James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Nov 2025 · Injury in Service Award · Hansard source

  More

  I am pleased that this debate has made its way to the Floor of the House, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing it. My late uncle Malcolm served as a police officer in Norfolk for many years, so I understand a little about the level of dedication and personal sacrifice required to serve in the police force, and I am pleased that this campaign enjoys widespread support. I join others in paying tribute to Tom Curry for leading the campaign, getting thousands of people to sign the petition and securing lots of support in the House. Like other Members, I have been given first-hand accounts by constituents of horrific incidents that ultimately ended their careers. One of my constituents, Robert Gifford, who is watching proceedings today, has been very active in persuading me of the importance of this issue. He spent over 20 years in the British Transport police before his career was brutally cut short. As he explained to me, while serving in the counter-terrorism unit, he was witness to multiple bomb explosions in 1993. He was called out to the bomb threat at Bishopsgate. I will not go into all the details of what he told me, but the bomb, which was planted in a stolen truck, exploded and killed one person and injured 44. Later that year, he was called to Reading station, where an improvised explosive device had been discovered. When that bomb exploded, he was only 150 yards away. Then, in 1999, he was early to the scene of the Ladbroke Grove train crash—a tragedy of 31 fatalities and hundreds of injuries. Mr Gifford’s experience in service ultimately led to him having to leave it because of what he had seen. I think it fair to say that he is a very fine example of all those who serve on our behalf. Another constituent who has contacted me served with Greater Manchester police and Norfolk police for 13 years, before his career was also tragically cut short. He was beaten and physically dumped into a trailer by three thugs when responding to a complaint of antisocial behaviour in my constituency. He has lived the rest of his life in fear, with constant anxiety attacks, and is unable to go out other than to a few safe spaces. Those are the people we are talking about in this debate. I have referred to police officers, but as the hon. Member for Cheadle said, we are also talking about prison officers, paramedics and others who put themselves in danger on our behalf. The debate has highlighted that, although each case carries its own story of suffering, thousands of people are affected. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) referred to the 15,000 police officers forced to retire, but thousands in the other emergency services would also be affected. It is right that the House acknowledges risks faced daily by our incredible emergency responders, who, like Mr Gifford, suffer career-ending injuries while protecting the public. In September, the Minister for Policing said that the Home Office continues to consider proposals for new awards to members of the emergency service. Having spent three years working for a Defence Secretary, I understand that there can be inertia in the system when creating new awards to recognise people’s service, but I encourage the Minister to push back against that. I am proud to support this campaign and call on the Government to establish a dedicated injury in service award to formally recognise and honour the sacrifice of emergency service workers injured in the line of duty on our behalf.

• 17 Nov 2025 · Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Power Station: Wylfa · Hansard source

  More

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

• 13 Nov 2025 · Solar Farms: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  7. Whether she has made an assessment of the potential impact of solar farms on food security.

• 13 Nov 2025 · Solar Farms: Food Security · Hansard source

  More

  I think the Minister’s answer was a bit tone-deaf. North West Norfolk’s farms and farmers play a vital role in our food security. My constituents are concerned about the Droves and High Grove solar farms, which will cover 7,000 acres. Why are the Government, and the Net Zero Secretary in particular, obsessed with putting solar farms on Norfolk’s agricultural land rather than on brownfield land and rooftops?

