James Wild MP: speeches

Speeches

• 14 Apr 2026 · Hospital Trusts: Performance · Hansard source

  More

  At the Queen Elizabeth hospital in King’s Lynn, nearly half of patients are waiting more than 18 weeks from referral to treatment and the trust is now part of the national improvement programme. Last month’s elective sprint delivered 2,000 additional elective activities, with evening and weekend working. Will the Health Secretary ensure that additional support is provided so that increased level of activity continues in the months to come?

• 13 Apr 2026 · North Atlantic Submarine Activity · Hansard source

  More

  I join the hon. and gallant Minister in paying tribute to our armed forces. After the Defence Secretary gave a press conference calling out this operation, Russia said that it posed no threat to undersea infrastructure. I asked this question when the Minister responded to an urgent question back in November after lasers were fired at RAF pilots by Russia: why has the Russian ambassador not been summoned by the Foreign Office, given this clear threat to our national security?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  The Government’s approach to devolution and local government reform has been chaotic and costly; the delay of the mayoral election in Norfolk and Suffolk is costing our counties £50 million in investment funding. Can the Minister confirm that the Government believe that the three-unitary model for Norfolk can be delivered sustainably, and can she guarantee that funding will be there to ensure that is the case?

• 26 Mar 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  It is six weeks since, at Prime Minister’s questions, I raised the case of my constituent who had three family members killed in a dangerous driving crime by a foreign offender, after which the Prisons Minister refused to act to prevent the offender’s deportation. I requested a meeting with the Minister on behalf of the family, who, as victims, want to explain the impact on them, but a month on there has been no reply. Will the Leader of the House use his office to remind Lord Timpson of the importance of timely responses to such requests?

• 24 Mar 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  14. What steps his Department is taking to help reduce household energy bills.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Household Energy Bills · Hansard source

  More

  Twenty thousand households across North West Norfolk and 140,000 across the county are off the gas grid and paying much higher prices for heating oil. Ministers are creating an expectation that support will be there for those who need it. What action will the Government take if Norfolk county council is unable to meet the demand and provide support through the crisis and resilience fund to those who are struggling?

