James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 5 Mar 2026 · Energy Markets · Hansard source

  More

  How much will that cost?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Energy Markets · Hansard source

  More

  How much?

• 4 Mar 2026 · Draft Climate Change Levy (Fuel Use and Recycling Processes) (Amendment) Regulations 2026 · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the scope and the impact of the draft regulations. We support the approach to update the legislation to put it beyond doubt that electricity used in electrolysis processes to produce hydrogen will count as a non-fuel use, and therefore benefit from the exemption from the levy. I also acknowledge that the inclusion of the production of sodium bicarbonate came as a result of the consultation, so there we have it: a Government who listen. Sadly, there are a host of issues on which the Government have not yet listened that I could talk about, were they in scope, from the farm tax to the jobs tax. We live in hope. I do not propose to detain the Committee unduly, but I would like to raise a couple of points. First, as Members will know, the consultation proposed three options to deal with the issue. The Government justified selecting option A on the basis that it was the quickest to implement. It is a sensible procedure to adopt, but option B included support for a broader category of methods of producing hydrogen. Will the Minister confirm the proposed timetable for the consideration of broader treatment as part of the wider review of the climate change levy to which the Government have committed? I note that the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which the Minister and I discussed in Committee, increases the overall levy, adding £2 billion to the cost on British industry. My second point concerns the costings in the tax information and impact note and the explanatory notes, which refer to this change as having a negligible impact. Given the ambitions for hydrogen across the economy, and the ramping up of its production, can the Minister share any projections of the potential benefits for the sector?

• 24 Feb 2026 · Cancer Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

  When I met Big C in King’s Lynn recently, I heard about the anxiety caused; only 52% of local patients are treated within two months, whereas the national average is 71.9%. What action is the Department taking to support the Queen Elizabeth hospital trust in improving its performance for patients?

• 12 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address Motion · Hansard source

  More

  The motion passed by the House requires the Government to provide details of any payments made to Lord Mandelson. There are no national security or international relations issue in doing so. Will the Minister tell the House now how much money Mandelson got and what the Government are doing to get it back?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent’s mum, sister and stepfather were killed in a horrific dangerous driving crime for which a foreign national offender was sentenced to 10 and a half years. However, the family have just been told that he may be released imminently in order to be deported, having served just three years. Will the Prime Minister look at the case and at what steps can be taken to prevent that release? Such a pitiful time served—three years for three lives—would be the final insult and undermine public confidence in our justice system.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Hughes Report: Second Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Sarah Green) for introducing the debate. Like other Members, I was here last year on the first anniversary of the Hughes report. It is a stark reminder of how issues can drift. For those who have suffered, the passing year has not just slipped by quietly, yet we still hear the same language from Ministers about a response coming “in due course”. Those words ring very hollow to the victims whose patience has long since run out. Ministers have previously said that this is a complex issue requiring action across multiple Departments. I readily accept that, but that is precisely why Professor Hughes recommended the interim scheme and those payments in 2025—and 2025 came and went with no response and no payments. Professor Hughes wrote that report, as she said, to drive action; she would not have done it otherwise. It is about how the compensation is paid, not whether it is paid, and it is extraordinary, frankly, that she felt she had to use statutory powers to go to No. 10 and the Prime Minister to drive progress on the issue. In the debate last year, I spoke about my constituents Colleen and Andy, and other families who have been blighted by the scandal. When I met them they talked about their son, Byron. Colleen has epilepsy and was prescribed sodium valproate, but she was never warned that it could harm her unborn child. Byron lives with autism, learning disabilities, communication difficulties and epilepsy. The family’s experience is far too common. Families like them deserve decisive action from the Government. When I pressed the Health Secretary at health questions last month, he said that we were “right to hold the Government’s feet to the fire”, —[ Official Report , 13 January 2026; Vol. 778, c. 753.] He said that work was happening across Government and promised updates. But there have not been any updates. The Health Secretary has previously spoken about the failure of the state to recognise and put right wrongs and its mistakes, yet two years on we are still waiting for some action. Victims do not need any more words; they need action. As Professor Hughes has said, the lack of a response feels devastating to those families. For the sake of the families who have suffered, the Government need to act now. There has been plenty of time to learn from other compensation schemes, to secure funding from the Treasury for compensation and to set out even just a timeline for redress. I ask the Minister: when will interim payments finally be made to those affected and give families the relief they urgently need? At the very least, can the Minister commit that the Government will make interim payments this year? Otherwise, it would be an utter disgrace.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Indeed. I am sure that if the hon. Lady catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, she will elaborate on that. Here is my point. Perhaps the kernel of the unfairness is the lack of recognition of remoteness and its impact beyond the adjustment for adult social care. It has been removed from most of the formulae—

