Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 17th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Michael Shanks]

I was expecting every question today to be, “Could an SMR be built in my constituency?” but my hon. Friend is the first to ask, so he wins the prize for that. I will not labour the point, but as he says, we had a lot of promises and a lot of big talk from the Conservative Government on nuclear, but very little actually delivered. The truth is that no money was put forward for any of those things. It is easy to sign and say, “We want to deliver something,” but without putting any money forward, nothing will happen. We have committed almost £20 billion in funding to make Britain’s new golden age of nuclear a reality, which will deliver jobs in my hon. Friend’s constituency and across the country. We are ambitious about the future of SMRs. They can be sited in a great many more places than traditional nuclear facilities. We have asked Great British Energy Nuclear to look at the range of sites across the United Kingdom that are possible, not just the sites that were traditionally designated for nuclear projects. That opens up huge opportunity for the energy mix of the future, and for jobs, investment and training throughout supply chains as well.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

In the spirit of consensus, which the Energy Minister untypically just moved away from, I join him in welcoming this announcement. I was advising the then Energy Minister when the Hinkley contract was signed and the Horizon project was proceeding, before Hitachi withdrew, so I am keen to see development at Wylfa and beyond. Will the Minister confirm what tangible steps are being taken to accelerate approval of Rolls-Royce’s design and other SMR designs, and by how much? When does he expect the first SMR to be operational at Wylfa?

[Michael Shanks]

Let me say genuinely that with all the debates we have about our energy mix, nuclear may be a point of consensus. That is important for the industry, so I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments. On the exact details of the timelines, I am afraid that I am not the Nuclear Minister, so I will get my noble Friend Lord Vallance to write to him on that point.

In terms of the overall timeline for the SMR programme, our ambition is that the SMRs will be online in the mid-2030s. There is obviously a significant amount of work to do on the site itself and on the designs, but we want to ensure that we are moving everything possible to get this done quickly. We have a first-mover advantage as a country if we can prove that this technology works, set about expanding it and look at the export market for it internationally.

Employment Rights Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 5th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Kate Dearden]

I am pleased to speak on the Employment Rights Bill for our second consideration of Lords amendments, and I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner) for her outstanding work on employment rights and her unwavering advocacy for working people. I know how close this Bill is to her heart, and I am grateful that she is here in support today. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders) for his work and dedication on this significant piece of legislation.

The Government’s top priority is to grow the economy and improve living standards. Essential to that is the recognition that greater productivity, security and dignity in work help to grow the economy. The stronger economic performance that our country needs cannot be built on the backs of people in insecure work. For too long employment law has failed to keep pace with the fundamental changes to how, when and where we work. It is time to build a modern industrial relations framework, fashioned on the principle of social partnership that consent and consensus must replace disputes and conflict in modern employment relations. That is good for workers and good for business. Both suffer when one employer is undercut by another, using reduced terms and conditions of service for their employees. Sustainable economic growth cannot be built on unfair competition and insecure employment.

The Employment Rights Bill extends the employment protections currently enjoyed by some employees in the best British companies to workers across the country. By doing so, work will become more secure and predictable while strengthening the foundations that underpin a modern economy. The Bill will back businesses that already do the right thing and give hard-working people the job security and opportunities they deserve. It is in tune with the times and in keeping with how the world of work is changing.

Industrial relations law in this country must move from the 20th century to the 21st. It has to recognise that certainty and security are essential for people at work, that the best relationship between employer and employee is best exemplified by fairness and trust within a framework for recruitment and retention that values both, and that dignity at work is as vital to the effective functioning of modern society as the dignity of work.

Some will seek to use this issue to entrench the idea that employers and employees have opposing interests that must always inevitably result in dispute and strife, and I reject that view. The very best trade unionists know, as do the best employers, that such a view only represents failure. For this Labour Government, success is to be measured not in division, but in the shared economic growth that we achieve, the opportunity and security we build and the prosperity we create, and that is at the heart of the Bill.

Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this important legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, and in response we are offering, where possible, amendments in lieu that we believe strike a fair and workable compromise with the proposed amendments. Although we appreciate the range of perspectives offered, we will be unable to support certain amendments that conflict with the fundamental principles of the Bill and may compromise its intended impact.

We acknowledge that Lords amendment 1B, which relates to zero-hours contracts, is an amendment in lieu, intended as a compromise. It proposes a shift from a full right-to-request model to one in which employers must notify workers of their right to a guaranteed hours offer, and make a guaranteed hours offer unless the worker declines or opts out. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, but it would undermine the Bill’s core aim of ending exploitative contracts and providing security for the workers who need it most. We therefore cannot accept it.

The Government are committed to ending one-sided flexibility so that workers are not left guessing about their hours or pay. These reforms reward fair employers, modernise the system and come with clear guidance to help everyone prepare. For employers, clear expectations mean better staffing and lower recruitment costs through better retention. We also appreciate that some groups, including younger workers, value the flexibility of zero-hours contracts. That is why workers will be able to decline a guaranteed hours offer and remain on their existing arrangement if that works best for them.

