James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Poverty Reduction · Hansard source

  More

  First, it was a humiliating reversal of the Chancellor’s winter fuel cuts. Now, welfare cuts that she rushed to meet her fiscal rules have been shredded, leaving unfunded spending to pay for. In October, the Chancellor said that extending the freeze in income tax thresholds “would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] Does she stand by the commitment to end that freeze from 2028—yes or no?

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Health and sickness benefit spending is set to hit £100 billion by the end of the Parliament, so why is the Secretary of State not bringing forward proper reforms rather than these rushed cuts imposed by the Chancellor that save only £2 billion, and that duck the difficult decisions to deal with the scale of the challenge that we face?

• 19 Jun 2025 · Warm Home Discount · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm that park home residents in North West Norfolk and across the country, who pay their bills directly to the site owner, will also benefit from the extended £150 discount, and that when they apply, funding will not be limited, so that everyone who is entitled to this payment will receive it?

• 17 Jun 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  In March, the Minister for Care told me that no decision could be taken on a new dental school at the University of East Anglia until the spending review settlement was known. Now that we know it, will he instruct the Office for Students to allocate new training places at the UEA from 2026?

• 12 Jun 2025 · Spending Review: Health and Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister confirm that the funding envelope that she set out in a letter to the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn in April stands unchanged after this spending review?

• 9 Jun 2025 · Winter Fuel Payment · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister may be in denial, but this U-turn is a humiliation for the Chancellor, who claimed that economic stability demanded taking money from vulnerable pensioners, and for all the Labour MPs who voted for it. Why did the Government not listen sooner to those who campaigned against these cruel cuts? Will he now apologise to my constituents and those across the country who were cold last winter?

• 4 Jun 2025 · Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely. That is the sort of risk taking and job creation that we want to see across all our constituencies around the country, and it is that opportunity that the Government are crushing through their decisions. The hon. Lady’s example illustrates that the impact of these changes is already being felt, but we have been warned that worse is to come. The British Property Federation has found that business rates changes could cause a £2.3 billion hit to the economy, jeopardising 20,000 jobs. When businesses face higher costs, the alternatives open to them are higher prices, job losses or closures—boarded-up shops become inevitable—and young people and, in particular, part-time workers lose out on opportunities as a result. The Local Government Association has also raised concerns about the financial impact that these reforms could have on local councils. It has urged the Government to introduce a transitional mechanism to ensure that local council services are not put at risk. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond directly to the LGA’s concerns. Sadly, these are not stand-alone reforms; they come on top of the £25 billion jobs tax; the Employment Rights Bill, which will add £5 billion a year to costs; and the family farm tax and business tax. As if it were playing a game of Buckaroo!, Labour is loading cost after cost on to businesses and there will be a reaction. Half the major retailers surveyed by the British Retail Consortium said that the Employment Rights Bill will lead to job cuts. How does the Minister expect companies to absorb these much higher costs on top of business rates and higher national insurance? Last month, the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), visited Beales, which was holding a “Rachel Reeves closing down sale” as it wound down its business after more than 140 years. That is just one of 200,000 businesses that have closed under this Government. The future of our high streets should be a priority for any Government. Policies should be designed to help them to thrive, rather than burdening entrepreneurs and job creators. Extraordinarily, the Prime Minister said earlier this week: “I don’t think you can tax your way to growth.” Yet that is precisely what the Government have done with the £25 billion jobs tax. They are choking growth, costing jobs and hitting businesses that our communities rely on. Before the election, the Labour party promised that it would scrap business rates completely. In power, it simply ditched that pledge—another broken promise. It is little wonder the British Independent Retailers Association said: “For all the government’s rhetoric about supporting small businesses and revitalising high streets, their actions do precisely the opposite.” It is time for the Government to start listening to businesses and change course.