• 18 Mar 2026 · Fuel Duty · Hansard source

  More

  Madam Deputy Speaker, “In these difficult circumstances, while the cost of living remains high and with a backdrop of global uncertainty, increasing fuel duty next year would be the wrong choice” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 817.] Those are not my words, as it happens, but I agree with them. In fact, that was what the Chancellor said in her first Budget. Having increased taxes by £40 billion in that Budget, people might have thought that that would be the end of the talk of fuel tax hikes. However, this Government’s approach is all about higher spending, taxation and borrowing, so it was not that surprising when, in her second Budget, the Chancellor set out plans to scrap the 5p a litre cut introduced by the Conservative Government in 2022—a cut, remember, introduced in the wake of price increases after Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. We introduced that cut to recognise that, for rural communities such as mine in North West Norfolk, a car or van is a lifeline, not a luxury. They connect farmers to markets and help children get to school, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) said. They allow people to get to work or to health appointments, and they keep rural enterprises in business. Every penny added to the cost of fuel has a bigger impact in areas where public transport is limited and journeys are longer. This would be the first fuel duty rise for 15 years, taking £3.6 billion from hard-pressed motorists. Unless Labour Members support our motion, that tax increase will take effect from September this year, and the average family will pay £150 more a year. The Road Haulage Association estimates that the increase would add £2,300 a year to the operating costs of an HGV. It is little wonder that it described the measures as a “hammer blow” for many small businesses. It gets worse. Labour Members often like to talk about the past 14 years of Conservative Government, but one thing we did over those 14 years was to freeze fuel duty. From next April, this Government will end that freeze, and inflation-linked rises will follow, making the end of support for motorists that is calculated to have been worth £120 billion over the period of Conservative government. Through this debate, the Conservatives are once again speaking up for the British people. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition challenged the Prime Minister about fuel duty increases last week, but he wanted to talk about anything but that topic—as he did again this week. Under pressure, he is beginning to shift his position. He has said that the increase is now under review. Where is his leadership? It is utterly lacking. And where are Labour Members? No Labour Back Bencher is prepared to stand up and speak in this debate. Even the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) is notable by his absence. They will be whipped today to vote against our motion, as they were on the family farm tax, the winter fuel payment cuts, a national inquiry on grooming gangs, and more. Given their absence, I suspect that they sense another U-turn is coming. The Minister will once again have to defend a policy that he knows will probably be changed again, like the family farm tax, and the 3,000% increase in the landfill tax, which the Government also ditched under pressure. The Prime Minister is too weak to make a decision. Now he wants to go up to his study and read more papers alone, ponder it and think about what he should do. People increasingly feel that they are working harder and getting less, and that too many people are signed off on sickness benefits. The Government are making their life harder. On Labour’s watch, inflation has increased and unemployment is rising month after month. Labour Members’ constituents will see that, when the Government had the opportunity to stand up for families who rely on their cars, for the white van man, and for people in rural communities, they utterly failed to do so. When the Chancellor was asked whether she would reverse this fuel tax hike, she said something very revealing: “I’m very loath to spend Government money on something that the market should be doing”. Government money? There is no such thing. That is taxpayers’ money. This Government think that everyone’s money belongs to the state, and people should be thankful to keep some of it. That attitude explains Labour’s £66 billion of tax increases to fund higher welfare spending, it explains the Government’s failure to control spending and live within our means, and it explains why the tax burden is at a record high and will only increase. The impact is evident in the latest British social attitudes survey. Support for higher spending and taxation is falling, while support for lower taxes and lower spending is growing. That is the approach that the Conservative party has set out. We would make £47 billion of savings in public spending, including £23 billion in welfare—the Minister can have those ideas for free. We would use half that sum to reduce the deficit, and the other half to get the economy growing by scrapping stamp duty, and scrapping business rates for 250,000 leisure, retail and hospitality businesses. The Government are putting up tax and making prices rise at a time of growing uncertainty. That is the wrong choice. That is why I will vote to ease the burden on British motorists and against Labour’s fuel duty hike.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on securing the debate, and welcome the opportunity to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition about what is not only an important region but a great one, as he put it. As we have heard, the east midlands is home to world-leading manufacturers, a thriving logistics sector, pioneering aerospace firms and hundreds of thousands of small and medium-sized businesses. There is huge potential, as every Member who has spoken has attested to. These businesses, workers and entrepreneurs deserve a Government who are pursuing policies to help them to realise that potential and drive growth in the area. Concerningly, however, growth has been consistently downgraded; we need only look at the spring forecasts a couple of weeks ago to see that growth has been once again downgraded for the coming year, and that is before any impact is felt from the operations happening in the middle east. Today we have heard lots of ideas from Members across the parties on how to realise growth in the east midlands. That can be achieved, but will require the Government to change course. The region has many internationally renowned businesses. Members have rightly spoken proudly about Rolls-Royce, Toyota, Alstom and other businesses. The East Midlands Hydrogen zone is positioning the region at the forefront of clean energy transitions, and of course there is a strong university sector. It is a region with key strengths, and the last Government recognised that. Several Members referred to the East Midlands freeport, which was given the green light in 2023. The only inland freeport in England was backed by Government seed funding at the time and underpinned a projected 28,000 jobs coming to the area. If we look at the wider picture, the current Government have talked a lot about economic growth, but sadly growth has underperformed. As the Liberal Democrat spokesman—the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling)—said, we cannot ignore the impact of the higher national insurance charges. We cannot ignore the higher business rates that many companies are about to be hit with, as well as higher wage and other costs. The Bank of England has pointed out the impact that these have had.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  We can trade statistics, but the context for that was the 2009 financial crash, which led to a deficit of 12% to 15%. [Interruption.] The Government who came in were the coalition Government, including our Liberal Democrat colleagues, and it was Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who drove those savings in spending, particularly in local government but also in other areas. We had to get the books to balance. That was the context that we had to deal with. People can deny the reality, but that was the situation at the time. The number of people who are unemployed is forecast to hit 2 million by the end of the year. I expect other Members are particularly worried, as I am, about the impact on young people. Youth unemployment has already moved above 16%, which is higher than the EU average. We are now in the bizarre position in which the Government are having to pay companies to take on young people whom the Government’s own policies have priced out of having jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Melton and Syston (Edward Argar) highlighted, SMEs across— [Interruption.]

