James Wild

Party	Office	Area	Period	Began	Ended	Source
Conservative	MP	North West Norfolk	12 Dec 2019 – present	elected	—	Party history

Latest on this tracker 472

2 Nov 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Social Media: Ban for Under-16s
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on the way he introduced it and spoke up for those who signed the petition. I have some sympathy for the position that Leo and the other signatories set out opposing restrictions on social media for under-16s. When the debate on this issue began, I was initially sceptical that increasing the age limit was the appropriate response; there are many good uses of tech for young people that they should be free to explore. However, the wider debate has been running for some considerable time. Nearly 20 years have passed since I was working for T-Mobile on the Byron review, which looked at online child safety. The focus then was on platforms taking responsibility for protecting young people. Sadly, they have failed to do that. On balance, therefore, I agree that the evidence and experience demonstrate that increasing the age limit is necessary to protect children from harm. We know that social media platforms and the algorithms driving them are designed to be addictive. They can expose children to pornography, violence, bullying, sexual abuse and other extreme content, with damaging and, very sadly, tragic consequences. The Conservatives believe that parents have ultimate responsibility for their children, but we also acknowledge the challenge they face in keeping their children safe online. The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Laura Kyrke-Smith) set out this point clearly: an activity that would not be tolerated in the real world has been normalised, monetised and amplified online. That is why the shadow Education Secretary, as well as my noble Friend Lord Nash and many hon. Members from across the House campaigned to secure restrictions on platforms, working with parents and bereaved families. I welcome the announcement the Government made in June to bring forward restrictions on platforms that will protect children and help parents. However, a theme throughout the debate has been that the success of the policy will depend on its implementation. In that context, I was concerned by Ofcom’s recent report on the Online Safety Act, which found no statistically significant reduction in the proportion of children encountering harmful online content during the first nine months after the new child safety duties took effect. That is clearly disappointing and worrying. Laws need to be implemented effectively. The Government have said they intend to publish the first set of regulations for the age limit before the end of this year, to take effect in the spring. Can the Minister confirm that that timetable remains the same? If it is, when will the regulations be published, given we are now in November? We should, as others have said, learn from Australia’s restrictions and where they have been bypassed. Last week, Ofcom published its review of age-verification tools and recommended four methods: photo ID, digital ID, face-age estimation technology, and banking-based checks. Supporting child protection does not mean endorsing any age-checking system or the unnecessary collection of personal data, so that review raises a number of questions that I want to put to the Minister. First, does the Minister agree that, as far as possible, information held by platforms should be used in the first instance for adults? How will they keep to a minimum the requirement to provide photo ID and use face-scanning technology as much as possible? Clearly, there are privacy issues at hand here, so what protections should be in place for users’ data? For the avoidance of doubt, will he rule out mandatory digital ID as a requirement for accessing social media? In that report, Ofcom estimates that around 150,000 16 and 17-year-olds across the UK hold neither a passport nor a provisional driving licence. How will the Government inform those young people of options such as a citizen card, which they can get for free? Is the Minister looking at age verification at app store level as a means not only of more reliable protection of children, but of reducing friction for adults accessing social media? Of course, we have to accept that no system is foolproof, but that does not mean that we should take no action. Having effective controls and penalties, which the chief executive of Ofcom spoke about in media interviews last week, will reduce the likelihood of under-16s being exposed to damaging content, which is our objective. Finally, in September, the Secretary of State made a statement regarding nude images and said that due to the lack of progress on voluntary measures, legislation would be introduced to “strengthen device-level protections” to prevent “children from taking, sharing or viewing nude images on phones and tablets.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 917.] What progress has there been in the last two months to prepare that legislation, or indeed secure commitments from major tech companies to develop and implement such protections to stop children being abused and groomed? Our role as legislators is to ensure that the laws we pass are necessary, effective and proportionate. Protecting children from harm is a duty that all Members take incredibly seriously wherever they fall on this specific issue. The public consultation and the conversations that I have had show that there is support for action to introduce effective age-based access to social media as part of wider measures to protect children. Now the focus must be on getting the implementation right.
Hansard source
