Conduct of the Chancellor of the Exchequer

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

This is a rare and serious conduct motion that calls on the Chancellor of the Exchequer to apologise for misleading the country about the state of the public finances, breaking promises on tax and breaching the OBR confidentiality process—in short, for not being straight with the British people.

I was expecting to refer to more contributions this afternoon, but it has been a slightly curtailed debate. [Interruption.] We had the comprehensive introduction from my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. The hon. Members for Harlow (Chris Vince) and for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) were surprised and disappointed that the Chancellor is being held to account not for her personality, but for her conduct. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) just said, this debate is about honesty, trust and confidence and what happens as a result, and about the “shenanigans”, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) put it.

On Times Radio this morning, the shadow Chancellor was asked why this debate matters. It matters because the deliberate briefing and misrepresentation of the Budget has damaged workers, savers, pensioners and investors. Let us start with the simple truth: this Government and the Chancellor spun false narratives about the public finances to justify their political choices to increase welfare spending.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

During the Budget debate, I asked the shadow Chancellor whether he would address the fact that, on multiple occasions, he referred to the public finances in a fantastically negative tone that appeared far from the truth that was revealed at the Budget, suggesting at one point that there was a £40 billion black hole in the public finances. As the shadow Minister says that we were not being straight with the public about the state of the public finances, will he take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of his colleague for doing just that?

[James Wild]

If the hon. Gentleman had been here for the whole debate, he would have had the opportunity of the opening 45-minute speech to put that to my right hon. Friend.

What happened as a result of all the policy kites that were flown? Pensions were drawn down, fewer mortgages were approved and investment was paused. That is not my verdict; the Bank of England warned that the economy was heading for slowdown as a result of the uncertainty, the British Chambers of Commerce said that that uncertainty affected investment and recruitment, and hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions. Those are the real impacts of that activity—the shenanigans—and there is genuine anger across the country at the damage such uncertainty caused. The Chancellor must take responsibility because she is responsible for that uncertainty.

People are already cynical about politics, but what could do more to undermine trust than abusing the OBR process to cook up a story to make a case for higher taxes that were not needed? It is the Chancellor who is at the centre of misleading the country. On 4 November, she staged that unprecedented press conference to roll the pitch for tax rises.

[Luke Murphy]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Wild]

I will not. In breach of the confidentiality rules, the Chancellor warned that the OBR productivity downgrade meant lower tax receipts. Indeed it did, but the OBR report makes it clear that that downgrade was more than addressed by higher tax receipts. In other words, there was no black hole. The Chancellor had the numbers and she knew the position. Now we know what she said was simply not true. Instead, she crafted a narrative to justify decisions to increase taxes to fund higher welfare spending.

On 13 November, the Financial Times reported that the Chancellor had decided against the much-briefed income tax increases. The next day, after the gilt market had responded badly, journalists were briefed that the tax rises would not happen thanks to an improved fiscal forecast. Yet that is not what the OBR pre-financial measures said. Little wonder the OBR took that extraordinary step of publishing the forecasts, exposing the truth that there was no giant deficit, as briefed to the press.

The OBR said it took that action to address misconceptions about the forecasts. Where might such misconceptions come from? We do not need to be Sherlock Holmes to identify the Treasury as the culprit.

[Luke Murphy]

The OBR told the Treasury Committee, on which I sit, that the narrative that the Chancellor set out on 4 November was consistent with the forecast at that time. When the OBR made that point, was it right or wrong? Are you questioning what the OBR said?

[James Wild]

I am sure that Madam Deputy Speaker is not questioning anyone. I am pointing out that the Chancellor said that there was a big £16 billion downgrade from the productivity—that was all offset—but she did not mention that—[Interruption.] If the Minister wants to intervene to say that she did mention that on 4 November, I will give way. She did not. She did not at all.

Yesterday, when the Chancellor was asked in the House if she had authorised or allowed confidential details of the Budget or forecasts to be briefed to the press, she gave a categorical no. If the Chancellor did not license briefings, can the Minister give a cast-iron commitment that no other Ministers, special advisers or officials in the Treasury or No. 10 briefed or authorised briefings about potential measures or the forecasts? Frankly, if you believe that all of those were unauthorised briefings, the Treasury is utterly out of control and I have a bridge to sell you. There is a leak inquiry, but the permanent secretary said today that it centres on 13 November, not on the tsunami of tall tales on potential Budget measures. Why might that be, I wonder. Nothing less than a full inquiry, with the findings made public, will do.

