Mark Francois MP: speeches

Speeches

• 7 Mar 2025 · Wickford Station · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have been given this opportunity to raise a matter that is extremely important to my constituents, namely the rebuilding of Wickford station. I appreciate that the Rail Minister sits in the House of Lords, so he cannot be present to respond to the debate. I am grateful to his ministerial colleague, the Local Transport Minister, for being present in lieu, especially on a Friday afternoon when, no doubt, he also had pressing constituency demands. I thank him for that. Before I get into the matter of the station itself, perhaps I can explain for context why its proposed redevelopment is so important for the regeneration of Wickford, the second largest town in my constituency. Wickford and my constituents who live there have been through a tough time over the last few years since the covid pandemic. We have seen a number of banks and several other retail outlets close on the high street, and footfall is not as high as local traders would like. The police station closed several years ago, although I understand that Basildon borough council, the local authority, has plans to redevelop the site as a community hub. We used to have two medium-sized supermarkets in the town: a relatively new one run by Aldi and a more long-standing one run by the Co-op. Unfortunately, the Co-op store closed several years ago, while Aldi demolished its old store in order to build a new, enlarged version. The net effect was that for over a year the town had no supermarket of its own, other than a small Iceland in the high street. That meant that my constituents often had to travel some distance to conduct their weekly shop. On top of that, there have been quite a number of flats built in the town in the past few years, which has meant that we have lost quite a lot of car parking space, particularly as a large part of the town’s main car park, located next to the old Co-op site, has been blocked off, making the town a more difficult place to visit for those who have to come by car as opposed to rail. I am pleased to report that Aldi rebuilt its store, which is at the bottom of a shallow slope leading directly down from Wickford station, and I had the honour of reopening it back in November 2023. In addition, the developers who own the old Co-op site, which is a five-minute walk from Wickford station, have submitted planning permission to Basildon borough council to demolish it and rebuild a brand-new store with a number of low-rise flats on top. We are very hopeful that they will soon succeed in agreeing a lease with a major supermarket chain, the name of which I have been asked not to mention because the negotiations have not yet concluded but is an open secret across the entire town. I very much hope that the negotiations will come rapidly to a close and then the company concerned can make a formal announcement. Lastly, there have been a considerable number of roadworks in Wickford over the last few years, some of which have, unfortunately, overrun badly, including some not far from Wickford station itself. By far the worst transgressor in this regard is Cadent, which principally maintains gas infrastructure. It has further works planned in Wickford and other parts of my constituency, including Hockley, where the residents are so fed up with endless roadworks that some have nicknamed the village “Blockley”. In my experience, Cadent often starts late and clocks off early, which means that its works take far longer than would be necessary otherwise. It is one of the least productive companies I have ever seen. As I have a Transport Minister in front of me, I must tell him how appallingly Cadent has behaved with regard to my constituents. I hope we can follow that up separately, perhaps with his colleague the Roads Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I mention all this to convey to the Minister that the town has gone through something of a tough time in recent years. As the local MP, I am very keen to promote its regeneration. That, I hope, segues nicely to the situation at Wickford station itself. The issue arises because several years ago, Abellio Greater Anglia—as it was then known—demolished half of Wickford station in order to extend the platforms for a new fleet of 720-class trains. Those new trains were designed to replace relatively old class 321 rolling stock, which unfortunately suffered from quite a lot of reliability issues—I can see the Minister nodding. I am pleased to tell the House that since the new class of trains have been introduced, reliability has improved markedly, so in that respect my constituents have been getting a better service. However, the long-promised rebuild of the station has yet to occur. At present, Wickford station basically consists of several platforms, an old footbridge without a lift, and a number of very unattractive portacabins. I hope the Minister will accept that that is hardly a station fit for the 21st century. The whole issue of rebuilding the station has turned into something of a Norse saga. I will not try the Minister’s patience this afternoon by attempting to recount every single twist and turn of the tale; suffice to say, the rebuild is long overdue. For several years, I have been consistently lobbying the Department for Transport to try to achieve the reconstruction of the station. As part of that effort, I made representations to the then Rail Minister, Huw Merriman MP. I am pleased to say that I managed to persuade him to ensure that funding was provided by the Department to allow Greater Anglia to undertake the work. I then told my constituents in all good faith that we finally had the money, and that I was therefore confident that works would begin. In addition, Greater Anglia is part-owned by Mitsui, a very large Japanese corporation headquartered in Tokyo that has a number of global investments in different sectors, including transport. Back in March 2024—prior to the general election—I was serving on the House of Commons Defence Committee when we undertook a trip to Tokyo in order to prepare a report into the new global combat air programme, which aims to be the RAF’s new Spitfire for the 21st century. As we were in Tokyo anyway, in order to try to progress the rebuilding of Wickford station, I took the opportunity to try to organise a meeting with Mr Hayato Iiyama, who is the deputy general manager of Mitsui’s mobility and industrial business division, and as such oversees that corporation’s transport-related investments in the UK. The embassy absolutely went the extra mile—or perhaps I should say track—and managed to set up that meeting. I was delighted to spend over an hour with Mr Iiyama to familiarise him with the background and context of the issue. I think it is fair to say