Call for General Election

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

Thank you, Sir Edward, for allowing me to speak on behalf of the 1,892 people in my constituency who have signed this petition. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for expounding why this is an important debate. I am in my fifth Parliament now, and I do not recall the Petitions Committee having to call as many debates on calling another general election in any other Parliament. This debate follows last January’s, when 3 million people had signed the petition. Why are we seeing this appetite among our constituents to re-litigate the general election of 2024 so soon after it happened?

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

I believe I just heard the hon. Member say that there had been a petition with 3 million signatures last year and one with 1 million signatures this year. If that is correct, does that mean that the number of people calling for an election has fallen by two thirds?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

That is probably 4 million people who have, in that length of time, signed the petition. I encourage the hon. Member to dream on.

Why have we seen the robust signing of these petitions over the past two years? It boils down to the fundamental principle of our democracy, which is based around peoples’ manifestoes. We need to rely on political parties to set out a direction of travel in their manifesto and then to try to deliver it. The problem that has led to all these signatures is to do with not having been told in the manifesto about the Government’s plans for change.

I could go on for the whole of this debate about the tax changes alone because we were told in the general election that if they were to win, the Government had no plans to raise taxes beyond what was outlined in their manifesto. Within months, in the first Budget the Chancellor raised taxes by an astonishing £40 billion a year for the duration of this Parliament and public spending by a further £30 billion. In total, that is a £70 billion a year increase in public spending—something that was deliberately not stated during the general election campaign.

[Luke Murphy (Basingstoke) (Lab)]

On people not being told about things at a general election, I wonder how many people were told in the 2019 election that the Prime Minister—then Boris Johnson—would be replaced by Liz Truss and then the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak)? Is it not the point that things change over the course of a Parliament, and surely the change of a Prime Minister would be more merit for the calling of an election than the things that the hon. Member has cited?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Member needs to be careful about what he says on that front, frankly. On taxes specifically, I do not think he can point to a single time in history where, in three months, there has been such a dramatic change from what was promised to the public in a general election campaign and what actually happened in the Budget.

I am going to focus on the non-tax matters. We have lots of votes on taxes over the next few days; I am going to raise some of the other things that this Government have chosen to do in their first 18 months that were decisively not in the manifesto. Giving away the Chagos islands and paying Mauritius to take them was a particularly egregious example of something not set out in the Labour manifesto. On multiple occasions, incredibly important local elections are being cancelled; that was certainly not in the Labour manifesto. A feature of this Government will be the proposed curtailing of jury trials—I notice silence now on the Government Benches, but that, again, was not in the Labour manifesto. I suppose one could grudgingly accept that purging political opponents from the other place was somewhat in the manifesto, but I do not think that stuffing it with political supporters to replace them was. I do not think cutting press access was in the Labour manifesto, I do not think introducing digital ID was in the Labour manifesto and I do not think rolling out an extensive increase in facial recognition on our streets was in the Labour manifesto.

If all those things were happening in another country, one might think they were the route to totalitarianism. These are the kind of things the public are very concerned about: it is not just the huge increase in taxes but the reduction in the freedoms we have taken for granted in this country for years that is causing so many of my constituents to call for another general election.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Arthur]

The hon. Member knows that that is not the intention of the Government. He is welcome to visit my constituency, where I can help him meet lots of people who already support those with additional needs into work. They are doing fantastic work. I am sure that whatever the Government do will build on that success.

I am proud that the Government have learned from Edinburgh and introduced a pavement parking ban last week that will give councils across England the powers to introduce one. Again, that is a great step in creating a more equal UK. I am also really happy with the road safety strategy, which will save thousands of lives.

In Scotland, as we have already heard, we have had our biggest ever settlement. It is still a bit of a mystery to me how the Scottish Government spent that money. One of the biggest challenges we face in Edinburgh South West—this will have been part of the frustration that led people to sign the petition—is the housing crisis. I was really disappointed that last week the Scottish Government voted to tax house building in the middle of a housing emergency. That is the kind of Government we face in Scotland. We could talk about the UK Government, but people should look at the Scottish Government before doing so.

And I am really proud of what my office has done in the past year. It has resolved 8,000 cases and accumulated £303,000 of financial gain for constituents, mostly due to my colleague Lucie in my office. We also had a big impact on the Budget. Our lobbying brought about changes to inheritance tax and infected blood payments, and also brought reform to the Pension Protection Fund, ensuring that there was some indexation of the payments.

