Dame Harriett Baldwin
MP for West Worcestershire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I welcome the Chancellor to his new role. I paid close attention yesterday to the long speech he made to reset the narrative and drive growth Britain. In paying tribute to his predecessor, will he recognise that she left the highest tax burden on record? Instead of postponing the words he could utter to my hon.”
“I welcome the new Prime Minister to the Dispatch Box. I note that in his statement he referred to the biggest issues facing the country as being “the economy and the cost of living crisis”. Will he accept that one of the things that has damaged our economy and caused prices to be higher is the tax-and-spend Budget in November 2024?”
“Could the Leader of the House make a commitment that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will come to the House on the first day we are back from recess?”
“With a stroke of his Whitehall pen, the Secretary of State has just abolished Malvern Hills district council, Worcester city council, wonderful Wychavon district council and Worcestershire county council. He said in his statement that this is about making “real improvements to people’s lives and…communities”.”
“In recent weeks in West Worcestershire, I have met local police and the police and crime commissioner; the police and crime commissioner is being abolished, and the police are being reorganised. I have met the local health commissioners; they are being reorganised, and Healthwatch is being abolished.”
“Will the Leader of the House confirm that, given that the other place is sitting next week, there is nothing to stop him tabling a business statement to enable this House to sit next week? Given the enormity of the events happening in the Government next week, does he not think that would be a good idea?”
The complete record
Every one of 3,832 lines we hold for Dame Harriett Baldwin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 10 of 77.
“I tabled a written question to the Home Office on this subject and received the following response: “According to a report by the Local Data Company and Green Street, the average number of barber shops per 10,000 people has more than doubled in the last 10 years, from 1.4 per 10,000 people in 2013 to 3.1 per 10,000 in 2023.” What assessment has the Minister made of criminal activity among barber shops and what steps are the Government taking to tackle it? We have heard today how important the hair and beauty sector is to our high streets and to everyone in our constituencies who uses it. The Government’s Halloween Budget has delivered a devastating blow to the sector and put its future in jeopardy. Will the Minister commit to reversing these damaging tax increases?”
“We already know that the Employment Rights Bill will add a further £5 billion of costs across the whole of UK businesses, so what assessment has he made of the potential impact of the 2024 Halloween Budget on the level of employment of women in the hairdressing and beauty industries? Another long-standing concern that we heard raised in the debate was about tax avoidance and criminal activity, particularly by illegal barber shops linked to money laundering.”
“Indeed, the sector’s total tax contribution is anticipated to fall by £44 million, which is a great example of the Laffer curve in reverse. Following the Budget, the Hair and Barber Council polled hair professionals across the country. Of the 2,000 respondents, 42% are now considering closing their businesses in the next 12 months, 80% said they are now being forced to consider moving to self-employment, 94% said they are either extremely concerned for the future, or believe that a generation of apprenticeships will be lost, and 98% do not believe that the sector is valued by this Government. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government commissioned any kind of impact assessment of the potential impact of the changes to national insurance in the Halloween Budget on the number of apprenticeships offered by high street businesses?”
“It says that businesses in the sector are expected to incur an additional £139 million in costs, and that is before making any operational adjustments. Labour expenses alone will rise by £100 million. The report revealed that, as a result, 72% of businesses anticipate having to raise prices; no wonder the IMF is calling out the inflationary impact of this Budget. Furthermore, 45% of the businesses intend to cut their staff hours and another 45% plan to reduce their workforce. On average, each business expects to lay off 2.7 full-time equivalent employees and an apprentice. Overall, the sector’s profits are expected to decrease by 15%, with turnover down by £20 million and corporation tax therefore decreasing from £240 million to £200 million.”
“The British Beauty Council states that the assumption that these businesses “can simply absorb the costs is hugely misguided. Instead, it will most likely prevent wage increases and deter people from hiring more staff therefore stifling growth”, which is the very growth that the Government wish to see. Additional pressure has come from the rise in the national minimum wage, and another impact of the Hallowe’en Budget was that, as we have heard, the Chancellor reduced retail, hospitality and leisure relief from a 75% discount to a 40% discount. That has been another major hammer blow to the sector’s financial wellbeing. We know that the Budget has had a big impact on the hair and beauty sector because the National Hair & Beauty Federation has just published a report examining it.”
