of the Post Office. We are clear that the Post Office could offer more if the banks are willing to work with it. The successful completion of the banking framework negotiations was an encouraging sign in that regard. As I set out in my opening remarks, we are, alongside Treasury colleagues, determined to sit down with the Post Office and the banks to see what more we can do together. There is a commitment to 350 banking hubs over the lifetime of this Parliament, but if we can improve the way in which the banks work with the Post Office, we could see a much more significant role for the Post Office in the provision of banking services on far more high streets up and down the UK.

On national insurance contributions, I gently say to the hon. Lady that difficult decisions had to be made in the Budget because of the financial situation that we inherited, but we have taken a range of decisions to steady the network. I am sure that she is grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the additional finances put aside to invest in the future of the Post Office.

The hon. Lady quite rightly underlined the broader point that Fujitsu has a moral obligation to contribute towards the cost of the scandal. As I have said, we need to wait for the final report by Sir Wyn Williams to understand the full sense of Fujitsu’s culpability.

Lastly, on mutualisation, as the hon. Lady alluded to, we think it right to concentrate in the short term on prioritising the financial and operational stability of the Post Office, given its significant challenges. In the longer term, it may well be possible to make serious and sustained governance changes. I have a genuinely open mind on that question and will look carefully at the views we receive on it in the Green Paper.

Post Office Horizon Inquiry: Volume 1

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. We welcome the release of volume 1 of the Post Office Horizon inquiry final report and I put on record my thanks to Sir Wyn Williams and the inquiry team for all the work that they have done, alongside all those who gave evidence.

This inquiry lays bare one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in modern British history. Volume 1 focuses on redress and the human impact of the Horizon scandal, which has been evolving since 2000. The human impact is particularly devastating, with the report revealing that at least 13 people may have taken their own lives as a result of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. It also recognises that family members have also suffered from this miscarriage of justice. Even though, as the Minister says, we can never recompense a person properly for this miscarriage, I am sure the whole House will want to ensure that the victims are fully compensated by the schemes, and I would like to put on the record my tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who set up this process of redress.

The report has recommended that the Government and/or the Department, and where appropriate the Post Office and Fujitsu, shall provide a written response to Sir Wyn’s recommendations by 10 October. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will be able to say by 10 October whether they will accept all 19 of the report’s recommendations? The report details that there is still much to be done to ensure justice for the victims, so who and how will those responsible be held answerable for the years of denial and suffering?

This was not simply a technical failure; it was a failure of oversight, governance and accountability. The report finds that the Post Office and Fujitsu knew, or at the very least they should have known, that the Horizon IT system had faults. The sub-postmasters are also described

“as victims of wholly unacceptable behaviour”

by the two companies. Sir Wyn has stated that there are still more than 3,000 claims to resolve and that there have been egregious delays in compensation. Will the Minister therefore update the House on the most recent status of the compensation schemes? What steps is he taking to address these concerns, and how are the Government ensuring that full, fair and fast compensation is delivered without further bureaucracy or delay?

Will the Minister update us on what action is being taken in relation to Fujitsu, which is still being awarded Government contracts? Fujitsu said that it would wait until the inquiry reports to offer compensation, so will the Minister confirm that there is now nothing preventing Fujitsu from paying interim compensation? Will he also confirm that it will be made clear how much he believes Fujitsu should contribute to the redress scheme?

In the spending review, the Government allocated £86 million from its transformation fund for the Post Office, specifically earmarked to support investment plans, including replacing the existing Horizon computer system. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of securing a new computer system for the Post Office and whether that system will replace the Horizon system in its entirety? What assessment has he made of the earlier Capture accounting software and its legacy of problems?

Finally, to move on from this protracted miscarriage, will the Minister confirm when we will see the much anticipated Green Paper on the future of the post office network and how the public can have their say on that consultation? The time for half measures is over. Justice delayed is justice denied, and those affected by this scandal deserve nothing less than the full force of the Government’s commitment to truth, reform and redress. Taxpayers also deserve to know how much Ministers think Fujitsu should pay to resolve these terrible wrongs.

[Gareth Thomas]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments and questions. She was right to say in her opening remarks about this being the greatest miscarriage of justice in our country’s history. The responsibility is therefore on us all to do everything we can to make sure the victims receive full and fair compensation, and to ensure that there is never a repeat.