The Government are also committed to supporting young people into work. The youth guarantee will include a targeted backstop under which every eligible and unemployed young person on universal credit for 18 months without earning or learning will be provided guaranteed paid work. The scheme forms part of the Government’s aim to provide targeted support for young people at risk of long-term unemployment. Further details will be confirmed at the autumn Budget, following further engagement, including with employers.

Let me turn to Lords amendment 48B on seasonal work. The Government recognise that work in certain sectors fluctuates seasonally, and that there are ways in which employers may account for that and remain compliant with the legislation. They may, for example, use annualised hours contracts, which offer variable numbers of hours at work at different times of the year. Additionally, the Bill already allows guaranteed hours offers to take the form of limited-term contracts where reasonable—for example, a fruit-picker could be engaged on a contract tied to the end of the picking season. In such cases, after the initial reference period, the employer would be required to guarantee hours only for the duration of that limited-term contract rather than on a permanent basis. The Bill also already provides powers to address seasonal work through regulations, ensuring flexibility as workforce needs evolve. Consultation with employers, trade unions and stakeholders will take place before such regulations are made. We therefore do not support the amendment.

Let me turn to unfair dismissal. Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 propose retaining a qualifying period of six months for unfair dismissal. These amendments have returned to this House as the Lords have insisted on them. We remain committed to delivering unfair dismissal protections from day one—not two years, not six months, but day one. That was a clear pledge in our manifesto and it will ensure that about 9 million employees who have worked for their employer for less than two years are protected from being arbitrarily fired. Crucially, day one protection from unfair dismissal will not remove the right of businesses to dismiss people who cannot do their job or do not pass probation, but it will tackle cases of unfair dismissal in which hard-working employees are sacked without good reason. A six-month qualifying threshold still leaves employees exposed to dismissal without good reason in the early months of a new job, which is why the Government cannot accept the Lords amendments on maintaining a qualifying period.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Does the Minister not listen to the voices of business and business organisations? They say that what the Government propose will make young people—whom it is riskier to take on—less likely to get jobs in the first place. Why does she think she knows better than employers and the people who create jobs in this country?

[Kate Dearden]

Yesterday, I was with the Hospitality Sector Council. I heard about all the brilliant work it does to provide employment opportunities for young people across the country. Indeed, my first job was in a café. Such opportunities to get on the employment ladder are significant for young people. That is why the Bill will work in alignment with all the other crucial work that the Government are doing through the youth guarantee.

As I have outlined on unfair dismissal, it simply is not fair that hard-working employees who have worked somewhere for 18 months can be unfairly dismissed and have no stability and predictability in their jobs. Protection through day one rights gives financial security to people who do not have it. We are striking a balanced approach by introducing a statutory probation period. As we have mentioned, the Government’s preference is for that to be a period of nine months, but we are engaging in consultation on the next steps for those light-touch standards. The probation period will ensure that in the early months of employment, employers can dismiss employees who might not be performing or might not be suitable. The measures will tackle the causes of unfair dismissal.

[Kate Dearden]

My hon. Friend raises an excellent point about research. Providing employees with security at work results in a happier workforce, which increases productivity and helps businesses across the country, as well as our economy. The Bill will provide flexibility and security for people in workplaces across the country, which is vital for our productivity. That is our vision for our country and economy.

[James Wild]

The Minister referred to a nine-month probationary period as opposed to the six-month unfair dismissal period. A report from the Resolution Foundation—which is usually held in high regard on the Treasury Bench—says that this is a “messy compromise” that risks confusing employers and preventing them from taking people on. That is the point that I was making. Some 20% of jobs in my constituency are in the hospitality sector. The sector is not taking people on because of the jobs tax, and it will take on even fewer people because of these increased costs. Does she not realise the confusion that will come from this messy probation period, which is not on the face of the Bill?

[Kate Dearden]

As we have said from the start, the implementation of day one unfair dismissal rights will be done with a light touch. I am keen to work with employers across the country, including in the hospitality sector, which plays a key role in employing and providing opportunities for young people. I will work with all stakeholders on the next steps and implementation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, and as is the case for lots of employment rights legislation, we are setting the foundation here in this crucial Bill, but there are lots of details to work through in consultation, which I am absolutely committed to doing.

The framework will be founded on the principle of social partnership: consent and consensus must replace dispute and conflict in modern employment relations. That will ensure maximum flexibility, so that the new framework works effectively for employers and employees in each sector of the economy. We will minimise the cost of its implementation and operation.

The Government are committed to ensuring that employers can hire with confidence. As I have said, introducing the statutory probation period enables employers to fairly assess new hires’ performance and suitability for the role that they have been hired for. Most employers already use contractual probation periods of six months or less. The Government have been clear that our preference is for the probationary period to be nine months long. That would allow for a standard six-month term, with the option to extend supporting employee development without compromising operational needs.

