Dame Harriett Baldwin
MP for West Worcestershire · Conservative · United Kingdom
“I did not think that the Minister could make things for people in Worcestershire even more confusing than they were. They just want their bins taken out, their roads maintained, enough school places, adult social care provision and a say in planning.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member has set out the issue, and many wish to speak in the debate, but I wanted to get that on the record. Whenever I write to Royal Mail about the issue, I never get a very convincing response.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was not expecting to be called quite so early in the debate. I congratulate my Worcestershire colleague, the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore), on so ably setting out many of the problems that we also have in West Worcestershire.”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will my hon. Friend thank the high number of my constituents who signed the petition, putting West Worcestershire at the top of list for the number of signers who brought it before Parliament?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the hon. Lady for her excellent report. Was she as shocked as I was to learn about the difficulty that defence firms in Scotland face in accessing basic banking services?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Q8. The Leader of the Opposition has made her position on doing deals with other parties crystal-clear. Will the Prime Minister make it equally clear, following the Green party’s descent into the most abhorrent antisemitism, that he will rule out co-operating with it?”
House of Commons14 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
3,836 lines on record for Dame Harriett Baldwin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 9 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“Any argument for permitting EU standards should also be one for permitting safe international standards from our other partners. That is unless the actual purpose of the Bill is solely to enable dynamic EU alignment—indeed, EU alignment is mentioned clearly in the impact assessment—while preventing alternatives that could benefit British businesses and, importantly, British consumers, who are our constituents. If the Government do not intend to dynamically align us with the European Union on product regulation, they have every reason to accept amendment 20 and make that clear.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We would like to see the Bill enable a discussion whereby we liberalise trade between our countries but also mutually recognise product regulation. We also have a significant trade agreement, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, which covers our great trading relationship with friends as far away geographically but as close emotionally as those in Australia and other countries around the Pacific. I am sure that Australia has a system to mutually recognise product safety regimes in important trade agreements, to allow global trade with the confidence that high-quality products are reaching the marketplace. There is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose the amendments, unless they truly are uniquely fixated on the EU as a product regulator.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Although we have an incredibly important and valuable trading relationship with our friends and neighbours in the European Union, and a very good zero-tariff, zero-quota trade agreement with them, we also have a range of agreements with other countries that facilitate the international trade of products. Amendment 20 would expand the scope of the powers that the Committee agreed to give to the Secretary of State under clause 1 to cover foreign countries with which we have a close trading relationship. For example, we have a close trading relationship with the United States; indeed, we are each other’s single biggest investor and it is the biggest single country with which we have a trading relationship.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. We start by discussing some of the amendments we have tabled to clause 2. In this morning’s sitting we had a thorough discussion of the issues relating to clause 1, and we also discussed some amendments to clause 2. I hope, Ms Vaz, that you will allow the Committee to consider each measure separately. Essentially, amendments 20, 6 and 22 would allow for product regulations to be defined by relation to the laws of a wide range of foreign countries rather than just the European Union.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By not accepting the amendments, I am afraid the Minister compels me to test the will of the Committee not only on these amendments but on amendments 21, 5 and 7, which we discussed in the previous group. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I would like to respond before I divide the Committee on this amendment. I seek your advice, Ms Vaz. The previous group contained amendments 21, 5 and 7, which relate to clause 2, and we may also want to get the Committee’s point of view on them. The Minister’s reluctance to make this innocuous change to the Bill speaks volumes. I am not the only one who thinks that: the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said in paragraph 4 of its 15th report that it is “deeply concerned” that “the delegated powers in the Bill give Ministers maximum flexibility to choose the direction that the law in this area will take, including making potentially politically contentious choices about the degree to which our domestic laws on product regulation should be aligned with EU laws”.