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  I am looking at the House of Commons Library brief on the average productivity level. I cannot quite see the hon. Member’s point reflected in the chart that I am looking at, but I will look at it again afterwards, when there is more time, and see whether that is the reality. As I said, it is not inevitable that the productivity level is lower, and it cannot be accepted if we want living standards to rise. The Productivity Institute did a study looking particularly at the region, which identified some of the challenges around skills shortages, infrastructure and under-investment in research and development. Many Members have spoken about transport spending in particular. The briefing note for the debate from East Midlands Councils talks about a period of 20 years in which there has been a lack of investment. I understand the importance of improving investment; if I was speaking in an east of England debate, I and other colleagues would be pointing out that we also do not get our fair share. The east midlands is a region of makers, and manufacturing makes up a greater part of the economy there than in any part of the UK other than Wales. In terms of productivity, the 2023 output was 14.7% below the recent UK average. Boston Consulting Group has just published a report on productivity, which I commend to Members, that looks at the underlying factors for this national challenge. The sectors that historically have driven productivity—manufacturing, information and communication technology, and financial services—accounted for 84% of the positive increase in the pre-crisis decade, but since then, that figure has fallen to just 34%. While those are still key sectors that are important for the economy, they are performing less well than previously. What do we do to change that? We need to look at policies that boost productivity, including focusing on incentivising R&D spending in advanced manufacturing, reducing the barriers to commercialising innovation, and building on the full expensing introduced by the last Conservative Government to boost investment. Sadly, in the Finance (No. 2) Bill, which I have just gone through in Committee, some of the incentives on capital allowances have been reduced. We also need to promote a culture of enterprise, not one that is focused on regulatory compliance. We certainly need cheaper energy in order to compete. We need to scrap some of the bureaucracy around planning, and boost competition and skills. The east midlands is a region with assets, and it is a strong driver of national growth. It has the companies, the geographic position, the people, and the small and medium-sized businesses to make a change. By pursuing reforms—the hon. Member for Rushcliffe outlined a number of recommendations in the APPG report that seemed sensible and well worth considering—the east midlands can be helped to maximise its potential.