The hon. Lady specifically challenges me on the question of the 10 October deadline that Sir Wyn Williams has put in place. I can confirm that we are determined to meet that deadline. It is particularly important that we do so, as some of his recommendations concern the ongoing delivery of the Horizon compensation schemes and we do not want, inadvertently or not, to delay or hold back any of those claims.

The hon. Lady rightly gives me the opportunity to again pay tribute to the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) for his work when he was the Post Office Minister. Without question, we would be even further behind without the considerable amount of work and effort that he put in. There are many others in the House who have campaigned long and hard on behalf of the sub-postmasters, including the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who I see in his place, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), who chairs the Business and Trade Committee.

The hon. Lady asked who and how will those responsible be held to account. She knows that Sir Wyn Williams is due to publish the second part of his report, which focuses on those very questions. We will consider carefully what he has to say about that when we receive his report. I suspect that she already knows that the Metropolitan police is leading an investigation into whether criminal responsibility is at play. More than 100 police officers are working on that investigation and they have identified a number of individuals of interest. We will see what they do with regard to those individuals in due course. As the hon. Lady and the House will understand, Ministers are not in any way involved in such decisions.

What further steps have we taken to deliver and speed up compensation? The hon. Lady will be aware that we have issued the opportunity for sub-postmasters who apply to the Horizon shortfall scheme and who want to accept a fixed-sum payment of £75,000 to do so. We have put in place an appeals process to try to give those who feel they have not received a fair offer to date a chance to get full and fair redress.

There are particular challenges in the Horizon shortfall scheme. If I am honest, it is the scheme that I worry about the most, not least because there are 1,700 cases in which there does not appear to be any evidence of shortfalls. That does not mean that there were no shortfalls; it means that, at this stage, we do not have evidence of what those shortfalls were. As the House would expect, I have gone back to the Post Office and made it clear that we want it to reinvestigate, to see whether evidence can be found in as many of those cases as possible. We are looking very carefully at what we can do about the rest.

On Fujitsu, we will need to see Sir Wyn’s final report to understand fully the degree of Fujitsu’s culpability. I have made it clear to Fujitsu that we think it should bring forward an interim compensation payment, and I hope that it will see the report today and recognise the need to do that.

The hon. Lady also asked me about the Green Paper. We hope to publish it very shortly. One of the issues that it will consider is the future of the Post Office’s IT systems, because we certainly need to move on from the past and Horizon. We will set out in a bit more detail at that point what work we are doing in that regard.

Draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 General Committees

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Hobhouse.

We are scrutinising the draft Protection and Disclosure of Personal Information (Amendment) Regulations. That may sound dry, but I imagine that every colleague here has come across a case in which someone’s identity has been stolen because of the information about them that is available on the Companies House register. I am pleased that these regulations show this Government building on the good work of the previous Government. I therefore certainly will not object to their passage this afternoon, but I have a few questions for the Minister, in the interests of parliamentary scrutiny.

First, I could not see any mention in the explanatory memorandum of how long it will take for individuals to have their application actioned. Will the Minister shed some light on how quickly Companies House thinks that it will be able to process applications and, from approval, how long it will take to have the information removed from the register? Secondly, what are the Government doing to ensure that the application process at Companies House for removing details is straightforward? Thirdly, what is the administrative cost of these regulations to Companies House, and will those costs be recouped through any planned changes to the fees for registering a company?

Fourthly, how many individuals are expected to make use of these regulations? I note that an impact assessment has not been published, and given the limited financial implications, I can understand why. However, given that the intention of this statutory instrument is to remove information from the register that puts individuals at risk of theft and fraud, will the Minister please inform us how many people are thought to be the victims of crime as a result of the information that is currently publicly available in Companies House? How many cases are estimated to be prevented as a result of the statutory instrument that we are considering today?

