James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Agricultural and Business Property Relief: Impact on Farmers · Hansard source

  More

  This morning the Chancellor failed to take responsibility for her poor choices in a Budget that whacked up taxes, borrowing and spending, and made it clear that she would once again break her promises on tax. The farmers whom I have met have been in tears about the family farm tax, not because they are worried about losing their jobs but because the Chancellor is putting generations of farming at risk. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Chancellor has actually met any farmers, the NFU or other farming organisations to understand the impact of her policy and why she should scrap the family farm tax?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Business Rates: Affordability for SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  When the Chancellor imposed £40 billion of tax rises, she chose to double business rates for leisure, retail and hospital businesses—and she is going to come back for more. It may be in vain, but perhaps I can offer her a policy suggestion: scrap business rates for 250,000 shops, pubs and restaurants. Rather than hike taxes, will she adopt Conservative policy and control welfare spending so that we can back our small businesses?

• 4 Nov 2025 · Welfare Spending · Hansard source

  More

  A few hon. Members in this debate have mentioned the record of the last Government, so it is worth putting on the record that, under the last Government, 4 million jobs were created, youth unemployment was halved and a million more disabled people moved into work. Sadly, under this Government, we have already seen unemployment rise every single month that they have been in office. They are going to have the record that every Labour Government have had—of leaving unemployment higher than they inherited. The number of people on health and sickness benefits is also increasing significantly. Under this Government, 5,000 people are being signed on to long-term sickness benefits every day, which is double the rate pre covid. Simply put, our welfare system is not sustainable, nor fair. It is not fair for taxpayers and it is not fair for people who are left on benefits, without the support that they need. Yet Labour Members have blocked welfare reforms, and the Prime Minister and Chancellor clearly lack the backbone to get on with this urgent work. The Chancellor’s panicked speech this morning underlined that serious welfare reform is not any part of their agenda. It should be common cause across the House that we understand the value and dignity of work. The moral case for change mentioned in our motion could not be clearer: we must protect the vulnerable and help those who can work to get the support to do so, because work is not just about pay; it is about pride, personal responsibility and the health benefits that come from it. Yet this Government are failing to help people who want work to find it. A welfare system worthy of the name should help people up, not hold them down. We will judge this Government by their record. Unemployment, as I have said, is increasing, and sickness claims are going up. Helping people is why, when we were in government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) introduced universal credit to simplify welfare and reward work, which halved unemployment between 2010 and the pandemic. We were making real progress. Of course, the pandemic created a real challenge for us and we saw a rise in claims, particularly for mental health. The shadow Chancellor, whose name has been taken in vain, actually put in place a number of reforms that were going to drive down the claims that were coming through. He put in place universal support to help people. He put in place WorkWell, a great scheme that has been effective in Norfolk. The big point is that welfare spending on health and disability benefits is set to hit £100 billion by the end of this Parliament—a point made by the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst)—which is twice what we spend on defence. Yet what do we see? We see a Government with no serious intent to bring the total down. Indeed, the PIP review that has been announced, which will not report for ages, specifically excludes savings from its terms of reference. Despite increasing taxes, the Government are apparently going to lift the two-child policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) has already made a good argument for why that should not happen, so I will not repeat it, but it prompts the question of why the Government, despite critiquing the last Government for apparently spending too much on welfare, do not have a plan to do anything. They could look at the plan that the shadow Secretary of State has set out, which would deliver £23 billion across the board. We should be guided by Conservative principles: living within our means, protecting the most vulnerable, and making sure that work always pays and that those who can work do so. We have a duty to ensure that the system is fair and sustainable. From the moment that Labour Members blocked their own reforms, we have seen a Government with no ideas and a Chancellor who is clear that spending restraint does not form any part of her plans. Taxes are going up and welfare spending is going up, but there is an alternative: back our motion and build a welfare system that truly works for Britain.

