Backing Business to Create Economic Growth

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 18th May 2026 Commons Chamber

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

It is an honour to respond on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition to this debate on backing business to create economic growth. I would like to start by congratulating the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. and learned Member for Northampton North (Lucy Rigby), on her promotion. It seems like only moments ago that she was a colleague on the Treasury Committee, and now she is in charge of the whole nation’s spending, so I wish her the most enormous amount of luck. I also want to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I will be mentioning by name some colleagues who have not been in the debate, but I have warned their offices that I will be doing so.

I want to focus in this debate on a simple truth that many businesses across this country have come to recognise, which is that when it comes to backing business to create economic growth, Labour does not know what it is doing. Labour does not know how to govern when times are tough. It entered government without a plan and we are seeing the consequences. I am afraid that this goes deeper than the Prime Minister. Only one Labour Cabinet Minister has started a business, and none of the Prime Minister’s wannabe rivals has worked in a business or a start-up. This matters because it goes to the core of this Government. Whose side are they on? Time and time again, Labour shows that it is on the side of “Benefits Street”, not on the side of people who work, who strive and who save.

When this Labour Government came into office, they had a choice. They wanted to deliver growth. They could have backed business. They could have supported enterprise. Instead, they delivered higher taxes, higher costs and higher uncertainty, and I am afraid that the consequences are now undeniable. Business confidence has collapsed to record lows. The Institute of Directors reported its lowest-ever confidence reading in March 2026, and the Confederation of British Industry says that businesses expect their activity to fall. Jobs are being lost, payroll jobs are down, and the ITEM Club has forecast that there will be 160,000 further job losses this year because of a slowdown in growth and rising energy prices. Retail sales are weak, and nearly half of all businesses are now worried about business rates, which are rising sharply.

It all started with the Chancellor’s first Budget. Labour’s £25 billion jobs tax has increased the cost of employing someone by around £900 per person and, as a direct result, youth unemployment is at a shocking 15.8% on Labour’s watch. For an average pub with eight employees, national insurance means an extra £7,200 bill every year. At the same time, Labour has squeezed our high streets with rising business rates. The result of all this is that one in eight business leaders are planning to leave Britain and 30% of those on The Sunday Times rich list have fled high-tax, socialist Britain. That is a vote of no confidence in this Government.

The damage is not confined to business; it is spreading across the whole economy. Inflation is up. Borrowing costs are surging, with gilt yields at their highest level in decades. Debt interest is spiralling towards £140 billion a year. We are now paying more to service debt than to invest in our future. That is the direct result of a Government without a plan.

So what will happen if we get a new Labour Prime Minister? Will that help businesses and the economy? No, because Andy Burnham wants higher taxes and more borrowing, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) wants higher taxes and more borrowing, and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) wants higher taxes and more borrowing. Businesses can see where this ends. It ends in low growth and unsustainable debts. Perhaps the IMF will have to be called in, as it was under Denis Healey.

I thank colleagues on the Conservative Benches who have contributed to today’s debate, and spoken powerfully for their constituencies and the businesses that they represent. Their speeches were beams of light shining into this Chamber from the real world. My right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) spoke about debt and chaos. My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) talked about the importance of small businesses and deregulation, and the impact on them of national insurance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Tom Tugendhat) referenced the debt markets and the pressing need for welfare reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), in an outstanding speech, spoke about his local businesses, and said that the last thing they need is another holiday tax.

In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) highlighted the impact on jobs for young people, and in a powerful contribution, my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) spoke about solar farms and the shocking information about self-swab rape kits. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spoke about rural businesses and rural deprivation, and made an outstanding contribution on turning things around for his constituents in Mid Norfolk.

Turning to the King’s Speech, what do we see? We see a King’s Speech full of more intervention, more regulation, more taxes and more uncertainty. There is even—I am not making this up—a regulating for growth Bill: more compliance burdens dressed up as protections and more top-down control from Whitehall. Labour Members describes it as growth coming from an interventionist Government, but they are wrong. Growth comes from entrepreneurs who take risks. Growth comes from businesses that invest and hire. Growth comes from workers who strive and succeed. That is why we have set out a clear alternative: a serious plan, a credible programme.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I am going to make a bit of progress on our serious, credible plan—a pro-growth alternative King’s Speech, with 16 Bills designed to get Britain working again.

First, we will give people jobs and hope with our get Britain working Bill. We will repeal the job-destroying elements of Labour’s Employment Rights Act, saving businesses up to £5 billion a year. We will restore flexibility in the labour market, and reintroduce minimum service levels to protect essential services from strikes. That means more jobs and lower hiring costs—a labour market that rewards work.