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I will not give way; lots of people want to speak. This is a serious cost pressure on rural authorities that the Government have chosen to ignore. Of course, this has been compounded by the removal of the rural services delivery grant in 2025—the loss of funding that had been put in place specifically to acknowledge the high cost of rural service delivery. That was a political choice made by a very political Secretary of State. People in Norfolk can see in plain sight how this Government view rural areas, in the light of the farm tax, the lowering of the bus funding that the previous Government had put in place, and the scrapping of road and rail schemes in our area. I ask the Minister, who is not currently in her place—I hope the Whip on the Front Bench will make a note of my question—why Ministers rejected the evidence that Norfolk and other rural authorities submitted about the additional costs that they face and the importance of remoteness. After remoteness, there is the recovery grant, which is supposed to be a one-off formula intended to give local authorities the funding they need. The formula was meant to be replaced, but the Government have decided to continue it for the next three years. However, there is no funding for Norfolk county council, despite the allocation, and the additional element of the final settlement, supposedly being targeted at upper-tier authorities—only Labour upper-tier authorities, it seems. It is little wonder that the Institute for Fiscal Studies said: “Maintaining…allocations of the recovery grant does not look like a principled decision”. I think that says it all. The policy is designed to shove all funding to Labour councils. Let us be clear: this is about shifting resources away from rural areas and into unitaries.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  This settlement is supposed to deliver fair funding; that is what the formula says on the tin, but it fails the Ronseal test. Norfolk’s core spending power in the first year of the settlement is lower than the national average, and the largest increases in core spending power are going to urban authorities. This simply fails to recognise the needs of large rural counties such as Norfolk. The County Councils Network’s assessment is that rural counties and unitaries face the highest pressures, collectively amounting to £7 billion of costs by 2028-29.

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. The figures simply bear that out. As a result of the settlement, council taxpayers in Norfolk—it is probably the same for my hon. Friend’s constituents—will bear the brunt through much higher council tax. Maximum council tax increases are assumed for the full three years of the settlement. Let me touch on internal drainage boards, which are responsible for managing water levels and reducing flood risk. They play a vital national role in protecting key areas, including the prime agricultural land that is so important for our food security; yet the cost of IDBs falls on council taxpayers. In the borough council of King’s Lynn and West Norfolk, 40% of council tax goes towards IDB levies—costs that other local authorities do not face. Funding should reflect the nationally important role of IDBs. Additional support was introduced by the previous Conservative Government. It has been continued by this Government, but they are not uprating it with inflation to take account of the high energy costs that IDBs pay. We do not know if that support will continue in future years. If it does not, will the Minister commit to working with the local and district authority groups that have been set up precisely to find an equitable solution? Of course, Norfolk is losing out further still because of the Labour Government’s decision to cancel the Norfolk and Suffolk mayoral election and the county council election—two political choices with which I fundamentally disagree. Not only have our elections been scrapped, but my constituents—and those in Suffolk—were due to benefit from an annual investment fund of £37.4 million a year, which the Government have now cut for Norfolk. We will lose out on £48 million in the next two years. Why? Because of decisions taken by these Ministers. It is another sign that this Government neglect the people of Norfolk. I welcome the announcements on SEND deficits, but it is clear overall that this is not a fair funding settlement. There is an over-reliance on council tax increases for my constituents, there is no recognition of the true costs that rural authorities pay, and ministerial decisions will lock in inequalities for years to come. The Government should think again.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Yesterday, a jury failed to reach a verdict on charges against Palestine Action activists involved in a violent incident in which a police sergeant’s spine was broken when she was struck by a sledge hammer. Does the Solicitor General agree with me and law abiding people across the country—

• 5 Feb 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  Does the Solicitor General agree that, as the Crown Prosecution Service considers whether to bring a retrial, it should bring a retrial on these serious charges, including assault occasioning grievous bodily harm?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  8. What advice she has given the Government on the potential impact of removing jury trials on the rule of law.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House referred earlier to mental health and Time to Talk Day; I will be running the London marathon in April for the 8:56 Foundation in North West Norfolk, which does important work on men’s mental health. Will he join me in paying tribute to charities across the country that are doing so much to improve people’s wellbeing?