• 30 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  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?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  The first senior Treasury counsel, Tom Little, yesterday said that he took the extraordinary step of having a direct discussion with the deputy National Security Adviser because he could not understand why what he said was a relatively straightforward piece of evidence—namely, that China was an active and ongoing threat—had not been provided. Why did the Government not provide that commitment?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will my hon. Friend give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 28 Oct 2025 · China Spying Case · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Fishing and Coastal Growth Fund · Hansard source

  More

  When the fishing and coastal growth fund was announced, the Government said that they had also secured a new sanitary and phytosanitary agreement to slash red tape for UK seafood exporters and businesses. Can the Minister tell the fishing fleet in King’s Lynn, Brancaster and around the Norfolk coast when that deal will actually be implemented?

• 23 Oct 2025 · Alleged Spying Case: Role of Attorney General’s Office · Hansard source

  More

  The Director of Public Prosecutions has said that the case was dropped because efforts over many months to get evidence that China represented a threat to national security were not forthcoming from this Government. When was the Attorney General informed that the case was at risk and what did he do?

• 22 Oct 2025 · Life Sciences Innovative Manufacturing Fund · Hansard source

  More

  Since the Minister has been talking about taxpayers’ money, I would be grateful if he could let us know what the minimum leverage is. For every pound of taxpayers’ money put in, what is the minimum that has to be put in by the private sector?

• 21 Oct 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Greater transparency about NHS data should be used to drive improvements, so what assessment has the Health Secretary made of the impact on the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn of being forced to make savings of £18 million this year? What impact will that have on the need to reduce waiting times for A&E and cancer treatment, as identified in the league table that he published?

• 16 Oct 2025 · Official Secrets Act Case: Witness Statements · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister knows the Prime Minister well, having been one of his close advisers as well as his Parliamentary Private Secretary. Why, when he learnt that a major trial concerning spying on Members was going to collapse, did the Prime Minister do nothing? Why did he not ask if anything could be done to stop the trial collapsing? Is that what he wanted to happen, and if not, why did he not act?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Jhoots Pharmacy · Hansard source

  More

  Staff and patients at Jhoots Pharmacy in South Wootton in North West Norfolk have been let down, going months without pay or stock, and with no communication from management. The pharmacist left after non-payment. When I raised those issues with the company, it simply refused to respond. The Minister has referred to future regulatory changes, but given that the pattern is repeated across the country, what urgent steps is he taking to work with ICBs collectively to ensure that staff get the money they are owed and that commissioned services are delivered? Will he not rule out taking action against individual directors?

• 14 Oct 2025 · Grid Infrastructure · Hansard source

  More

  Proposals for 90 miles of pylons from Grimsby to Walpole in my constituency would have a major detrimental impact on rural areas due to the scale of the infrastructure, the loss of high-quality farmland and the proximity of the infrastructure to homes. Does the Minister understand—I do not think he does—why local people say no to pylons? Will he get National Grid to look properly at undergrounding or offshoring, to reduce the impact on these communities and ensure that if the proposals do go ahead, communities are properly compensated?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 9 Sept 2025 · Planning Reform: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  The Government want to drive growth through house building, but even before the departure of the Deputy Prime Minister, they were predicted to miss the 1.5 million new homes target by half a million. How does the Chancellor and her team of tax raisers think a 3,000% hike in the builders tax, adding £28,000 to the cost of building a new home, will help to deliver the new homes that young people need? Rather than consult on it, why will she not rule out this damaging tax rise?