• 17 Mar 2026 · Productivity and Economic Growth: East Midlands · Hansard source

  More

  If hon. Members want to intervene, they are welcome to do so. As my right hon. Friend said, small and medium-sized businesses across the east midlands and beyond are having to cope with those costs, making it harder for them to invest and grow. The Government should listen to them. Fundamentally, the problems that the east midlands and the UK face in relation to growth are around productivity. Investment has been too low. The UK has trailed the G7 average over the last 30 years, not just the last 14 years. Our infrastructure ambitions are often buried under red tape and excessive costs. Colleagues have spoken about energy costs. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) spoke about Denby and the ceramics sector, and we hope that a solution is found for that workforce. But by linking us to the EU emissions trading scheme, the Government will be driving up costs for our industry. The sparks of business dynamism have dimmed. Office for National Statistics data shows that firm entry and exit rates have reduced, particularly compared with the United States. That leads to a less competitive, dynamic and innovative economy. The east midlands has consistently been ranked among the least productive regions in the UK, but that is not inevitable and nor should it be, because if it stays like that, living standards will not increase.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I join the Minister in thanking hon. Members on both sides of the House who participated in the debate—there are rather more of them here than there have been throughout our proceedings. I also thank the parliamentary staff, and the hon. Members who chaired the Committee. In this 534-page Bill, the Government have chosen to impose a raft of tax-raising measures that hit work, enterprise and investment, and which add significantly to the regulatory costs on UK businesses. They have extended the freeze on income tax thresholds, dragging hundreds of thousands more working people into higher tax bands; they have introduced a family farm and family business tax, targeting rural communities and family firms; and they have increased taxes on savings, property income and long-term investment. Taken together, these measures amount to billions of pounds-worth of extra taxation, pushing the overall tax burden to record levels. Ultimately, the Chancellor has chosen to make the UK a less attractive place for businesses and for the investors who we need to grow the economy. Just last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility cut growth projects again. At a time of global uncertainty, the Government are taking the wrong course, and it shows. Unemployment is up, taxes are up, welfare spending is going up, and living standards will fall over the course of this Parliament. This Government have led the country into a high-tax, low-growth doom loop. There is a long list of voices sounding the alarm over the economy, but the Chancellor is still not listening. Rather than change course, she is sticking to her failing plan of higher taxes, higher spending and borrowing. This Bill breaks the promises to the British people, and we will oppose it this evening.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  We are grateful to the Minister for running through the plethora of Government amendments that are being added to this already stonkingly large Finance Bill. The sheer number of amendments is an admission that Ministers did not get this right the first time—or even the second time, in Committee, which we enjoyed. Let me turn to amendments 1, 2 and 8 and 67 to 94, as well as new clause 10 in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. This Bill embodies Labour’s approach of ever-higher taxes, spending and borrowing, for which hard-working families and businesses are paying the price. The measures in the Budget and in this Bill add a further £26 billion-worth of tax rises, bringing the cumulative total from the Chancellor’s first two Budgets to £66 billion. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) pointed out, that did not feature anywhere in the Government’s manifesto. Those further tax rises are despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more. Debt interest is forecast to hit £140 billion by 2030. Unemployment is set to increase to 1.9 million, and youth unemployment has risen to 16.1%. Meanwhile, welfare spending is set to hit £406 billion, and living standards are expected to slow towards the end of this Parliament. Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility downgraded its growth forecast once again and warned that the Chancellor’s plan, far from working, could “constrain economic activity”. Instead of backing the risk takers and the wealth creators, this Bill delivers slower growth, higher borrowing and higher taxes. Let me turn to the freeze in income tax thresholds set out in clause 10. The Chancellor said at the Dispatch Box that there would be no extension of the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it would “hurt working people” and “take more money out of their payslips.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] That promise has been broken by the measures in the Bill that do exactly the opposite, putting in place a £23 billion-a-year tax rise and bringing nearly 1 million more people into paying higher-rate tax. It is not just working people who will pay the price. During this period, the state pension is forecast to be higher than the personal allowance. In the spring forecast, the OBR warned that an additional 1 million pensioners will find themselves liable for income tax by 2030-31 because of the Chancellor’s freeze. In anyone’s book, that is a retirement tax. The Government have promised to protect people who rely solely on the state pension, but where is the detail? There is nothing in this legislation to do that. The public out there will rightly be sceptical, given that the Chancellor has already broken the promise not to freeze this threshold. Amendment 5 offers the House a very simple choice to stand by working people and pensioners and end the freeze. Let me turn to the Government’s damaging family farm and family business tax. I know that Labour Members are going around their constituencies saying that they got a great win from the Chancellor just before Christmas, but let us be honest: that win was purely a fig leaf. The Government could have actually corrected their mistake, but the partial reversal that the Chancellor was forced into falls short of what is needed. The Country Land and Business Association has said that it only limits the damage—yet another broken promise from a Prime Minister who pledged not to impose an inheritance tax on farms. That measure epitomises Labour’s apparent hostility towards family farms, tenant farmers and our rural communities. I have spoken to farmers, as I am sure other hon. Members have, who are desperate about this situation. That is why we continue to strongly oppose the family farm and family business tax, and amendment 6 would scrap them. Our further amendments seek to mitigate the worst effects of those taxes. Amendments 67 to 87 would remove the transition period for changes to the reliefs, and would delay implementation until after March 2027, lifting the unfair anti-forestalling rules that have tied the hands of farmers and business owners. The Chartered Institute of Taxation—which provided a lot of support in Committee and at earlier stages of the Bill, for which I am grateful—has warned that the measures particularly affect older farmers, robbing them of the ability to plan properly. Amendment 88 would defer the deadline for inheritance tax instalments by a further 12 months. This reflects the conclusion of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee that the six-month deadline proposed for the first payment “does not appear to be realistic”. As we know, farming estates and family business are often asset-rich but cash-poor, which makes it difficult to raise the funds quickly. The National Farmers Union has warned that expecting probate to be granted within six months is “completely unrealistic, especially given the complexity of valuing an agricultural business”. Does the Minister recognise the strain that such unrealistic deadlines place on family farms and family businesses, and will he therefore accept our amendment and extend the payment deadline by 12 months? If he will not, will he explain to family farms and family businesses why not? Amendments 89 to 94 would exclude from inheritance tax the value of any jointly held tenancy on the death of a joint tenant. This issue is causing concern across the sector, and has been raised by the Tenant Farmers Association and by my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). Exempting genuine arm’s length tenancies between unconnected parties from inheritance tax is simply the fair thing to do. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what engagement he has had with the Tenant Farmers Association on that point, what his response is, and how he intends to rectify this injustice. Of course, this is not just about farms; family businesses, which make up 90% of our firms and employ well over half the workforce, are firmly in the Chancellor’s crosshairs as well. These are firms that focus on the long term, yet according to Family Business UK, over half of affected businesses have already paused or cancelled investment as a result of the threatened tax. It would be remiss of me to not mention that the Government’s claims do not seem to add up. Will this tax actually end up raising money? While the OBR forecasts a £500 million gain, analysis by the Confederation of British Industry suggests a net loss of nearly £2 billion, once the wider damage to the economy is considered. The family farm and family business tax does nothing to promote growth or fairness. It targets those who anchor our rural economy and communities—the family businesses committed to long-term growth. It is already having a chilling effect on investment, and now there is a prospect that companies that would otherwise thrive under family stewardship will break up. Again, I urge hon. Members to support amendment 6, which would remove this damaging measure from the Bill. Savers and investors are not safe from the Chancellor, either. Amendments 1 to 4 deal with the introduction of increases in income tax on dividends, savings, and property income in the years ahead. Increases to the dividend tax will hit 4 million people by 2029-30, while the savings tax rate increase will hit a further 3.8 million individuals, and 2.4 million landlords will now face higher bills, making it less attractive to provide the rental properties that our constituents want. These measures are targeted at entrepreneurs, investors, pensioners and hard-working families. Rather than supporting growth, the Government seem determined to stifle it. The Government are also scrapping the long-standing inheritance tax exemption for pensions. Some 10,500 estates will be targeted under this measure, costing savers £1.5 billion by 2029. We oppose this extension of inheritance tax, which seems predicated on the Government’s belief that people’s money belongs to the Government, rather than being their own. We should be rewarding saving and people who do the right thing, but extending inheritance tax in this way does exactly the opposite. As we discussed previously, there is also a concern about the burden being placed on personal representatives, and I have mentioned the unintended consequences for unmarried couples. In some cases, a surviving partner could lose up to 40% of a pension fund built up over a lifetime. Again, this is manifestly unfair, and amendment 7 would remove this damaging new tax from the Bill.