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I will not, given the time available. A number of constituents who ride horses have contacted me with concerns about a lack of driver awareness and the prevalence of speeding and dangerous driving. They face heightened risk, particularly given the limited number of bridleways. The roads connecting bridleways have become more dangerous, too, with over 3,000 incidents in 2024, 80% of which were attributed to drivers passing unsafely. That is unacceptable, and it is why I support the proposals introduced by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), which include setting a required speed and distance for passing horses, and teaching equestrian safety in driving education. I hope that the Government will look favourably on those proposals. I turn now to a topic that I have raised repeatedly in the House: sentences for driving offences, which must be tougher. In 2022, Parliament legislated for a maximum sentence of life in prison for death by dangerous driving, but sentences remain far too short, as was demonstrated in a case in which three members of a constituent’s family were killed. Dangerous driving should also result in longer disqualification. Less than 1% of those convicted of dangerous driving were banned from driving for life. Will the Government commit to a review of the sentencing guidelines for all dangerous driving offences, and consider how the Sentencing Council is applying those guidelines to reflect what we in this House consider necessary? I am grateful to have had this opportunity briefly to speak about this important topic, and I hope that the Minister will respond to some of my points.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. In the context of the debate, and following contact from constituents, I have been refreshing myself on the highway code, which I admit I had not done before even though I should have done. Awareness is important. Speeding continues to be a major cause of accidents. However, many residents, Speedwatch groups and parish councils tell me that the process for reviewing or reducing speed limits on dangerous roads is too slow and too expensive, so I look forward to the Government’s new guidance on setting local speed limits, which I hope leads to genuine improvement. Change needs to be driven by evidence, and in that context I refer to the proposal to reduce the drink-driving limit. Offences are typically caused by people who have greatly exceeded the limit, not by people who have had just a pint, so we must consider that proposal very carefully. Young people are already waiting too long for driving tests, so I am concerned about the proposal to put in place a minimum six-month learning period. People who take intensive courses can be good drivers. The proposal could make the situation worse.

• 5 Feb 2026 · Road Safety · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon), who made a powerful speech, particularly in relation to the impact of dangerous driving on her family. As the hon. Member said, more than 1,600 people tragically lost their lives on our roads in 2024, and 60% of those fatalities happened on rural roads such as those in North West Norfolk. Indeed, there has been a worrying rise in road casualties in Norfolk: in 2024, a 17% increase took the number of people killed or seriously injured to 555. I welcome the publication of the Government’s road safety strategy, and the ambition to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured by 65% by 2035. However, a few things are worth highlighting. Awareness of the highway code remains far too low, and people do not refresh themselves on what is in the code—that must be improved.

• 4 Feb 2026 · Lord Mandelson · Hansard source

  More

  In his interrogation of the permanent under-secretary of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Cabinet Secretary, was my right hon. Friend able to shed any light on another part of our motion as to whether severance payments were paid to Lord Mandelson and, if so, how much they were? If payments were made, we should be seeking to get them back for the taxpayer.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Sadly, the Minister’s response is predictable; I think we have won the argument on why these measures would be useful have in the legislation, but we may not win a vote. The Minister refers to the TIINs once again, but as we have debated ad nauseum, they are forward looking, and not an after-the-event review of what has actually happened. That is the difference, which is why we keep returning to this. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 34 Review of impact of tax changes in this Act on households “(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within 12 months of this Act being passed, publish an assessment of the aggregate impact of the measures in this Act on household finances. (2) The assessment under subsection (1) must consider how households at a range of different income levels are affected by the measures in this Act.”— (James Wild.) This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to publish an assessment of the impact of the measures in this Act on the finances of households at a range of different income levels. Brought up, and read the First time.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am not sure about the analogy—I do not know whether the Minister was pulling that off the cuff. I do not think I heard him deny the figure that I quoted, which was that the OBR predicts that real household disposable income will increase by only 0.25% over the forecast period. I do not think that he is disagreeing with that figure, or that the average over the previous decade was growth of 1%.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I will speak to new clauses 33 and 35 in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest. New clause 33 would require a review of the effects of the Bill on businesses: within 12 months of the Bill being passed, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be required to conduct a full assessment of how its measures affect businesses across the United Kingdom. The Chancellor would then be required to report back to the House with recommendations specifically on how business taxes could be used to encourage greater investment of profits and revenues, and on how to give firms more certainty about the tax system. The Committee might well ask why the new clause is necessary. I will happily explain. We have heard a common theme in Committee that the Bill places yet more strain and burden on businesses already facing a difficult economic climate. It is stuffed full of tax increases: the family farm tax, the family business tax, the cutting of venture capital relief by a third, taxes on carried interest, taxes on taxis, and higher duties and environmental levies. I could go on at length, but I suspect I would not be hugely popular. The Minister—indeed, Ministers—may think that the measures are going to encourage growth. We have not heard much about growth in this sitting, except from Conservative Members. The Exchequer Secretary spoke a lot about the need to have balance in public spending, yin and yang, but he did not talk about growth, which used to be the central driving mission of this Government. That seems to have disappeared, and little wonder: this Budget contained £26 billion of additional tax rises on top of the £40 billion in the first Budget, despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more. Instead, the Government continue to drive the tax burden ever higher—to record levels. The new clause would require the Chancellor to look at the impact on businesses, including on increasing their profits and revenue. Let us look at the record of the Government: growth has flatlined; GDP grew by 0.1% in the three months up to November, having shown no growth at all in the period before; and inflation has been above the Bank of England’s target for the entirety of the last year. As a result, business confidence has collapsed. The Confederation of British Industry growth indicator—it comes from businesses, so I would not dismiss it out of hand—shows that firms expect output and headcount to fall. Businesses are closing as a direct consequence of the political choices that the Chancellor has made, many of which are set out in the Bill. The new clause would require that to be looked at, which is why it is so important; it would ensure that the Chancellor reviews and comes back to the House with proposals to use the tax system to support investment in growth. New clause 35 would require the Chancellor to publish, within 12 months of the Bill being passed, a full assessment of the Bill’s impact, particularly on small businesses, setting out the cumulative impact of measures in the context of wider pressures. Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, with more than 5 million of them making up 99% of total business population. Together with small and medium-sized enterprises, they employ around 17 million people—shopkeepers, market traders, tradespeople and so on, as well as the entrepreneurs who are driving growth, creating jobs and trying to keep our high streets alive. Sadly, under this Government, they are facing increasingly high costs and burdens, and the Bill adds yet more. It is little wonder that the Federation of Small Businesses has warned of the perils of a continuing economic doom loop. Its small business index shows that confidence is at minus 71—the lowest level since the pandemic. It is minus 100 for hospitality firms, which the Exchequer Secretary will not be surprised about. The CBI said that the Government’s, “scattergun approach to tax risks leaving the economy stuck in neutral”. When we hear these siren voices, it is important that Ministers stop, listen and take account of the wider effects and headwinds that people are facing. That is why new clauses 35 and 33 are so important—they would require the Chancellor to come and account for the impact of her measures.