Secondly, we will back our communities with our back our high streets Bill. We will introduce permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, which will support 250,000 of the smallest businesses with lower bills, leading to stronger high streets and protecting jobs. While Labour targets family businesses and farmers with punitive taxes, our plan is simple: we will scrap the family business and family farm tax, and back those who grow our food, create jobs and create wealth.

Thirdly, we will cut red tape with our deregulation of business Bill. We will scrap unnecessary environment, social and governance reporting requirements, which cost businesses millions every year—less bureaucracy, more time to grow and more investment.

Fourthly, we will restore industrial competitiveness with our save British industry Bill. We will repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, establish a monitoring and reporting mechanism for the offshoring of emissions, axe the carbon tax, which pushes up energy bills, and repeal the zero emission vehicle mandate. That will lower costs and lead to stronger industries—jobs kept in Britain.

Fifthly, we will tackle energy costs—many hon. Members raised energy costs in their contributions today—with our cheap energy Bill. We will cut electricity bills for businesses by 20% and household bills by £200 by taking VAT off energy bills, axing the carbon tax and scrapping the Energy Secretary’s renewables subsidies. That will give businesses immediate relief and greater competitiveness, and lead to stronger growth.

Beyond those Bills, we have plans to scrap stamp duty to get the property markets moving, to properly fund our armed forces, to reform welfare, to get people back into work and to approve new North sea licences for energy security. Because growth is not achieved through slogans—

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Is the hon. Gentleman going to achieve growth through a slogan?

[Ben Coleman]

I was going to say that I cannot be the only person in the House who is thrilled by the great list of exciting things that the hon. Lady is setting out for the country. I wonder why she did not do any of them during the 14 years she was in power, why it is only now that she has ideas for the country, and whether she could have done something that would not have led to the catastrophe that we are trying to put right—just a suggestion.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I am afraid it is the historical role of my party to clean up the mess that Labour Governments leave behind. Growth is not achieved through slogans; it is delivered through serious and sustained planning.

In conclusion, the debate comes down to a clear choice: Labour’s approach—

[Ben Coleman]

Liz Truss!

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Member mentions Liz Truss from a sedentary position. Is he not aware that gilt yields are now higher than at any time during that brief period? I am sure he will be welcoming the higher taxes and more borrowing that his Government have caused, the higher energy costs imposed on his local businesses, the more regulation that has led to less growth—or he could adopt the Conservative approach: lower taxes, lower costs and less regulation. [Interruption.] The Business Secretary says “More growth” from a sedentary position. He may be referring to the first quarter of this year when the biggest thing that happened for growth in this economy was vehicle repair. I call that the pothole growth strategy, and I am afraid that that is the reality if we dig into the growth numbers.

Our approach is less regulation and more growth. Ultimately, this is about values. Labour has the wrong values. It is for “Benefits Street”, and we are on the side of people who work, people who strive, people who save. Only the Conservative party has a plan to reduce costs and deliver the growth that we all want. Only the Conservative party is ready to govern. Only the Conservative party will back great British businesses to build a stronger economy for the future.

UK Steel Strategy

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. The Conservatives very much believe in a sovereign steel industry, but what we see today is a multibillion-pound shot in the dark, and it heralds the end of primary steel production in the UK. Just to set the record straight, there would no longer be any steel production in Wales without action from the last Government. This steel strategy has no plan to make the industry stand on its own two feet, and it risks a permanent state-funded drain on taxpayers.

British Steel was losing £700,000 a day when the Government took emergency action last year, and now the taxpayer is losing an estimated £1.3 million a day and there is a subsidy of £110,000 per job to keep the Scunthorpe blast furnace operational. This steel strategy does not include any exit strategy, risking a permanent drain on taxpayers, and now the Government are negotiating handing taxpayers’ money to a Chinese business that they said was worth nothing, while hitting British users of steel with a 50% tariff hike. Given that the previous Secretary of State said that British Steel had zero value, will the current Secretary of State confirm whether compensation will be paid to Jingye?

How are these new tariffs going to affect the cost of living for our constituents? How much will the tariffs raise? They represent a massive tax hike on our world-leading automotive, defence and aerospace sectors, which will make building homes, bridges and railways more expensive. Have the Government carried out any impact assessment on the tariffs, and will jobs not be lost in those other sectors?

The Government say in the strategy that electric arc furnaces are the future, but without competitive energy, green steel will simply become no steel. If electric arc furnaces are the future, when will the blast furnaces at Scunthorpe be decommissioned, and how many jobs will be lost in that process? Where will the £2.5 billion go? Is it all going into the Scunthorpe blast furnaces? How is this £2.5 billion spending spree fiscally responsible? What is the Secretary of State cutting to pay for it?