We have heard the calls to ensure that the framework reflects real-world realities, and we have tabled an amendment in lieu to address that. Our amendment places a statutory duty on the Government to consult on key aspects of the framework. That would guarantee meaningful input from employers and employees, giving businesses a direct role in shaping the legislation to ensure a practical and fair approach. Additionally, we are tabling a further amendment in lieu, making technical changes to the words restored to the Bill by our rejection of the Lords amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Dearden]

I come from a family that has a business in the hospitality sector, which is close to my heart. In the first eight weeks that I have been in this role, I have had the pleasure to meet small and large businesses, and I have made clear our determination to work closely with them on the implementation of this legislation and to ensure that they are prepared for the changes when they come. We published our road map earlier this year and have committed to stick to that, which has been welcomed by businesses small and large.

Finally, turning to the issue of industrial action ballot thresholds, Lords Amendment 62 would remove clause 65(2) from the Bill, which would retain the existing 50% turnout threshold for industrial action ballots. The Government do not support this amendment. Clause 65 removes an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle and aligns union democracy with other democratic processes, such as parliamentary votes and local elections, which do not typically require turnout thresholds but are still accepted as legitimate. As the period of disruption under the Conservatives’ watch between 2022 and 2024 has shown, bureaucratic hurdles only make it harder for unions to engage in the bargaining and negotiation that settles disputes. This Government’s approach will foster a new partnership of co-operation between trade unions and employers.

[James Wild]

If this provision is introduced, does the Minister think that there will be more or fewer strikes?

[Kate Dearden]

Strikes were a failure of the Tory Government who had stopped listening and, to be frank, had stopped working, so I will not be taking any further interventions from the hon. Gentleman.

We want to create a modern and positive framework for trade union legislation that delivers productive and constructive engagement, respects the democratic mandate of unions and works to reset our industrial relations. Nonetheless, we recognise that this issue has generated debate, which is why the Government have tabled an amendment in lieu that will require the Secretary of State to have regard to any effects of the introduction of electronic balloting on the proportion of those entitled to vote in industrial action ballots who actually do so. We have previously committed to aligning the removal of the threshold with the establishment of e-balloting as an option for trade unions. This amendment gives statutory effect to that commitment and makes it explicit in the underlying legislation. In having regard to the effects of e-balloting, the Government will monitor and assess the practical impacts of e-balloting on participant rates and the 50% threshold.

To conclude, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s motions before the House today, including our amendments in lieu, which are part of a package that strengthens rights and reflects the value we place on fair work. We have listened throughout the Bill’s passage and made meaningful changes where needed, and we will continue to listen to all relevant stakeholders as we move into implementation We are committed to full and comprehensive consultation with employers, workers, trade unions and civil society. As set out in our “Implementing the Employment Rights Bill” road map, we are taking a phased approach to engagement and consultation on these reforms. This will ensure that stakeholders have the time and space to work through the detail of each measure, and will help us to implement each in the interests of all. This is a win-win for employers, employees and a more competitive British economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough and Thornaby East) (Lab)]

I draw hon. Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in relation to support from trade unions, of which I am most proud.

The past four decades of structural decline in the share of the national income going to employees, decades marked by the erosion of trade union rights, has been exacerbated by 14 years of the Conservative Government forcing down real wages across the United Kingdom, leaving working families still struggling to recover. Against that backdrop, the most urgent task of this Labour Government is to raise living standards. Trade unions are critical to that mission and the Employment Rights Bill will help to deliver that.

The Bill represents a cornerstone of the Government’s new deal for working people, a vote-winning manifesto pledge. I very much welcome evidence of the popularity of these policies in the platform of Zohran Mamdani, New York’s newly elected Democrat mayor. Among other things, he pledged protection for delivery workers, including guaranteed hours. Yet the amendments to this Bill made in the other place would water down that commitment and deny working people the rights they were promised. I therefore must speak in strong opposition to the Lords amendments, which, taken together, would weaken the protections that this House has committed to deliver for working people across the United Kingdom.

Lords amendment 23 and Lords amendments 106 to 120, which concern day one rights, would remove the right not to be unfairly dismissed from the very start of employment. Instead, they would impose a six-month qualifying period and empower Ministers to introduce a further initial period in which only limited protections apply. That is contrary to both the letter and the spirit of the Government’s manifesto. It would leave new employees vulnerable to arbitrary dismissal and recreate the very insecurity that the Bill was designed to end.

[James Wild]

When the hon. Gentleman has spoken to employers in his constituency about this specific provision—I am sure that he has—what have they said?

[Andy McDonald]

The concept is pretty simple. Conservative Members are conflating different issues around unfair dismissal and probationary contracts. They are scaremongering. There is nothing in the Bill that prevents the continuation of probation periods. The only thing we are saying is that it would be unfair to dismiss somebody for an unlawful reason. I really wonder why it is so difficult to grasp that concept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Given that time is short, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will endeavour to keep my remarks brief. I intend to speak to specific amendments today, but I feel compelled to start with a general comment in respect of financial interests. Throughout the stages of the Bill, and again today, it has been suggested by the Opposition that a number of Government Members speak not from genuine and sincere belief, but because of arrangements involving donations to their constituency Labour parties. I say to those on the Opposition Benches that that argument and line of thought betrays a laziness towards this issue that is reflected in their lack of effective scrutiny of the Bill, with the Opposition resorting instead to hackneyed and ancestral stereotypes and lazy assumptions that reflect nothing about the world of unions and the world of work.

