Mark Francois MP: speeches

Speeches

• 10 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Q I have one more question on that subject. One issue that cropped up on Second Reading was the proposed UK veterans commissioner and how, if at all, this commissioner would interact with that commissioner. It is not clear how much progress has been made on the veterans commissioner; what is the RBL’s perspective on that? Do you have any concerns about the rate of progress on the UK-wide veterans commissioner? Angela Kitching: Yes. You will be aware that that was an open advert and people were being invited to apply just prior to the election. We have not yet heard an update on what will happen to that role. We think it is really important that there is a national veterans commissioner, as described. Clearly, the Armed Forces Commissioner will have a wider, deeper and better resourced role than any of the other commissioners. I think a lot could be learned, particularly from the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, because they report directly to Parliament. The Armed Forces Commissioner can look to that community of commissioners regularly to make sure that they pick up issues as people are leaving service.

• 9 Dec 2024 · Planning Committees: Reform · Hansard source

  More

  Labour-led Basildon borough council’s new draft plan is at the regulation 18 stage, but it proposes a completely unsustainable 27,000 new properties across the borough, including 4,300 in Wickford, in my constituency, which is completely unsustainable and would involve concreting over whole swathes of our local green belt. As well as reimposing mandatory housing targets, which are an insult to local democracy, why is Labour now trying to neuter local planning committees of democratically elected councillors, taking away the say of local people, when it is desperately difficult to persuade people to vote in local elections as it is?