• 12 Nov 2025 · Independent Football Regulator · Hansard source

  More

  I have to say, I am quite surprised at the lack of contrition from the Secretary of State, given a very damning report. In November 2024, Mr Kogan withdrew from the application process because, he said, there was “a lot of noise going around about Labour donors”, but in March, in a move that the commissioner said was “highly unusual”, Mr Kogan’s candidacy was reinstated, and he was rapidly sifted, interviewed and appointed. Are the public really expected to believe that this was an open and fair process, when the decision-makers took donations from the candidate?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair once again, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this important debate. In Blur’s immortal words, he knows his claret from his Beaujolais, but I will not have anyone say he is a charmless man. It is a pleasure to speak in support of an industry that is doing well in this country, although it is facing some challenges. Wine is a home-grown success story, with more than 1,000 vineyards and nearly 5,000 hectares under vines across the country. In my North West Norfolk constituency, I am fortunate to have wineries including the award-winning Burn Valley and Cobble Hill, which are contributing to the local economy, supporting tourism and creating jobs. Overall, the wine and spirits industry contributed £76 billion in economic activity last year, with nearly half of that coming from the wine sector. Despite this success, the Government are putting more burdens on the sector. This has been a good debate, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) wins the prize for the number of wineries in her constituency. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur) made some important points about public health. Unfortunately, the hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard) could not resist mentioning Brexit—he seems slightly obsessed. The domestic sector is largely made up of small producers, with two thirds producing fewer than 10,000 bottles a year. Generally, these are family businesses, local employers and passionate entrepreneurs. Employment in the sector has grown significantly over the past few years, and since 2010 bottle sales have increased to over 9 million. The UK is a global hub for the trade, being the second largest importer of wine by volume and value. This is a sector that we should be nurturing, not penalising. When we were in government, that is what we did. We introduced the simplified duty system, based on taxing alcohol by strength, with an 18-month easement to help the sector. We encouraged businesses to diversify and move into wine production. Importantly in the context of this debate, we froze alcohol duty rates in the 2023 autumn statement, and we continued that in the spring Budget of 2024. That is a record of support, but sadly this Government have taken a different path. At last year’s Budget, they raised the headline rate of alcohol duty by inflation. As we have heard, around 60% of the cost of a bottle of wine is now tax, and Wine GB warns that the increases are driving down demand and, in turn, cutting revenue to the Treasury. One in four drinkers say they will buy less alcohol as a result of the price increases. Let us be clear that producing wine in Britain is not easy. Yields are 30% to 50% lower than in France or Spain, labour costs are higher, the weather is obviously unpredictable, and input prices keep rising. But instead of backing the sector, the Government keep piling on costs. Alcohol duty—up. Business rates—up. National insurance—up. As we have heard, the Wine and Spirit Trade Association has said that revenues from alcohol duty are down £300 million in the first six months of this financial year. If that continues, the Treasury will be bringing in £1 billion less than was forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility at the spring statement. The Government are putting the country on the wrong side of the Laffer curve, not just on alcohol taxes but across the board. The Minister is relatively new in post, but has he commissioned advice on the duty’s impact on the sector? Has he taken a fresh look at the data or at the assumptions used by the OBR? If not, will he do so, and do so rapidly? The Opposition are firmly on the side of Britain’s wine producers. It is a vibrant, innovative and home-grown sector that deserves support, not more taxation. Of course, it is not possible to have this debate without talking about the hospitality sector, as a number of colleagues have. Wine is more than a drink; it is about socialising and shared experiences. The sector clearly depends heavily on pubs, restaurants and hotels to introduce consumers to this great British product. However, under this Government, hospitality, like so many sectors, is struggling. Nearly 90,000 jobs have been lost since the disastrous Budget a year ago, and today we have seen the unemployment rate hit 5%—it has gone up every month under this Government. That is the result of the Chancellor’s terrible judgment in making it more expensive to employ people. With rising employment costs, the jobs tax, the extended producer responsibility and higher business rates, we see layer upon layer of additional cost, so it is no wonder that UKHospitality has described the Government’s approach as a “hammer blow”. The wine sector has put forward some suggestions for the Chancellor and Ministers ahead of the Budget. First and foremost, it asks that they reconsider some of the decisions to increase business taxes, and it asks them to consider a freeze on excise duty or a wine tourism relief. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), and echoed by others, it also asks for the alignment of small producer relief with the realities of the wine industry. Those are all practical ideas that are worthy of consideration, so will the Minister commit to looking seriously and carefully at all of them? Rather than taxing success, we should be nurturing it. The wine sector is a model of sustainable, rural growth, and it deserves our support. Its ask of the Minister is simple: will the Government work with the sector and listen to it, and will they look at the evidence and commit to easing the burden on our wine producers?

• 11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source

  More

  They are always wrong.

• 11 Nov 2025 · Prisoner Releases in Error · Hansard source

  More

  Public safety should be the Justice Secretary’s priority, so why did it take six days for the Metropolitan police to be informed that a sex offender had been wrongly released from HMP Wandsworth?

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 5 Nov 2025 · Employment Rights Bill · Hansard source

  More

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

• 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?