However, cutting across everything that happens in my constituency, there is still the cost of living crisis. There is also the growing youth employment that we have, particularly in Scotland—a point raised repeatedly by the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. Immigration is also a real issue. People feel that the previous Government lost control of immigration—I think we can accept that—and that the current Government must do more to bring it back under control. I say that as someone whose life was saved by an immigrant back in 2015, and who also worked at a university. So I understand the benefits of immigration, but we have to get it to a place where it is supporting the country as a whole, and I think there are some questions about that.

To conclude, we have used the word “betrayal” quite a lot in the debate, and I really regret that, because it has often been used to deliberately amplify division in the country and among people listening to the debate. As a Parliament, we have a duty to talk much more about where we agree. I am sure we agree with the point raised earlier about improving employment rights for pregnant women, women returning from childbirth and women who have had miscarriages. I hope that, for the remainder of this Parliament, we can spend more time talking about what we have in common and engaging with the electorate on that. Then, we will perhaps be able to focus on delivery rather than petitions.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Dr Huq. Could you clarify whether it is in order for so many Government speakers in the debate to have left the Chamber before the Front-Bench speeches to listen to their beleaguered Prime Minister at the parliamentary Labour party meeting?

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I think they all had to ask for permission. They should return for the concluding speeches, but we are finishing a bit earlier than we thought. We are already on the Front-Bench speeches. Usually, that would be 45 minutes before the end. I can inform the Chairman of Ways and Means and get some clarification for the future, because these things are always fluid. Anyway, I call the first of our Front Benchers, Lisa Smart.

UK-EU Common Understanding Negotiations

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I have only 20 minutes remaining, so Members must keep their questions short and answers just as short.

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

Could the Minister just spell out for the House’s benefit how much taxpayers’ money he has signed up to spending next year and in every year of this Parliament? On where Members of Parliament can read about value for money, which line item of the Budget has this money come out of?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

For one year, the figure is £570 million, which is a 30% discount—better than the Conservative party ever achieved—and 10 months in, we will have a full review of both participation and contribution. I say gently to the hon. Lady that, if she is going to go into the next election saying that young people in her constituency who benefit from Erasmus+ should no longer do so, I would welcome that debate.

G7 and NATO Summits

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I urge the SNP to back our defence spend and the jobs that brings with it, but also our defence stance. As I understand its position, the SNP is against the single most effective capability we have, which is our nuclear deterrent, at a time of the greatest volatility we have seen for decades. That is simply wrong in principle, and I urge the SNP to change it.

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

At the NATO summit, was the Prime Minister able to add his voice to the congratulations and thanks that the NATO Secretary-General paid to President Trump for the successful military strike on Iran’s nuclear programme?

[The Prime Minister]

We have long argued that Iran should not be capable of having a nuclear weapon, and what happened on Saturday night was a big step to alleviating that threat. That was the subject of many comments at the NATO summit, along with the congratulations for the ceasefire that has now been brokered and the emphasis we now need on getting Iran around the negotiating table, because if it is to be irreversible and verifiable, it is important that it is done through negotiation. That is what we are focused on.

UK-EU Summit

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

For food, for biscuits and all the content covered by the SPS agreement, this deal is a massive step forward. It gets rid of the red tape and bureaucracy that cost each business thousands upon thousands of pounds. This is good for biscuits, good for business.

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

May I have a serious answer to a very narrow and specific question? We know how many fishing rights the Prime Minister was prepared to give away for how many years in order to accede to the EU’s demands, but how much UK taxpayers’ money is he willing to hand over to the EU in order to sign up to its protectionist demands?

[The Prime Minister]

I remind the right hon. Lady that nothing that was negotiated on fishing by the previous Government has been given away; quite the contrary. On costs—I gave a full answer earlier—we are not paying into the EU budget in the way that EU members do, and that is why this unprecedented access is so important. In relation to schemes and programmes, yes, we will make a proportionate contribution, on the same basis, with the same principles, that the Conservative party—the then Government—negotiated the current arrangements on Horizon and research and development. It is hard to see why, having negotiated those arrangements, it is now suddenly against them.

Trade Negotiations

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. This deal marks a landmark moment for the UK and its global trading relationships because it is the largest trade deal secured by this country. I was therefore shocked that the Minister did not acknowledge that progression of the deal was possible only thanks to our Brexit freedoms. After all, the European Union does not have a free trade agreement with India—something the Minister must bear in mind as he follows the orders of the Prime Minister on the EU reset.

We have not seen the minutiae of the detail in the agreement that the Government are announcing today, so we will reserve our full judgment on the deal until we have had the opportunity to scrutinise it at length. However, I will take this opportunity to highlight some questions. First, what concessions did the Government make that their predecessors were not willing to make to get the deal over the line?