• 11 Mar 2026 · Finance (No. 2) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My hon. Friend is absolutely right, despite the chuntering that we hear from the Minister. The welfare bill is predicted to rise to £406 billion over the forecast period. The Chancellor keeps saying that she is fixing welfare. Where? What is she doing? She had to back away from very modest savings. We have identified £23 billion-worth of welfare savings, and the Minister could make those if he wished, but he does not, and that is why growth has once again been downgraded. The Chancellor boasts about beating the forecast last year. Well, the forecast at the beginning of the year was 2%, and the Government failed to get anywhere near 2%. They beat the downgraded forecast, so let us not hear any more about that. We want to hear what the Government will do to drive growth, and taxing the people generating it is precisely the wrong thing to do. New clause 10 requires the Chancellor to review the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism. We debated CBAM extensively in Committee, and it is dealt with in a great swathe of the Bill—in the schedules—but there is plenty more to come. Given the complexity of the policy, many industries believe that the absence from the Bill of a formal oversight and review process is a serious mis-step that needs to be addressed. There are many potential pitfalls in this new mechanism. First, the measure fails to consider several sectors that are at significant risk of carbon leakage, such as chemicals and refining. Secondly, the Government have decided to link the UK and EU emissions trading schemes. Following the announcement of that alignment, the price of carbon in the UK more than doubled, which cost our economy about £5 billion. We should be reducing the burden of carbon taxes on business, not increasing them. The EU has yet to publish its benchmark beyond 2030, which means that the UK would be signing up to a system that would effectively give Brussels a blank cheque. Moreover, CBAM does not address issues with carbon leakage in export markets. There are proposals to exempt our manufacturing exports from UK ETS costs and CBAM to make the industry more competitive, putting it on a level playing field internationally. Has the Minister considered maintaining long-term free allowances for products destined for the export markets? Given those complexities—I could go on about them more, but the Minister gets the gist—[Hon. Members: “More!”] It seems that other Members may want to come in on this issue. I think that the Minister should recognise the value of regular reviews. I know he will say that the Government keep all taxes under review, but let us have an actual review that is published, so that we can see what is happening. I encourage Members to support new clause 10. This is a Finance Bill full of tax increases that break trust with the British people. The Labour Government have introduced the family farm and business tax, frozen personal thresholds, hiked taxes on savers and investors, cut relief on employee ownership trusts, taxed inheritance pensions, taxed taxis—we discussed that in Committee—and increased gambling, alcohol and other duties and environmental levies. The list goes on and on. There is 534 pages-worth, which I could read out if there were any appetite for it. Our amendments and new clause would back the taxpayers, and the investors and businesses trying to drive growth in our economy, and I urge Members to support them.

• 10 Mar 2026 · Cost of Living: Families · Hansard source

  More

  The Chancellor promised in her first Budget that she would not extend the freeze on income tax thresholds, because it “would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips.” —[ Official Report , 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] In her second Budget, the Chancellor broke her promise with a £23 billion tax rise, bringing a million more people into paying higher rate tax. When people are set to struggle with the cost of living over this Parliament, why are the Government choosing to make their lives harder?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Energy Markets · Hansard source

  More

  How much will that cost?

• 5 Mar 2026 · Energy Markets · Hansard source

  More

  How much?

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

  More

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

• 24 Feb 2026 · Cancer Diagnosis · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 11 Feb 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

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

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

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

• 11 Feb 2026 · Local Government Finance · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?