James Wild MP: speeches 2026

Speeches

• 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?

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

  More

  I will not detain the Committee long on these clauses. We support clause 274 and the sensible modernisation work, which—the Minister must have overlooked this, but I am sure he will acknowledge it in his reasonable way—began under the previous Government—

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

  More

  One of the points that the Chartered Institute of Taxation also raised is the difficulty of dealing with promoters who are based outside the UK. It says that 20 to 30 of the active promoters who sell mass-marketed tax avoidance schemes have some offshore presence. How will the measures address the offshore issue? I am sure that the Minister will also address the 30-day point that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest raised.

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

  More

  Clause 165, which deals with the preliminary notice, allows a 30-day period in which to make representations to HMRC. Does my hon. Friend have sympathy with the view put forward by the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which says that that period is inadequate? A 90-day period is used for similar notices, such as follower notices or accelerated payment notices.

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

  More

  Clauses 263 to 271, which introduce the new system of advance tax clearance, will give legislative effect to the commitment in the Government’s corporate tax road map to offer greater certainty for major investment. A public consultation was run last year; the summary of responses, which came out at the Budget, shows consistent support for this measure. We welcome it and look forward to it beginning in July 2026. Under clause 263, HMRC will be able to issue binding advance tax clearances for investments worth more than £1 billion over their lifetime. Although corporation tax is the most important area in which respondents argued for certainty, it could also cover VAT, stamp duty, land tax, income tax and other measures. In simple terms, a company planning a project on that scale can get specified advice on how the tax rules will apply and can get a written determination that both sides need to follow, subject to the caveats to which the Minister referred, including the change of law. Will the Government be keeping the £1 billion pound threshold under review? Will they commit to publishing clear statistics on the number of applications and approvals? Clause 264 sets out the binding nature of the clearances. Where HMRC issues a ruling and the facts remain consistent, it must apply that treatment so that the taxpayer can rely on it. That is what we need to see and what investors want to see: certainty. HMRC will be bound to maintain the treatment for five years, as the Minister referred to, and clause 265 will allow the period to be extended for a further five years. I cannot see a limit on the number of extensions that could be granted. Given that the purpose is to incentivise people to get on with investments and have certainty in advance of a project, will the Minister explain how multiple extensions could be appropriate, when that could appear to frustrate the ambition to get shovels in the ground? Clause 266 will allow HMRC to modify or revoke clearance if facts change or by agreement with the taxpayer. Flexibility is sensible, because clearly projects evolve. Will HMRC publish clear criteria setting out when, and on what grounds, it may modify a clearance? Will there be a right of appeal for developers who have previously been given certainty only for the advice to be changed? We do not want to undermine the certainty that is the whole purpose of this measure. Clause 268 provides that where the taxpayer withholds or misrepresents material facts, any clearance can be treated as invalid. That is clearly right in principle, but will there be guidance so that legitimate applicants are not deterred for fear of being second-guessed after the fact? Clause 270 will enable the Treasury to make regulations to amend part of the framework, including adding or removing tax matters on which HMRC can give clearances. It is important that there be consistency of approach, so will the Minister give a commitment that there will be proper consultation before any such changes are put into effect? These clauses represent useful steps towards greater tax certainty for investors, but I seek a little reassurance, particularly on the five-year extensions.

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

  More

  Not that one—the stamp duty one. Extending the oversight in clause 275 is clearly sensible, and I do not have anything to add on the cleaning-up operation in clause 277, the enabling of abbreviations in clause 278 or the title of the Bill.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

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

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of how the measures in the Bill affect the finances of households across different income levels. It would shine a light on the real impact on ordinary families of the Government’s choices. As we all know, households are under immense financial pressure, and the measures in the Bill will, in many respects, not make that easier. The Office for Budget Responsibility has confirmed that growth in real household disposable income per person is set to fall dramatically, from 3% in 2025 to just 0.25% a year over the forecast period. That is not just below the OBR’s March forecast, but well below the average growth of the last decade, as the Minister knows full well. The OBR has been up front about the reasons for that growth, if we can call it that: it says that slower real wage growth and rising taxes explain much of the decline. For a Budget that was supposed to focus on the cost of living, that is a pretty damning verdict. Even the Government’s own watchdog says that the Government’s measures will make things worse, not better. With inflation continuing to stay well above target and well above the level that this Government inherited, families are continuing to feel the price of this economic mismanagement, and they will do for some time. Whether through higher alcohol duty, air passenger duty or vehicle excise duty, or by making the cost of taxis more expensive, the measures in the Bill will directly hit households, and the costs that go on to business will obviously feed through into their prices as well. Behind all that, soaring borrowing means that billions of pounds are now being spent just to service the Chancellor’s debt. Hard-working families are paying the price for the failure to get a grip and to get growth into the economy. That is why we believe that the impact of these measures on households should be monitored carefully, and why the Chancellor should publish a full assessment, as new clause 34 would require.

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 259, page 236, line 4, at end insert— “(1A) After paragraph 5(8) insert— ‘(8A) A person is not liable to a penalty point as a result of the late filing of a return under this Schedule if they had no tax liability due in the relevant period. (8B) For the purpose of this section, “no tax liability due” has the meaning that the total amount of tax owed, after credit for any tax deducted at source, tax credits, or other reliefs, is zero or results in a repayment to the taxpayer.’” This amendment would mean that a person would not be subject to a penalty point because of the late filing of a return where there is no tax liability due.

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

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for her response and to the hon. Member for Maidenhead for highlighting the large number of people who miss the deadline. As I say, the reality is that a number of people get late filing penalties when they do not owe any tax. The case I cited was that of someone called Andrea, who suffered with mental health difficulties for many years. During that time, she never earned more than a few thousand pounds and was well below the personal allowance, so she never had any tax liability, but she ended up with £10,000-worth of late filing penalties. That is clearly not appropriate. The new system that the Government are bringing in could be strengthened with the principle that someone who does not owe any tax cannot get a fine. I therefore wish to press amendment 50. Question put, That the amendment be made.

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

  More

  It is good to be back in the saddle as we come on to some more clauses and, later this afternoon, new clauses. The amendment was tabled in my name, and I will speak to clauses 259 to 262 on penalties for the late filing of tax returns.