• 3 Sept 2025 · Hospitality Sector · Hansard source

  More

  As we have heard, hospitality is a crucial part of our economy. Our pubs, restaurants, hotels and other businesses employ 3.5 million people—over 5,000 in my North West Norfolk constituency alone, contributing £136 million to my local economy—but this Government’s decisions have hammered the sector. As the owner of the Crown and Mitre pub in King’s Lynn, which I highly recommend, recently put it in the local Lynn News : “How many rising costs can you face before collapsing face-first into the till?” Will’s grim humour says it all. He says that costs are piling up faster than a “bad souffle in an over-heated oven”. But the reality is no laughing matter. When we were in Government, the Conservatives supported the sector. We boosted growth and helped it to recover from the difficult decisions that we had to make during covid. That record stands in sharp contrast to what we are seeing today. All Members will know from talking to hospitality businesses in their constituencies this summer just how worried they are about the increased costs. When I was at the Rose and Crown in Harpley during the summer, talking to the team that reopened that pub and had pubs across Norfolk, I heard just how damaging the increase in the national insurance rate has been. The lowering of the threshold to £5,000 has also been a real challenge. That change alone has brought 750,000 workers in the sector into national insurance for the first time—and what has happened? Well, as UKHospitality’s TaxedOut campaign shows, Labour’s decisions have already cost nearly 90,000 jobs in the sector, particularly hitting younger people, part-time workers and those starting out in entry-level positions, which they can then grow into the career that the Minister said that he hoped more people would have an opportunity to do. The jobs tax is costing the sector as a whole £3.4 billion a year. Little wonder that a third are now operating at a loss. Three quarters have had to put up their prices to cope with the increased costs that they are facing, and two thirds are reducing the hours of their existing staff, and are not taking on the people that they otherwise would have done. Little wonder, too, that UKHospitality has called the Government’s decisions a “hammer blow” for the sector. But it is not just the jobs tax; the Government’s choice to almost halve hospitality and leisure business rates relief from 75% to 40% will hit a quarter of a million businesses. I was very surprised, as I am sure the sector would be, to hear the Minister boasting about this damaging decision, given that the average pub is paying £5,500 more and restaurants are paying £9,000 extra. How does he expect them to absorb those costs without the consequences for employment that we are seeing? Depressingly, there is even more to come. The Deputy Prime Minister’s Employment Rights Bill—or whoever picks it up after her—will add £5 billion a year to employer costs, making it less likely that firms will take on people. Our hospitality firms are resilient, and they need to be with all they are having to weather. This Government are putting them under the cosh. With creativity, investment and the high-quality staff across the sector, hospitality firms can attract customers and support our local communities. I have seen many impressive hospitality businesses in my constituency, including ones that have newly reopened—the Ship in Brancaster, the Chequers in Thornham, the Pub in Clenchwarton, and new enterprises such as Nopa and VinedMe, which are also in Thornham—but the Government are making it far too hard for firms like those to thrive and grow. Members have the opportunity today to back our very sensible motion to back the sector, to think again about the doubling of business rates, and to amend the damaging Employment Rights Bill to protect seasonal and flexible work. With borrowing costs at a 27-year high, hospitality businesses cannot afford for a Government to be making such damaging economic choices. Ahead of the Budget, the Chancellor and her team of tax raisers should listen to employers and take action to live within our means, otherwise more pubs, more venues and more jobs will be lost.

• 17 Jul 2025 · NHS Pensions: Frontline Patient Care · Hansard source

  More

  With the British Medical Association set to strike, and with the Health Secretary reduced to pleading with it not to, thousands of patients are set to have their appointments cancelled. Can the Minister assure the House that she will grip this issue so that senior doctors do not also reduce their hours? And will she rule out bonuses for NHS Business Services Authority executives?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Where did they all go?

