James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 21 Jan 2025 · Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Farming’s vital role in growing our rural economy, growing our food and protecting the countryside is threatened by Labour’s family farm tax. The self-proclaimed “iron Chancellor” is proving herself to be the tin-eared Chancellor, ignoring evidence from the National Farmers Union and others showing that the tax is based on flawed assumptions. Ahead of Saturday’s farming day of unity, rather than threatening family farms, will she speak to farmers, think again and withdraw those damaging proposals?

• 20 Jan 2025 · New Hospital Programme Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Health Secretary has recognised the urgency of replacing the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn due to the RAAC safety issues. My constituents and I are grateful for that; it reflects the position of the last Conservative Government. In his statement, he said that he was working at pace to rebuild QEH, so will he instruct the NHS to expedite the business case approvals for the new multi-storey car park, which is the key enabling project, and will he commit to the 2030 deadline, which is the end of life of the hospital?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s timetable is wholly inadequate. Given that the previous deal that Norfolk negotiated was scrapped without any consultation, how will the public be consulted on any changes going forward, and does the Minister accept that a minimum population of half a million may not be appropriate in rural areas, to avoid councils being very remote from the people they serve?

• 14 Jan 2025 · Drones: High-security Prisons · Hansard source

  More

  Two months ago in the House, I raised concerns that HMP Garth had been likened to an airport because of the number of drones illegally flying drugs into the prison. In response, the Lord Chancellor told me that the Prisons Minister was meeting the governor and thinking “about how to deal with those problems”. —[ Official Report , 5 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 164.] What precise action has the Department taken since then, and what action will the Minister take today to deal with the problems at HMP Manchester?

• 9 Jan 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Upgrading Ely junction would deliver more passenger services to King’s Lynn in my constituency, boost freight and unlock benefits of £5 for every £1 invested. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether that is a priority in the Department’s bid for the spending review?

• 8 Jan 2025 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State has spoken about her focus on standards. The free schools programme has driven up standards across the country, so why was one of her first actions to threaten 44 free school projects developed by parents, pupils and communities? Will she lift the veil of uncertainty over them?