that as an investor in Greater Anglia, he was very supportive, and undertook to see what he could do to help. I place my thanks to both him and Mitsui on the record. I should also like to thank the British ambassador, Ms Julia Longbottom, and her staff for helping to facilitate our discussion. I subsequently joked with her that when the new station eventually opens, I would like to see a plaque saying, “This station was rebuilt with the assistance of the British embassy in Tokyo.” If representatives of Greater Anglia are listening to this debate, as I hope they are—I have a funny feeling that they are—that is the least they could do after all of this. Back in Britain, following the general election, Greater Anglia initiated a competition for a contractor to rebuild Wickford station. Unfortunately, because the programme itself had been subject to multiple delays, by the time the bids came back, it had slightly exceeded the originally allocated budget. Nevertheless, I understand that Greater Anglia has negotiated with the Department, which has managed to provide some extra resource so that the project can now go ahead—I thank the Department for that. On 28 February 2025, Greater Anglia formally announced that a contract to rebuild the station had been signed with Walker Construction, and that the rebuild of the station would finally go ahead. Indeed, Martin Beable, the managing director of Greater Anglia, said at the time, to quote from its press release: “We are glad to confirm that the contract for the station upgrade at Wickford is now signed. We look forward to confirming details of the timings for the delivery of the scheme later in the Spring and then to the implementation of the project to provide customers with better facilities at the station.” On that point, as someone who campaigned hard during the previous Parliament against what I described at the time as misguided proposals to remove the ticket offices in the majority of stations across the country, I am pleased to see that not only were those proposals abandoned, but the new design at Wickford station will include a ticket office. Indeed, the new design is, as I understand it, likely to be used as a model for the construction or reconstruction of other small and medium-sized stations across the country. As part of the design, there is an iconic clock tower—or so says the marketing material—on which people seem to have firm views either one way or the other. For the record, I quite like the look of it, but I appreciate that some of my constituents have different architectural tastes, shall we say. Nevertheless, the overall design is a good one, and the sooner they start building it, the better. Having been in a lot of discussions with Greater Anglia over this project for several years now, I hope the Minister will forgive me if I take the opportunity, at Greater Anglia’s request, to remind him of the Department’s proposals to upgrade Ely junction, which it believes is an urgent and critical priority, and which has widespread business and industry support across East Anglia. I hope the Minister will forgive my cheek in taking this occasion to remind him of that priority. Turning to the timings of the station rebuild project, given the history of all this, I can understand why Greater Anglia is cautious about providing timings for the programme because were they to be exceeded—for instance, because of bad weather during the construction phase—there would be a further wave of criticism from my constituents. Nevertheless, I do think it is reasonable to give my constituents at least some indication of how long all this will take. Having spoken recently with the organisation, Greater Anglia is confident enough for me to say that it expects work to begin on the site this summer and that the work will be completed by 2026 at the latest, though it is hopeful that it might be able to shave some time off that, particularly if the good Lord is kind with the weather, which I very much hope He may yet be. I appreciate that there will be some inevitable disruption at the station while the works are undertaken. Nevertheless, Greater Anglia assures me that it will do everything it can to run a train service while the work is under way. There is one additional issue that I would like to raise with the Minister regarding disabled access. A number of my constituents have contacted me to express their dismay that the proposed design does not include wheelchair-accessible facilities, such that people would still need to negotiate the old footbridge to reach the London-bound platforms. I note in passing that when the new station was constructed at London Southend airport several years ago, it included full disabled access as part of the design. I understand that would normally be facilitated by an Access for All grant, which Greater Anglia has previously applied for, but unfortunately it has been unsuccessful, at least to date. Perhaps the Minister would allow me to put in a plug for any future resources, which might yet be looked on more favourably, to solve this problem. While such facilities would clearly be desirable, especially for my disabled constituents, given all the previous delays to the project, the absolute priority must be getting the rebuild under way. If we could eventually achieve full disabled access, that would be the icing on the cake. To summarise, I thank the Minister for listening to my impassioned plea on behalf of my constituents after years of delay to finally get Wickford station rebuilt. As I said earlier, this has been a Norse saga with a whole number of twists and turns, but now that Greater Anglia has finally signed the building contract with Walker Construction, I hope that work can get under way this summer, and hopefully be completed by the end of 2026 at the latest and ideally sooner. Having campaigned hard in the previous Parliament to maintain ticket offices in our stations across the country, I am pleased to note that the design of the new Wickford station will indeed contain a ticket office, as I believe that it is an important element of customer service. I am sure that my constituents will welcome the fact that the new station will have one as well. While the current design for the new station, which will be used as a model for other new small and medium-sized stations across the country, does not include full disabled access, I hope that at some point that will be provided at Wickford as well. In the meantime, I am very pleased that the long-awaited rebuild of Wickford station will now finally go ahead, in order to serve my constituents and provide what they have long asked for: a station in Wickford that is fit for the 21st century. I thank the Minister for his patience as I have outlined so much of the background to the story. I now very much look forward to his reply.