“We have heard about the economic contribution of over £8 billion, but the impact of salons in giving people an opportunity for a moment of peace in a frantic life should not be underestimated. It is regretful that the Government’s recent decisions have put such uncertainty into the sector. We all acknowledge that the sector has had a long-standing issue that VAT cannot be reclaimed on its biggest expense: labour. We have also heard that, given about 60% of the sector’s costs are wages, the Government’s decisions in the Hallowe’en Budget, particularly the change in the national insurance threshold, have made things considerably worse for businesses in the sector. Many of the businesses are small or medium-sized, and they add so much to our high streets. They are being gravely affected by the Budget.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) for securing this important debate, and for clearly setting out the issues with Government policy for the hair and beauty sector. It is truly SOS time—save our salons. In the debate, we have heard from across the country—from Ribble Valley, Bromsgrove, Stourbridge, Gosport, Strangford, South Northamptonshire, Solihull and Chippenham—about how important these businesses are to our constituents. They make not only a huge economic contribution but an enormous contribution to our personal wellbeing, to fostering community spirit and to tackling loneliness.”
“I would be grateful if the Minister focused on her Government and the future implications of this judgment. In her statement, she said that “NHS England will soon publish guidance on how trans patients should be accommodated in clinical settings.” I will read to her what the Worcestershire acute hospitals NHS trust has in its guidance: “Patients should always be treated as the gender they identify as, regardless of what their transition looks like or how long they have shared their gender identity with others… Patients should always be in an environment that aligns with their gender identity.” Would she say to this trust that it needs to act very quickly to change that guidance?”
“I look forward to hearing the answers to all those questions from the Minister.”
“Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers), the Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen and Councillor Rob Waltham of North Lincolnshire Council have been warning about the issues at British Steel. But no: Labour Ministers thought they knew better. The British public can now see the Government scrambling for a solution to a problem they created and could have resolved months ago.”
“I add my thanks to everyone who has enabled us to be here this afternoon, but the fact is that this is a bungled way to do parliamentary legislation, following a bungled set of negotiations, and we are likely to end up with a bungled nationalisation. The Labour Government have landed themselves in a steel crisis entirely of their own making. They have made poor decisions and let the unions dictate their actions. The fact is that the union-led Labour Government have bungled the whole negotiation, insisting on a Scunthorpe-only deal that is not viable. Frankly, the Government should have seen this coming. In fact, instead of addressing it 16 days ago, when British Steel announced its plans to close the site and Parliament was sitting, their incompetence has led to this last-minute emergency recall. Colleagues including my hon.”
“Are we talking about more than a billion? It is a fact that the Government themselves have made the situation worse for the steel industry with their determination to impose higher energy prices, higher taxes and higher business rates. Where is the steel strategy that they have had nine months to develop? What we can say with certainty about today’s legislation is that this is no way to govern the country. Whenever Labour negotiates, Britain loses. We can see for ourselves that this is a Government controlled by events; they are not in control of events. Yet, according to the Secretary of State, it is everyone else’s problem and nothing to do with them. This Government have treated Parliament with disdain. We have had nine months of dither and delay for these workers at Scunthorpe. When Labour negotiates, Britain loses.”
“Can the Minister also tell the House what the Attorney General has advised on compliance with international law, including article 1 of protocol 1 to the European convention on human rights, the World Trade Organisation subsidies agreement, and the trade and co-operation agreement, particularly with reference to state aid? The Secretary of State was unable to tell the House this morning how much this intervention will cost. We are being asked this afternoon to sign off on a bottomless pit of money. How often will this House be given an update on how much taxpayer money is being sent into this bottomless pit? Families across the country are already being hit in the pocket every day. Can the Minister give the House a ballpark figure from the Dispatch Box? Are we talking about £100 million a year? Are we talking about a billion?”