• 27 Nov 2024 · Stellantis Luton · Hansard source

  More

  I commiserate with the workers in Luton who will lose their jobs. If Vauxhall is synonymous with Luton, Ford is synonymous with Essex. The Secretary of State referred to 800 Ford job losses, including at its research centre at Dunton, where many of my Rayleigh and Wickford constituents work. On electric vehicles specifically, I am a free trader by instinct, but what China is doing in that area is way beyond normal competitive practice. It is dumping electric vehicles very cheaply on world markets, a point highlighted by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne). What specifically do the Government intend to do about that to maintain fair competition and give British companies, including Ford and Vauxhall, a fair chance to compete?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I begin by reiterating that Conservative Members approach this Bill as critical friends, with a commitment to strengthening its impact for those who serve this country so bravely. This has been a good-quality debate, conducted in a notably bipartisan spirit. Another sub-theme has been the benign presence of a former Royal Marine mafia—they have been prevalent throughout the debate, from the Veterans Minister himself downwards. For the record, the Veterans Minister was present for the opening speeches, even though he was not allowed to contribute. We have had a number of extremely good Back-Bench speeches, from the hon. Members for Plymouth Moor View (Fred Thomas), for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), for Livingston (Gregor Poynton), for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell), for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), and—last but not least—for Aldershot (Alex Baker), as well as from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed). I am particularly indebted to the hon. Member for Bracknell, who mentioned that he has the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst in his constituency. In tonight’s debate, a number of tributes were paid by hon. Members who have relatives who serve in the armed forces. It is greatly to the House’s credit that we now have so many MPs who have either served in the armed forces, or have loved ones who do. My godson, Second Lieutenant Alexander Blackwell, passed out from the sovereign’s parade at RMA Sandhurst in August and is now a second lieutenant commissioned into the regular Army. I place on the record that I am as proud of him as all other hon. Members are of their family members. We also had a very accomplished maiden speech from the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). Not only was she lucid and entertaining, but it was the first occasion in my 23 years in this place on which I have known anyone to get Dracula into a maiden speech—she really got her teeth into it. More seriously, she invoked the memory of our fallen comrade Jo Cox and quite rightly pointed to her plaque, which is on the wall behind me. Of course, Jo is famous for her suggestion that as Members of Parliament, we have more in common than divides us. That was absolutely the spirit of this evening’s very good debate. At the core of this Bill, as I am sure the Minister will agree, lies a commitment to supporting our armed forces personnel. They deserve a system that not only honours their service, but ensures accountability and fairness in addressing their legitimate concerns. The Bill proposes a model similar to the German system, whereby the commissioner has what we might characterise as Ofsted-like powers, including the ability to enter military sites and access pertinent information for investigations. If executed correctly, this could enhance oversight, transparency and the lived experience of our servicemen and women, strengthening public confidence in how their issues are addressed. A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner with the right powers could be a powerful voice for our service personnel and veterans—I will come back to the topic of veterans—addressing their concerns fairly, transparently and promptly. We believe that this vision deserves cross-party support. However, there are details in the Bill that we intend to examine closely. We must ensure that it truly delivers on its promises without adding unnecessary complexity to the existing oversight system. As we support the vision of the Bill, we also have a duty to scrutinise how this new role will be implemented, how it will integrate into the current framework, and its implications for those already navigating the armed forces complaints system. In short, the challenge for Ministers will be to convince armed forces personnel and their families that this new legislation will represent real change, and will not just mean replacing the nameplate outside the office of the Service Complaints Ombudsman with a new one that says “Armed Forces Commissioner”. We support the vision, but the proof of the pudding really will be in the eating. I have questions that I hope the Minister will address in his winding-up speech. First, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition have concerns regarding the transition of cases outstanding with the Service Complaints Ombudsman, whose office will be abolished via clause 1. Some of those cases have been open for a considerable time, causing significant stress and frustration to those affected. Will the Minister explain what will happen to the many cases still outstanding with the current ombudsman? Will they be transferred automatically to the new commissioner? If so, what