• 7 Mar 2025 · Wickford Station · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he is obviously coming to a conclusion. I want to thank him again for being here this afternoon and for the support that has been given to the station rebuild. As the constituency MP, I am very grateful. I wonder if he could give me some comfort on one further point. The works will be extensive, so is it still the intention to try to maintain train services through Wickford, as far as possible, while they take place?

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Factually, the article 5 mutual defence clause of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once in its history. That was by the United States after 9/11, when President Bush ruled that America had been attacked and NATO in Europe—particularly Britain—came to its aid. Does my right hon. Friend think it is worth bearing that in mind as these very important discussions take place in Washington?

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  The whole House will recall that when Russian tanks were bearing down on Kyiv, President Zelensky was offered a ride out for his own personal safety. He famously replied, “I don’t need a ride. I need ammunition.” That was Churchillian heroism, wasn’t it?

• 27 Feb 2025 · War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary · Hansard source

  More

  He is ever present.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  This is absolutely risible.

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  We have it from the telecoms Minister that the International Telecommunication Union has no power to veto the use of military spectrum, so it could not interfere with satellites. That is the Government’s official position; does the Minister now wish to correct her remarks?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way on exactly that point?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I apologise, but to prevent the Minister from inadvertently misleading the House, in answer to a parliamentary question, we have it from Sir Chris Bryant, ironically—

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 26 Feb 2025 · British Indian Ocean Territory · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister give way?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Open Access Railway Services · Hansard source

  More

  Talking of access, several years ago, Greater Anglia demolished half of Wickford station to extend some of the platforms. However, after nearly three years of endless excuses, missed deadlines and, frankly, broken promises, it still has not rebuilt it. I regret to say that I have lost all confidence in the senior management of Greater Anglia. If they told me today was a Thursday, I would double-check it. Can I go over their head and ask the Secretary of State for a personal meeting with the Rail Minister so that we can finally get Wickford station rebuilt, despite Greater Anglia, rather than because of it?

• 13 Feb 2025 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  When?

• 12 Feb 2025 · Prevent: Learning Review · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his generous tribute to Sir David. Southend is now a city, so we comfort ourselves that on that, at least, he won in the end. We all miss him, not least myself. I welcome what the Minister said about an inquiry into whether Essex police could have done more to protect him. I welcome the Speaker’s Conference on MPs’ security. The Minister knows that I have great regard for him, but I regret to hear that Prevent may have acted sub-optimally—that is an appalling Whitehall euphemism for errors that may have contributed to the death of an MP in the line of duty. In addition to those possible failures, the murderer in Southport had multiple interactions with Prevent, yet still those three innocent children were tragically murdered. We have spent a fortune on Prevent, but it seems that, ultimately, it does not do what it says on the tin. I understand that the Amess family, rightfully seeking answers, have asked if the errors that may have occurred in Sir David’s case, and that almost certainly occurred in Southport, could be looked into in more detail under the auspices of the Southport inquiry. That seems a reasonable request, given the exceptional circumstances. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary, who rightly is in her place beside him, consider that request very seriously, and hopefully grant it?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Clonoe Inquest · Hansard source