[James Wild]

Members of the public who are watching this debate will not necessarily have ready access to the records of the thousands of pounds that have been taken by each Member referring simply to their financial interests. In the interest of transparency, will the hon. Gentleman therefore say how many thousands of pounds he took from trade unions, if any, to support this Bill?

[Laurence Turner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for proving my point exactly. I will happily tell him that since becoming a Member of this House, I have not received a penny in political donations from trade unions. My constituency Labour party received a donation before the election, but that is an entirely different matter. I have only one matter to draw attention to in my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, which is my chairship of the GMB parliamentary group, which is an unpaid role.

We are asked today to consider a number of amendments that directly contradict our manifesto commitments. Lords amendments 61 and 72 on political funds are a case in point. In the other place, the noble Lord Burns gently questioned whether this was a manifesto issue, but the Make Work Pay document, which our manifesto said would be implemented in full, clearly said that the Trade Union Act 2016 would be repealed. That must include this provision.

The amendments before us seek to preserve the punitive restrictions that were originally imposed as retribution in 1927 and repealed in 1946, after which we had 70 years during which arrangements worked effectively. The actual impact of these amendments, were they passed, would be the same as any arrangement that moves from opt-out to opt-in, which is a reduction in the ability of working people to speak with a collective voice.

Let us not forget that trade union political funds do not exclusively fund donations to parties. Look at the campaigns that have been run and the cross-party support they have won, such as GMB and Unison’s “Protect the Protectors” and GMB’s campaigns on domestic defence manufacturing—two campaigns that the Conservatives came to support—as well as USDAW’s “Freedom from Fear”, and the Gangmasters (Licensing) Act 2004, the result of Unite’s campaign in the aftermath of the Morecambe Bay disaster, in which so many cockle pickers tragically and disgracefully lost their lives. Even today, in this place, trade union funding helps to address the abuse that has occurred within the confines of the estate, and which there is a risk will continue in the future.

Trade unions are democratic bodies. Any member of a trade union can demand to see the receipts of political expenditure, and decisions on party donations are taken on a collective basis. When that provision was originally repealed, the Attlee Government’s Attorney General of the day said—I think this bears repeating today—that the Conservatives relied on the

“old delusion that the Labour party was being built upon the hard-earned pennies of honest Conservatives who were too timid to declare their true political colours and were being bullied by horrid, nasty trade unionists into supporting the political funds of a party to which they were so much opposed.”

Anyone who has worked with trade union members will recognise that to be a delusion indeed, and we have heard much of that delusion from the Opposition through the passage of the Bill.

I was going to make similar comments to those my hon. Friend the Member for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance)—who is both honourable and a friend—made in respect of Lords amendment 62, but she covered it expertly. I will finish by talking about Lords amendment 121B on the school support staff negotiating body, which has not been discussed so far today. I recognise that this amendment is substantially different from other amendments that have been sent to us on this matter, but I still believe that it is unnecessary.

First of all, the overwhelming majority of academy employers do subscribe to the National Joint Council terms and conditions for school support staff—terms and conditions which, as has been widely recognised for more than 20 years, are out of date in respect of school support staff. The effect of Lords amendment 121B would to be to create a two-tier arrangement between school support staff in local authority maintained schools and academies. It states that employers could introduce terms and conditions. I am concerned about the potential contradiction with the provisions in the Education (Schools) Act 1992, which that require such changes to be made on a collective and not a unilateral basis. Furthermore, it states that terms and conditions that could be changed should be “in aggregate” an improvement. That clearly leaves room for employers to introduce a weakening to some areas to the detriment of the 1,700 school support staff in my constituency.

I am proud to have had an association with this Bill, and I look forward to rejecting those specific amendments tonight.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Blair McDougall]

Businesses led by entrepreneurs from ethnic minority backgrounds make a huge contribution to all our constituencies. Indeed, I met two such remarkable business people in Acton a couple of days ago. My hon. Friend is right to mention that finance is a barrier for under-represented groups, including ethnic minorities. Dealing with that is a key part of the small business strategy, and it is why we have put billions more into the British Business Bank. She has led on these issues, and I am of course happy to meet her to discuss the future of the programme that she mentions.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

To show his deregulatory zeal, the Business Secretary just boasted about scrapping the British Hallmarking Council, which has one part-time employee. Given that every £1 of regulatory costs has the same impact on investment as £1 taken in tax, why are the Government proceeding with their unemployment Bill and proposing a £5 billion a year tax on British businesses?