27 Oct 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on picking up the mantle and securing this debate. It gives us an important opportunity to debate the merits of recognising the importance of the production and serving of cask ale, as an example of our living cultural heritage. This debate has been all one way so far and I will not be changing that. Cask ale is more than a drink; it reflects the combination of craftmanship, knowledge, tradition and community. Cask is produced by hundreds of small breweries, often using British hops and malt. My own county of Norfolk has a fine real ale brewing tradition, with our first-class malted barley. I should mention Duration Brewing in West Acre and its Grasshopper beer, which I was enjoying last weekend. As we have just celebrated Trafalgar Day, I also mention Woodforde’s Nelson’s Revenge. As CAMRA, which does so much to champion it, says, cask ale is synonymous with our great British pub. Its significance lies not only in what is brewed, but in the craftmanship involved, in how it is made and served, and in how it brings people together. Because the final conditioning happens at the pub, both the brewer and the publican must have specialist knowledge. Much of that knowledge is practical and acquired through experience, and skills are often passed through generations. It is precisely that kind of living knowledge that intangible cultural heritage seeks to recognise and protect. Our brewing traditions reflect our local areas and local beer styles. By taking this step of recognition, we could safeguard a living tradition that has helped shape the cultural and social life of Britain for generations. The opportunity to recognise cask ale under the UNESCO convention follows its ratification by the last Conservation Government in 2024. I was talking to my noble Friend Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, who personally secured the ratification to support awareness of heritage and potentially increase demand across our country. For cask ale, such awareness could help support inward tourism—we have heard about the importance that people attach to the experience of a pint in a pub across the country. This debate comes at a time when the sector is facing challenges, as we have heard. SIBA has reported a 20% reduction in cask consumption year on year—part of a longer-term decline. Despite that, it is worth noting that smaller independent brewers are finding success in the sector—compared to some of the larger breweries that are withdrawing from the market. We heard a passionate speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson) railing against Carlsberg’s recent decision. Breweries benefitting from small brewer relief now account for 58% of the cask market—up from 40% a decade ago. Small brewer success is centred on local pubs, community spaces and taprooms offering experiences that people want to go and enjoy. It is also important to recognise the role that beer festivals play in supporting cask ale, by introducing new people to the delights and the taste of cask ale. The Norwich beer festival is this week, and I heartily recommend it to everyone. I am planning to be there because I will be part of the judging panel for the champion bottled beer of Britain. It is hard work, but someone has to do it. Tomorrow, we have the Budget. UK beer duty is the second highest in Europe—nearly 12 times more than most of our European counterparts. The Prime Minister has talked about giving everyone breathing space, as well as pork scratchings. The practical way to do that would be to increase draught relief, as a number of hon. Members have referred to, which was introduced by the last Government. Along with many members of the all-party parliamentary beer group, I have signed a letter to the Chancellor calling on him to freeze beer duty and to increase draught relief to 30%, which would take 10p off a pint. We also need to see action on business rates, employment costs and energy prices. Cask ale culture has been submitted as an expression of interest, strongly backed by the 40,000 people who signed the petition and by hon. Members across the House. The Government have said that the panel is reviewing that submission. Can the Minister tell us when she expects a final decision to be taken? Will she also confirm how the Government intend to meet the requirements under articles 13 to 15, regarding measures to safeguard living heritage? Such recognition for cask ale would show that cultural heritage is not simply about buildings and monuments; it is about traditions, customs and our communities.
Hansard source
26 Oct 2026ParliamentJames Wild
The Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026
As the Secretary of State set out, the order introduces a new public interest test for mergers, enabling Government intervention where a transaction could threaten continuity of telecoms services. I think the objectives to protect critical infrastructure, safeguard public services and ensure that vulnerable customers are not left without connectivity will be supported across the Committee. However, the context for the order is a specific case concerning BT, TalkTalk and the 2.5 million customers involved—including, BT informs me, 5,000 in my North West Norfolk constituency. It also highlights regulatory gaps when a company in this sector may simply fold, and the need to protect customers. We will not oppose the order, but it raises important questions about the speed of the process, the potential impact on competition and, importantly, investor sentiment. I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State thought it appropriate for her to come to the Committee, which underlines the concerns that are shared across parts of the sector. Let me turn first to the speed at which the intervention notice and the statutory instrument have come forward. As the Secretary of State said, she issued the notice on 5 October. The Competition and Markets Authority was then given only 10 working days to consider the transaction. Interested parties in a dynamic sector had only a few days to make representations on a detailed transaction. There is a concern that the transaction will further entrench BT’s significant role in the retail and wholesale markets. The Competition and Markets Authority has completed the phase 1 report, but we do not know what is in it or whether the Secretary of State will judge that a phase 2 study is appropriate. Can the Secretary of State confirm that adding this intervention power to the Enterprise Act through the order will provide the Government with a basis to override any competition concerns raised by the CMA or other parties? Of course, vulnerable consumers and public services need to be protected. Having worked in the telecoms sector a little while ago, when T-Mobile was still a retail brand in the UK, I am a little surprised that existing legislation, general conditions and other Ofcom powers could not have been used in this scenario. Can the Secretary of State assure the Committee that all alternatives were looked at? Outwith the order, is she looking further at this point and at how a supplier of last resort regime could be introduced, with reference to models from other essential services? Clearly, the transaction