  More

  By repealing the Bill.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Travel Advice · Hansard source

  More

  On the point about the extent of guidance, with my recent gas bill, I got a leaflet from British Gas—which I take to be authoritative—warning about the dangers of carbon monoxide poisoning. It estimated that about 50 people had died from it in the UK in the previous year. That is slightly higher than but similar to the APPG’s estimate. British Gas is warning people here in the UK. Given what has happened, it would not be a great deal of skin off the Minister’s nose if we were able to say that the Government will make including that a standard part of travel advice for Brits going abroad. Can I invite him, with the family here, to do the right thing?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Carbon Monoxide Poisoning: Travel Advice · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this debate, which, as he said, is very important to Cathy and her family, some of whom have graced us with their presence this afternoon. Although this was a tragic loss of a young man in his prime, does the hon. Member agree that if other lives are saved because better precautions are taken, some good might yet come for others from the family’s tragic bereavement?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Armed Forces: Death-in-service Payments · Hansard source

  More

  The Forces Pension Society has already stated that levying inheritance tax on death-in-service benefits would be wholly counter to the armed forces covenant, and we Conservatives wholly agree. The consultation by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on that proposal closed on 22 January. On what day did the MOD submit its response to that key consultation—presumably in defence of service families’ interests—and will the Minister place a copy of that response in the Library?

• 10 Feb 2025 · Armed Forces: Death-in-service Payments · Hansard source

  More

  I commend the Minister on his Distinguished Service Order—we all do—but in answer to a parliamentary question, we were told: “The Ministry of Defence has not made a formal response to HM Revenue and Customs’ technical consultation.” It really should have done. Who in their right mind would soldier for a Government who do not have their back, whether on school fees, lawfare or inheritance tax, or worse, do not have the back of their family if they die unmarried and in service?

• 5 Feb 2025 · English Devolution and Local Government · Hansard source

  More

  Labour is cancelling the local elections for antidemocratic reasons—it is as simple as that. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear it, but it is as simple as that. If the Secretary of State really believes that there is widespread public support in Essex for this devolution process, let us have a referendum to prove it. And finally, if local government is as skint as she says, why is this Government going pay 18 billion quid to Mauritius to rent back a base that we already own? How does that help local government?