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the potential risk. There is no one-way bet in life, and there is no guarantee that the Crown Estate will successfully invest in projects that go well. I will come on to the point about the energy side of things later in my speech. It is perfectly reasonable, as we proposed in the other place, to have that 25% cap in legislation, which could be amended. I am sure we will consider the issue further in Committee. The Bill alters the governance of the Crown Estate and provides for the number of commissioners to be increased to 12. Given the extension of the powers and the decrease in parliamentary oversight, pre-appointment scrutiny is of great importance. Again, I thank Baroness Vere for seeking and securing assurances from the Government that the chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners could be added to the Cabinet Office pre-appointment scrutiny list. Just before Christmas, Ric Lewis was announced as the preferred candidate for the role and I am pleased that the appointment will now be considered by the Treasury Committee. Will the Minister confirm in his winding-up speech whether other commissioners will be subject to any pre-appointment scrutiny? Turning to salaries, which I do not believe the Chief Secretary referred to, under clause 2, Parliament will no longer be responsible for approving them through the estimates. Instead, they will be paid out of the income of the Crown Estate. Currently, the framework document sets out that remuneration of the chief executive should be in line with or below that of an appropriate benchmark group approved by the Treasury and that a clear majority of the chief executive’s total reward should be conditional upon performance. We support rewarding success, but with the loss of parliamentary oversight, will the Minister confirm whether any changes are proposed to the remuneration framework and, specifically, for the chief executive? Will he undertake to report to the House on any such change in future? Turning to Great British Energy, on the day the Bill was introduced, the Government announced a partnership between the Crown Estate and GB Energy, which they claimed will “unleash billions of investment in clean power.” Indeed, the press release went on to say it “will lead to up to 20-30GW of new offshore wind developments reaching seabed lease stage by 2030”. However, there is a lack of transparency over how the partnership will work, the difference it will make, and its impact on the Estate’s primary duties. Given the supposed significance, I would have expected to have seen a partnership agreement by now, as without one, we do not know what has been agreed. Will the Minister confirm if there is a partnership agreement yet? Will he commit to publishing it before the Committee stage? Has the Crown Estate agreed to invest a certain amount with GB Energy? What process is there to ensure the Crown Estate continues to deliver on its duty to maintain and enhance the value of the estate? How will the Crown Estate decide between projects GB Energy backs and other projects that may have a higher rate of return? The GB Energy founding statement adds to the confusion, adding that the Crown Estate “will establish a new division ‘Great British Energy: The Crown Estate’.” That raises several questions. Will new staff be required, or will it simply be a restructuring of the existing group? The statement also says it will sit “under both Great British Energy and The Crown Estate, with strategy and investment agreed by Great British Energy.” Will decisions be made jointly on investments, or will the Crown Estate retain its independence? Given the Government voted down our amendments to the Great British Energy Bill to introduce more accountability, it simply fuels some suspicion that the partnership has been created for political rather than economic reasons. The reporting requirements that were secured and added to the Bill in clause 4, which the Chief Secretary referred to, will at least help to bring some transparency to this, but there is a need for a lot more. Under the previous Government, the UK became the first to more than halve emissions while growing the economy and became a leader in offshore wind. However, we must acknowledge that renewables are not cheap in all scenarios. There is clearly a risk that the Government will push up the cost of wind by rushing ahead to meet their political target and increase prices for consumers as a result. That is a far cry from the £300 cut in energy bills that Labour promised during the general election. As we scrutinise the Bill, Parliament has an important role to play to ensure the Government do not seek to use the Crown Estate to try and deliver the Energy Secretary’s damaging policies and undermine returns to the taxpayer. As I set out earlier, the Crown Estate owns some vital assets, so it is surprising that there are so few safeguards to prevent commissioners from selling off such important assets. In the business case for the changes, the Crown Estate was planning £1.4 billion of disposals to fund investments, representing nearly 10% of its portfolio. When I asked Crown Estate representatives what that covered, they said they were unable to disclose plans for disposals because it is commercially sensitive information. Again, that raises concerns about transparency. In response to questions in the other place, the Government said they were working with legal experts “to establish the extent to which the Crown Estate can currently sell the seabed” for example. On Report, Lord Livermore confirmed that if the Government establish that “further legislation is required to restrict the ability of the Crown Estate to sell the seabed,” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1412.] they would bring forward an amendment. I would be grateful if, in his winding up, the Minister could update the House on the process of those discussions and the need for such an amendment. The disposal of assets should be properly scrutinised. The Government rejected attempts in the other place to bring more scrutiny here and said that a statutory limit on disposals would undermine the flexibility of the Crown Estate to operate commercially. Given that the assets are held for the benefit of the nation, we should ensure some form of transparency if they are to be disposed of, whether that is reporting to