That brings us to the broken promises referred to in the motion. A year ago, the Chancellor delivered the biggest tax-raising Budget in modern history, hitting the British people with £40 billion of tax rises. Then in this Budget, taxes were increased yet again, by £26 billion, despite the Chancellor promising not to come back for more. Life comes at you fast. A year ago, the Chancellor also said that extending the freeze on 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.]

Do Labour Members remember her saying that? I certainly do. She said that she would not freeze the thresholds. Then what did she do? Oh, she froze the thresholds. She imposed a three-year extension, with £23 billion coming out of the pockets of 1.7 million people who will pay higher taxes for her failures. As the motion says, the Chancellor should apologise for breaking her promise not to raise taxes again.

What Chancellors say matters. The public and the markets need to believe them, and to trust that they are not being misled. That is not the case around the events of this Budget. That is why this motion calls on the Chancellor to apologise for the misleading picture she presented of the public finances, for the Treasury briefings that did so much damage to businesses and to people, and for breaking her promise not to increase taxes. Frankly, in the face of such a charge sheet, an apology is the very least that the British public deserve. I commend this motion to the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dan Tomlinson]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Too many Conservative Members defended the mini-Budget, which crashed the economy and added thousands of pounds to mortgages. In contrast, since this Government have come to power, the Bank of England has cut interest rates five times, taking £1,200 off a typical two-year fixed rate mortgage. At this Budget, we cut £150 from the average energy bill, froze rail fares and prescription charges, and extended bus fare caps and fuel duty cuts, but the Conservatives do not want to talk about that either. They could have chosen in their Opposition day debate to talk about fiscal stability and increased headroom, but again, they chose not to do that because of the £21.7 billion of headroom that the Chancellor secured at the Budget, which will help protect our country from global shocks and unforeseen challenges.

Of course, the Conservatives do not want to talk about child poverty either because they know that this Budget has lifted 550,000 children out of poverty, whereas the last Government were content to leave them, preferring instead to rebrand the hungry children who they let down while in power as benefit scroungers. They should be treated as our future, not as our opponent.

I have a couple more minutes, so let me address some of the points made during the debate. I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), for engaging on policy. We have had conversations on business rates already this week, and I am sure that we will have more. We have begun the work to rebalance the system with a £900 million switch from the highest value properties to those on the high streets.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for his Thatcher quote. It was a good quote that bears repeating. She said,

“I always cheer up immensely…if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

I thank the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin) for going through every single tax change and saying that she opposes them all. That is the sort of opposition we have got used to. Rather than constructive opposition, which comes forward with proposals that would raise revenue in a fair way, such as the changes on electric vehicle excise duty, which will stop us losing £12 billion of fuel duty revenue in the coming years, we just hear, “No, no, no,” over and over again. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher). His experience in economics is richly valued in this place, and I enjoyed his speech, as I always do.

Finally, it has been a short debate, has it not, Madam Deputy Speaker? I am glad that the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) took the time during the debate to read the Labour manifesto—that was much appreciated—and that he was able to clarify for the House that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was right to say that we have stuck to our manifesto commitment.

[James Wild]

To bring the Minister back to the debate, it is about honesty and the real-world consequences of the briefing that happened around the Budget. Does the Treasury accept that hundreds of thousands of people drew down their pensions, which is an irrevocable decision—yes or no?

[Dan Tomlinson]

What the Treasury does accept is that at this Budget, the Government had to make the decisions to ensure that we could increase our fiscal stability and get borrowing falling in every single year. The previous Government were not able to control our public finances, and yet in every year of this forecast, borrowing will be falling, and we have more than doubled our headroom to £21.7 billion.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Chancellor promised a new golden era of hospitality, but the reality of her business rates raid, as the British Beer and Pub Association has said, is

“sleepless nights, pay cuts and staff layoffs”

for publicans, who will be paying an extra £13,000 on average. Why did the Chancellor tell businesses last week that their taxes were going down when they are going up, and will she think again and change the multipliers?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The multipliers are a product of the change in the valuation, and they did come down. We brought them down even further for retail, hospitality and leisure businesses. Without intervention this year, the bills paid by pubs would have increased by 45% as a result of the increase in value since the pandemic; because of this Government’s significant intervention this year, bills are going up by 4%. That is the impact of the changes this Government have made.