assurances can he give that the transition, which will follow Royal Assent, will not lead to further delays or the loss of critical information? Our service personnel deserve timely resolutions. Indeed, we must avoid any risk of cases slipping through the cracks during the handover. I hope he will accept that that is a perfectly legitimate concern. Secondly, what is the timeline for establishing the new commissioner role? Do the Government expect to have the commissioner in place by the time the strategic defence review reports in the first half of next year? Some cynics are already suggesting that that will be in late June 2025. If we could have confirmation on the timeline, that would be helpful. Thirdly, I come to financial questions. What will be the true cost of establishing and maintaining the commissioner? Paragraph 11(1) of proposed new schedule 14ZA to the Armed Forces Act 2006 states: “The Secretary of State may make payments and provide other financial assistance to the Commissioner.” What budget has been allocated to the commissioner’s office for 2024-25? Will that come from the MOD’s budget or from the Cabinet Office? Wherever it comes from, how much money are we talking about? The figure of £5 million has been mentioned a couple of times this evening; I wonder whether the Minister can confirm that. On the financial implications, how will that funding affect other essential services? As hon. Members in all parts of the House know, defence budgets are continually stretched. Fourthly, another critical area on which we would like further clarity is the authority that the commissioner will hold. Will this individual have the autonomy needed to genuinely advocate for our forces without interference? That point was stressed by the Chair of the Defence Committee, the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), in his very good contribution. How will the commissioner interact with the Defence Committee? The Secretary of State confirmed in his opening remarks that the Defence Committee will be involved in the appointment process. Will it have a veto on a proposed appointee if, for whatever reason, it has concerns that they might not be suitable? It is crucial that the Bill brings about measurable change that is beneficial to our service personnel. The proposal in the Bill that thematic reports be laid before Parliament each year is welcomed by the Opposition. Finally, as a number of hon. Members have asked, what about veterans? Clause 4 will amend the Armed Forces Act 2006 to allow the commissioner to investigate a “general service welfare matter…which, in the Commissioner’s opinion…arises in connection with the ongoing service of persons subject to service law…or relevant family members.” There is no direct reference to veterans, even though by definition they previously served in the armed forces, some of them for many years. Given that veterans also experience welfare issues—not least to do with the payment of pensions or outstanding claims from the armed forces compensation scheme—is there scope for allowing the new commissioner to take responsibility for examining those issues, too? The Royal British Legion states in its very good briefing note on the Bill: “RBL and Poppyscotland would like clarity on how the Armed Forces Commissioner will interact with the existing Veterans’ Commissioners for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the proposed National Veterans’ Commissioner.” When the Minister sums up, will he explain what the relationship will be between the new armed forces commissioner and the proposed national veterans commissioner? While he is at it, will he update us on the progress on the national veterans commissioner? On a related point, the well-respected Northern Ireland veterans commissioner Danny Kinahan resigned recently, for reasons that have not been made entirely clear. Will the Minister update the House on why he resigned, and what arrangements have been put in place for his replacement? As I have outlined, the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill represents an opportunity to enhance the support and advocacy that we provide to our armed forces. There is potential for the Bill to address some of the most pressing issues facing service personnel today, and to offer essential accountability and transparency to those who sacrifice so much in the service of our nation. It is crucial that we get this right. We are committed to working with the Government to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promise. We owe it to our armed forces to scrutinise the details thoroughly, so that this legislation does not become another layer of oversight that complicates the process, but rather provides streamlined and meaningful support. By addressing the issues we have raised today—the transition of outstanding ombudsman cases, the urgency of the timeline, the potential costs, the commissioner’s authority and the scope of support for veterans—we can avoid pitfalls. As we move forward and the Bill enters Committee, we will continue to work constructively with the Government in, I hope, the same bipartisan spirit that the whole House has clearly embodied this evening, pushing for clarity and advocating for the changes needed to make this legislation as truly impactful as I am sure that the Government and the Minister intend it to be. Our forces deserve nothing less. We stand ready to collaborate on securing a fair, accountable and effective system that upholds the highest standards for those who are serving and who have served, and their families. We thank them for their service.