The so-called National Wealth Fund is rapidly become the national slush fund. The shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho), has announced our cheap power plan, which will slash energy bills for businesses and households. The Conservatives will axe the carbon tax, scrap extortionate subsidies for wind and solar, repeal the Climate Change Act 2008, and end the ban on new oil and gas licences to maximise domestic extraction and reduce dependence on foreign energy imports. Could the Secretary of State please copy this approach?

This is a Government who are subsidising decline and reaching for protectionist tariffs. After the botched nationalisation of Scunthorpe and the surrender of the Chagos islands, we can see from this steel strategy that when Labour negotiates, the British taxpayer loses.

[Peter Kyle]

I am glad to see the hon. Lady at the Dispatch Box. It is always an honour to have exchanges with her, as it has been for quite some time.

The hon. Lady mentions Wales, but she seems to have no idea about the breadth and depth of the steel industry across Wales. She seems to think that there is only one steel maker, manufacturer and operator in Wales. There is not. She seems to be forgetting all about 7 Steel in Cardiff. That explains why the Conservatives in government failed to have a strategy and vision for steel and to support the sector because they did not even know who was making steel and where. This Government understand all our steel assets, and we are creating a strategy to make sure that all of them add up to more than the sum of their parts and that we have a domestic industry that is sustainable, secure and growing into the future.

The hon. Lady seems to want to exit from British Steel without any more investment whatsoever. That would be the worst of all worlds. She wants to strand an entire community. We will stand by that community and make sure that the steel industry and sector thrives into the future.

On tariffs, let me just explain to the party that used to be about free and fair trade that free trade depends on fair trade. Fair trade depends on not having overcapacity. We cannot have overcapacity and fair trade. Therefore, we must correct the market and offer protection where overcapacity is in danger of decimating one of our key industries for defence, security and future prosperity.

The worst thing that could be done for the British steel industry is to do nothing. All we have heard from the Conservatives is, “Don’t do any of the things that Labour is doing,” with no alternatives offered whatsoever. They are the “do nothing” party, and that is the worst of all worlds.

Royal Mail: Performance

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

This has been an incredibly powerful debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) for securing the debate and my hon. Friends the Members for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) and for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) for their contributions. I also thank Members from across the House for their contributions. There has been a consistent theme and a consistent message, but I will try not to repeat all the powerful speeches that we have had. I will try to focus my speech on the questions for the Minister.

I have had a lot of casework in West Worcestershire on this issue, and it seems to have happened post Ofcom’s decision in July 2025 to allow a change to the universal service obligation. That seems to be the point at which I observed a huge increase in casework. We have heard about really serious consequences on our constituents’ lives. It is incredibly important that the Minister gets to grips in terms of his responsibilities vis-à-vis particularly the regulator. I want to focus on the meeting that the Minister had last week with Ofcom, and I want to add my appreciation for the amazing work that our posties do in West Worcestershire.

The meeting with Ofcom came about on the afternoon after last week’s urgent question, so this is an opportunity for the Minister to update us on the action that he is taking. Ofcom agreed that the new Czech owner of Royal Mail could change the universal service obligation, and that change started last July. The new delivery model means that first class should continue to be delivered on a daily basis, and second class should be every other day. But what we have heard loud and clear in this debate today is that that does not seem to be happening. We buy a first-class stamp for a reason—because we want a delivery the next day. How is Ofcom justifying its decision to allow Royal Mail to have higher costs for a service that is clearly getting worse? What did it tell the Minister at the meeting that he had? Did he secure any commitments from Ofcom about its powers vis-à-vis Royal Mail?

I know that the Minister also sits down regularly with Royal Mail. What discussions has he had with Royal Mail about the issues that have been so well articulated across the House this morning? Staffing cuts, delivery revisions and operational changes have clearly contributed to this collapse in performance. Does the Minister believe that the current regulatory framework for this precious part of our critical national infrastructure is fit for purpose? Is he considering any reforms to the regulatory framework for Royal Mail?

Royal Mail continues to say—I think we have heard it illustrated by the contributions this morning—that the universal service obligation, as currently defined, is impossible to deliver. When the company was bought, the new owner must have done due diligence on what the obligations were. Does the Minister accept the premise that the current universal service obligation is impossible to deliver, or does he think that, with the right regulatory interventions, the owner can meet it?

The recent letter that Royal Mail sent to the Business and Trade Committee refers to its contingency plans to prioritise parcels to prevent unsafe build-ups, but I think all of us believe and have heard anecdotally that the prioritisation of parcels is a deliberate business decision, because that is where the margin is seen to be. Can the Minister explain the conversations that he has had with Royal Mail about the threshold for that contingency—Royal Mail claims that it holds it in reserve—for addressing parcels with a higher priority than letters? At what point does a temporary decision to implement that contingency become a permanent de facto policy of deprioritising letters—the very heart of our universal service obligation?