The Customs Tariff (Establishment) (EU Exit) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 8th December 2025 General Committees

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. As the Minister said, this statutory instrument clears up a couple of errors, one of which happened on our watch, as he pointed out—fair cop; we plead guilty to that one. The other part of the instrument corrects a previous error by reinstating the 14% import duty for fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes.

There is no impact assessment for the instrument because, as the explanatory memorandum says, the impact on the private and public sector is expected to be minimal, but I did get the House of Commons Library to do a bit of research for me. According to HMRC’s trade tariff tool, the incorrectly applied 0% tariff on jams, fruit jellies, marmalades, fruit or nut purée and fruit or nut pastes appeared on July 2025, and the UK imported roughly £3.2 million of such products in 2024. I am keen to understand from the Minister how the error occurred. Was it simply human error? What measures are in place to prevent slightly more important tariff codes being incorrectly entered, with the impact that that could have?

Tariffs are taxes, of course, with higher prices passed on to consumers. We have just had a Budget that increased taxes on incomes, savings and employment, and that introduced a new tourist tax and a taxi tax. We now have another one: the marmalade tax. Marmalade makers in Peru will be giving the Minister a Paddington stare after this.

On basmati rice, as the Minister said, this was an error made by the previous Conservative Government. The Library was unable to find any data on the volume imported, so how much does he expect the new £25 a tonne rate—the rate that should have been in place—to raise in the years to come? If he does not have those figures at his fingertips, perhaps he will write to me.

To conclude, higher import tariffs mean higher prices for consumers. There can be good reasons for them, such as ensuring a level playing field for our domestic producers, but it does seem that this Government have yet to come across a tax they do not like—even on marmalade.

Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

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?

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Dan Tomlinson)]

I am glad to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate, and for speaking so eloquently in support of the UK wine sector. It is fantastic to hear him speak about the sector’s growth, as well as its continuing progress on exports, which is a really good thing. The irony is not lost on me, though, that he said that Treasury Wine Estates has some reservations about the Treasury’s tax policy—I will look into that.

I heartily echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the UK wine industry’s significant contribution to our economy, culture and tourism. As he mentioned, the statistics speak for themselves: we are the world’s second largest wine importer, bringing in 1.7 billion bottles in 2024. Sales of both imported and home-grown wine support hundreds of thousands of jobs, particularly in hospitality and retail. In recent years, as many Members have mentioned, more and more people have taken up work in the UK’s domestic wine sector, which is much like a dessert wine—small, but strong.

Industry figures suggest that more than 1,000 vineyards and 200 wineries contribute to our rural economy, with land under vine growing fivefold since 2005. The hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) listed many of the wineries in her patch; one of the challenges of being a Parliamentary Private Secretary, like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), is that they do not always get to speak in these debates. However, I have been reliably informed by note that the two Members have the same number of vineyards in their constituencies—there may have to be a little Kent-based competition.

It is great to see that the number of home-grown products is increasing, with production exceeding 10 million bottles last year, and with sales rising too. This Government are committed to fostering an environment in which the wine industry, like its vines, can thrive and grow.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon, as well as other Opposition Members, made important points about the UK’s alcohol duty system. Before I turn to those points, I will first acknowledge the Government’s wider work to support the wine industry through agricultural grants and export promotion. The Government have committed at least £200 million to the farming innovation programme through to 2030, and we champion domestically produced wines on the international stage. For example, we showcased English sparkling wine at the Osaka expo earlier this year.

As I have mentioned English sparkling wine, it is important that I also mention the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who talked about Scotland’s growing wine industry and the impact it is having on high streets. He also said that, in designing a sensible tax system, it is important that it takes account of the impact on the health of the population, which I think is reflected in the current system.