[Peter Kyle]

It is quite extraordinary; after just a couple of weeks in the job, I have announced £230 million of deregulation every year—£1 billion-worth between now and the next general election—and what do the Conservatives do? They say that we are not going far enough. They had 14 years; I have had a couple of weeks! It is about time they started coming up with better questions, and stopped criticising a Government who act where they failed to.

Employment Rights Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Monday 15th September 2025 Commons Chamber

Lords amendments 23 and 106 to 120 seek to reduce the qualifying period for unfair dismissal from two years to six months, while preserving existing exemptions. The Government do not support the amendments. We were elected on a manifesto to provide protection from unfair dismissal from day one of employment.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; he is being very generous. Can he explain why, before he took up his present post and took responsibility for the Bill, no assessment was made of the hiring practices that would occur if the unfair dismissal period was reduced from two years? Why was no modelling done? It is in the Labour party manifesto, but where is the evidence of what it will do to jobs and economy? That is what my constituents are concerned about.

[Peter Kyle]

Of course many of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be concerned about their workforce protections, and those who are setting up, running and managing businesses will want us to get the balance right as well, but we have many years of experience that have informed the decisions we have taken, and our engagement with trade unions and other bodies has ensured that we have got that balance right.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alexander]

We are consciously pursuing a trade agenda based on data, not on post-imperial delusion. Regrettably, the data is pretty devastating on the damage done by how Brexit was implemented by our predecessors. If one wants to look at academic research, the latest publications from Aston University indicate that a number of small and medium-sized businesses, about which we have heard a lot today from Opposition Members, were buried under red tape. It is not only those businesses that have been buried under red tape; we have seen an increase in the number of civil servants across the United Kingdom by more than 100,000 in recent years. That is partly why the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the Cabinet Office is leading our work on rethinking the size and shape of the British state. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in recognising that we have a responsibility to try and clean up the mess. That is what we are doing.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to help support high street businesses.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Gareth Thomas)]

We are reforming business rates, rolling out banking hubs, stamping out late payments, empowering communities to bring vacant properties on the high street back into use and beginning to tackle the antisocial behaviour and crime that has bedevilled the high street over the last decade. Last month, we also announced a licensing taskforce that will recommend ways to improve our licensing regime to foster vibrant hospitality, the night-time economy and cultural industries on the high street.

[James Wild]

A British Retail Consortium survey this week of major retailers employing half a million people found that 70% say that the £5 billion a year Employment Rights Bill will have a negative impact on their business and half said that it would lead to job cuts. How does the Minister expect our high streets to cope with that extra cost, coming on top of higher business rates and higher national insurance? When will the Government actually listen to businesses and to the people creating jobs in this country?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State be straightforward with the House today about how much taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on British Steel?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

The amount of working capital provided to British Steel to date stands at £94 million, which is considerably less than if we had given a large amount of money to Jingye, or if we had had to deal with the complete loss of the entire British Steel site and business.

“Chapter 4A

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)]

I welcome the Report stage of this Bill. I proudly declare my membership of Unite and the Communication Workers Union and I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

This Bill will see the biggest upgrade to workers’ rights for a generation. It is an agenda for change—change that is desperately needed. Working class people keep this country cared for. They keep our streets clean, our shelves stacked and our public services running, but the imbalance of power in our workplace is plain to see. The P&O scandal was testament to that. This Bill represents a crucial first step in redressing that imbalance, especially amendment 80 on sick pay. It strengthens both collective and individual rights and puts more money in the pockets of working people.

I therefore welcome the Government’s amendment to the Bill ensuring that everyone gets sick pay from the first day they are ill, including those previously excluded for earning too little. Currently, around 1.2 million workers are excluded from statutory sick pay altogether, and the present three-day wait is extremely hard for those on low pay who often budget on a week-to-week basis. Me and my husband were those people who lived week to week and dragged ourselves into work when we were not well, because if we did not work, we did not eat when my children were small. The fact that the Bill rectifies that is extremely welcome.

The pandemic exposed just how inadequate current levels of sick pay are. I therefore urge the Government to ensure that as many workers as possible benefit from the measures in the Bill. In particular, they should look at what they can do to increase the rate of statutory sick pay over time, as we currently have one of the lowest rates of sick pay across the developed countries. I hope the Government continue to consider the impact of the removal of the lower earnings limit to ensure that everybody benefits from the measures in this Bill.

Overall, these changes will be transformative for working people in my constituency. As a working-class woman from a council estate, it does my heart good to be able to stand in this place supporting changes that will make the lives of working people better and give them the rewards they so deserve.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

I pay tribute to all the Members who served on the Bill Committee for its 21 sessions. Their job was made harder by the fact that this was rushed legislation brought forward purely to spare the blushes of the Deputy Prime Minister, who made promises to the trade union barons who fund her party. As a result, we see the large number of amendments that we are discussing today. It is also the case that while the Government have consulted during the passage of the Bill, they do not appear to have listened to employers very much. Hon. Members should beware the unintended consequences of these measures and the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Russell]

It appears to be quite commonly overlooked by Opposition Members that flexible working will still be available to people on fixed-term contracts. Does the hon. Member agree that such contracts can be used to manage seasonal fluctuations?