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It will not surprise the Committee to hear that, because our very sensible amendments to clause 2 have been rejected, we continue to have significant concerns about it and the extraordinary powers it confers on the Minister. In particular, subsection (7), which we tried to amend, will allow product regulations to provide that a “product requirement is to be treated as met if— (a) a requirement of relevant EU law specified in product regulations is met, or (b) such a requirement is met and conditions specified in the regulations are also met.” Because of our concerns about those provisions, and because the Committee took the view that it did not want to accept our sensible amendments, I will divide the Committee on clause 2 stand part.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 3 deals with the enforcement provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State, and clause 2 defines the types of requirement there may be on products. Clearly, the regulations that the Secretary of State has so much freedom to enact will need to be enforced, but the wording of clause 3 is such that any lawyer—or anyone who believes in our freedom and democracy under the rule of law—would be concerned about it.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If I understand the Minister correctly, he is saying that “relevant authority” is strictly limited to the organisations that he has already mentioned.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am not sure that I have heard enough to reassure the Opposition on the subject of who will be a relevant authority, which specific functions will be conferred on that relevant authority and the powers that might be granted to it, so I would like to press the amendments to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The creation of new criminal offences needs to be brought to both Houses and debated through proper parliamentary procedure, so that we can explore who these relevant authorities are as well as the potential inadvertent breaches of product regulation and metrology. Frankly, I think that this is the most shocking part of the legislation that we have seen. It shocked the other place, it has shocked the Opposition, and I think the constituents of Government Members will be shocked that they might agree to these sweeping powers.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The subsection provides for statutory limits on offences, but frankly, they are pretty harsh for someone who has potentially been caught inadvertently with products that no longer meet the standards for the UK market. Of all the shocking things in the Bill, these provisions are the most shocking. Amendment 26 seeks to ensure that new criminal offences, which would have consequences for our already overburdened Ministry of Justice and criminal justice system, are not created through new product regulations under the Bill. The ability to create new criminal offences is an incredibly significant power; it really should not be passed through secondary legislation, and Government Members should think about what they are doing by supporting clause 3.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Subsection (9) specifies that product regulations can create or widen the scope of criminal offences, with prosecution by the relevant authorities—we do not know who they are—subject to the affirmative procedure, and they can confer powers on that same relevant authority to impose civil sanctions, including fines. The poor business that I am describing—one with a warehouse full of goods that suddenly, unbeknownst to that business, can no longer be sold legally in the UK, because a Parliament in Brussels has changed the rules—can find itself subject to confiscation and fines. Under subsection (11), criminal offences must be “triable summarily only, or…triable summarily or on indictment”.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some poor, innocent business might not notice that the product regulations have been changed suddenly, because there was very little overt scrutiny of that change, and they might be left with a warehouse full of some good that was perfectly saleable on the UK market yesterday but is not today. As a result of the provisions in subsections (9) to (11), the relevant authority can send somebody into that business with sweeping powers to enter a premises, to levy fines, to create criminal offences and to send an individual to prison for up to three months. The provisions under subsection (9) to (11) could also go through with minimal legislative scrutiny—it really is not good enough. This is another of the skeleton clauses about which they despaired in the other place.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 26, in clause 3, page 5, line 16, leave out subsections (9) to (11). Clause 3 continues to become even more dystopian. In the debate on clause 1, we acknowledged that we have an extremely benign Minister and Secretary of State, and we all acknowledge that products reach the UK marketplace that should not reach our consumers and constituents. However, that does not mean that we should give the Secretary of State with sweeping powers in law to come up with regulations and to have them enforced by some random “relevant authority”. We have heard a list of those authorities, but we know that it is not exhaustive.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sadly, I have not seen “Capricorn One”. I have already said clearly, on the record, that I have great confidence in the good intentions of the Minister himself and his Secretary of State. However, that is not to say that we should put powers on the statue book that would allow future occupiers of the position to send someone to prison for three months, or to fine them a substantial amount. For those very reasons, I wish to press amendment 26 to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ms Vaz, you will not be surprised to hear that this dystopian picture of unnamed relevant authorities sweeping the land with their powers of seizure, fining and imprisonment is not something that we support, and we therefore oppose clause 3. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister elaborate a little on the time limits for emergency periods? While the Minister looks at his officials for inspiration, I acknowledge that the pandemic was clearly an emergency, and we have seen a number of situations that could constitute an emergency. We will be able to tell when an emergency has started because of the steps that the Minister set out, but it would be helpful if he could clarify for the record how he would define the end of an emergency, when the powers will effectively end.