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  When the Bill goes into Committee next month we shall be able to explore these issues in more detail, but—particularly for the benefit of the Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland—will the Minister, before he sits down, update the House on what point we have reached in respect of the national veterans commissioner?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is nice to be back. On recruitment, many who join the armed forces began their military journey as cadets. The previous Conservative Government’s cadet expansion programme successfully established hundreds of new cadet units in state schools. However, this Labour Government have recently withdrawn a critical £1 million-plus grant that supports cadet instructors in many of the very same state schools. Will the Government as a whole urgently review that very unwelcome decision?

• 18 Nov 2024 · Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the Minister’s kind welcome. On retention, how can we persuade people to remain in our armed forces if they sense that the new Government do not really have their back? In that context, will the Ministry of Defence start to defend its own veterans within Whitehall, and argue that the perverse plan to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 should be abandoned as soon as possible?

• 4 Nov 2024 · Roadworks (Regulation) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of roadworks; and for connected purposes. I introduced a very similar ten-minute rule Bill in the previous parliamentary Session, which unfortunately ran out of time. However, under the heading of the “Can the Cones” campaign, I am now seeking to reintroduce similar legislation to help tackle the issue of overrunning roadworks head on. One of the great frustrations of modern life is queuing for ages in a line of traffic, inching forwards to get through a set of contraflow traffic lights at the scene of some roadworks, only to then finally crawl past a large hole in the ground, heavily coned off, with absolutely no one working on the site. According to data highlighted by The Echo newspaper, recent freedom of information requests showed that during the 2021-22 financial year there were over 77,000 street and roadworks in my county of Essex, making it the most dug up county in Britain. But this is by no means an issue confined to Essex. Last week, we had a debate in Westminster Hall on this same subject, ably secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), who I am pleased to say is one of the sponsors of my Bill, which also has cross-party support. Last week’s debate was replied to by the Roads Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood). I am pleased to note that she is in her place on the Front Bench listening today, as she promised she would be. I thank the Minister for her courtesy. Roadworks can take place for a variety of reasons. Sometimes utility companies are carrying out repairs or maintenance, broadband providers laying new fibre, or property developers connecting new estates to the grid. In many cases, however, the common denominator is a lack of any palpable sense of urgency whatever to get the job done, regardless of the inconvenience caused to the travelling public. As a constituency MP, I have received a growing tide of complaints about the spiralling frequency of roadworks in recent years, with the gas utility company Cadent being by far the worst serial offender. Last year, in one of my villages, Hockley, a perfect storm of the above three things occurred and led to so many concurrent roadworks that the exasperated villagers, led by a very proactive local councillor, Adrian Eves, resorted to nicknaming their village “Blockley”. Given all that, the Bill essentially has three key aims. First, it would give local highways authorities, such as Essex county council, much stronger powers to control the granting of permits to anyone who wanted to dig up the highway network. This is a critical weakness in the current arrangements. Currently, highways authorities can only really refuse to grant a permit on safety grounds. If those applying for one deem the work to be an emergency, the authority’s ability to refuse is weaker still. And I am sad to report that people sometimes attempt to game the system. The Bill would allow refusal on the grounds of causing unacceptable disruption and would materially strengthen the hand of councils to negotiate much tighter conditions, including stricter deadlines when granting permits, so that companies would hopefully be prevented from overrunning in the first place. Secondly, the Bill would mandate highway authorities to take all practicable steps to deconflict roadworks in their areas to prevent multiple works in the same neighbourhood from leading to near gridlock, especially during peak periods. Under section 59 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991, local authorities are required to co-ordinate roadworks to minimise disruption to road users. It states that a street authority “shall use their best endeavours to co-ordinate the execution of works of all kinds”. Nevertheless, a few years ago we had near chaos in my home town of Rayleigh when several sets of roadworks on the main arteries in and out of the town were allowed to proceed at almost exactly the same time. When we subsequently looked into why, it turned out that the official at county hall who handed out the permits to developers did not communicate with the one who gave them to utility companies. In short, the left hand did not know what the right hand was doing, which led to utter confusion and some very frustrated constituents. The Bill seeks to rectify that, ensuring a far more joined-up approach, by imposing much stricter procedures on highways authorities that give out the permits. It also seeks to prevent the same stretch of road from being dug up multiple times, in short succession, by different companies. Thirdly, the Bill would materially increase the fines for roadworks that do overrun. At present, under section 74 of the 1991 Act, local highways authorities have the power to fine utility companies for “unreasonably prolonged” occupation of the highway. The fines to be levied are set out in the snappily entitled Street Works (Charges for Unreasonably Prolonged Occupation of the Highway) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2012, with which I am sure the whole House is familiar, and which provide for a maximum charge in respect of “traffic- sensitive” streets of £5,000 a day for the first three days of overrun and £10,000 a day thereafter. However, for streets that fall outside that tightly defined category, the fines fall away dramatically. Crucially, they have not been updated or adjusted for inflation since 2012, and are hardly likely to be a deterrent to major utility companies or housing developers, some of whom just accept them—on the rare occasions on which they are actually levied—as a cost of doing business. The Bill would significantly increase the penalties for overrunning beyond the schedule agreed when the permit was first granted. Persistent offenders could be fined up to 10% of their annual corporate turnover, which should make even the most high-handed company sit up and listen. Another related solution is “lane rental”—not to be confused with “road pricing”—whereby companies must pay per day to carry out roadworks. That gives them a clear financial incentive to be efficient, but at present it applies to only a very limited number of selected roads. May I suggest to the Minister that perhaps there is scope for this solution to be much more widely applied? I see that she is nodding. As an experienced constituency MP, I know that it is a rare thing for a ten-minute rule Bill to make it on to the statute book. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government may yet be minded to grant it time to assist its passage. Failing that, I should be very grateful for a meeting with the Roads Minister so that we can seek at last to “Can the Cones”, either through legislation or, at the very least, by strengthening Government guidance to highways authorities to achieve the same effect, short of primary legislation itself. No one really likes roadworks. They are sometimes a necessary evil of modern life. Nevertheless, the spirit of this Bill is to try to ensure that where they are really necessary, we expedite them as quickly as practicable, with as little disruption as possible. I promised my constituents when seeking re-election that if they returned me to Parliament, I would seek to reintroduce my Roadworks (Regulation) Bill, and I am keeping my word to them today. This is not a partisan issue; it is something on which I hope all Members of Parliament—and, even more important, their constituents—can agree. So let us collectively “Can the Cones”, and keep the traffic flowing as much as we practically can. I commend the Bill to the House. Question put and agreed to. Ordered, That Mr Mark Francois, Mr Richard Holden, Greg Smith, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Sir Desmond Swayne, Andrew Rosindell, Sir John Whittingdale, Lewis Cocking, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Andrew Griffith, Sir Roger Gale and Jim Shannon present the Bill. Mr Mark Francois accordingly presented the Bill. Bill read the F irst time; to be read a S econd time on Friday 11 July 2025, and to be printed (Bill 118).

• 30 Oct 2024 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Prime Minister, you mentioned veterans a few minutes ago. As we approach remembrance time, one group of veterans we all owe a great debt to are those who served during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Hundreds were killed and thousands were maimed, by both republican and so-called loyalist bombs. Many of those veterans are now in the autumn of their lives, yet you are proposing to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which was designed in part to protect them from endless investigation and reinvestigation. Why, sir, are you throwing those veterans to the wolves to pander to Sinn Féin?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Roadworks: Journey Times · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister’s opposite number in the previous Government kindly granted me a meeting about my Bill, which unfortunately ran out of parliamentary time. As I have 10 minutes to fill next week, will she allow me as part of my speech to say that we have discussed this today and that she has kindly agreed to meet me to discuss the merits of my Bill and whether the Government might be prepared to adopt it in whole or in part?