[James Wild]

I am simply pointing to the words of the chief executive of Currys, which employs thousands of people across the country. I am not here to tell employers what form of contracts to offer their staff, and I am not sure that it is the hon. Lady’s job to do so either. However, the Bill will certainly remove flexibility.

The Government are doubling down by extending that requirement to agency workers. Flexible contracts, which are valued by staff—we have heard from other Conservative Members about their benefits—will be undermined by the Bill. A flexible labour market is an important part of securing a growing economy. The previous Government managed to achieve that while also extending employment rights. As the Federation of Small Businesses and organisations that provide millions of jobs have warned, the clear danger of the Bill is that it will make it harder to employ people by increasing risks and costs.

Rather than striking the balance that the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), spoke about, the Government have produced measures that, when taken together—and on top of the Chancellor’s tax-raising Budget and the near doubling of business rates for hospitality, retail and leisure businesses—create a significant cost and regulatory risk. That is why we oppose the Bill and the Government’s action to hike taxes and increase regulation that will make us less competitive.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and my trade union membership.

For far too long, our economy has been stuck in a low-growth, low-wage, low-aspiration situation. For far too long, we have allowed some of the best employers and businesses in the country to be undercut by more unscrupulous employers that, as they are unable to compete through competitive advantage or productivity, do so only by levelling down working conditions. That simply cannot be right. We have heard in Committee, in the House and in headlines over many years some heartbreaking examples of the worst scandals that that has enabled. Truthfully, there is not a person in our society who is not losing out as a result of our failure to tackle this issue.

Opposition Members have commented on the pace at which the Government are moving on that issue. We would not have to move at such a pace if they had done more.

Critical Minerals: Domestic Production

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) on securing this important debate. As he set out, critical minerals are essential for our transition away from fossil fuels while offering economic opportunities in areas where extraction is undertaken, such as Cornwall. I remember many family holidays to Cornwall—coming from Norfolk, we did have to get away sometimes—and enjoying visits to the Poldark tin mine, which I believe is in the constituency of the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George).

Clearly, a lot of focus has been on Cornwall, but—as has been mentioned—this is an opportunity across the country. The International Energy Agency has stated that the world in 2040 is expected to need four times as many critical minerals for clean energy technologies as it does today, so as a nation, we need the right materials if we are to make that clean energy transition. We need the lithium, cobalt, and graphite for electric vehicle batteries; the silicon and tin for our electronics; and the rare earth metals for electric cars and wind turbines. While we will always rely on international supply chains, we have to maximise where the UK can produce domestically and make our supply chains more resilient. As has been said, that will also boost our energy and national security.

A strong case for increasing the domestic production of minerals has been made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), as well as the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), who referred to the importance of skills. I hope that he would acknowledge the work that his predecessor, Steve Double, did in pushing that agenda in the last Parliament. I admire the passion that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) has to go more fast and furious; I wonder if his constituents will share that when they see not the promised £300 cut in energy bills, but the pylons being imposed on communities without proper consultation, particularly in my constituency and across the east of England.

We are moving to a world powered by critical minerals and demand is increasing. Indeed, the UK’s 2022 critical mineral strategy, to which the hon. Member for St Ives referred, stated that global demand for electric vehicle battery minerals is projected to increase by up to 13 times over the next decade or so, exceeding the rate at which new primary and secondary sources are being developed.

The UK has 18 metals and minerals on its critical raw minerals list, and another six are classified as having elevated criticality. China is the biggest producer of 12 of those minerals. Despite the significant deposits of lithium, particularly in Cornwall, and the tin, manganese and tungsten across south-west England, Cumbria, Wales and Scotland, we are almost wholly dependent on imports for our critical minerals, as has been mentioned.

Many of the UK’s vital sectors rely on those minerals, which is why last year we launched a task and finish group on industry resilience, particularly focusing on aerospace, energy, automotive, chemicals and other sectors. While we were in government, we adopted a comprehensive approach to critical minerals, engaging readily with our foreign partners and allies, as well as with industry. That is why we published the first ever critical minerals strategy, which was then refreshed last year to reflect the changing global landscape and the pace of change we need to see.

In partnership with the British Geological Survey, we launched the Critical Minerals Intelligence Centre to help to monitor the supply chain risks and assess the importance of different minerals over time, a point made by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer). We also ramped up work through the Critical Imports Council in April, so there is a lot for this Government to build on.

We know that critical minerals supply chains are complex and vulnerable to disruption, and that production is centred and highly concentrated in certain countries. In some cases, single nations are responsible for half of worldwide production, and are often vulnerable to aggressive debt regimes implemented by states with which the UK directly competes. The level of concentration is even higher for processing operations: China’s share of refining is about 35% for nickel, 50% to 70% for lithium and cobalt, and around 90% for rare earth elements.