[Robbie Moore]

On Royal Mail’s website today, it says that if a customer buys a second-class stamp, they can expect delivery within two or three days, including Saturdays, but since 28 July last year, delivery has not taken place on a Saturday. There seems to be an inconsistency between what Royal Mail is saying publicly and what it is actually delivering. What does my hon. Friend feel that the Minister should do to address this clear anomaly?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I look forward to the Minister responding to that, but I think we have heard today that even that weaker delivery obligation is not being met.

We also need to consider the wider business context that we are living in. Many businesses like Royal Mail have had to pay this additional jobs tax. The Employment Rights Act is having an impact on hiring across the economy. Does the Minister acknowledge that his own Government’s decisions have affected the situation? What assessment has he made of the impact of Government tax policies on Royal Mail’s financial resilience?

In conclusion, this debate is about ensuring that a service relied upon by millions is restored to the standards that the law requires. What steps immediately can the Minister take to restore a reliable six-day service? What action will he take to hold Royal Mail to its legal obligations? What reforms will he pursue to ensure that Ofcom is an active, effective regulator rather than a passive observer? When will the public finally see improvements to the service in the way that they have been promised for years?

Social Enterprises and Community Ownership

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) on securing this important debate.

I should declare that I was once on the board of the Social Investment Bank until 2012, and that my brother-in-law is chief executive of the Oversight Trust, which looks after all the dormant asset investments. I think I speak from a position of knowledge when I say how important social enterprises and community-owned organisations are. They are indeed some of the most dynamic, resilient and socially valuable parts of our economy. It was wonderful to hear so many examples from so many contributors in this debate—I will not list them all, but they were all very well described.

Social enterprise and community ownership lead to reinvestment of profits locally. They create local jobs and deliver services that strengthen communities—services that might not exist without them. These organisations are more likely to be led by women and, as we have heard, to be located in areas of higher deprivation.

I will indulge in this opportunity to mention some great examples in West Worcestershire. I think of two community-owned and volunteer-led shops: one in Alfrick, which I had the honour of opening, and another in Lower Broadheath, where I am on the record as a founding shareholder. We have the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, which is a wonderful community interest company pub. We also have some examples of organisations that used to belong to the county council, but now belong to the community. Two examples in Malvern are the Malvern Cube and Boundless Outdoors Malvern, and they are really thriving now as community assets.

As we can see from the House of Commons Library briefing, these organisations are often very much more trusted, much more responsive and more resilient than their commercial counterparts—but they do not operate in a vacuum. They need a stable economic environment, predictable costs, and a Government who understand the pressures that they face.

His Majesty’s official Opposition have repeatedly raised concerns, which we also heard from the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), that recent Government decisions, including increases to national insurance, unresolved business rate pressures, and the impact of the Employment Rights Act on labour costs have created additional financial strain for social enterprises, which are already operating on tight margins. Many in the sector say that those pressures are forcing them to put up prices, scale back their services, delay their investment plans or abandon plans for community asset purchases altogether. What assessment have the Government made of how the recent increases in national insurance contributions are affecting the financial sustainability of social enterprises and community-owned organisations?

Business rates are one of the biggest barriers to survival for these organisations. The Government’s approach has left many organisations facing uncertainty and rising costs, so what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that business rates policy supports, rather than undermines, community ownership and social enterprise growth? Access to finance is also a persistent challenge, so what funding is available for social enterprises and community-owned assets, and what work is being done with the UK’s leading financial sector to address the barriers that social enterprises and community-owned organisations sometimes face?

These organisations are there, ready to deliver economic and social renewal, but they face many of the same challenges as other businesses across the UK. It is time for the Government to stop making life harder for businesses of all kinds. It is time for the Government to adopt the Conservative plans for a 100% business rate relief on retail, hospitality and leisure for the benefit of our high streets.

Oral Answers to Questions

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Thursday 12th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

There was a new private sector investor in the Royal Mail last year. As we heard yesterday in the House, the regulator has let the universal service obligation slip, so will the Minister update the House on how his colleague’s meeting with the regulator went yesterday?

[Chris McDonald]

The Minister responsible for the Post Office and the Royal Mail, my hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Blair McDougall), is sitting beside me. Just yesterday, he spent 90 minutes in the House answering questions from Members who have had problems with the service across the whole of the country; I have seen such problems in my constituency as well. The Government are clearly not happy with the level of service from the Royal Mail, and the shadow Minister will hear a full response to Question 15, when my hon. Friend will stand at the Dispatch Box and tell her everything that she needs to know about that particular meeting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Of course, there are lots of well-paid jobs in the steel sector. In fact, the taxpayer is now subsidising every job at British Steel to the tune of £110,000. Can the Secretary of State update the House on how his negotiations are going with Jingye, and on when he will finally publish his long-awaited steel strategy?