• 4 Jun 2025 · Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) for securing this important debate. I would thank Members from across the House for their contributions, but one main party has failed to show up—apart from the Minister and his Parliamentary Private Secretary, of course. High street businesses are not just shops, restaurants, pubs, banks and other firms; they represent jobs and investment, but above all they represent identity and a sense of place. Business rates have long been a source of concern for retail firms. That is inherent in their nature as a fixed cost that does not flex to profitability, business cycles or sales. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) spoke of his direct experience as a retailer. There is a case for reform but, as with everything—particularly with this topic—the devil is in the detail. The action that the Government have chosen to take means that shops and others will pay higher bills this year. That comes with consequences, and hon. Members have set out what has happened in their constituencies. When we were in government, we understood the value of our high streets. That is why we doubled the small business rates relief to £15,000 and almost trebled higher-rate relief to £51,000. That took a third of properties out of business rates completely. We also provided long- term support through things such as the towns fund and the long-term plan for towns, which King’s Lynn in my constituency is benefiting from; it is making a difference. Of course, in 2021 retail relief was set at 100% to reflect the realities and extraordinary pressures of the covid restrictions. In 2022, retail, hospitality and leisure properties were eligible for a 50% discount, and that was increased in 2023 to 75%—a tax cut worth £2.4 billion, which was then extended to 2024. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge rightly said, that was to help the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors adjust and continue to recover. That approach is a far cry from the 40% discount that the Government are offering now, almost doubling bills. The Exchequer Secretary was talked up by my right hon. Friend, and if he has his backing he is sure to go far. He is a consistent man, so he will likely claim that there are no plans to extend the 75% relief. However, if people look at our track record, they will see that we consistently provided relief and backed our high streets, and we would have continued to do so—I and my hon. Friends would have made sure of that. The Government’s decision to cut relief from 75% to 40% will leave many high street businesses facing increased costs. Some 250,000 businesses will be worse off, to the tune of £925 million. According to the British Independent Retailers Association, a shop with a rateable value of £60,000 will pay nearly £20,000 this year, up from only £8,000 in 2024. The average pub will have to pay £5,500 more annually. As we have heard, pubs are at the heart of our communities. Kate Nicholls, the chief executive of UKHospitality, has said that when Wales reduced relief to 40%, closures in Wales were a third higher than they were in England. Any Member who talks to businesses every week, as I do, will know how difficult things are out there due to the choice that this Government have made to increase costs for our high streets. Under the Government’s plans, from next year there will be higher business rates for properties over £500,000. That will not only hit online retailers. The British Retail Consortium has expressed concerns that it will hit 4,000 larger stores in England, many of which are the anchor stores on high streets that help to drive footfall and support nearby businesses—more unintended consequences from this Government. As we have heard, high streets and local businesses are indispensable to our economy. Retail alone comprises 5% of GDP, providing 3 million jobs directly and 2.7 million more in the supply chain. Hospitality is the third largest employer in the UK, with 3.5 million people working in the sector, and it contributes £93 billion annually to the economy. Beyond their economic value, high street businesses form the heart of local communities, providing accessible services and so much more.

• 22 May 2025 · Independent Sentencing Review · Hansard source

  More

  In her statement, the Lord Chancellor said that under her earned progression plans, if offenders follow prison rules they will win earlier release. The review says that thousands of offenders will benefit from that. Can she explain to my constituents why simply following the rules means that serious offenders will serve only a third of their sentence? Where is the punishment and where are victims’ interests in that approach?

• 20 May 2025 · Clean Energy Transition: Spending Review · Hansard source

  More

  The Climate Change Committee says that we will need oil and gas until at least 2050, but rather than maximise North sea production, the Government are taxing it out of existence. Harbour Energy has just announced hundreds of job losses as a result of the Chancellor’s 78% windfall tax. Instead of costly transition imports, will Ministers use the spending review to think again and focus on an energy policy that will deliver cheaper and cleaner energy that is affordable for consumers and businesses?

• 15 May 2025 · Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits · Hansard source

  More

  The Justice Secretary could have chosen to deport more of the thousands of offenders in our jails, maxed out court sitting days, repurposed buildings or procured temporary facilities to hold offenders. Why has she instead chosen to release serious offenders, including domestic abusers, from jail early, with no consideration for the victims?