Secondly, I was shocked that a very significant piece of information was left out of the Minister’s statement today—one that we only found out from the Indian Government’s statement. Why did Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi make a point of announcing the agreement of a double contribution convention between India and the UK, while the Minister has not even made a passing reference to it today in his statement or his press release? A double contribution convention will come at a significant cost to the British taxpayer and British businesses. Workers who enter the UK under such conventions are eligible to only pay national insurance contributions in their home country—in this case, India.

Again, we only know from the Indian Government’s press release that the exemption for national insurance contributions for Indian workers will be for three years. Does that mean that Indian workers currently in Britain will get a refund from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, or does it mean that new Indian workers will not pay any contributions in the first place? Did the Exchequer effectively give away a massive subsidy to get this trade deal over the line? Will it really be 20% cheaper for businesses in the UK to hire Indian workers than British workers? Will the convention apply only to seconded employees of Indian companies, or will it apply more broadly to all Indian workers in the UK, and if so, from when? How many additional work visas will be issued to Indian workers under this agreement? Will the convention really mean that, for example, an Indian-owned restaurant chain in the UK could pay no national insurance here for its chef, while the British pub next door pays full national insurance for its curry chef?

Will this deal reduce the incentive for the Indian millionaires who are currently fleeing the UK for tax reasons—a subset of the many millionaires who are doing the same—to do so? Can the Minister outline what the cost of this agreement is to the Treasury? How many British nationals do the Government anticipate will make use of the reciprocal rights in India? I fear that when it comes to British workers, we have gone from two-tier Keir to two-tier-taxes Keir. This Government are literally putting up taxes for British workers while cutting them for Indian workers.

I am aware that India has expressed concerns about the UK becoming a rule-taker to the EU, so will the Minister confirm what commitments and assurances he made on that matter during the negotiations? While Conservative Members will never talk down the benefits of free trade, agreements such as this one have to be made on fair terms for both parties. As it stands, this deal looks like it is subsidising Indian labour while undercutting British workers. Will the Government back our domestic market by scrapping their jobs tax?

I look forward to hearing from the Minister a reply that actually answers these questions. If he chooses—as he sometimes does—to bat away genuine questions from the Dispatch Box, could he follow up in writing?

Ukraine

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I agree with the sentiment of my hon. Friend’s question. We will work with our allies and with the US towards the security and defence of Europe.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for the hard yards he is putting in at the moment for our national security. May I suggest another angle on which the House would appreciate an update? Last year, during an inquiry into Russian sanctions, the Treasury Committee received evidence that Russian hydrocarbons are still ending up in the UK. Could he explore the idea of improving our national security by ensuring that the oil and gas that we consume in this country come predominantly from this country?

[The Prime Minister]

The hon. Lady is right: our energy independence is hugely important, and the last three years have shown that we are far too exposed. We will obviously look closely at the question of the hydrocarbons and the sanctions.

US Steel Import Tariffs

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on US steel import tariffs.

[The Minister for Trade Policy and Economic Security (Mr Douglas Alexander)]

We have seen the proclamation issued by President Trump overnight, which enforces a full return to 25% tariffs on US steel imports on 12 March 2025. The US has so far published details only on steel, not on aluminium. The intended effect of the proclamation is to revoke existing arrangements that have avoided those tariffs, such as the UK-US resolution, as well as any separately agreed product exclusions from the tariffs.

What British industry needs and deserves is not a knee-jerk reaction but a cool and clear-headed sense of the UK’s national interest, based on a full assessment of all the implications of US actions. The Minister of State for Industry is meeting representatives of the steel industry and trade unions this very afternoon, and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade is in touch with representatives of the British steel industry and will meet them in the next 24 hours. Since July, we have engaged in a systematic way with the UK steel sector, and we will continue to engage with UK industries impacted by potential tariffs.

Historically, we have benefited from a strong and balanced trade relationship with the United States—worth around £300 billion and supporting millions of jobs. In trade policy, we stand ready to work with President Trump to find solutions that work for both the United Kingdom and the United States.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The United States is our greatest ally and our greatest single trading partner. The UK and the United States are the biggest investors in each other’s economies. Yet this is a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry, because the Government have failed to engage with gusto with the new US Administration. The Prime Minister has not, despite his many air miles, got on a flight to the States at the first possible opportunity, and years of student politics-style insults hurled at the President by Government Front Benchers has put our relationship in jeopardy. And that was before the embarrassment of the Chagos islands situation showed that we have terrible negotiators running the country.

Can the Minister confirm what conversations he or the Secretary of State have had with their counterparts in the United States about steel tariffs? How many times has the Minister spoken with US trade representatives about this matter since Sunday? Will he confirm that the first 500,000 tonnes of steel to the US will be tariff-free, as they were under President Trump’s previous Administration? What economic analysis has the Department produced on the impact of the tariffs on jobs and on the wider UK economy, and what plans do the Government have to reciprocate with tariffs on US steel and aluminium, or on any other US goods? What are the Minister’s plans for the safeguarding measures against steel dumping, which expire in June?