Members have spoken about the previous Government’s reform of the alcohol duty system. I am a Labour MP, so it is not lost on me that I am defending an alcohol duty system implemented by Conservative MPs, and that Conservative MPs are opposed to a system implemented by their own Government. We learned in opposition that it is not always wise to oppose the decisions made by our party when it was previously in government. Indeed, I think that one of the reasons we won the last election is because we were able to talk proudly and confidently of the achievements of previous Labour Governments. Anyway, it is up to Opposition Members to choose which aspects of previous Government policy they wish to support, or not.

As others have mentioned, the alcohol duty system is now based on the principle of taxing alcohol by strength, which means that alcohol duty increases with a product’s ABV. Although it is true that some higher-strength wines have faced increases in duty, that has been balanced by reductions in duty for lower-ABV wines, including some British wines. Prior to the reforms, wines with 11% ABV and wines with 14% ABV both paid the same duty per bottle. Now, there is a difference: wines with 11% ABV pay £2.43 in duty and wines with 14% ABV pay £3.10.

I am interested in the point made by the hon. Member for Weald of Kent about the extent to which British wine companies are producing wine with an ABV below 8.5%. I will consider that point. Indeed, I was thinking the same thing when I was reading up on this topic earlier today. However, I know the changes were introduced alongside conversations with industry representatives, and those conversations will continue as the changes bed in.

In recognition of the big changes that were implemented, it is right to assess their impacts after they have had time to take effect. We have said that will take place at least three years after their introduction in 2023. I will take that work forward next year with officials from HMRC, and I would welcome evidence from Members in this Chamber, including representations from the businesses and communities they represent, and of course I will engage with the wine industry.

The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon said he had three points, but I think he had four in the end, including on the cumulative impact—I will try to address all four. On his third point, yes, we will consider in the round all aspects of the system’s current design. I do not want this review to be one that does not properly interrogate the design of the system, and I also do not want to pre-empt where it will get to, but in my role overseeing that review, I want us to look carefully at the design of the system as a whole. I think the system is sensible and fair, but I also know there are challenges that have been raised by Members today.

On the hon. Member’s big point about cuts or freezes to alcohol duty, it is worth realising that any such cuts or freezes would come at a cost to the Exchequer. The Office for Budget Responsibility produces the costings for any changes to taxation policy.

[James Wild]

They are always wrong.

[Dan Tomlinson]

The hon. Gentleman might think that some of the OBR’s assumptions are wrong. I encourage Members, if they have evidence, facts or figures that they want to put to the OBR on the elasticities—as I believe it is called when a tax rate is changed and has an impact on consumption—to send them in. The Government are confident in the OBR’s independence, but I will always want to ensure that we are putting forward accurate costings. In this instance, I believe that the OBR is in the right place when it comes to the elasticities, but Members should feel free to send in their own representations.

It is worth noting that freezing alcohol duty this year, if inflation was around 4%, would be equivalent to a 3.85% duty cut. Using HMRC’s published ready reckoner, this would cost the Exchequer roughly £440 million a year. It is right, therefore, that any decision on alcohol duty weighs the impact on overall revenues carefully. That is what I am confident that the Chancellor will do when she makes a decision in the Budget in just a few weeks.

I will try to run through some of the points made by Members in this debate. The hon. Members for Bridgwater, for Weald of Kent and for Farnham and Bordon, and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), raised the issue of small producer relief for wine. That question was considered in detail as part of the previous Government’s review into alcohol duty, and as I have said, we will look to review it three years after the implementation that took place on 1 August 2023. We want to gather data and really look at the impact of the reforms. If Members want to come forward with proposals for change, then they should do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

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?

[Dan Tomlinson]

The Government have assessed the impact of this policy. According to the estimates that we issued at the time of last year’s Budget, about 500 farms would pay additional tax as a result of the changes; those numbers were contested by all Opposition Members, but the CenTax report—which the hon. Member has said that he and others are interested in reading—backs them up and confirms the Government’s estimates.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

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?

[James Murray]

That question barely deserves a response. The business rates relief we inherited from the previous Government when we came into office was due to end entirely in April of this year. It is only because of us that it was extended for a year while we put in place permanently lower multipliers for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses. Those are businesses on high streets right across our country, and that will be announced at the Budget on 26 November.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 9th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

The Government want to drive growth through house building, but even before the departure of the Deputy Prime Minister, they were predicted to miss the 1.5 million new homes target by half a million. How does the Chancellor and her team of tax raisers think a 3,000% hike in the builders tax, adding £28,000 to the cost of building a new home, will help to deliver the new homes that young people need? Rather than consult on it, why will she not rule out this damaging tax rise?