[Peter Kyle]

I am very grateful for the hon. Lady’s question. Of course, after 14 years of the Conservatives running the steel industry, we have landed in a place where this Government are having to sort it out. I can reassure her that the negotiations with Jingye are well under way. I will update the House shortly on progress and, of course, on the strategy that I have been working very hard on, with colleagues, on behalf of the steel industry.

Royal Mail: Universal Service Obligation

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 11th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

I think my hon. Friend’s anger is shared by hon. Members around the Chamber when they hear the stories of people not just missing hospital appointments, but finding themselves with county court judgments and in other such situations that are entirely not their fault and due to failures of delivery. We have told Royal Mail it is not good enough, the Select Committee has told them it is not good enough, and Ofcom has told them it is not good enough. The seriousness with which we take this issue is exemplified by the fact that, as I said, the Secretary of State has convened that meeting. I have called in Royal Mail and, as I mentioned a moment ago, I am meeting Ofcom later today to raise exactly the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. I congratulate the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) on securing it. We can see from the number of Members who are interested in this topic just how serious it is across all our constituencies. I can testify to the fact that I have had an enormous amount of casework on this issue, which started just before Christmas, involving hospital appointments being missed, and children’s birthday cards, condolence cards for recently widowed individuals and postal voting forms not arriving. This is an absolutely critical issue.

I reiterate that the universal service obligation is an obligation. It is an obligation set out in statute, and it is an obligation to every household in this country. We can all testify to the fact that it has been systematically broken, and that the turning point was when the new owner bought Royal Mail, with this Government’s approval, in April 2025.

The letter from Royal Mail received by the Business and Trade Committee yesterday revealed that over 200 million letters have been delivered late this year. In addition to the meetings the Minister has listed with Ofcom, what assessments has he made of all the stress being caused to our constituents and the impact on people’s wellbeing? Has he had a critical discussion with Ofcom, because it appears that it is not really doing its job as a regulator? The public are paying more but getting less, and the fines he has listed do not reflect the deterioration we have seen recently. In my discussions with Royal Mail, it has said that parcels overwhelm the service at Christmas, but that situation is carrying on into March. Is it not the reality that parcels are much more—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Lady is over time. I was trying to push her along to finish her question, but there seem to be more pages. Can we now end?

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

We can certainly now end by asking for the Minister’s plan in terms of—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We have had enough—I don’t need that backchat. I call the Minister.

Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Investigatory Powers) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 General Committees

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

It is an absolute honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart; you delivered the title of this legislation with a dryness that belies its purpose and impact on our economy. The instrument looks tiny—there is hardly anything in it—yet I am going to argue that the Committee should vote against it this afternoon. It may look like a technical mechanism, and the Minister described it as such, but it equips the Fair Work Agency with state-level surveillance tools previously reserved for tackling the serious and organised crime that occurs in the gangmaster sector, and applies those investigatory powers across our entire economy. The creation of the Fair Work Agency, a consolidated super-regulator with enhanced snooping powers, represents a significant overreach of the state into the private operations of British businesses.

I hope that not only my Conservative colleagues, but possibly Labour colleagues, and certainly Liberal Democrat colleagues, will vote against this instrument. Currently, the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority focuses on high-risk industries, such as agriculture and fishing, where there have been abuses. These changes will allow the Fair Work Agency to snoop everywhere across every workplace in this country. We oppose this statutory instrument as it formalises the transition towards a more litigious and more monitored labour market, which will inevitably stifle start-ups and entrepreneurs and increase the regulatory burden on small and medium-sized enterprises. It is not a proportionate or balanced approach to enforcement.

We have heard repeatedly from business groups about the cumulative pressure that they are under. The British Retail Consortium has warned that margins in retail are already at breaking point. The Confederation of British Industry speaks of a “chilling” effect on hiring as firms brace for more aggressive enforcement. This instrument will give those powers. The Federation of Small Businesses has been clear that tighter scrutiny, combined with rising employment costs, will force many small firms to reduce hours, cut staff or automate roles entirely—something that we are sadly already seeing in the monthly unemployment statistics.