raises competition issues. Given the comments that were made when the intervention notice was issued and the approach taken with the order, the Government risk creating the impression that the outcome has effectively been decided in advance, limiting the ability of the competition authority to discharge its role in full. We should be very careful before setting aside competition implications for wider public interest considerations, particularly when the goal set by the Secretary of State—avoiding the loss of service—has been achieved. Clearly, we want to avoid any precedent where financial distress enables further market consolidation without appropriate scrutiny. How do the Government intend to reassure inward investors that the principle of encouraging competitive markets and investment remains to the fore? Can the Secretary of State assure other players in the sector that she will consider seriously the competitive impacts that may have been raised by the CMA—they have certainly been raised by a number of companies that have spoken to me—when she decides what the next steps are? Is she confident that the CMA had sufficient opportunity, in only 10 working days, to fully assess the implications of the transaction? Can she indicate when she might respond to the referral? We support the objective of the order in protecting consumers and maintaining vital telecoms services; however, we also support effective competition, proper scrutiny and confidence in the independence of the process. I therefore look forward to the Secretary of State’s response to the concerns and questions I have raised.
Hansard source
22 Oct 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Saudi Arabia: RAF Support
In April last year, the RAF joined the US’s Operation Rough Rider to degrade Houthi ballistic missile and drone attacks. At the time, I asked the then Secretary of State to ensure that that was sustained action, rather than ad hoc action. Does the Minister regret that it was not sustained? If defensive action does not include striking potential launch sites, how will it make any difference at all?
Hansard source
20 Oct 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Topical Questions
On Saturday, I joined hundreds of people in King’s Lynn in protesting against leaked plans for Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group to downgrade accident and emergency and maternity services, and the intensive care unit, at the Queen Elizabeth hospital. Does the Health Secretary agree that services should be as local to people as possible, and will she reject any plans to remove services from the QEH?
Hansard source
14 Oct 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing the debate. I represent the Queen Elizabeth Hospital King’s Lynn trust, which serves 300,000 people across Norfolk, north Cambridgeshire and south Lincolnshire and was ranked 134th out of 134 trusts in the league table released in September last year. That very disappointing result was uncomfortable for the trust and its staff, but transparency can galvanise action. Performance is simply not good enough at the moment. Only 65% of cancer patients are treated within the 62-day timeframe, against the standard of 85%, and only 64% of patients at A&E are seen within four hours. The trust has also heard worrying reports from the Royal College of Surgeons about culture and management weaknesses, and in August the CQC rated emergency care as “requiring improvement”. When the league table was published, I was told by Health Ministers that intensive help would be made available to deliver better care, but it is not clear what extra support has actually been provided. Cancer and elective waiting times have improved slightly. A&E diagnostics have not. There have certainly been more reporting requirements, but they will not drive improved performance and productivity, nor will requiring a 10% budget saving or the current management instability. We had a temporary chief executive and then a supposedly permanent appointment, and there is currently no recruitment for a managing director, with the post being covered by the Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group deputy chief executive. We need visible, active, full-time leadership, on site, to deliver better care. What support is the national performance framework providing? A year on from the league table, how are Ministers holding the trust to account? Dedicated staff are working in a hospital that is not fit for purpose, which is why we secured a commitment, which this Government have honoured, to a new QEH. New facilities and improvements go hand in hand, but it should be about improving services, not removing them. That is why I am extremely concerned about leaked proposals showing that the Norfolk and Waveney University Hospitals Group is considering downgrading A&E, maternity and intensive care unit services. The plans have been drawn up behind closed doors, with no transparency, by organisations that are seemingly unaccountable and that fail to recognise the needs of my constituents and those across the area. Clinicians have warned of the impact on patient safety. The proposals are completely unacceptable and should be ruled out now. Indeed, the group leadership has repeatedly said publicly that it wants more services closer to home. If that is the case, those services must include a proper 24/7, tier 1 A&E; maternity services; and an ICU in King’s Lynn. QEH is at the heart of my community, and we all want to see sustained improvements. I urge the Minister to give my constituents and the staff at the hospital the reassurance they want by ruling out any downgrading of services at QEH on this Government’s watch.
Hansard source
8 Sep 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Media Green Paper