• 15 Jul 2025 · Beer Duty · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall and uniting us behind support for beer—although his colleague the hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones) slightly broke that consensus with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire (Mike Wood) on a couple of points. Beer and pub businesses support 1 million jobs across the UK and contribute £34.4 billion to the economy. In my own North West Norfolk constituency, there are more than 70 pubs and four breweries, which support 2,300 jobs and generate £53 million for the local economy. Those brewers are Brancaster, Fox, Lynn and Duration in West Acre—I strongly recommend Duration’s Turtles All the Way Down IPA. This has been a good debate with a long list of excellent-sounding pubs and breweries. The previous Conservative Government introduced a new duty system in 2023, which has been referred to. That was the biggest reform of duties for more than 140 years and was based on the common-sense principle of applying duty based on the strength of alcohol to modernise existing duties, support businesses and meet public health objectives. New reliefs were also introduced: draught relief, which we have heard about, to cut the burden on draught products; and small producer relief. The British Beer and Pub Association, as quoted by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), said that those reforms were very welcome for the beer industry, and I am sure everyone would agree with that. Conservative support for the sector went further; at autumn statement 2023, we froze alcohol duty, and the freeze was extended at the spring Budget a year ago. By contrast, at the tax-raising autumn Budget, the Chancellor increased the headline rate of alcohol duty by inflation, although she did continue our policy with a reduction in the rates for qualifying draught products and under small producer relief. While I recognise and welcome those steps, the changes to draught relief will mean that beer duty on an average 4.5% strength pint of beer reduces from 54p to 53p—a paltry one penny saving. With the average pint now breaking the £5 barrier to mitigate new costs, many are left wondering if the Government really get the challenges facing the pub and brewing sector. One in every £3 spent in the pub goes straight to the Treasury, and beer duty rates are now up to 12 times higher than in other European nations. The Government’s fiscal approach risks squeezing the life out of those vital sectors. A lot has been said about the role of pubs, and I also want to reflect on the role of breweries. The brewing subsector sustains 85,000 jobs and contributes £5 billion to tax revenues. Breweries are clearly fundamental to the success of pubs and the hospitality sector. More than 80% of beer sold in the UK is produced domestically in 1,800 breweries, which have strong domestic supply chains and a strong economic multiplier effect. The economic value that they generate largely stays in the UK, and the Government should support that in the policy approach that they take. Beyond the increase in alcohol duty, which is the primary focus of this debate, we have also heard a lot about EPR and the extra costs that producers are facing. The BBPA has calculated that EPR fees and Budget costs will add more than £800 million of extra burden on to the sector. The Government’s impact assessment failed to make any distinction between sectors, so will the Minister commit to properly assessing the impact of fees on pub closures and the brewing sector? In the current climate, how can he think that those sectors can afford these huge additional costs? All Members know from talking to pubs and breweries in their constituencies just how worried they are about increased costs. On Friday, I was at the Rose and Crown in Harpley in my constituency, which was one of my favourite pubs under its previous management and has just reopened. From talking to the new team, who have pubs across Norfolk, it is clear that the national insurance increase—in particular, almost halving the threshold at which it is paid—has been challenging and is leading to job losses across the sector. Pubs make an important contribution to our economy and our communities. When in government, we introduced measures to protect the nation’s beer producers and hospitality venues. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswinford and South Staffordshire, who was a doughty campaigner throughout the last Parliament to achieve that. Time and again, however, I hear that choices made by this Government are placing unsustainable pressures on businesses. UKHospitality has just published figures showing that since the autumn Budget, 69,000 jobs have been lost in the hospitality sector, compared with the previous period where 18,000 jobs were added. It is little wonder that UKHospitality said that the decisions made by this Chancellor and this Government deliver a hammer blow to the sector. Businesses are extremely concerned about what will come in the autumn Budget, given the black hole that has emerged in the Chancellor’s spending plans. Treasury Ministers keep saying that business confidence is at a record high, and they sometimes manage that without a smile on their face. But if the Minister makes his way to the Dog and Duck, he will get a reality check, and he will hear loud and clear how tough things are for pubs and brewers; how the Government’s increases in national insurance, wage costs and business rates mean a third of venues are running at a loss; and the need for the Government to change course. Otherwise, spiralling costs risk undermining the Great British institution of the pub, which is at the heart of our constituencies and communities. Rather than loading on more costs, the Government should be supporting pubs and brewers. If the Minister does that, we will all buy him a pint.

• 10 Jul 2025 · Electricity Market Review · Hansard source

  More

  Under the current system, the most expensive generator sets the clearing price for electricity, pushing up prices for consumers and businesses. Can the Secretary of State explain how the reforms that he is setting out today change that by moving to a pay-as-bid system and providing more affordable energy for consumers and businesses?