• 30 Oct 2024 · Roadworks: Journey Times · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In the previous Parliament, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill about the regulation of roadworks, which I am reintroducing next week. I am honoured to say my hon. Friend has agreed to be a sponsor, as has the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith). Does my hon. Friend agree that a key element is the handing-out of permits by highway authorities, which I am trying to tighten up on? If we could tighten that up, we could help to prevent many of the overruns that my hon. Friend so eloquently described.

• 28 Oct 2024 · Remembrance and Veterans · Hansard source

  More

  During the troubles in Northern Ireland, hundreds of thousands of British servicemen served on Operation Banner. Hundreds were killed and thousands were maimed by both republican and loyalist bombs. I respect the right hon. Gentleman, but how can his Government repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 and throw many of those veterans to the wolves in order to pander to Sinn Féin? What is noble about that?

• 23 Oct 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am conscious of your warning about the sub judice rules, Madam Deputy Speaker, as there is ongoing litigation on this issue, but I hope and believe that nothing I say in my brief contribution will in any way overshadow the prerogative of the courts. This has gone on for far, far too many years. I have dealt with two constituents in particular, both of whom came to my constituency surgery to explain to me as their Member of Parliament what they had gone through and how it had affected them—and it clearly had, in both cases. I hope the House will forgive me if I judge that it is not right to go through their cases in detail, but they were both extremely polite and eminently reasonable in what they were asking for, and both were deeply frustrated by how long the process had taken. I will send them both a copy of the Government’s regulations and, because they are rather complicated, a copy of the explanatory notes, which I hope they will find to be of as much use as I have. As result of this afternoon’s proceedings, I hope not just that they will be able to achieve some financial redress, to which I am certain they are absolutely morally entitled, but that they will be able to achieve some peace of mind, because it is very clear to me that both those people’s lives have been materially affected by the issue. One of them said to me, “It’s not about the money. I just want to be able to bring this to a close.” I hope that the House will understand that sentiment. If hon. Members had heard it in the way I heard it face to face, I am sure they would have been as convinced as I was. I want to say a few brief thank yous, because, as we all know, this has been a very long and complex journey—not just for those who were affected by the scandal, but for those who have had to deal with the consequences many years later. This was not the national health service’s finest hour, and it took a great deal of campaigning by many people to get the system to put its hand up and admit that something had gone wrong—in fact, dreadfully wrong. Had it not been for the persistence of some of those individuals, we would not be having this debate this afternoon. However, someone had to deal with the consequences. I pay tribute to two brilliant public servants: Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis—there were others—who have both, in their own way, had to attempt to exercise what one might call the judgment of Solomon in dealing with this extremely detailed and complex issue. They have both done their country a service. I also commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the former right honourable Member for Horsham, who is no longer a Member of the House. When they were in government, they both attempted to deal with this very complex issue. Having had some private conversations with the former right honourable Member for Horsham, with whom I served on the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, I know that this matter preyed on his mind and that he really tried to do his best. My last thank you goes to the current Paymaster General, who is clearly trying to achieve a resolution as speedily as possible and who has dealt with this issue in a very empathetic manner this afternoon. I speak for two constituents, but I am sure that we all have constituents who have been affected by the scandal, and many people across the country will be grateful for the way in which he is evidently attempting to handle it. I wish him godspeed in all his endeavours. This went on for too long and affected too many people but, hopefully, at last, we can collectively begin to put this right and give those people not just redress, but some sort of peace of mind.

• 23 Oct 2024 · Infected Blood Compensation Scheme · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I commend him for the way in which he is handling this very sensitive matter; he has got the tone just right. On behalf of a constituent, Mr A, who was infected by being born of a mother who was infected, I have corresponded with Sir Robert Francis KC. If my constituent were here, he would be keen to know that the compensation scheme will cover people in his circumstances, both for their physical and mental distress. For the avoidance of doubt, could the Minister please confirm that those people will be covered by the scheme as well?