[Rachel Reeves]

I think Opposition Members will recognise that building companies have strongly welcomed the reforms we have made to get the country building, and they are very much against the Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and others in the House of Lords opposing the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, which could have been given Royal Assent by now without that opposition. Instead of scaremongering about something that is being consulted on, the shadow Minister might want to get on and back the positive things that the Government are doing.

Finally, I pay tribute to the former Deputy Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), for the amazing work she did to get housing on the agenda to build the 1.5 million homes that this country desperately needs, and for being an inspiration for so many people from working-class backgrounds. I applaud her efforts and her work.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

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?

[Rachel Reeves]

It was the hon. Member’s Government, when they were on this side of the House, who froze those allowances, taking more money out of the pockets of working people. Despite that, they left a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. I will take no lessons from Conservative party, which has opposed everything that is needed to invest in our public services. We are in the mess we are in because of the damage that it caused.

Business Rates Relief: High-street Businesses

James Wild Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

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.

[Jess Brown-Fuller (Chichester) (LD)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in congratulating Robin’s Nest coffee shop in my constituency, which has just celebrated its first birthday. In the year that the shop has been open, its owners have seen their business rates double, and they have written to me to say that they might not make it to their second birthday. Does he agree that business rate reform cannot come soon enough and that it would be a crying shame to lose such high street businesses?

[James Wild]

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.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call the Minister, James Murray.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Wild Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

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?

[Darren Jones]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s encouragement. That is why we are investing in home-grown secure energy, including renewables, nuclear and other forms of energy. In yesterday’s UK-EU trade deal—which I am sure the shadow Minister would like to welcome—we have enhanced our arrangements with the European Union on electricity trading, enabling us to export energy we produce in the UK to the European Union and vice versa. That will ensure energy security, as well as good jobs and good businesses in the energy sector, for decades to come.

Income Tax: Personal Allowance

James Wild Excerpts

Monday 12th May 2025 Westminster Hall

[James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Wild]

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?

[James Murray]

Many employers recognise that having a productive, secure workforce who can take pride in their jobs and contribute to their fullest ability at work is important not just for the employees themselves but for the productivity of the businesses. That is why we want to see workers with employment rights that will be upgraded through our plan to make work pay, alongside, as I mentioned a few moments ago, a stronger national living wage and national minimum wage under this Government.

That focuses, however, on working people and their rights at work and their incomes. The petition also raised concerns about the state pension being subject to income tax. In 2025-26 the personal allowance will continue to exceed the basic and full new state pension. That means that pensioners whose sole income is the full new state pension or basic state pension without any increments will not pay any income tax. The state pension continues to be the foundation of support available to pensioners, backed by the Government’s commitment to the triple lock.

This year, over 12 million pensioners have benefited from a 4.1% increase to their basic or new state pension, which means that those on the full new state pension will get an additional £470. Over the course of this Parliament, the yearly amount of the full new state pension is currently projected to go up by around £1,900, based on the latest forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility. The Government also support pensioners through a range of other means, including free eye tests, NHS prescriptions and bus passes. For pensioners who are eligible for means-tested support, we provide pension credit and housing benefit.

I recognise the substantial support for this petition. Hard-working people and pensioners who have worked hard all their lives want taxes to be as low as possible; I understand that. However, as we have set out today, we inherited a mess from the previous Government and have had to take tough choices to set us on a path to generate economic growth. Raising the personal allowance to £20,000 would undermine the work that the Chancellor has done to restore fiscal responsibility and economic stability, and it would slash the funding available for vital public services. This Government remain committed to keeping people’s taxes as low as possible while ensuring fiscal responsibility. Fiscal recklessness hits working people and pensioners the hardest. Parties promising to raise the personal allowance to £20,000 would have to explain how they would cut the NHS by a quarter, or why they want a rerun of the economic disaster we saw under Liz Truss.

We as a Government are determined to go further and faster to deliver our plan for change with its key goal of putting more money in people’s pockets by kick-starting economic growth. We will always keep taxes as low as possible while never putting security for families and pensioners at risk. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken.