Critical Minerals Strategy

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani

Monday 24th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I will definitely be paying close attention. I call the shadow Minister.

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Critical minerals are vital to our national security. In submarines, missiles, jet fighters and radar, we need critical minerals for our national defence. Critical minerals in electric vehicles and wind turbines are also vital for clean energy generation.

It is striking, however, that the Government’s critical minerals strategy does not mention China once. That is despite that fact that China, which has built an almost global monopoly on processing, recently imposed export licence requirements on seven rare earth elements: samarium, gadolinium, terbium, dysprosium, lutetium, scandium and yttrium.

Can the Minister say whether the Department has made any assessment of China’s dominance in the critical minerals market and whether the Government consider it a threat?

The UK “Critical Minerals Strategy” document seems to have been written in a bit of a rush. It is sloppy, riddled with spelling mistakes and has inconsistent statistics and errors in geography. Why should industry trust a Government who cannot even proofread? For instance, according to the Cobalt Institute, current global demand is 200,000 tonnes and is set to grow by 14% a year, meaning that by 2030, the global demand for cobalt is forecast to be 438,000 tonnes. In the Government’s document, however, UK domestic demand will be 636,000 tonnes in 2030. Could the Minister kindly proofread the document and place a corrected version of the whole strategy in the Library?

The strategy recognises the impact that high energy prices have had on the critical minerals industry, but under Labour, our energy bills are up. Why do the Government not just adopt our cheap power plan to cut electricity bills by 20%? Oil and gas are key inputs in the production of critical minerals. What impact does the Minister believe this Government’s policy of closing down the North sea will have on domestic critical minerals production?

Under Labour, foreign direct investment into this country has fallen to an all-time low. How do the Government expect to build a critical minerals industry if no one is investing? Can the Minister therefore today rule out any tax rises heading towards this industry on Wednesday? The national insurance jobs tax and the unemployment Bill are set to cost the critical minerals industry £50 million, which is exactly the same figure as the funding pledged by the Government today—the Chancellor’s jobs tax and the 330-page job-killing Employment Rights Bill are costing businesses £1,000 per worker, and there are a total of 50,000 people employed in the critical minerals industry. Is this a recognition from the Minister that the Government’s tax rises are crippling British industry?

In summary, the first duty of any Government is to keep our country safe. Refreshing the critical minerals strategy is an essential part of that mission. Given the scale of global competition and the risks of supply chain disruption, does the Minister agree that there is still a great deal of work to do to ensure that Britain is secure in the critical minerals we need for our future?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 17th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

Product Regulation and Metrology Bill [Lords]

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani

Report stage
Wednesday 4th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani

Thursday 30th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I will try to avoid a word salad. We have heard from various different industrial sectors how important it is to have stable and predictable energy costs. This month has seen little sun and only intermittent wind, so we have been heavily dependent on imported oil and gas. Are Ministers in the Department for Business and Trade challenging the Energy Secretary over his policies?

Growing the UK Economy

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 29th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call Select Committee member Dame Harriett Baldwin.

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

I am sure the Chief Secretary knows and admires the plan for growth of Conservative-led Worcestershire county council. It has been working through the plan, and it has built a new train station on the North Cotswold line, which connects Worcestershire to Oxford, but a lot of that line is still single track. Will he urge the Oxford growth commission to look at the extensive work done by Oxfordshire county council and Worcestershire county council to find a way to double the frequency of the train services on that stretch of track?

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Harriett Baldwin and Nusrat Ghani

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. The hon. Lady has made it very clear that she is not giving way, so please allow her to continue.

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Anyone who has ever worked in business knows that they need to increase the productivity of their business, and investment in that business is linked to its profitability, profits that will fall as a result of the measures that have been imposed on business today. When we work out the numbers, I think those measures will equate to about 4p on corporation tax. This is a Budget of broken promises that will end up giving the British people less growth. Members do not have to listen to me to hear that: they can listen to the Office for Budget Responsibility, which forecasts a short-term boost to growth but a longer-term reduction in the sustainable growth rate of the British economy thanks to the measures that the Chancellor outlined today.

In the months since the Chancellor took office, we have seen the evidence. We have already seen businesses shutting at double the rate they were a year ago. We are already seeing a plunge in business confidence, and we have heard the former chief economist of the Bank of England say that the socialist narrative we have had since the election has generated

“fear and foreboding and uncertainty”.

This is a Budget of broken promises—a straightforward breach of promises to the British public—and it is a dreadful day for the British economy.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

When we go through Hansard, I am sure we will see that the hon. Member did not mean to accuse another hon. Member of lying—changing that term to “misleading” would have been far more appropriate. No doubt the hon. Member agrees with me.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dame Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I referred to the Prime Minister’s words on national television, and I was quoting him directly, but if I have inadvertently misled the House, I apologise.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Thank you so much. That was an absolutely appropriate way to respond.