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Committee reaches its clause 4 moment, Members might be pleased to hear that I will not propose voting against it—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] I know: a political conversion. I accept that in exceptional times, and unfortunately we have seen a few of those in recent years, the Government need these emergency powers. I welcome that, in the other place, Lord Leong published the code of conduct on product safety setting out how the Office for Product Safety and Standards expects the emergency powers to work. Will the Minister clarify whether that will include time limiting the period of emergency? How will we know when the emergency has ended? I believe that some products approved during the pandemic are on the market but still have not had their status clarified since the pandemic ended, as anyone would define it.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“People really care about the quantities and units of measurement of the goods they purchase. They are of great importance to consumers. I appreciate that food is not in scope, but when people do their shopping, they look at the units and quantities on the side of the packaging of the goods they buy.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 27, in clause 5, page 6, line 8, leave out subsection (2). This amendment removes the powers granted to the Secretary of State under metrology regulations regarding quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods. We now come to the metrology part of the Bill. You will be glad to know, Ms Vaz, that as we have Parliament’s first elected metrologist in the hon. Member for Erewash on the Labour Benches, I will constrain myself to making legislative points rather than metrological points. Subsection (2) is another example of the Bill’s Henry VIII powers. It grants the office of the Secretary of State—although I acknowledge that the current Secretary of State is benign—the power to make provisions on the quantities and units of measurement in marketing goods.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With your guidance, Ms Vaz, I will try to combine my remarks on clause 5 and amendment 27. Again, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee felt that the power in this clause was too sweeping. The Minister has mentioned that the pint is safe, but the sweeping powers cover pretty much any measurement of “length, area, volume, capacity, mass, weight, time, temperature or electrical current”, which the Secretary of State will miraculously be able to make regulations on. Going to the market and buying a quarter of sweets or a pound of flour would fall within the scope of the Secretary of State’s wide and sweeping powers. That is why we have tabled amendment 27 to leave out subsection (2) and why we oppose clause 5 itself, and we would like to probe the Committee’s views on both those elements.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Erewash, who spoke extremely well about the range of bodies that could be the relevant authority here—but we do not know, because the legislation is not clearly defined enough. Because we do not know, and because the legislation simply refers to “something”, I am afraid we are nowhere near able to support clause 6, or to withdraw our amendments 28 and 29 to it. The public deserve to know what they might be required “to do or cease to do.” The wording is far too broad, I am keen to hear what the Minister thinks.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It astonishes me that we are sitting here looking at legislation that includes provision “conferring a power on a relevant authority”, which as we have already heard is not narrowly defined, “by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something”. How are we supposed to know what this particular provision is meant to refer to? Amendment 29 would require the Minister to be very clear as to what he means by “something” regarding the powers of the relevant authority in enforcing metrology regulations. That is far too broadly drawn. It is absolutely incomprehensible to the layperson. Amendment 28 goes back to the points I made in the debate on clause 3 about how we are defining a “relevant authority”. We have heard about the importance of the relevant authority from the hon.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We now move on to the enforcement powers in terms of the metrology regulations. I draw the Committee’s attention to the point I made on the enforcement regulations to do with the product regulations, because many of the same concerns exist here. In the case of clause 6(6), there is something that I personally think is the most egregious and extraordinary provision in any legislation I have ever seen. I would call it the “something” provision. Clause 6(6) says: “Provision described in subsection (3)(c) or (d) may include provision conferring power on a relevant authority by notice to require a person to do or cease to do something.”. Has this House, or this Committee, ever seen something so broadly defined? I am interested to hear whether the Minister is able to define “something”.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I will not withdraw my amendment, because I am not sure that I heard reassuring words from the Minister that trading standards officers are not going to sweep through the marketplaces of this land and require people to cease doing something that they would not know, from the Bill as it stands, not to do. I will press amendments 28 and 29 to a Division, and then we will debate other amendments before we debate clause 6 stand part. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When new offences are created, it is proper that both Houses have the chance to consider and debate them. We had the same debate on the earlier clause regarding product regulations, and there seem to be the same failures of drafting with the metrology regulations, which is why we have tabled amendments 30 and 31.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 31 also seeks to remove subsection (9) from the Bill, which again introduces the idea of criminal offences for underselling or overselling measurements, or for potentially not co-operating with this so-called and widely defined relevant authority. Our concerns about that, as well as about the Henry VIII powers involved, are firmly on the record now, but we want to clarify through amendment 31 the specific offences that might be created or expanded, as well as the civil sanctions that might be imposed. We want to get the Minister’s sense of how bad it would be if an individual were to slightly overpour a pint. The civil sanctions are very broad and allow the Secretary of State significant powers over our criminal justice system.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Any reasonable person would think not, but it appears that with the provisions as they are currently set out under the metrology regulations, that could be considered a case of non-compliance. By tabling amendment 30, I seek a definition from the Minister of how serious he sees those kinds of infractions as being. Given how busy trading standards can be, how serious an infraction of the metrology regulations would a failure to assist be, as an individual would presumably have exactly the right measuring equipment? I want the Minister to put on record how the extremely severe and onerous provisions in the Bill are to be implemented.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Amendment 30 continues some of the themes around the enforcement powers on product regulation. It leaves out subsection (7), which is on sanctions for non-compliance with metrology regulations. Here again is the amorphous concept of a relevant authority that is empowered by metrology regulations. Subsection (7) talks about the “obstruction of, or failure to assist or co-operate with, a relevant authority or an inspector;” and about providing “false or misleading information to a relevant authority or an inspector.” With amendment 30, we are seeking clarification on what constitutes non-compliance. Is it if a pub landlord manages to serve someone more than “0.56826125 cubic decimetres”?”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the same reasons that we opposed clause 3 on enforcement, we would like to divide the Committee on clause 6. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have not tabled any amendments to clause 7. My earlier point about the vague wording of “relevant authority” also applies to this clause, but the Minister has set out why information sharing under these provisions is necessary. We can see the rationale for that, so we do not intend to oppose or seek to amend the clause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 7 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 Cost recovery Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, I think we are in relevant authority territory here. We are talking about imposing fees in respect of any costs, and there are certainly some issues to note for the record. On the collection and recovery of payments, I spoke strongly earlier about fines and the interest payable on outstanding payments and so on. Those are material issues that could result in some very serious situations. Nevertheless, we have not chosen to table any amendments to the clause, mainly because the point about relevant authorities was covered earlier in the Committee’s proceedings, and we do not intend to oppose it. Question put and agreed to. Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 Application to existing product and metrology provision Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 9 is one of the clauses that their lordships were particularly concerned about, because of its sweeping Henry VIII powers. Although I have not tabled any amendments to it, I reiterate the point that I made about relevant authorities, and I think it is only right that we test the Committee’s opinion on the clause. Question put , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 10, page 10, line 24, leave out subsection (2). This amendment would prevent regulations under this Act from amending provisions made by primary legislation.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What we have tried to do with the amendments is come up with a range of sensible limitations to the Henry VIII powers that so concerned the other place, and that would concern any reasonable person—I think of the power to create the scope of a criminal offence and so on. Through the amendments, we seek genuinely to amend the scope of clauses 10 and 12.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Again, the amendment would prevent regulations from amending provisions made by primary legislation. Amendment 8 would amend clause 12 on regulations to remove a swathe of additional information in subsection (3), and amendment 9 would leave out subsections (4) and (5) of the same clause, again for the reason that the Bill will provide sweeping powers to widen the scope of criminal offences and all those other things that we have made the case are unsatisfactory under our constitution. Amendment 12 would also prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation. We think that amendment 13, which would insert various provisions into clause 12, is also extremely reasonable.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Once again, the amendments would remove Henry VIII powers and make regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. Amendment 10 relates to the amendment or repealing, in consequence of the Bill, of provisions made by the Gun Barrel Proof Acts 1868 to 1978. We want to prevent regulations made under the Bill from amending provisions made by primary legislation. Amendment 11 would leave out subsection (4), which provides: “Regulations under this Act may, in consequence of any amendment or repeal made by or under subsections (1), (2) or (3), amend or repeal provision made by or under an Act passed— (a) before this Act, or (b) later in the same session of Parliament as this Act.” It is incredibly wide-ranging, as I am sure you can see, Ms Vaz.