The Minister claimed that the statutory instrument simply ensures continuity following the abolition of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority. Of course it does as far as that sector is concerned, but in so doing widens that to the entire economy via the Fair Work Agency. It is not a like-for-like replacement. We are seeing a super-regulator with a far wider remit and far stronger powers. Those reasons, alongside our commitment to repealing the vast majority of the job-destroying Employment Rights Act, are why we oppose this statutory instrument today. We urge all other hon. Members to do so, too.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

I was not planning to make a speech, but since the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, said she plans to vote against this statutory instrument and invited me to join her, I feel I should get some remarks on the record on behalf of my party. I thank her for her kind invitation, but I plan to vote with the Government on establishing the Fair Work Agency, in line with the policy of my party throughout the progress of the Employment Rights Bill.

We support the setting up of the Fair Work Agency. It brings together the powers of several different bodies into one unified place, and that is really important. I hear what the shadow Minister is saying about extending the GLAA powers, but I think there is a bigger win here in setting up the Fair Work Agency: it would not only provide a better route for employees to establish their rights in the workplace, but relieve the burden of tribunals from employers, if it works as intended.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I am genuinely shocked and surprised to hear the Liberal Democrat line, because I seem to remember when these investigatory powers—including the right to snoop on communications—were first brought in, the hon. Lady’s party was vehemently against them, yet here we are giving these powers to an agency that will cover every job in this land.

[Sarah Olney]

I hear the hon. Lady, but I repeat what I said: the setting up of the Fair Work Agency is an important step towards ensuring that employees can assert their rights in the workplace and that employers will not be burdened unduly with the costs of tribunals. That is why the Liberal Democrats have supported the setting up of the Fair Work Agency from the start.

Post Office Green Paper

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement, and—I do not often say these words—I warmly welcome the decision that he has announced. It seems that the Government have abandoned the risk, posed by their earlier proposals, that they would shutter thousands of local post offices, especially in rural areas. It is a great relief to those in villages and high streets that the Government have listened to the people who engaged with the consultation and the 180,000 who signed our petition, and have heard the calls from the readers of The Mail on Sunday, the Express, The Daily Telegraph and other media outlets, all of whom were outraged by the possibility that the Government would close their much-valued local post offices.

By keeping the minimum network size at 11,500 branches, as it was throughout the 14 years we were in government, and by retaining all the geographical access criteria, the Minister has avoided a U-turn. In fact, I would describe what he has done as avoiding a chasm that was opening up in the road in front of him, and avoiding it niftily. The campaign that we led showed how important it is to voice the concerns of the vulnerable, those who are digitally excluded and the small businesses that rely so much on our precious post office network. May I add my thanks for the hard work of every postmaster and postmistress in Britain who keeps that network going?

However, it is not all sweetness and light for me today. The post office network, like so many retailers, faces a tax hike—in this case, a hike of £45 million—because of the national insurance increase. Many post offices are also seeing increases of more than 100% in their business rates. The chairman of Post Office Ltd, Nigel Railton, made it clear that it was precisely because of the rising costs resulting from the changes in national insurance and the national living wage that the business needed a fresh start. We cannot claim to support the backbone of the network while breaking its back with tax hikes. The Conservatives have always stood up for our nation’s high streets, and we would introduce a permanent 100% business rate relief for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses whose premises are under the rateable value threshold of £110,000.

I have a few questions for the Minister. He announced a requirement for at least 50% of the network to be full-time and full-service. I believe that the number today is 79%. Is that not a downgrade, and what does he expect from the other 29%? Will he confirm that no small rural branches will be consolidated and replaced by city-centre hubs under the guise of this new 50% full-service requirement? Will he please expand on the minimum service that he would expect those smaller branches to deliver?

The Minister committed himself to a technology transformation programme to replace the Horizon system within the next five years. I heard about the first two years of funding, but will he give us some details about how the current system will be maintained after those first two years? He mentioned the importance of the post office network, given the number of banks that are closing branches all over the country. Has a new, specific agreement been made with the banks to provide additional support for post office branches in areas where banks are closing? What update can he give the House about the discussions with Fujitsu and its financial contribution towards Post Office redress?

The Minister has clearly been forced to listen. He has been forced to do a pre-U-turn on the proposals to reduce the size of our precious post office network. He has been forced to admit that our high streets deserve better than the managed decline that was a risk under those earlier proposals, and this is a victory for all our constituents.

[Blair McDougall]

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

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

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

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

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

Industry and Exports (Financial Assistance) Bill

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Committee of the whole House & 3rd reading
Monday 23rd February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Chris Bryant]

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

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

This is a short Bill, but it involves potentially raising and spending a huge amount of public money, so in the interests of thorough scrutiny, I will speak to Opposition amendments 3 and 4 to clause 2, concerning the use of public finance for exports that may ultimately be re-exported to sanctioned destinations. Our amendments would prevent the Government from providing export finance or insurance where there is reason to believe that goods may be re-exported to Russia, or to any other country subject to UK sanctions. In such cases, the Secretary of State’s financial commitments would be capped at zero.