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you for calling me to speak in this important debate, Ms Vaz. I look forward to serving under your chairmanship this afternoon. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), for so ably introducing the debate and for doing it in such an empathetic manner. He mentioned that the Petitions Committee initiated a survey to gather further data on the extent of this situation, and I commend the Committee for its initiative in doing this. I will refer to some of the findings from that survey shortly. We are here today to debate e-petition 638449, which calls for career breaks for parents of seriously ill children. Let me give the House some background to what led us here this afternoon. I am proud that the originator of this petition, Christina Harris, is my constituent. She emailed me back in early summer 2023, explaining the circumstances that she faced in trying to care for her lovely daughter, Skye, who was undergoing a course of serious medical treatment, about which her employer, a local estate agent, seemed quite unsympathetic. Having read her email, I invited her to come to one of my regular twice-monthly constituency advice surgeries, and she duly arrived there in July 2023, by which time the number of responses to her petition was already into five figures. When we met, Christina and I discussed at some length the background to Skye’s condition and the pressure that it had put on Christina as she tried to juggle work and family responsibilities in caring for her daughter as any loving parent would want to do. Christina seemed to me to be very focused on what she was trying to achieve. She had what the military call “a very clear sense of mission”, and she told me she was determined to achieve the 100,000 signature threshold in order to provoke a debate in Parliament. I must confess that, while I was sympathetic to what she was trying to achieve, I did explain that gathering 100,000 signatures was no mean feat, and it could prove to be quite a challenging endeavour. I am pleased to report to the House that Christina was completely undeterred and assured me of her absolute determination to press on. Importantly, she said, she was doing this not just for her daughter, but on behalf of other families who find themselves in similar, very difficult circumstances; she was doing it for them too. By the autumn, Christina had made dramatic progress and her petition had breached the 100,000 signature threshold. This resulted in the two of us visiting 10 Downing Street to deposit a hard copy of the petition as an aid to her campaign. This subsequently generated a degree of positive publicity, including from the BBC and our local newspaper back in south Essex, the Echo , which has been very supportive. Given her tremendous efforts in this regard, I am delighted to report that Christina is present in the gallery this afternoon to witness the debate, and that she has brought Skye with her so that she can appreciate her mother’s efforts for herself. Very importantly—and with Skye’s permission—I am delighted to report that she has rung the bell and is now in remission. May God grant that that remains so. As well as congratulating Christina and Skye, I place on record the fact that of the top 10 constituencies which have generated signatures in support of this petition, four of them are in Essex: Basildon and Billericay, with 1,034 signatures; Castle Point, with 1,304 signatures; Maldon, with 1,324 signatures; and my own constituency of Rayleigh and Wickford, which—I say this with a certain degree of pride—topped the league with 2,096 signatures, although the credit for that goes entirely to Christina and her supporters, not to me. Unfortunately, as has already been mentioned, we do not have firm statistics on how many families find themselves in this predicament, but it may be instructive that some 9,609 respondents to the Petitions Committee survey left comments or suggestions in their reply, and of that number, 12%, or 1,153 respondents, declared that they were parents or guardians in those circumstances. It would therefore be wrong to dismiss this problem as affecting only a handful of families this year; it appears to be wider than that. Although Skye was fortunate to receive treatment at Great Ormond Street hospital, which is a world-class institution for the care of sick children, it nevertheless placed a great deal of strain on Christina and her family. Unfortunately, Christina was ultimately dismissed by her employer because she had prioritised the care of her child over her career. For the record, Christina attempted to negotiate with her employer over a period of time to come up with some kind of flexible working arrangement, but ultimately her employer was unsympathetic. In response to this petition, a number of parents and guardians replied with their own experiences of being in that situation. Some of their accounts, hanks to benign employers, were positive. For instance, one wrote: “My husband and I have two separate careers in two separate fields. When our daughter was diagnosed with leukaemia at 7 months old, both of our employers supported us. We were both able to take leave and be paid for the entire duration of my daughter’s terminal illness... Our employers support to us, in what was literally a nightmare, was the reason we were able to stay by our daughter’s side at all times. She was never alone.” Similarly, another respondent reported: “The impact of my employer’s support greatly affected my ability to support my child. If my employer had not been so supportive and accommodating, the consequences of my child's diagnosis would have been far reaching in our lives and I am incredibly grateful.” Overall, 58% of those who responded said that their employer was either supportive or very supportive when their child was seriously ill. A similar proportion, 54%, reported being granted flexible working arrangements to help them to care for their child. Conversely, however, 30% of respondents who were parents or guardians said that they became unemployed or stopped working during or after the period when their child was ill. One of those respondents reported: “I was the sole earner, but we had young children at home, as well as our sick child. I was on unpaid leave for 6 months, with no financial support except from charitable help. It has taken years to climb out of the debt we were left in." The testimony of a nurse working with families in such situations is both instructive and moving. This nurse reported: “I have supported so many families as a children’s palliative care nurse who have had to go to work while their child was dying due to concerns of losing their job. Some of these families then lost their job during their child’s journey.” In practice, so much of this issue seems to come down to how supportive and understanding—or not—individual employers are prepared to be in these very difficult circumstances. Such circumstances can be even more challenging for those who are self-employed and risk receiving little income or no income at all if they choose to stop work to care for their child. It is important to restate that 99% of the respondents to the survey agreed with the proposition that career breaks should be granted to the parents of seriously ill children. In advance of this debate, I asked the House of Commons Library if it could provide some specialist advice on this issue and on what assistance is currently available to parents in what was Christina’s situation. As the Library reports, the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 introduced the right for employees to take up to one week’s unpaid leave each year to care for a dependant. That is helpful, but it in no way addresses the scale of the challenge in Christina and Skye’s circumstances. I also asked for the Library’s advice on whether the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently going through Parliament, would help to alleviate the problem. For the record, I have some reservations about the overall effect of the Bill on the jobs market and the Government’s growth objectives, but I wanted to know, in a non-partisan way, whether any measures in the Bill would assist parents in Christina’s situation. The Library’s conclusion was as follows: “Clauses 11 to 15 of the of the Employment Rights Bill would make some reforms to family related leave provisions. This is primarily around removing the qualifying periods for unpaid parental leave (sometimes called ‘ordinary’ parental leave and paternity leave), making them day one rights for all employees. Employees can take up to 18 weeks in total of unpaid parental leave up to their child’s 18 th birthday, with a maximum of four weeks per year, for any reason related to their parental responsibilities, which could for example, include caring for a seriously ill child”. However, the Library pointed out that there is no specific provision in the new legislation to allow for a career break for a parent with a seriously ill child. As the Library puts it, “You ask whether the Employment Rights Bill 2024/25 includes measures to require employers to offer career breaks for parents with a seriously ill child. In short, the Bill does not include such a provision.” I say again to the Minister that this is not meant to be a partisan point; it is just an attempt to summarise where we are in legal terms regarding what a parent in such terrible circumstances might be entitled to. When I previously discussed this matter with Christina, including at my surgery, she was well aware of the pressure on the public finances; she appreciates that any help that could be given in these circumstances would need to be finely targeted to protect the interests of the taxpayer. Nevertheless, given the relatively small number of families who find themselves in this situation each year—compared, for instance, with the number of families who might qualify for parental leave following the birth of a child—the public expenditure implications of any ameliorative action should be relatively modest. Moreover, Christina’s proposal is that a career break could even be unpaid, if that was the only way that the employer could afford to keep the job open. The employer might employ someone else to fill the role in the intervening period, but Christina is not suggesting that the employer would necessarily have to pay both the person who was filling in and the person having the career break. Given all that, I am genuinely interested in hearing from the Minister what proposals, if any, the Government are looking at to assist Christina’s family and other families in similar situations. Specifically, given that Christina has gone to all this time and trouble, what is the Government’s attitude towards her suggestion—and that of the signatories to the petition and respondents to the survey—that career breaks should be provided for the parents of seriously ill children? I place on the record my admiration for my constituent Christina Harris and her daughter Skye in bringing this important issue to Parliament. When I first met Christina two years ago, she told me that she was determined to achieve 100,000 signatures or more for her petition. I commend her for having succeeded, and for coming along with her daughter to witness these proceedings for herself, and thus seeing the results of her efforts. I emphasise again that each year a relatively small number of families find themselves in these very challenging circumstances and therefore that the public expenditure implications of any very targeted relief to aid parents whose seriously ill children make it very difficult for them to work, should be relatively modest. Indeed, Christina has suggested that granting a career break should even be unpaid if that is the only way of an employer keeping the job open. I hope that the Minister can provide some comfort to Christina and hold out hope for a solution to her and Skye, as well as other families who may find themselves in similarly challenging circumstances. I thank the more than 2,000 of my constituents in Rayleigh and Wickford, plus all others across Essex and indeed the United Kingdom, who took the time and trouble to add their names to the petition that has led to the debate today. It is a very good example of people power in action and I hope it will yet lead to a positive outcome, not just for Christina but for other families in a serious situation.

• 3 Feb 2025 · Career Breaks: Parents of Seriously Ill Children · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for his generous remarks about some of the speeches he has heard. For the record, he took the trouble before the debate began to introduce himself to my constituent, which I am sure was appreciated. I heard what the Minister just said. I was a Minister once, and sometimes, after a debate like this, I would go away and think, “Do you know what? I think they might have a point.” In the hope that he feels the same way, and having heard what he has just said about looking at potential solutions, can I ask whether he would be prepared, ideally before Easter, to meet my constituent and perhaps myself, along with his officials, for an exploratory conversation based on this debate to see what the art of the possible might be? He has met my constituent informally. Will he now meet her formally? I would be very grateful if he said yes.

• 28 Jan 2025 · Draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024 · Hansard source

  More

  Good morning, Mr Efford; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate the court martial rules 2024. Incidentally, when I served as the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about a decade or so ago, I attended part of a court martial during a ministerial visit to 16 Air Assault Brigade at Merville barracks in Colchester. There is a court martial centre there, and I witnessed part of a case and had the opportunity to observe the system in action at first hand. This SI seems to be relatively straightforward, but I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, I note that in the accompanying explanatory notes at point 2.1, it says that “Dr Andrew Murrison, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence People, and Service Families…confirms that this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard.” I raise that point because it suggests that the SI was approved by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), when he served as a Minister in that capacity under the previous Government. If that is correct, perhaps this Minister can explain to the Committee how long the SI has been in gestation, as the implications are that it appears to date back quite some time. Secondly, if I read the SI correctly, it seems to relate partly to sentencing provisions as well as the conduct of court martials. The Minister did not really say much about that in his remarks, so I wonder whether he could confirm that my understanding of that is correct. Thirdly, if this SI is passed this morning—I rather suspect it will be—as we are debating the 2024 court martial rules, and unless I am mistaken, it is now 2025, perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of when the rules will actually come into practical effect.

• 21 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.