We on the Conservative Benches have been calling on the Government to strain every sinew for a trade deal with the United States. Much work was done by the Department last time President Trump was in the White House. Will the Minister finally set out what plans the Government have to obtain a big, beautiful free-trade agreement with the United States?

[Mr Alexander]

Well, well—let me try to answer the various questions that the shadow Minister asks. First, on the big, beautiful deal that the Conservatives contemplated, I simply observe that that was one of a whole number of trade deals that they boast about but abjectly failed to deliver.

The hon. Lady described this as a moment of great peril for the UK steel industry. Frankly, we saw the UK steel industry suffer from a degree of neglect for many years under the previous Government. That is why we are the first Government in many years to set out a comprehensive steel strategy, including a commitment of £2.5 billion towards the future of the steel industry. We will take no lectures from Conservative Front Benchers on the UK steel industry.

On the hon. Lady’s substantive question about the degree of contact that we have had with the US trade representative, it may have eluded her attention that we do not yet have a confirmed US trade representative. We anticipate that Jamieson Greer will be confirmed by the US Senate in the next couple of weeks. Similarly, she might suggest that it is important for the Secretary of State to meet Howard Lutnick, the US Secretary of Commerce, but, alas, I must inform her that Howard Lutnick has not yet been confirmed. We stand ready to engage with the incoming Administration—be that with the USTR or the Secretary of Commerce—once we are in a position to do so.

In terms of the economic analysis, I hope the hon. Lady will understand, given how sensitive these issues are as we anticipate the further steps to be taken by the Trump Administration, that it would not be an altogether wise negotiating strategy to share the detail of the internal UK analysis of the potential effects of tariffs, which, I remind the House, are not due to be imposed until 12 March.

Plan for Change: Milestones for Mission-led Government

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Pat McFadden]

I do think the Tories have a problem. The new Leader of the Opposition stood at that Dispatch Box a couple of weeks ago and said that she supported all the extra investments. Therefore, every time the Opposition stand up and oppose the revenue measures that are designed to fund them, all they do is expose their own economic incoherence. It is quite simple: if the Opposition support the investments, they have either to support the revenue measures that we have set out, or set out alternative revenue-raising measures to meet the investments that they support. So far, they have utterly failed to do that.

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

Five months in and after a Budget that the Office for Budget Responsibility says will lower growth over five years, increase inflation and reduce the number of people in jobs, it is extraordinary to see a document that has so many areas not covered. I want to probe the right hon. Gentleman specifically on his goal of increasing disposable income for working people. What would he say to those 44,000 terminally ill older people who, in shocking news last week from Marie Curie, will not get their winter fuel allowance this year? Will he be judged by his governance actions?

[Pat McFadden]

Every Government are judged by their actions and by the legacy that they leave to their successors. We had to take that decision on winter fuel precisely because of the legacy that was left to us. We do want to see a rise in people’s living standards and in their disposable income. Those stagnated under the previous Government, and let us not forget how unusual that was. This was the first Parliament in living memory that saw stagnated living standards across the whole population. We aim to change that and make sure that people see rising living standards wherever they live in the country.

Ministerial Code: Policy Announcements

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 29th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

As my hon. Friend says, the measures will be announced at tomorrow’s Budget in the normal way, with the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and fiscal forecast. The Conservative party may denigrate the Office for Budget Responsibility, but this Government respect our financial institutions.

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

Can the Paymaster General confirm that the Chancellor receiving £7,500-worth of free clothes and declaring them as office support is a breach of the ministerial code?

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Oliver Dowden]

That is precisely why we have created i.AI—the Incubator for Artificial Intelligence—under my leadership to make sure that we apply artificial intelligence to drive down the cost of public services and to improve outputs. I say gently to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a bit rich to be taking lectures from the Labour party, which wasted over £26 billion when it was in government on failed IT projects—failed IT projects in the NHS, the Ministry of Defence and DEFRA. And where was the right hon. Gentleman? He was sat in Downing Street while that happened.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

T6.   May I first associate myself with the Deputy Prime Minister’s words about the royal family?On 23 February, this House has the opportunity to correct the constitutional sexism that means that one eighth of the seats in the other place are reserved for men only. Will the Government support and work with me on my Hereditary Titles (Female Succession) Bill to ensure that the succession of peerages moves in line with that of the Crown?

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Alex Burghart)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question and the work she has done in this area; I know she has thought about it a great deal. I will be writing to her in due course. It is a complicated area of constitutional law, but we appreciate the position from which she is coming.