Finally, given that the statutory instrument is intended to reduce the risk of theft and fraud by removing personal details from a public register, how does Companies House plan to publicly let people know about this change and its effective date? Has Companies House explored a more proactive approach, and has it thought about using artificial intelligence to remove this information automatically? I look forward to the Minister’s answers to those questions.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The gov.uk website, which has not been updated since 8 May, states that the Prime Minister negotiated the 25% steel tariff down to zero, but that is not right, is it? Steel faces a tariff of 25% today and runs the risk of a 50% tariff being imposed next month. Will the Minister take this opportunity to commit to updating the website, updating this House and updating steelworkers on the state of the negotiations?

[Mr Alexander]

I am very happy to consider the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to the website, but I can assure her that, whether it is the Minister for Industry or the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the Government are in constant dialogue with the British steel industry. We will introduce a steel strategy, unlike her predecessors, and we have put serious money behind it. Thanks to the economic prosperity deal with the United States, the UK was the only country to be made exempt from the 50% tariffs on steel and aluminium that other countries around the world now face.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

We have been promised a modern industrial strategy for nearly a year. First, it was going to be with us in the spring; then it was going to be published at the spending review; and now it will be here “shortly”. The industrial strategy seems to be a strategy to clobber industry with higher taxes and higher business rates. Will the modern industrial strategy have greater longevity than the Office for Investment? It was announced in October, and we were not given an update until last Thursday, when it launched. Yesterday, we were told in the spending review that it is now being restructured. What is the future for the Office for Investment?

[Sarah Jones]

I can guarantee the hon. Lady that our industrial strategy will have a longer shelf life than hers did; I think it lasted 18 months—I am not entirely sure. We forget, because it did not have much of an impact. We have worked with all industries across the country to put together a comprehensive package that will make it easier to do business in the UK, and support our city regions and clusters across the country, where we have excellent industry. It will turbocharge the eight growth sectors, and it will make the Government more agile in interacting with business. That is why we are reforming the Office for Investment, as we have always said we will. It is now a significantly more substantial organisation, and will give significantly more support. The hon. Lady should look at—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Postmasters who were hit by the Horizon scandal will be concerned to hear Sir Alan Bates describe the compensation process as a “quasi-kangaroo court”. Can the Minister reassure postmasters about the redress that they are due, and reassure taxpayers about the redress that he is seeking from Fujitsu?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and she is absolutely right to draw attention to the continuing need to speed up compensation to sub-postmasters. Since we came into government, we have increased fourfold the amount of compensation paid to sub-postmasters, but there is an awful lot more to do. On the issues that Sir Alan Bates raised, the hon. Lady will know that under the group litigation order scheme, through which his compensation issues are being addressed, there are various independent points on the journey at which to consider the offer—

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

May I say what an interesting debate this has been? I have a huge amount of sympathy for the case that has been put for new clause 1, which was made in a very coherent way. I also have great sympathy for the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) and her proposed new clause 15. I will explain how our amendments would address some of the issues she has spoken about. The Liberal Democrat amendments, and new clause 4 in particular, make a great deal of sense. The hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) tabled a range of amendments that cover points made in His Majesty’s loyal Opposition’s amendments, which I will come to.

We should ask ourselves why this relatively small and technical Bill has attracted nearly 50 amendments on Report. It is because, as was said, it is a Trojan horse Bill. We tabled our amendments because the Bill does a lot more behind the scenes than appears on the surface. When, in 2016, the voters of Britain—on an 80% turnout—voted to leave the European Union, it created an opportunity for the country to tailor our regulatory regime to best fit British industry, and to set a global standard, so that it is easier to do business. The UK’s product regulation and metrology, as we heard from our resident metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), once set the standard for the world, and indeed has the chance to do so again. When in government, the Conservatives started the work of capitalising on that opportunity. We see the Bill as a terrible step back and a Trojan horse, because it will tie us to EU red tape on which we have no say.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) spoke about his hopes for businesses in Harlow. Through this Trojan horse Bill, Labour will restrict Britain’s innovators with over-burdensome regulations, meaning that British industry will fall behind international competitors. As we heard the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), say when speaking to her amendments, it is a prime example of a skeleton Bill. There are two major areas of concern for His Majesty’s loyal Opposition: the use of sweeping Henry VIII powers; and the ability to dynamically align by the back door with the European Union. I will speak to the amendments we have tabled to address those concerns.