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Is the Minister indicating that such people will be blocked from using the banking system in the UK if they are served with one of the notices? Where is that? I cannot see that in the clauses. Could those people simply ignore the notice and ignore any fines?

• 3 Feb 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill (Sixth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 36 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to review and report on the effects of the Bill on the administrative burden on businesses, including the impact on small and medium-sized businesses, and any mitigation measures that have been taken. Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have been reminded not only of its financial impacts on businesses and working people, but of the red tape and regulatory cost it piles on to them. Whether it is the new reporting requirements faced by charities, the complex international rules or the new levies, such as the vaping tax and carbon tax, businesses will once again face an increased burden. The Ministers speak with zeal for deregulation—the Business Secretary is a particular repeat offender—and about the Government’s ambition to cut the administrative burden of regulation by 25% by the end of this Parliament. We know that red tape and regulatory compliance costs out at about 3% to 4% of GDP, which is about £70 billion. We all want to see that cut; it is an issue I have focused on since coming into this House, as I did in my previous roles in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. The case for action could not be clearer. However, as is so often the case with this Government, there is a big gap between what they promise and what they deliver. They talk about cutting bureaucracy, but the reality tells a different story. A growing list of quangos are being created: Great British Energy, the Independent Football Regulator, Great British Railways. For every body that they scrap, they seem to create at least one more, and possibly two. Last week, an important National Audit Office report warned that the Government’s regulatory reforms risk doing the opposite of what is intended. It concluded that the cost of new legislation may well outweigh any reduction in administrative burden—that 25% reduction that the Government have committed to, despite not allocating the required savings amounts to Departments. Businesses will be no better off. I am sure that the Public Accounts Committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire is a member, will look carefully at that report in holding regulators, Ministers and civil servants to account. More than 530 pages of the Bill are taken up with technical tax changes and a lot of detailed schedules. Those changes carry a real financial cost, as well as a time cost, as staff will have to focus on them rather than on growing their businesses. That will result in a loss of productivity, particularly in small and medium-sized firms that lack the resources necessary to keep up with the changes. That is precisely why we need a clear assessment of the Bill’s impact on the administrative burden facing businesses. What, if anything, do the Government intend to do to mitigate that? After all the pre-Budget speculation—the column inches, leaks, briefings and counter-briefings—will the Minister, if he does not want me to press the new clause to a vote, provide a combined estimate of how much all the measures in the Bill will cost UK industry? Can he confirm whether the Bill moves us closer to the Government’s 25% reduction target, or further away from that goal?