Parliament, or seeking HMT approval for disposal of specific assets, or those over a set value. Finally, let me turn to salmon. Clause 5 would require the commissioners to assess the environmental impact and animal welfare standards on salmon farms on the Crown Estate. If a salmon farm is causing damage or animal welfare issues, its licence would have to be refused. I commend my noble Friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean for his tireless work on this matter and for highlighting that salmon farming can cause detrimental impacts in the event of escapes in terms of disease, breeding and other issues. Given that wild Atlantic salmon are now on the international union for conservation of nature’s red list, these are perfectly reasonable obligations which he said might influence how the Crown Estate of Scotland is to operate. The amendment was sponsored by Lord Forsyth, but also by Green and Labour party Members, so it is disappointing to hear the Chief Secretary to the Treasury talking about reversing that measure, and we look forward to that debate in the Committee stage.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  With the leave of the House, it is a pleasure to respond briefly on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition. [ Interruption. ] I do not know whether there is a party going on to which I have not been invited, but I am personally very happy to be here to take part in the debate. This has been a good debate, with more than 10 Members contributing, and not only from coastal areas such as my Norfolk constituency; we have also heard from the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), which underlines the importance of the Crown Estate to all our constituencies. The hon. Members for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) and for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke about the potential benefits of investment in their constituencies and their part of the world, including the funding of college courses, which are important, as well as investment in energy production. The hon. Member for Mid and South Pembrokeshire (Henry Tufnell) may want to get some tips from the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) about how to get on with the Crown Estate, how to get it to do what he actually wants it to do, and how to secure the benefits for his constituency. Perhaps he can have a reset with the Crown Estate. A number of Members spoke about community benefits, which are very important to securing public support for new infrastructure, be that energy or other issues. Labour Members spoke quite a bit about cutting energy bills. I distinctly remember the pledge they all made during the election campaign to cut energy bills by £300, but energy bills are going up and there is no date for when they will come down. Voters and constituents will remember the pledge and, at the moment, all they can see is their costs going up. The concern is that the pace at which the Energy Secretary wants to drive forward will actually drive up costs for all of our constituents. I began my remarks by emphasising that the Crown Estate is neither the property of the Government nor part of the sovereign’s private estate. That is key. Its core purpose is to maintain and enhance the value of the estate and the income derived from it. That is why greater transparency is needed about the partnership with GB Energy. The Minister will have heard and, I am sure, noted down all the questions from my opening speech, so I will not repeat them all, but I will repeat this: will he commit to publishing the partnership agreement before we head into the Committee stage? I am afraid that some of the contributions we have heard have only fuelled my suspicions of the Government’s intention to use the Crown Estate as a vehicle for its energy policy and as a provisional part of the GB Energy body, whatever that may turn out to be. That raises issues about how investments will be determined and the returns that are generated for the taxpayer, as well as the risk surrounding investments, whether crowding in, as hon. Members have referred to, actually happens, whether investment in ports will drive a return, and why commercial providers are not seeking to make similar investments. That conflict and risk was one of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), who is sadly not in his place. I hope that the Treasury Committee will engage with that point when it examines the nominated new chairman of the Crown Estate commissioners. That is also why it is important that Parliament has oversight of borrowing limits, rather than that just being in an MOU that can be changed at the Treasury’s whim. That is an important protection that we have in place, and I know that the Minister will also respond to that point in his remarks. Will he also get back to the specific point I raised about disposals and the seabed, and the commitment that Lord Livermore made on Report in the other place about protections and whether an amendment is needed and will be forthcoming? To conclude, there is wide support for the Bill from across the House, but the short-term interests of the Government should not come at the long-term expense of the Crown Estate and the nation. I look forward to continuing the scrutiny of the Bill in Committee.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  Like me, the right hon. Gentleman will have read the Hansard reports of the debates in the other place where this issue was covered at some great length, so I defer to the points made by Lord Forsyth there. Regulation is obviously in place, but this addition would simply raise awareness of the issues in the Bill. The Government said that they supported the objective of the amendment when it was discussed in the other House, but did not think it was necessary. They did not think that it would do any damage, so I suggest that it remains part of the Bill. To conclude, the Crown Estate Bill will help deliver the modernisation that is needed, but the purpose must be supporting the estate’s duty to maintain and enhance its value for maximised return to taxpayers, rather than becoming an extension of GB Energy’s cheque book. We will be pursuing the concerns that I have raised about checks on borrowing governance, the relationship with GB Energy and the safeguards in response to the disposal of assets to ensure that that remains the case.