• 15 May 2025 · Recalled Offenders: Sentencing Limits · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, it is.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  There has been an astonishing lack of transparency by the Government ahead of the dud deal that they look set to agree next week, and that was personified by the Paymaster General, who refused to engage on any of the substantive issues. Briefings suggest that the Government are preparing to sign a deal that pulls the UK back into the EU’s regulatory and political orbit. Anyone listening to the debate will have heard Ministers repeatedly refuse to deny that the Government are preparing to make the UK a rule taker once again. One of the frustrations when we were negotiating the trade and co-operation agreement was that the EU refused to back a veterinary agreement based on regulatory equivalence. Given our record and our commitment to high SPS standards, that was clearly the common-sense approach, but the EU simply refused to engage. Instead, it has imposed higher costs and regulations, which fall on businesses and consumers. Now, extraordinarily, it seems that this Government are simply going to roll over and concede that the UK will have to follow EU rules over which it has no say, and bring back ECJ jurisdiction. That is not necessary, desirable or consistent with a democratic vote to leave the EU and restore our sovereignty. Once again, let us see whether the Minister will rule it out when he speaks. Having spent three years in the Ministry of Defence advising the then Defence Secretary, I am concerned at the approach the Government are looking to take on defence and security. NATO is the cornerstone of our defence, and the alliance should be our focus, yet a leak reveals that the deal will pull the UK into the EU’s common security and defence policy, duplicating many of the functions and institutions of NATO—and for what? The deal does not even guarantee British firms access to the rearmament fund. Instead, that will be subject to future separate negotiations, and the UK will have to pay; how much and on what terms is completely unclear. It is very disappointing, given the need to defend our continent, that some in the EU want to link access to the defence programme to fishing rights. [ Interruption. ] France, indeed. Once again, the Government have simply rolled over. I know from my time in the Cabinet Office and No. 10 working on Brexit issues that the EU was determined to be inflexible from the start. Michel Barnier, the negotiator, embodied that rigidness. Unlike the man from Del Monte, he delighted in saying no. Improvements to the TCA can be made. The agreement provides for that precisely and deliberately in the review mechanism. To get trade flowing, there are easements that the EU could easily agree to, benefiting businesses and consumers. Instead of pursuing those from a position of principle, this Government are negotiating a backroom deal and look set to do so badly and undermine our national interest.

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister referred to the Employment Rights Bill. Has he seen the survey from the Britain Retail Consortium in which 70% of the businesses that were surveyed, which are major retailers that employ half a million people, said that the legislation would damage their business, and half said that it would make them less likely to take people on?