All those issues present challenges to the UK’s security of supply, so we must accelerate the growth of our domestic capabilities and back UK critical minerals producers to take advantage of opportunities along the whole length of the value chain. Cornish Lithium, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, is enjoying successes in extracting lithium from granite. Weardale Lithium is also exploring the potential for lithium extraction and geothermal energy from water. Green Lithium, which has also been referred to, has plans to build and operate the first UK merchant lithium refinery in Teesside. There are opportunities around the country.

The UK is also well placed to lead on midstream processing, including refining and materials manufacturing, building on the globally competitive chemicals and metals sectors that we enjoy. That is why the previous Government invested in critical minerals programmes and explored regulatory mechanisms to promote battery and waste electrical and electronic equipment recycling. As of April, there were 50 projects at various stages of development to mine, process and recycle critical minerals domestically.

The UK is a pioneer in recovering critical minerals from waste. Companies such as Altilium, which has operations in Plymouth, are working to develop battery recycling capabilities, so that the raw materials can be extracted and can re-enter the supply chain. That will become increasingly important because, by 2040, recycling is expected to account for up to 20% of battery mineral demand for electric vehicles.

Critical minerals will become ever more important as we seek to bolster our energy security and domestic resilience. There is particular demand for their use in electric vehicles. As has been referred to by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, in government, we took the decision to push back some of those targets: we moved the target for ending the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030 to 2035, bringing us in line with the major car manufacturing countries around the world. Yet this Government have tied themselves in knots about their policy on mandates. Can the Minister provide some clarity on the Government’s policy to address the uncertainty facing supply chains, including those in the critical minerals sector?

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning Weardale Lithium, which is in my constituency, as is Northern Lithium. The regulatory framework for companies trying to invest in lithium is not supportive, and they face waits of one or two years for planning approval from the Environment Agency.

I will also say that Nissan in Sunderland is not at all happy: it already had a plan in place to hit the 2030 target for electric vehicles. It is going to stick to its original plan, but it wants a Government that will match its ambition.

[James Wild]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman— I hope he will forgive me; I did not realise that Weardale Lithium is in his constituency, otherwise I would have acknowledged that. He is absolutely right about the regulatory issues that we face. Every MP will know of the difficulties that the Environment Agency causes companies due to its slow decision making and the fact that there is often a lack of certainty. Different car manufacturers, even just in this country, have different views. I acknowledge Nissan’s point, but other companies in this country take a different view.

The hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth, who secured the debate, said that we need to elevate the importance of this issue and give it a much higher profile. I do not disagree, although I would say that we have set out quite a strong foundation for doing that. Given the centrality of the issue, I was surprised that there was only one passing reference to critical minerals in the Government’s industrial strategy, published a month ago, which is supposed to be the Government’s blueprint for growth. Given that passing reference, are critical minerals really a priority issue for the Government? I hope we will get some reassurance from the Minister on that.

Business confidence has plummeted as a result of the Budget. Although there is an abundance of minerals in the ground, especially in areas that need investment and more jobs, does the Minister recognise the damage that has been done to the UK’s attractiveness to investors as a result of the measures in the Budget? Apparently the Minister will announce that the Government are launching a critical minerals strategy next year—wow. Given the importance of the issue, why is there not more urgency from the Government to do that? That strategy joins a long list of other consultations and commitments that will come in that year. Labour Members have had 14 years to get ready, but they do not seem to be.

Industry needs certainty about what the plan is to ensure that our critical minerals supply chains are strong, sustainable and resilient for now and for many years to come. Let us hope that the Minister can offer that security.

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill

James Wild Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Tuesday 21st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Sir Chris Bryant]

The hon. Member makes a very good point. Indeed, in the main the market is a good thing—it can operate to produce good and efficient outcomes in society—but in this case the market is not working, and where the market does not work, the state has to intervene.

I cannot understand why any sane person should oppose such a measure, but unfortunately the Government have. Their amendment (a) in lieu is a weak sock puppet of a concession. It does not strengthen the rules; it simply leaves them in place. It does not prevent tickets from being sold without evidence of proof of purchase or the seller’s title to the tickets. It does not limit the quantity of resale tickets to the original number limited by the seller or artist. It leaves in place the current system for showing the face value of a ticket, despite the fact that section 90(8) of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, in my view and in the view of everybody who has spoken to Members about this, is very opaque and open to interpretation—or, I would argue, open to deliberate misinterpretation by the secondary ticketing market.

For instance, Viagogo does not say “face value”, but has a little box that says “FV”, which is not explained anywhere on the website, and people have to click on that. If Viagogo genuinely wanted to be open and transparent, it would say “face value”, and put the price at the very beginning. StubHub is similarly advertising tickets for Taylor Swift on 21 June at £711, but nowhere on the first page does it give the face value. I note that, if someone goes on to the second page, it says $75 there, but I am told that that is not the actual cost of the ticket. Seatsnet has tickets for Murrayfield—for Taylor Swift again—selling at £1,294.79 or £1,092.15 each, and nowhere does it give the face value of the tickets. Interestingly, AEG Presents and AXS, which are managing the tickets for the concerts at Murrayfield, say that tickets are strictly not to be resold:

“Any tickets found to be purchased via re-sale on the non-official secondary market will not be valid for entry into the concerts.”