When the Bill started its passage, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place found that the powers in the Bill, particularly in clause 1, were excessive, and it recommended that they be removed. Many of our amendments address those elements of clause 1. In the other place, the Government watered down the Bill following those criticisms, but afterwards the Bill was still described as a skeleton Bill that shifted powers “to an unacceptable extent”. As recently as 21 February, the Committee in the other place said that the amendments made in the other place were

“limited changes that do not address the fundamental concern we have about the skeletal nature of this Bill…The Government has not taken the opportunity to add flesh to the bones of this skeleton Bill. It remains the case that the Bill provides for almost all of the substance of the regulatory regimes for product safety and metrology to be provided for by Ministers in regulations.”

While we acknowledge that the current Secretary of State may act responsibly, we do not want to put things on the statute book that future Ministers might treat differently.

We all agree that strong, consistent product safety rules are needed, and we acknowledge the risks from online marketplaces and unsafe imports, but we do not think that the Bill is the right way to deal with that. We also think that Parliament must retain proper oversight, so amendments 9, 11 and 12 seek to remove the broad powers granted to the Secretary of State in clause 1.

Clause 3 is of equal concern, because it grants the Secretary of State sweeping powers to create new criminal offences, creating new complexities in our criminal justice system. It also allow Ministers to create civil sanctions for non-compliance with product and metrology regulations through secondary legislation, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of an issue that is incredibly important for our constituents’ freedoms. The clause also allows the Government to introduce new penalties, and even prison sentences; new powers of entry; and new fines on businesses, which will drive up the cost of doing business. Our amendments seek to change those elements. We believe that such serious offences should be subject to considerably more parliamentary scrutiny. That is why amendment 24 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences that could have consequences for the Ministry of Justice and the criminal justice system are not created through new product regulations under the Bill.

[Jim Allister]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is quite astounding that among the criminal offences that are anticipated being made by the Minister without parliamentary scrutiny are indictable offences, which could result in people losing their liberty for whatever period is specified in the offence? Is that not a retrograde departure from the standards of oversight that any citizen would expect Members elected to this House to exercise?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I agree. We all know the types of people being let of prison by this Government. It is a total scandal that suddenly a person can be imprisoned for perhaps inadvertently having products in stock that have not followed a dynamic alignment process that has not been very visible to Parliament. That is why I hope that the whole House will support amendment 24 in the Lobby.

Amendments 21, 22 and 23 seek clarification of the functions that may be conferred on a relevant authority, and the powers that may be granted to inspectors. The phrase “relevant authority” is used throughout the Bill, and it is not entirely clear what all such authorities might be.

In clause 13, we once again see Henry VIII powers being used, despite the concerns raised in the other place. Amendment 18 would therefore add to clause 13(6), and require that any regulations made under the legislation that amend or replace primary legislation be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I am sure all parliamentarians will want to support that amendment.

[Robin Swann (South Antrim) (UUP)]

I am sure the Minister will come back on that point and say, “You can trust us, and you can trust this Government.” Does the shadow Minister agree, however, that this Government may not always be in power, and that the powers they are creating for themselves may be handed down to someone less responsible in future?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I wholeheartedly endorse that. It is the principle; we do not know what Executive we will hand this power to in future. The current Executive is asking for the power, but we are a democracy, and the Executive can change at every single election. It would be wrong for Parliament to give away its powers in the way that is proposed in this legislation. That is why I hope that everyone will support our amendments.

[Dr Hudson]

I remember sitting through many debates on Bills in the last Parliament, in which Members of the Labour party, then in opposition, talked about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Does my hon. Friend agree that the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition are all about improving and bolstering parliamentary scrutiny, and that Government Members have nothing to fear by giving more powers to this House?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

My hon. Friend is so wise and so insightful. In fact, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade himself said in opposition,

“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 Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.]

That is exactly what they are asking for in this Bill, and why we urge Members to support our amendment.



It is not just the Secretary of State who says this. Let us listen to what our friend the Attorney General of this great United Kingdom, Lord Hermer, another member of His Majesty’s Government, has said on Henry VIII clauses, skeleton legislation and delegated powers. He says that they strike not only at the rule of law

“but also at the cardinal principles of accessibility and legal certainty.”

And yet we are being asked this evening to allow criminal sanctions and the possibility of imprisonment to go through using those powers.