These amendments are not abstract. They respond to a very real problem in our world today that has been highlighted by independent analysis. For example, Sky’s Ed Conway has done extensive reporting showing that although direct exports to Russia have collapsed since sanctions were imposed, goods of UK origin are still reaching Russia through third countries. Exports to states such as Kyrgyzstan, Armenia and Uzbekistan have surged by extraordinary amounts—sometimes more than 1,000%. Obviously, these are not normal market movements; they are clear indications of diversion routes being used to circumvent sanctions.

These are not just trade flows on a spreadsheet. Sky News has shown that components of UK origin have been found inside Russian military equipment used on the battlefield in Ukraine. Among the items that have been identified in Russian systems are British-made microchips found in Russian drones, UK-origin electronic components inside Russian missiles and dual-use technology that should never have been able to reach Russia under the sanctions regime. Those components were not exported directly from the UK to Russia; they were routed through intermediary countries, often the same countries to which UK exports have suddenly spiked. President Zelensky has publicly raised concerns that UK goods are still making their way into Russia, despite sanctions.

That is why we believe that amendments 3 and 4 are necessary. They represent a simple but important safeguard. The UK must ensure that its export finance system does not inadvertently support supply chains that undermine our sanctions regime. In the case of Russia, we must be absolutely certain that no UK-backed goods are being diverted in ways that could support its illegal war against Ukraine.

The Minister has spoken about the need to expand UK Export Finance’s capacity and to support small and medium-sized enterprises in particular. We agree that export finance has an important role to play, but it must be deployed responsibly. I am sure that the whole Committee agrees that public money should never be used in ways that conflict with our foreign policy or national security objectives. Our amendments would ensure that the Government exercise due diligence, and that UK Export Finance support is aligned with the UK’s sanctions framework. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is a constructive and proportionate proposal, and will want to support it tonight.

New clause 2, in the name of His Majesty’s Opposition, is about the steel industry. We can all agree that steel made in the UK is a strategic foundation sector for the United Kingdom. It supports thousands of skilled jobs and underpins supply chains across manufacturing, construction and defence. We did not oppose the Government’s emergency legislation last April, although we warned that it was rushed, and that the Government did not have a proper plan. Nearly a year on from that emergency legislation, and nearly two years into this Government, we are still waiting for the long-promised steel strategy.

The Government have still not been able to agree a deal with the Chinese, despite the Prime Minister’s visit to China. There has been secret meeting after secret meeting between Ministers and Jingye—meetings on which the Government have refused to update Parliament. New clause 2 would simply require the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on the impact of the increased financial assistance limits on the UK steel industry. That report would set out, first, the amount of financial assistance provided each month to UK steel undertakings under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, and secondly, the number of full-time equivalent steel jobs that, in the Secretary of State’s view, would have been lost without the increased limit. It is a straightforward accountability measure. If public money is being used to support the steel sector, Parliament and the public deserve to know how much is being spent, why it is necessary and what outcomes it is delivering.

The Government have repeatedly spoken about the importance of steel, and we agree that steel is very important, but without a clear strategy or transparent reporting, it is impossible to judge whether interventions are effective, and whether they represent value for money. How do we know that we are not providing a limitless amount of funding that will crowd out support for other industries, and how can we assess whether it is good value for the taxpayer? New clause 2 would not constrain the Government’s ability to act; it would simply ensure that support is justified, targeted and effective. I hope that the Minister will recognise the value of this additional transparency and accept the new clause.

I turn to amendments 1 and 2, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). We believe that they are sensible and straightforward. If the Secretary of State has reason to believe that modern slavery or human trafficking is likely to be present in the supply chain of a business receiving export-supported goods, obviously the amount of public financial support should be zero. That is surely the only responsible position that this House can take. We are inherently supportive of the need for transparency in supply chains, and will support the amendments.

I turn to new clause 1, tabled by the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). Providing transparency on the amounts that are allocated across the whole United Kingdom would seem to be helpful assistance to this House.

[Jim Shannon]

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

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

The hon. Member makes a very important point, and I know that the House will be eager to hear how enthusiastic the Minister is about all the amendments that have been tabled. I am sure we will shortly hear whether he supports them, or why he does not and why he will urge his colleagues to vote against them this evening.

[Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)]

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

I sense that this is an occasion when the House would appreciate it if I were quite brief, but I am grateful to set out our support for the principles of the Bill, and we will not oppose it on Third Reading. The Bill raises the statutory limits in a way that will enable the Government to provide UK industry with additional support, and as His Majesty’s official Opposition we of course want exports to grow, investment to increase and UK firms to thrive. We also believe that public money must be used responsibly, transparently and only where it is genuinely needed, which is why we regret that the Government opposed our amendments this evening.