• 7 Jan 2025 · Crown Estate Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  The work on reforming the Crown Estate was developed by the previous Government. I am pleased to be debating the Bill today, and I thank my noble Friends for the scrutiny they have already provided. We support the objective to increase the Crown Estate’s ability to compete and invest, so that it maintains and enhances the value of the estate and the income derived from it. Assets managed by the Crown Estate are not the property of the Government, nor are they part of the sovereign’s private estate. Since George III, the assets have been held in right of the Crown, which encompasses the interests of the sovereign and the Government. That is why appropriate scrutiny of the Crown Estate and its £15.5 billion in total assets is important. It has a rural portfolio of 185,000 acres, manages roughly 7,400 miles of coastline, has one of the largest property portfolios in the west end and returns all its profits to the Treasury. Last year, there was a record profit of £1.1 billion, up more than £600 million largely due to fees from round 4, and it has generated £4.1 billion for the nation’s finances over the past decade. There is, however, the potential to do more. In the business case prepared under the last Government, the Crown Estate estimated that changes in the Bill would enable it to generate £100 million a year in additional revenues by 2030. It is right, therefore, that we help to modernise the Crown Estate as it aims to create lasting prosperity for the nation. Although we support the Bill’s aims, further scrutiny is obviously needed in some areas, including a limit on the level of borrowing, governance, the relationship with Great British Energy and safeguards in relation to the disposal of assets. I will come to each in turn. As we have heard, the kernel of the Bill is clause 1, which confers on the Crown Estate a broader power to borrow, subject to Treasury consent. While I note the need for Treasury approval, a lack of parliamentary oversight on borrowing levels is a concern. When pushed by Baroness Vere of Norbiton and other noble Lords, the Government stated that a limit on borrowing “is better placed outside of legislation” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 5 November 2024; Vol. 840, c. 1400.] and instead should be placed in the memorandum of understanding between the Crown Estate and the Treasury. The MOU sets out that the Crown Estate can borrow up to 25% of the worth of its total assets, but an MOU is easily altered. Public borrowing levels should be transparent. If Parliament is being asked to remove restrictions on borrowing, why should there not be a cap in legislation with the ability to swiftly amend it through a statutory instrument, if necessary, to protect against unconstrained borrowing and the concerns that my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin raised?