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Sir John Whittingdale) for securing this debate and setting out the issues in his usual, informed way, based on his expertise. I also thank all other colleagues who have contributed. The way we consume broadcast media is moving away from the traditional channels towards the huge amount of content available on demand and on video streaming platforms. I was struck by the Minister’s introduction to the Green Paper, in which he referred to watching “Noel’s House Party” on a Saturday with his family. I did the same, but that experience would be totally alien to many young people today—as reflected in the data, which shows that YouTube was the most watched service in the country last year. It was seen by more people every month than all BBC channels combined. Furthermore, video streaming services account for three quarters of all video time for audiences aged 16 to 24. The Green Paper is therefore right to grapple with some of the questions and implications. Let me begin with an area that has not been mentioned where there is common cause, namely the proposals on listed events and adding on-demand rights to the free-to-air listed sports regime, which we strongly support. However, one of the most controversial areas that has been covered in the debate is the plan to impose new regulations to make trustworthy news providers more easily discoverable on social media platforms. That may be well intentioned, but it is also deeply problematic and could undermine freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the free society that we enjoy. Are the Government really saying that the state will be the arbiter of what is trustworthy? Where would that leave channels such as GB News, which Ministers and right hon. and hon. Members have criticised and refused to appear on? Media organisations would benefit from the prominence regime only if they received approval from the state. That effectively means that a state body would decide what journalism people see. That would also have the effect of reducing visibility for independent content creators, community journalists and new media voices, thus undermining a free press. How would trustworthy news be defined? The paper suggests building on the recognised news publisher definition. That potentially covers thousands of titles and is so broad as to be meaningless. Many think this is simply an attempt to impose press regulation by the back door. The press regulation panel is explicit that only news publishers approved by a regulator should benefit. That would be completely unacceptable.
Hansard source
8 Sep 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Media Green Paper
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about the licence fee and the independence that it provides. Ministers need to focus on consumers and citizens. Platforms are built around personalisation, with individuals determining the sources of content they trust and want to access. User controls and labelling already exist. The Green Paper refers to misinformation and disinformation around the horrific Southport killings, in part to justify these proposals. However, we should note that the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation said that the information released by authorities after those appalling attacks was inadequate and led to those who wanted to spread disinformation being able to do so. Police forces now share more information as a result. Furthermore, where there are major incidents, people tend to turn to more traditional news outlets, whether that is local papers, radio stations or public service media. More broadly, Ofcom found that more than three quarters of people think it important to check different sources if they are unsure whether a news story is true. That provides some reassurance.
Hansard source
8 Sep 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Media Green Paper
Absolutely. The hon. Gentleman illustrates the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maldon. We should be having more and much longer debates about precisely these issues. I hope the Minister will at least rule out any notion that to qualify for prominence, if such a scheme is put in place, a publisher would need to sign up to a state-approved regulator. On the proposals for the digital switch-off from either 2034 or 2044, latest Barb data shows that 2.6 million households rely on terrestrial TV because they do not have broadband or internet-connected TV. However, usage is also declining; we have heard about the pressure that that puts on broadcasters using those channels to get to a declining level of households. For many of my constituents, including older people, people in low-income households, and those in rural and remote areas, Freeview remains essential. By 2034, according to the impact assessment in the Green Paper, 1.5 million households could still be reliant on traditional broadcast platforms. There are serious challenges to be addressed, not least in respect of proper broadband access. The Government must therefore have answers and must have what the Secretary of State referred to as “watertight” plans. Any switch-off date should be treated as conditional, setting out the tests that need to be met and the support for all those who may otherwise be left behind. I call on the Minister to provide clarity on the timeline for the decision on switch-off, and a commitment that vulnerable and rural communities will not be left behind. On the broader issue of the prominence of public service media content on video platforms, chapter 4 of the Green Paper states that the Government’s preference is that that be subject to “industry-led, voluntary agreements”. That must be the right approach. YouTube is already talking to public service providers on that basis, but there is no attempt in the Green Paper to qualify any legislative costs or impact should the Government go down that route. It is clear that transferring the concept from linear broadcast and prominence to that approach without imposing excessive costs will be challenging. In conclusion, the Green Paper focuses on a changing landscape and poses a series of fundamental questions that we need to spend more time considering.
Hansard source
3 Sep 2026ParliamentJames Wild
Tourism Industry
The visitor economy is worth £147 billion, supporting millions of jobs, but this Government have hammered the sector with higher taxes and they now plan a holiday tax. Perhaps there is some hope, however, as on Monday the Prime Minister told the House that he wants to go further than business rate relief for pubs and music venues. Will the Minister urge him to take up Conservative policy and scrap business rates for those venues as well as for restaurants, cafes, hotels and leisure attractions, and support that vital sector?
Hansard source

Party affiliation

Register of interests

Latest on this tracker 472

Social Media: Ban for Under-16s

Cask Ale: Intangible Cultural Heritage

The Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026

Saudi Arabia: RAF Support

Topical Questions

Underperforming NHS Trusts: Government Oversight

Media Green Paper

Media Green Paper

Media Green Paper

Tourism Industry