“If I may in the time available to me, I would like to raise a few further detailed questions for the Minister to respond to when she gets to the Dispatch Box. The Secretary of State has said that he does not want these powers indefinitely, so why will Labour Members not back our amendment to implement a sunset clause for this Bill? We have heard from a range of voices in the debate about the confusion over the territorial extent of this legislation. It makes it very clear that the territorial extent applies to England and Wales only, yet clause 2 refers clearly just to England. There is another thing I would like the Minister to make clear at the Dispatch Box: if a new provider came into the UK and decided to set up a new steel-making enterprise in England or Wales, would that new enterprise be covered by this legislation?”
“We have heard a range of really excellent contributions from my hon. Friends. From the Father of the House, we heard an excellent exposition of the importance of this industry to his constituents in Lincolnshire and the impact of energy costs on the industry. We heard from the great champion of the industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Immingham, who has regularly brought this issue to the forefront of Members’ consideration. We heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), who raised incredibly important issues to do with tariffs and China. We then heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), who raised some important legal questions.”
“I wholeheartedly endorse what my right hon. Friend said. All new Government Members should be aware that the explanatory notes to the Bill, which have only just been circulated to colleagues, make it very clear— [ Interruption. ] I hear cries of “Shame!” from behind me. On the financial implications of the Bill, the explanatory notes say that there has been no impact assessment of the effect on the country’s finances, and nothing has been prepared for this House while we make this decision today. The Bill is a sticking plaster for a Government who, in opposition, had years to come up with a plan, but they have dithered and delayed. Ultimately, nothing will change for UK steel until the Government understand the damage that unrealistic and impossible “net zero by 2050” targets have done to British business and industry.”
“What consultation will occur with the real-world businesses that are affected by the change? Will he confirm that no regulations made under the Bill will prevent or impede UK businesses from trading internationally? The Bill undermines Parliament and risks tying British businesses to EU red tape on which we have no say. We cannot allow these excessive powers to create further uncertainty among British businesses of all sizes, which already face the soaring costs of doing business because of the Chancellor’s tax grab. The Bill is a parliamentary sovereignty sell-out. We got Brexit done; let us keep it that way. The Bill gives away control, and that is why I call on the House to back our amendment and stop it.”
“Rather, it is our duty at this stage to check the powers of the Executive and ensure that we are not giving them carte blanche to change the balance of power permanently in their favour.” –– [ Official Report, Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Public Bill Committee, 1 February 2018; c. 305.] These are not my words but those of the Secretary of State. Tomorrow, the United States could impose tariffs on us. It is paramount that we secure a mutually beneficial UK-US trade deal as soon as possible, but I cannot see how the Bill, which drags us closer to the European Union, would give the United States any incentive to work with us. In closing, let me ask the Minister a few questions. Can he confirm what the limits will be on ministerial powers? What oversight will Parliament have of regulatory changes made under the Bill?”
“The Bill is not purely technical; part of its purpose is to allow the dynamic alignment of goods with EU single market laws, giving the EU the power to rule on standards for manufactured goods produced in the United Kingdom. This EU Trojan horse Bill could see us readopting a regulatory regime over which we have no influence, input or sanction, leaving us as rule takers, not rule makers. It is fundamentally not good practice or good governance to deliver substantial changes through delegated legislation. “We must bear in mind that the use of delegated powers carries a risk of abuse by the Executive, which is not something the Opposition could ever support.”
“Labour Members claim that it will simplify our regulatory framework, yet all we see is the undermining of our sovereignty and the powers of Parliament. This 15-page Bill would give the Secretary of State unchecked powers to amend product safety regulations, change the definition of an online marketplace and introduce new penalties, inspection powers and charges on businesses, driving up the already soaring costs of doing business in the UK. As many hon. Friends have said, it would grant the Government sweeping powers to make us a passive recipient of laws made in Brussels. International trade and co-operation are welcome, but this is not what more than 17 million people voted for in 2016, when we took back control—it is a betrayal of Brexit.”
“Members for Birmingham Northfield (Laurence Turner) and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Peter Prinsley). Before embarking on the reason why we will oppose the Bill tonight, I welcome the Government’s U-turn in the other place on their plans to rule over the size of the great British pint or, as the hon. Member for Erewash would describe it, 0.56826125 cubic decimetres. Although they were initially resistant, Ministers eventually recognised that our great British pint should remain untouched. I am afraid that that is all I can welcome about this piece of legislation, because the Opposition are deeply concerned with the Government’s overreach and excessive reliance on delegated powers within the Bill. Henry VIII would be absolutely delighted by this piece of legislation.”
“Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) brings from his background in the toy industry. From the Labour Benches, we heard impassioned speeches often about product safety, including from the hon. Members for Worsley and Eccles (Michael Wheeler), for Bathgate and Linlithgow (Kirsteen Sullivan) and for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy). She described us as sinners repenting, which I hasten to surmise might mean that she is a repenter beginning to sin. We heard from the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), who is a passionate advocate for ceramics from his constituency. We had the pleasure of hearing a masterclass from Parliament’s first metrologist, the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson), on the ancient history of metrology; it was a very enjoyable speech. We heard speeches from the hon.”
“Will the Minister confirm that discussions are happening with the EU, including the resetting of discussions on trade, to ensure that UKCA markings and any products regulated here in the UK are mutually recognised? Turning to the points raised in today’s excellent debate, we heard fantastic speeches from my right hon. Friends the Members for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), and my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) and for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey). We also heard powerful voices from Northern Ireland on the adjacent Benches, from the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister). We also heard the expertise that the hon.”
“As the Bill’s explanatory notes state, its purpose is to ensure that the UK is better equipped to tackle modern safety challenges, safeguard consumers, seize opportunities for economic growth and so on. The Secretary of State said in his introductory remarks that the Bill was introduced in the previous Parliament, and I want to emphasise that it was not. I want to offer the Minister the chance to correct the record in his closing remarks, in case the House has been inadvertently misled. Upon leaving the European Union, the UK created the UK conformity assessed marking, known as the UKCA, to replace the conformité Européenne marking, known as the CE. These markings are used by manufacturers to demonstrate product conformity. The UK still recognises CE markings; however, the EU does not recognise the UKCA.”
“This has been a genuinely important, interesting and lively debate on product regulation and metrology. It has also been a debate about the balance of power between the Executive and us here in Parliament. The UK product safety and metrology framework is derived from European Union law and it developed while the UK was a member of the EU, when we did not have the opportunity here to address product safety in our changing world as rapidly as we do now. Following our departure from the European Union, the UK established its independent regulatory system, which must be flexible enough to accommodate emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, and address changes in consumer purchasing behaviours.”
“Further to the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale), and knowing how much the Minister values soft power, can he reassure the House that there will be no further cuts to the British Council or the World Service in the Balkans on his watch?”
“Many, many compassionate people across West Worcestershire and the whole of the United Kingdom will be wanting to know what they can do to help in this situation, so will the Minister give us some further information on how UK taxpayers may donate and whether there will be an aid match?”
“At the general election, the Chancellor promised growth and no increase in taxes, but as Chancellor, she has delivered no growth and a record increase in taxes. Now, the Office for Budget Responsibility is halving her growth forecast this year, with cumulatively half a percent less over the forecast period. More worryingly, it is forecasting a more than 1% reduction in productivity growth. Why does she think that is?”
“It is easy for those in Whitehall to squiggle their pen, but all those measures combined have real-life consequences for businesses across the country. The national insurance jobs tax and the Employment Rights Bill are piling additional costs on to businesses and hammering the private sector, which we rely on to grow the economy. In summary, have the Government considered the full impact of all these increases on businesses that are happening at the same time? I fear that tomorrow’s emergency Budget will be another wakeup call.”
“Will the Minister provide the House with a figure for the total cost increase of employing someone full time on the previous national living wage because of the other changes introduced by his Government? The Government have created a challenging business environment. They recognised that themselves when they stated in their impact assessment that “there is some evidence of challenging business conditions for SMEs”. Around 42.7% and 36.8% of microbusinesses and small businesses respectively reported having less than three months of cash reserves in September 2024. We support the principle of fair pay for workers and making work pay. However, having listened to businesses, we are concerned that the rises could impact workers and businesses in industries already facing financial challenges through a range of unintended consequences.”
“It looks that way not just to us; according to the Government’s own impact assessment, SMEs will face 56% of the cost of the increase despite representing only 37% of the share of employment. That is another cost increase on smaller businesses, which already have to pay for this Government’s national insurance jobs tax, for the hike in business rates, and for the impact of the measures from the Employment Rights Bill. In particular, businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector are most likely to pay the minimum wage. I remind the House that the Government’s own impact assessment states that they expect the policies covered within the Bill to impose a direct cost on businesses of up to £5 billion a year. It also notes that, on average, those costs will be greater for those smaller businesses and microbusinesses.”
“This means that an employer will have to start paying national insurance on any young person if they work for 13 or more hours a week. Because of this, businesses have warned that they are cutting back on hiring younger workers or reducing the hours that they give to them. That risk, of course, is faced not solely by those in work, but by those seeking to get into work. What assessment has the Minister made since the Hallowe’en Budget of the impact of the increase on young people’s ability to access jobs? What will the Government do to ensure that young people or those looking for a job will not be penalised by this increase? The increase will significantly affect small and medium-sized enterprises. As usual, it looks like they will bear the brunt of the increased labour costs.”
“After the increases to the national living and minimum wages in the Budget—but also measures such as the increase to national insurance—the Unison assistant general secretary Jon Richards welcomed the increase to the pay measures but said that “as it stands, the new legal minimum is more than the current lowest hourly rate in the NHS, universities and some other public services. This will give employers multiple headaches.” So my first question is: what will the Government do to address the pay implications of this rise on those working in the public sector in such important roles? The second question relates to the national minimum wage for workers above school leaving age but not yet 18 going up by nearly 18%. On 1 April this year, the national insurance threshold for employers drops to £5,000 per year.”
“I rise to say that we will not oppose the increases to the national minimum wage or the national living wage—the national living wage being something that my party introduced to make work pay. We celebrate the fact that progress was made in ending low pay, and the Minister cited that from the Dispatch Box this evening. But it is also our duty, as His Majesty’s official Opposition, to scrutinise the Government on all matters, so I have several questions for the Minister this evening. In particular, I want to highlight the fact that the work that the Low Pay Commission has done—for which I also thank it—was done before the Hallowe’en Budget of broken promises last October.”
“My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. It is absolutely right that we ask the questions we are asking today. The statistic that has shocked me most in this debate is that of the millions of pensioners who lost their winter fuel payment, 44,000 are estimated to have been terminally ill. Is she as shocked as I am by that statistic?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister has just said that, as it is an Opposition day debate, he will speak exclusively about what the Opposition think and say. Is it your understanding, Madam Deputy Speaker, that it is in order for a Minister at the Dispatch Box not to defend the track record of his own Government?”
“One of the first acts of this Government was to take away the winter fuel allowance from millions of pensioners on incomes as low as £13,000 a year, including 44,000 who are—or were—terminally ill. Will the Secretary of State reassure all our constituents that in making these changes, she will not be going after those who have a terminal illness?”
“The Business Secretary, the Minister and the Chancellor have all said that they want growth, including in rural areas. I have searched high and low for business growth statistics since the Budget of broken promises, and I find that, in the last quarter, there has been a growth of 50% in the number of businesses that are in critical financial distress. Why does the Minister think that is?”
“The Business Secretary met recently in Japan with Fujitsu, which developed the Horizon system and has offered to contribute to the compensation for victims. Can the Minister tell the House how much the Secretary of State has asked it to contribute, so that taxpayers are not on the hook for £1 billion?”
“How many businesses in this country can say that things have got better for them in the last eight months? How many are more confident? How many can say that they expect the trade situation facing the United Kingdom to improve?”
“There is growing evidence that instead of investing in opportunities for trade with the US, Canada and the fast-growing markets of Asia, the Government are reverting to their ideological safeguard, relying on Brussels, and developing a Trojan horse strategy to realign the UK with the European Union. Is the Department actually being given the tools that it needs to deliver on trade deals? If the Government claim to have set their sights higher, should not the resources reflect that? I worry that we are seeing a classic example of big words, big ambitions and Ministers just saying the word “growth”, but nothing taking place that actually delivers growth. It is eight months to the day since those on the Labour Benches entered Government.”
“I note the welcome news that the Prime Minister talked to the President of America about a free trade agreement last week, but as of the end of January, no official or Minister from the Department had made any attempt to engage with the US Administration on trade. The Department has chosen to abandon the position of chief trade negotiator, which is either deliberate self-harm or wilful incompetence. There was almost no public recognition by the Department or its Ministers of the UK’s accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which does indeed trip off the tongue.”
“The note explains that the increase is owing to “An international reorganisation within DBT which has brought our International Strategy and Development teams into this group from Strategy and Investment.” Strategy and investment, meanwhile, have been cut by almost the same amount that this account has been increased by. I wonder whether there is a little bit of smoke and mirrors going on when it comes to the amount dedicated to increasing trade. Increasing trade is one of the key routes to economic growth. Businesses in our constituencies would really benefit from further opening up of free trade.”
“Members for Tamworth (Sarah Edwards), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Marton), for Dundee Central (Chris Law), for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), we heard a range of concerns felt by real businesses that create the wealth of this country. I turn to trade. I note that, in the supplementary estimates, the Department marks an increase under sub-head A4, the account that includes first and foremost the trade policy implementation and negotiations group.”
“I wonder, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether at the end of the debate you might share a few words on whether it would have been appropriate for those hon. Members who receive contributions from unions to have declared them in the debate. We have had an excellent debate, but I did not hear any declarations of interest. I heard excellent contributions from those on the Conservative Benches—from my hon. Friends the Members for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) and for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox). They outlined and summarised the challenges that businesses face up and down the country. In contributions from the hon.”
“Secondly, on a plan to provide small businesses with tools and support, I simply ask, eight months in, when will small businesses see that. Thirdly, on a trade strategy that recognises that high-quality trade deals are necessary to give businesses access to international markets to boost jobs and deliver economic growth here, I simply ask when businesses will see a change on that front. Fourthly, on delivering sweeping changes to employment law, I have to say that, sadly, businesses have seen that. They have seen that the sweeping changes outlined in the Employment Rights Bill, which we will be scrutinising next week, will take us back to 1970s-style employment laws, adding £1 billion in costs just to the Government’s cost base alone.”
“I shall try to make my speech short and snappy, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) on securing this afternoon’s debate, which has allowed many Members to articulate the concerns that they are hearing from businesses in their constituencies and enabled them to talk about the great importance of growth. Growth is essential. We talk about the importance of defence and of increasing spending on it from 2.5% to 2.7% and then up to 3%, but of course we want the economy to grow at the same time. In the estimates before us today, the Secretary of State has laid out his ambitious goals for his Department. First, on the aim of delivering a comprehensive industrial strategy, I simply ask, eight months in, when will businesses see that.”
“The art of taxation is extracting the largest amount of money with the lowest amount of squeaking from the goose. Yet the Chancellor will have heard the honking of the tractors on Whitehall today in response to her raising an amount of money that will pay for less than one day of NHS spending. Will she commit to reversing the family farm tax?”
“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?”
“Food producers are at the heart of our communities and the Government should be doing everything they can to support them, not harm them, and to ensure food security in this country. The attack on our farmers is shocking in every way. The Labour MPs who voted for an inheritance tax on family farms simply do not understand where their food comes from. Labour is harming our farms, not prioritising our rural areas. It simply does not understand. The Conservatives believe that good policy needs to be created in collaboration with the farming industry, rather than in isolation. We have always kept the Groceries Code Adjudicator under review since its inception and we urge the Government to continue to do so.”