The Government did not accept our amendments, but we will continue to press for greater transparency around these large sums and expenditure of public money. We will press for stronger safeguards and a more coherent industrial strategy, particularly in the steel sector. We want British businesses to succeed, and exporters to have the support they need. We want public money to be used wisely and in the national interest, so while we will not oppose the Bill today, we will continue to scrutinise closely the work of the Department.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

UK-India Free Trade Agreement

Harriett Baldwin Excerpts

Monday 9th February 2026 Commons Chamber

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

Soggy poppadoms, buses, a lot of whisky, pottery, bricks, some Galloway cheddar and even an aircraft carrier promoting whisky—those are some of the colourful items mentioned in this debate, which brings to life the impact across all our constituencies of this UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. As such, it is a pleasure to close today’s debate on the UK-India comprehensive economic and trade agreement. This debate forms part of the process of constitutional reform and governance that Parliament has adopted, whereby we spend 21 sitting days scrutinising agreements such as this one.

Despite the fact that other things happening in this building this evening have perhaps distracted the attention of some Members, particularly those on the Government Benches, we have heard that this agreement carries a lot of significance. In particular, I draw attention to the excellent and detailed speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam); she highlighted some of the economic incentives this agreement will create when it comes to employing British people versus Indian people to do the same jobs here in the UK. When the Minister responds to the debate, I would be interested to hear him answer those points. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) also raised an important issue about dairy. As I understand it, there are currently no licences for dairy products coming into the UK from India, but that could change in the future, so it would be interesting to know what process the Government would adopt to address that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith) said in his opening speech, free trade is a key belief among Conservative Members. That is why we pursued trade agreements with the EU, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein, as well as the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. Indeed, it was predecessors in the previous Government who laid the groundwork for the agreement that is before us today. As has rightly been acknowledged in many speeches this evening, this agreement represents a Brexit dividend—the ability to pursue an independent trade policy and to deepen our relationship with one of the world’s fastest-growing economies.

However, recognising that achievement does not mean we can ignore the areas in which this agreement falls short. Many of those points were raised by other Members in this debate. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne), made the point that the Government risk undermining the benefits of the agreement through their planned 40% cuts in UK export support staff. I invite the Minister to once again reconfirm to the House that those cuts do not include staff in India who will be working on the implementation of this deal.

The House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee report highlights the stark disparity between goods and services in this agreement. For a country whose economy is so overwhelmingly services-based, that imbalance matters. The agreement contains no meaningful advance on mutual recognition of qualifications; the deal establishes a 36-month target for reaching a conclusion in that area, but what will happen if no agreement is reached within that 36-month period? As my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs highlighted, the sequencing of market access is deeply asymmetric, with many Indian exporters gaining from immediate tariff reductions in this country while UK exporters face phased access and quotas. A striking omission is that of legal services, as the House of Lords’ International Agreements Committee has said:

“We view this as a missed opportunity given that legal services comprise a strategically important and growing sector of trade, both in their own terms and in relation to supporting trade in other sectors.”

As others have noted, another concerning omission is the absence of any investment protection. The bilaterial investment treaty that was expected to be agreed at the same time as this deal remains undelivered, so can the Minister confirm for UK firms investing in India what his plans and deadline are for implementing an agreement along those lines? When we compare this agreement with the EU-India free trade agreement, the contrast is quite clear; the EU managed to achieve a full investment protection agreement, and its investors will have stronger legal certainty than their UK competitors. On agricultural products, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway was absolutely right to highlight farmers’ concerns about dairy being an issue in the future. I invite the Minister to offer farmers up and down this country the assurances they need about the effect that these provisions might have on them in the future.

Finally, we must again address the double contribution convention. We do not know very much detail about it, but we do know that Indian workers posted to the UK will pay no national insurance, and nor will their employers. At a time when British businesses are being asked to shoulder increased national insurance contributions, it is hard to see how Ministers can defend a framework that makes it cheaper to hire from abroad than to employ a worker here at home. Can the Minister explain why the Government have created a two-tier tax system in which British businesses pay more in national insurance while employers hiring workers from India pay nothing at all, and what will he do if he sees British workers losing out in large numbers when this measure comes into force?

In conclusion, this deal is a welcome opportunity for British exporters to explore new markets, but one with many missed opportunities in areas where the UK should be leading, not lagging. The task now is to ensure that this agreement becomes a foundation and not a ceiling, so will the Government treat it as a living agreement? Will they return to the negotiating table and deliver the services access, investment protections and sectoral safeguards that British businesses and workers deserve, and what metrics and milestones can we in Parliament use to continue to hold the Government to account as they implement this agreement?