• 12 May 2025 · Income Tax: Personal Allowance · Hansard source

  More

  In the last Westminster Hall debate that I took part in I think we were limited to 90-second speeches, so it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to expand at some considerable length this afternoon. I thank the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and the proposer Mr Frost for bringing forward this petition for debate on behalf of the 250,000 signatories, nearly 500 of whom come from my constituency. The petitioners have called on the Government to increase the income tax personal allowance to £20,000 to help low earners and pensioners. A bit of a spoiler alert: I think that they will be disappointed, because we have all seen the Government’s response that there are no such plans. It is worth noting that over the past 60 years, no Labour Government have left office with the tax burden lower than when they started. That is similar to employment; Labour Governments have always left the rate of unemployment higher than when they inherited it. The tax burden as a percentage of GDP is forecast to hit its highest level since the second world war by the end of this Parliament. The cause of that pattern is philosophical: the belief that there is such a thing as Government money. In fact, there is only taxpayers’ money, and we Conservatives want people to keep more of it. As the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Sir Mel Stride), has said that we must drive taxes lower and do so in a responsible manner. Other Members have referred to research by the House of Commons Library, that estimates a cost of between £50 billion to £65 billion—depending on the choices made on other parts of the allowance—to raise the personal allowance for everyone to £20,000, as the petition calls for. That is about what we spend on the defence budget. To introduce such a policy, people have to be very clear about the choices they are proposing: the spending that they would cut, the increases in other taxes they would make or, indeed, if they would fund this through borrowing. Anyone promising such an increase has to be honest about it, and set out their choices clearly and openly. The Conservatives will be doing that before the next general election. The last Conservative Government increased the personal allowance significantly to benefit low earners—we made that a priority. It increased by 40% in real terms from 2010, from £6,475 to the £12,570 it is today. That change has benefitted millions of UK taxpayers. Of course, I also acknowledge that the last Government had to take the difficult decision to freeze that threshold until 2028. That decision was unwelcome and unpopular—I do not think it won us any votes—but it followed the hundreds of billions of pounds that we put in place to protect lives and livelihoods during the covid pandemic. Other parties were calling on us to spend even more, as I recall. That decision supported the poorest people the most. Billions more were spent in response to the energy price shock—again, that money needs to be paid back. However, it is also the case that if the personal allowance had simply been uprated by inflation every year since 2010, it would only have been around £9,650 in 2023-24, which is lower than the current level. At the last election, it was Labour that promised not to raise taxes on working people, which it broke in the October Budget with increases in national insurance. That was justified on the grounds of restoring financial responsibility and economic stability—referred to in the Government’s response to the petition. But it is hard to see that stability. The Government’s actions have led to a collapse in business confidence, and have seen taxes and borrowing rise at record levels. Meanwhile, growth—meant to be the overriding priority—has flatlined. Last week’s cut in interest rates was welcome, but Labour’s policies are expected to mean that interest rates stay higher for longer than they would have done under our plans. Only last week, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research assessed that the Chancellor would miss her fiscal rules by £63 billion by the end of the forecast period. That came after the emergency Budget only a few weeks ago, that saw rushed cuts to welfare budgets, which colleagues across the House are concerned are untargeted. That was simply to spare the Chancellor the blushes of missing her own fiscal rules. As a result of the Government’s actions, questions are being asked about the levels of personal taxation, particularly the personal allowance—the subject of the petition—which the Government pledge to unfreeze in 2028. The Chancellor made much of this at the autumn Budget, saying: “From 2028-29, personal tax thresholds will be uprated in line with inflation once again. When it comes to choices on tax, this Government choose to protect working people every single time.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] I think we might disagree about the second part of that quote. The statement about the policy was clear and unambiguous, and it maintained the position of the last Conservative Government—to lift that freeze in 2028. According to recent reports in the media, this is an issue that the Treasury is looking at as it tries to keep in the too-limited headroom that the Chancellor has in place. Will the Minister give an unambiguous commitment and restate the pledge to unfreeze the personal allowance from 2028? It does not go anywhere near as far as the petitioners would want, but it would at least be something. The petition refers particularly to the position of pensioners; the hon. Member for Sunderland Central referred to that. Millions of people who are in receipt of only the state pension now face paying income tax on it. Of course, many with modest private provision already face that situation. Forecasts suggest an estimated 9 million pensioners will pay income tax on their state pension from April 2026. At the general election, we had a very clear policy: the triple lock plus commitment, which would have ensured that people relying on the state pension as their only source of income would never pay income tax on it. Labour refused to match our policy at that time; in government, it has maintained opposition to it. I have tabled several parliamentary questions to him, but the Minister has been reluctant to give the Treasury estimates of the number of pensioners who receive only the state pension whom he expects to pay income tax and when they will do so. Perhaps today he will come clean with the figures that the Government must have about how many pensioners will have to pay income tax, when all they have in income is the state pension. I assume he is aware of those figures and assessed their impact when the Government were deciding to cut the winter fuel payments, again from very vulnerable people. Towards the end of the last Parliament, I supported measures by the then Government to cut taxes for working people through reductions in employee national insurance, the last of which, last March, was worth £10 billion. We believe in people keeping more of their own money, and the Minister should give the signatories of this petition clear answers to the following questions. Will the Government stick to their promise to increase the personal allowance from 2028? Are the Government committed to not raising the rates of income tax and VAT in this Parliament? Will the Minister rule out any further increases in national insurance rates? I look forward to his response.

• 1 May 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  A fundamental part of parliamentary privilege is the ability of the press to report proceedings in Parliament freely, so it is concerning that the Independent Press Standards Organisation has given a ruling against the Telegraph for reporting comments made by Michael Gove—now Lord Gove—in this House regarding the links between the Muslim Association of Britain and the Muslim Brotherhood. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a disturbing step for the freedom of the press, and will she urge the Culture Secretary to come to the House to reiterate that?

• 1 May 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  9. What steps he is taking to help support high street businesses.

• 1 May 2025 · High Street Businesses · Hansard source

  More

  A British Retail Consortium survey this week of major retailers employing half a million people found that 70% say that the £5 billion a year Employment Rights Bill will have a negative impact on their business and half said that it would lead to job cuts. How does the Minister expect our high streets to cope with that extra cost, coming on top of higher business rates and higher national insurance? When will the Government actually listen to businesses and to the people creating jobs in this country?

• 1 May 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Secretary of State be straightforward with the House today about how much taxpayers’ money has been spent so far on British Steel?