• 18 Dec 2024 · Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement · Hansard source

  More

  Large rural counties such as Norfolk face higher costs in delivering their services, and the Government’s jobs tax adds £14 million to the pressures that Norfolk county council is facing. Can the Minister clarify whether the NICs funding he referred to in his statement, which will go to Norfolk county council and other councils, will cover the cost of social care commissioned services?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Mineworkers’ Pension Scheme: Living Standards · Hansard source

  More

  I am sure that any of my constituents who stand to benefit from this increase will welcome it, but how many members of the mineworkers’ pension scheme will be losing out on winter fuel payments worth up to £300 due to the decisions that this Government have taken?

• 17 Dec 2024 · Women’s State Pension Age Communication: PHSO Report · Hansard source

  More

  When the Secretary of State was in opposition, she said she was a “long-standing supporter” of WASPI women. Given that, what would she say to the WASPI women in my constituency, the 3,300 in her constituency and those across the country who will be disappointed at her rejection of any compensation, even if not at the level the ombudsman recommended?

• 12 Dec 2024 · Building Homes · Hansard source

  More

  In an earlier answer, the Minister confirmed that the Government support an infrastructure-first approach. Will he work with colleagues in the Treasury and the Department for Transport to ensure approval of A10 West Winch housing access road funding, which is essential to unlock thousands of homes that are in the local plan on the edge of King’s Lynn?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do. This is just another example of the impact of the Bill. The impact assessments, such as they are, are incredibly thin and do not get into the detail of the measures and the complications that arise. They are, I would say, wholly inadequate. Under clauses 50 to 53, taxes on property purchases will, as the Minister said, go up by £310 million. Clauses 50 and 51 increase the rate for additional dwellings, such as buy-to-let and residential properties, from 3% to 5%. Nationwide estimates that that could bring extra costs of £4,000 on the purchase of a typical rental home. At least clause 52 ensures that if transactions have been substantially performed before the increases come in, no additional tax will be charged. Clause 53 amends the single rate on purchases by companies of dwellings for more than £500,000. Let us not forget that the Government have also chosen not to renew the nil-rate stamp duty threshold, which is currently £250,000 but will halve to £125,000—I do not think the Economic Secretary to the Treasury mentioned that. As I said, experts have warned that the changes could have damaging effects on the rental market, making it less attractive to provide homes for private rent; rents could increase as a result of the limited supply. Every hon. Member will know from their constituency the huge demand for rental properties. According to Zoopla, on average around 21 people are chasing every property that is put up for rent. This tax will do nothing to encourage the supply of new, decent, rented housing.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  No, I won’t at this stage. There are more than 100,000 pupils with special educational needs and disabilities in independent schools who do not have education, health and care plans, so they will be subject to this tax. That could make it unaffordable for the parents of those children to send them to the school that they think is best placed to look after them. There will be demand in places where there is not capacity as a result. A number of local authorities have pointed that out. That will just make the problems that councils face with their SEND budgets worse, despite the record amounts we have put into high needs.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend makes an important point. He will have been here throughout many of the debates on the Finance Bill, the national insurance and jobs tax Bill, where very few Labour Members have made contributions to defend their first Budget for 14 years. I think we all know why. Clause 47 removes the exemption for private school fees and spells out what Labour’s education tax will mean from 1 January. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Sir Oliver Dowden) said, doing that mid-year is a cruel measure.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I will make a little progress, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind. Sadly, this cruel tax, which is being imposed midway through the academic year, will damage the education of thousands of pupils. It is sadly typical of the ideological approach that we have seen the new Government take on education, where they are trashing the record of schools, pupils, teachers and governors over the past 14 years when we rose up the international league tables.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I very much hope so. I know from my years as an adviser in the Ministry of Defence just how important the allowance is for retention. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government have broken their promise. I am grateful to the many organisations that have shared concerns about the implementation of these clauses, especially as the measure is rushed and is taking place in the middle of the school year. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has called for a delay, saying that it is “concerned that neither HMRC nor the private schools will be ready to implement the change in VAT liability effectively”. In order to meet the mid-term deadline, HMRC has to register the schools in just five working weeks—an issue that new clause 8 could address.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak on behalf of the Opposition, and particularly to new clause 8. Let me start by briefly considering the context in which we are debating the Bill. It comes after a Budget in which the Chancellor said that we must have “an economy that is growing, creating wealth and opportunity for all” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 811.] But that is not what this Finance Bill delivers. Instead, the Budget is forecast to deliver lower growth, higher borrowing and higher inflation. The Minister referred to choices, and the Government have indeed made choices. They have chosen to tax enterprise, to tax the wealth creators and to tax the farmers who are, again, outside Parliament protesting against the family farm tax—I wonder whether, on one of his rare jaunts to this country, the Prime Minister has gone out to speak to them. Rather than promote opportunity, it was the Government’s choice to bring in a new tax on aspiration.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. If he checks the record, he will see that the level of per pupil funding actually increased over the last 14 years. I congratulate the schools in my constituency that have just received good ratings from Ofsted—a number of them have done so.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes the point very well. The knock-on impact and the damage to those children’s education will be considerable. More than 40% of independent schools are small schools. They are at the heart of their local communities. They do not have big endowments. They operate on wafer-thin margins and simply cannot absorb changes of this magnitude, so it is likely that those schools will cut bursary places that exist due to this new tax that puts their viability at risk.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We can but hope that the hon. Member will join us in the Lobby tonight, and also that he will one day develop the attuned knowledge that my right hon. Friend has of the tax system and the changes that were introduced in the last Parliament. Let me add that the Association of School and College Leaders has said that there is “increased anxiety among school leaders” who are having to deal with the change in the middle of the academic year. This is the first time an education tax has been introduced, which is why we need to oppose it and review its impact. The Government’s very limited impact assessment estimates that 37,000 more pupils will come into the state sector, at a cost of £270 million a year. It also concedes that there will be a loss of places equivalent to the closure of 100 more independent schools over the next three years than would otherwise be predicted. That assessment is thin, and the Government’s consultation was flawed.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I do not doubt the figures. I simply note that King’s Lynn and West Norfolk borough council, which is the council for my constituency, has met the housing need target it was set. Thousands of homes are being built in and around King’s Lynn, which will be a mixture of tenures—to rent and to buy. One of the big blockers is that the Government have not yet approved schemes that the previous Government were committed to—schemes for the roads and infrastructure needed to bring that housing online. I hope that the Minister will take that up with her colleagues, because if the Government are to meet their target of building 1.5 million homes, they need councils to deliver. That means funding the infrastructure. I am grateful to the hon. Member for enabling me to make that point. We are concerned about the increased cost of private rent and a decreasing supply of rental properties due to this latest tax increase. New clause 6 would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the impact of the increased stamp duty rates on the private rental sector within six months of the Bill passing into law.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; I completely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government hide behind the cloak of saying, “If you have an EHCP, everything is okay,” but 100,000 children in schools across our country will be impacted. The next area we are concerned about is faith schools, which tend to be smaller and charge lower fees. The Independent Schools Council has warned that “Low-cost faith schools will be faced with deficit and closure, communities will lose vital assets”. There are small religious groups that do not have any state sector provision that can meet their needs as a denomination. Religious groups are mounting legal challenges as a result, battling for the right to educate their children and battling for the right to choose, which we on the Conservative Benches certainly support. New clause 8(3) refers to the music and dance scheme, which provides grants to talented young people who could not otherwise attend world-class institutions such as the Royal Ballet school. We welcome the Government’s decision, under pressure, to delay taxing schools in this scheme until September next year, but that exemption should be made permanent. To return to one of the points that has been made, in the Budget statement the Chancellor said: “94% of children in the UK attend state schools. To provide the highest-quality support and teaching that they deserve, we will introduce VAT on private school fees”. —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] That is a deliberately divisive approach. The Opposition support 100% of pupils. We care about all children. We simply believe that parents should be able to choose. We have consistently raised the situation of military families, to which the Minister referred, and argued that they should be exempt from this tax. The Government did not agree to that, but in response to our campaign they said: “We will uprate the continuity of education allowance to reflect the increase in school fees from January.” —[ Official Report , 18 November 2024; Vol. 757, c. 3.] Well, the new continuity of education allowances have been announced and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) pointed out, they fall short of protecting service families from the changes. That will have a direct impact on the retention and recruitment of our armed forces. There are 4,200 children who benefit. The allowance is in place to meet the needs of the armed forces when they have to move around the country or serve overseas and boarding schools or other provision is the only available option. Given the importance of this allowance for the retention of military personnel, why have the Government not met the commitment that they made to our armed forces?