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“What a welcome moment, Ms Vaz—my colleague from the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Chippenham, supports the rationale behind the amendments. The swelling in support for our amendments gives me a welcome opportunity to test the opinion of the Committee on each of them. Question put, That the amendment be made.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Given that the Minister just admitted that the Government had to amend the clause in the other place because of its extensive Henry VIII powers, and that some remain in the clause, we would like to divide the Committee. Question put , That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Suddenly changing the definition of an online marketplace seems like a very wide, Henry VIII-type power. I see that the Minister is receiving inspiration for the answer to my question. I ask him to reply, and then we will decide whether we will press the clause to a Division.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“On the surface, clause 11 looks like just an interpretation clause, but there is one provision about which I would like a little elaboration from the Minister. An online marketplace is defined as “a service or feature of a service on…a website or part of a website…a mobile application, or…any other platform by means of which information is made available over the internet, which facilitates the marketing of products in the United Kingdom”. That seems entirely reasonable. The Minister set out some of the new ways in which consumers in the UK are able to buy products here. Under subsection (2), however, suddenly the Secretary of State “may by regulations amend this section for the purposes of altering the definition of ‘online marketplace’”. That strikes me as very strange. Exactly why is subsection (2) in the clause?”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Ms Vaz, you heard it. For the record, I think I heard the Minister say that it is set out in the code of conduct, which I think means that extensions to the definition would be subject to the affirmative procedure and a consultation. I am hesitant to allow the clause to become legislation without those assurances.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Forgive me, Ms Vaz; it is getting quite late in the afternoon. The Minister’s amendment to line 20 of clause 12 leaves out “7 to 10” and inserts “7, 8 and 10”. Could I clarify what the “9” is a reference to? In which clause is the “9” referenced? I am not following it, because clause 12 seems to have seven subsections.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am grateful that the Minister is as confused as I am by this; I thought it was just the lateness in the day. Perhaps the Minister would be good enough to write to me to point out where the erroneous “9” exists.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is appropriate for me to put on the record how grateful we are for the scrutiny that the Bill received in the other place. We have just heard from the Minister how many changes had to be made because of the concerns raised by the Committee in the other place, which I have quoted extensively in today’s debates. We have covered a lot of ground in terms of concerns about individual clauses, and the Minister has helpfully set out the specific items that are subject to the affirmative as opposed to the negative procedure. Given that we have gone over this ground extensively during the debates on the other clauses, I shall leave it there. Question put and agreed to. Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 13 Extent Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Clause 15, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —( Anna McMorrin. )”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think the Committee may well return to some of these themes at a later stage of our deliberations. Clause 13 concerns the UK internal market, which is an important topic that deserves considerable further scrutiny and debate. Clauses 14 and 15 essentially clarify when the commencement will be for the various clauses. It would be more sensible if I were to devote my time to a discussion of some of the new clauses that we have tabled, which will come later in the Committee’s deliberations. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 15 Short title Amendment made: 2, in clause 15, page 12, line 37, leave out subsection (2).— (Justin Madders.) This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords.”
House of Commons13 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am going to try again, because although I appreciate that the Security Minister has to be very careful about specific aspects of this case, the House and the country need to know whether the Iranian nationals came into the UK illegally or on a legal migration route.”
House of Commons6 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am aware that India has expressed concerns about the UK becoming a rule-taker to the EU, so will the Minister confirm what commitments and assurances he made on that matter during the negotiations? While Conservative Members will never talk down the benefits of free trade, agreements such as this one have to be made on fair terms for both parties. As it stands, this deal looks like it is subsidising Indian labour while undercutting British workers. Will the Government back our domestic market by scrapping their jobs tax? I look forward to hearing from the Minister a reply that actually answers these questions. If he chooses—as he sometimes does—to bat away genuine questions from the Dispatch Box, could he follow up in writing?”
House of Commons6 May 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