In other words, it is completely in doubt whether the tickets being sold at £711 or £1,294 are tickets that will actually gain admittance for an individual.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman referred to Viagogo, and I have just gone on to its website. He mentioned the “FV” symbol, but when I click on it, it tells me the face value of the ticket. Did I misunderstand the point he made?

[Sir Chris Bryant]

Yes, the hon. Member did misunderstand the point I made. Why does it not just say “face value”, instead of “FV”, which would be perfectly simple? For that matter, why should people have to click on it? The point of the Lords amendment is very clear, and it is that people should know from the very first time they see the ticket what the face value of that ticket is. I am perfectly happy, if people want to be scammed, that they should be free to be scammed, but they should at least know from the very first point at which they seek to buy a ticket what the face value of the ticket is.

Post Office Ltd

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, but I do not accept his premise that the Post Office is rudderless. The chief executive is still there and I spoke to him a few moments ago, prior to the urgent question. As I have said, we are looking to appoint an interim chair as soon as possible and a permanent replacement shortly after that, and meanwhile the daily work of the board will continue.

On our commitment to overturn convictions on a blanket basis, I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s previous constructive collaboration and engagement with our Department, and I hope that continues. I am keen to engage with him on our approach. These are legal matters that need to be considered carefully and we had a number of meetings last week on this very issue, so I am keen to engage with him, but in a way that does not slow down the process of bringing the legislation forward. He will find us contacting him and knocking at his door in the coming days to talk about how we will go forward with that legislation.

I should point out that Mr Bates’s compensation is not related to the overturning of convictions, because he was never convicted. That is not what is getting in the way of Mr Bates’s compensation, although it is getting in the way for something like 900 other people, and we are keen to resolve that as quickly as possible.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to look at the Post Office’s reported practice, under the former chairman, of making payments of just £5,000 under the Horizon shortfall scheme for distress and inconvenience to people it falsely accused of theft, when a similar claim made at an employment tribunal, in the most exceptional cases, is 10 times that amount?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

To be clear, those schemes are run independently of the Post Office. There are independent processes all the way through, and an independent panel assesses the loss. I think my hon. Friend is talking about the Horizon shortfall scheme, but it is clear that any tariffs that might go with payments are not a ceiling—they tend to be a floor. People should of course be fully compensated for both their financial and their non-pecuniary loss; that is a principle we have adhered to all the way through the process. We are looking at the recommendations of the advisory board on how to make sure people who have been through those schemes have received fair payments. In the group litigation order scheme, there will effectively be a minimum £75,000 fixed-sum award. We are keen to ensure not only that we get the money out of the door, but that that compensation is fair and seen to be fair.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Ms Ghani]

There is no deep-sea mining currently happening in areas beyond national jurisdictions. The UK has committed not to sponsor or support the issue of any exploitation licences for deep-sea mining projects unless and until there is significant scientific evidence about the potential impact on deep-sea ecosystems.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

9. What steps her Department is taking to improve the accountability of business regulators.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his fine work as part of the Regulatory Reform Group, which has just published a report. Last week the Government published “Smarter Regulation to Grow the Economy”, setting out our vision for the UK’s regulation and how we can harness the opportunities that Brexit presents to re-think how and when we regulate. As part of that, we set out our agenda to ensure that regulators help drive economic growth.

[James Wild]

I thank the Minister for his answer and for the reforms published last week. He kindly mentioned the Regulatory Reform Group and our report last week. Will he carefully consider our recommendations in the report on the Government better holding regulators to account, and look at the proposal for an accountability framework that looks at key metrics, including competition, to judge their performance?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I read that with interest, and I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) yesterday about the matter. It is important that all regulators with responsibility for regulating and promoting growth continue to be held to account for delivering on those objectives. His proposed joint committee of Members of both Houses is for the House authorities to consider, but I note that in a regulatory system that already has a number of accountability mechanisms, adding another layer could risk more uncertainty rather than clarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. Which? does fantastic work. The CMA acts independently, without ministerial influence, and it is right that it does. However, I am sure it is keeping a close eye on that matter. As I said in a previous answer, the best way we can regulate prices in the UK is through strong competition. We have a very strong, competitive market in the supermarkets, with 14 chains in this country, and that is the best way to hold down prices. However, she raises an important point and I am sure the CMA will have listened to it.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

UK Export Finance plays a vital role in supporting export opportunities, but a company in my constituency is having difficulties landing support to secure a contract based in one of our Trans-Pacific Partnership area countries. Will my right hon. Friend meet me to discuss this and how we can support that business?

[Kemi Badenoch]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that. I will see whether I can get a meeting with him, but, if not, I will make sure that one of my officials is able to look into this issue specifically for him.