• 30 Apr 2025 · UK Airstrike: Houthi Military Facility · Hansard source

  More

  US action in recent weeks has considerably degraded ballistic missile and drone attacks, and I welcome these RAF strikes. However, the action will work only if it is sustained. Will the Defence Secretary commit to ongoing UK and RAF direct support to US Operation Rough Rider to strike Houthi terrorists, rather than the ad hoc approach adopted so far, so that we can properly restore freedom of navigation?

• 29 Apr 2025 · Reducing Industrial Electricity Prices · Hansard source

  More

  10. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce industrial electricity prices.

• 29 Apr 2025 · Reducing Industrial Electricity Prices · Hansard source

  More

  Growing the economy will need cheaper energy, but INEOS’s chief executive has warned that Labour’s crippling carbon taxes and other levies threaten UK manufacturing and make us more reliant on imports. When will Ministers start listening and realise that their dogma-driven energy policy is costing jobs and investment, and when will they actually act to make our electricity prices more competitive?

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I declare an interest as a supporter of Norwich City and King’s Lynn Town. Other Members have referred to the success of the premier league and the fact that the EFL is one of the best attended in Europe. Football, we should take it as read, is a success story. I want to focus on the risks posed to the game by the Bill and regulation. Indeed, even the Government concede that the new regime and distribution provisions in particular are unique and unprecedented. The objectives of sustainability, preventing breakaway competitions, safeguarding heritage and strengthening engagement are supported by fans, but much of that is already happening under the existing rules of the FA, the Premier League and the EFL. My concern—the one I expressed in the previous Parliament when we debated a similar Bill—is that it will lead to overreach and over-regulation. We have heard bids already from across other parts of the House to load burdens on football, including protecting car parks. The Prime Minister has said on regulation: “the key test…Is this going to make our economy more dynamic? Is this going to…unlock investment?” Yet he is creating a new regulator that will take £100 million out of the game, including for smaller clubs, and regulatory scope and costs will inexorably increase. The task of the regulator is already vast. It will have to approve business plans for 116 clubs as part of licensing. Applying such banking-style regulation to a sport is inappropriate. The provisions on revenues of course attract a lot of attention. Let us be clear here: the Government are taking powers through the backstop to mandate the division of commercial revenues. These are unprecedented powers that will cause significant regulatory and investment uncertainty. There is a voluntary agreement at the moment, which is essential to the health of the game and to get funds flowing through the pyramid. The backstop, which is meant to be a last resort, is now the frontstop. The EFL has been very clear that it is waiting for the provisions to come into force and it will not agree to anything until then. The Government have made the situation worse by including the parachute payments, which will prevent clubs that want to invest when they get promoted and take a risk so they can compete from doing so, which will weaken the competitiveness of the game. Then there is the untried binding final offer arbitration model. Rather than considering the proposals put forward by the Premier League and EFL to determine which is the best approach—it may be a compromise between the two—we have a Russian roulette approach where the regulator has to pick one or the other. Lord Birt put forward an amendment in the other place to introduce an approach based on commercial arbitration instead of that model, which incentivises gaming. The Secretary of State had some warm words for what Lord Birt had done in the other place. I would be grateful if the Minister, in winding up, can clarify whether the Government are still talking to Lord Birt and other legal experts in the other place, with the intention of changing the flawed backstop model. To conclude, the Bill would introduce unprecedented regulation of our national game. There are clear risks, through excessive regulation the Bill will introduce, to the very elements that make football the great success it is. That is why I will be opposing the Bill. The Government and the Prime Minister will be rightly held responsible if they get it wrong and undermine football.

• 28 Apr 2025 · Football Governance Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  During covid, non-league clubs took DCMS sport survival loans, but their repayment now threatens the viability of some. Will the Secretary of State assure fans that she will do all she can to assist them? As my local club, King’s Lynn Town, are in active discussions with Sport England about their loan, will she or the Sports Minister agree to meet me to discuss that?

• 28 Apr 2025 · School Costs and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions · Hansard source

  More

  Headteachers are warning that the gap in funding to cover the Chancellor’s jobs tax is equivalent to losing more existing teachers than the Government are planning to recruit. I have heard that message loud and clear from headteachers on my recent school visits, and unfunded pay awards will just make this worse. Why is the Education Secretary not standing up for our schools?