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pie and Mash: Traditional Speciality Guaranteed Status · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for giving way. Perhaps through him I could take up the gauntlet that my neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) threw down in a friendly manner. Although Robins Pie & Mash will be difficult to beat, I will pitch my pie and mash shops against his, perhaps for charity, and we will see who the winner will be.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Pie and Mash: Traditional Speciality Guaranteed Status · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my Essex neighbour for giving way. My pie and mash journey began when I was a child in north London. I then moved to Basildon, and have eaten pie and mash in the Robins Pie & Mash shop many times. I now have two good ones in my constituency: Rayleigh Lanes Café and the Turkish café on the high street, both of which do very good pie and mash, which shows what a cosmopolitan food it has become. Does my right hon. Friend agree that pie and mash is a great British food? I want to do everything I can to endorse his campaign and give it the recognition it deserves.

• 22 Oct 2024 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the statement, but the BBC reports that the money will be paid not in one go but in tranches over time. We have the Budget next week. Will the Secretary of State assure us that, given that the money is what accountants would call an “exceptional item”, it will in no way be included in the overall defence budget next week, or attempt to bolster or bump that up? There are rumours of cuts, so will the right hon. Gentleman assure us that the money is a one-off that will be treated completely differently in the Red Book?

• 16 Oct 2024 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister paid tribute to Sir David Amess at questions—we all still miss him—and to General Sir Mike Jackson, who served a number of tours in Northern Ireland, as did hundreds of thousands of British servicemen upholding the rule of law. Hundreds were killed and thousands were maimed by bombs. We brought in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 to stop them being endlessly investigated and reinvestigated at the hands of Sinn Féin. Labour said that it would repeal it, so the whole cycle will begin again. Mr Speaker, have you been given any indication of when the Government will come to the House, make a statement and explain their reasoning for putting all those vulnerable servicemen at risk yet again?

• 14 Oct 2024 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  May I wholly concur with your tribute to the late Alex Salmond, Mr Speaker? A critical element of the strategic defence review will be the defence of our overseas territories. The Foreign Secretary told the House last week that the deal with Mauritius over the Chagos islands has been concluded. To save us waiting until next year, will the Defence Secretary tell us today how much have we offered to pay Mauritius over 99 years for the privilege of our renting back a military facility that belongs to us in first the place? Crucially, which Department will pay that bill: the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office?

• 14 Oct 2024 · Strategic Defence Review · Hansard source

  More

  8. When he plans to announce the outcome of the strategic defence review.

• 14 Oct 2024 · Gibraltar-Spain Border Checks · Hansard source

  More

  History shows again and again that appeasement does not work. It was inevitable after the abject surrender of the Chagos islands, for that is what it is, that the Spanish would try to exert pressure on Gibraltar. [Interruption.] Hon. Members shake their heads, but the Government are so embarrassed by the Chagos deal that they will not even tell the House of Commons what we will have to pay to rent our own base. Coming back to Gibraltar, my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is right that under Blair, Labour tried to sell out the Gibraltarians for joint sovereignty and a referendum killed it. We could not trust Labour on Gibraltar before, so why on earth, after what it has done to Chagos and the Chagossians, should we trust Labour now?

• 7 Oct 2024 · British Indian Ocean Territory: Negotiations · Hansard source

  More

  Having heard the Foreign Secretary’s performance this afternoon, we now know why the Government did not dare announce this in the House of Commons. This abject surrender of British sovereign territory for nothing—that is what it is—risks a Chinese veto over a vital military facility. May I ask the Foreign Secretary how much in rent this country will now pay Mauritius for the right to lease back what is already ours? Which Government Department—the Ministry of Defence or the Foreign and Commonwealth Office—will pay the landlord?

• 12 Sept 2024 · Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate · Hansard source

  More

  I hope Hansard got that! I want to raise three specific topics. The first is animal welfare; the second is local NHS services, perhaps in a non-partisan way; and the third and final is the story about the election. To turn to animal welfare first, David was an absolutely renowned animal lover. He frequently raised a number of animal welfare issues in this House and campaigned for them passionately, including by forming alliances with people on the other side of the aisle, as they would say in Congress. Specifically, he was a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, a wonderful organisation run by two brilliant people, Christopher and Lorraine Platt. It has actively campaigned for a number of years on animal welfare issues such as increasing penalties for animal cruelty, seeking to ban imports of hunting trophies and ending the cruel use of farrowing crates for sows and piglets. It has succeeded with one of those—two more to go. David was also a serial entrant to the Westminster dog of the year competition. Every year he would faithfully enter his dog, and every year he would come back to his office full of faux outrage about the fact that, for some inexplicable reason, his dog had not been awarded the prize. My office was around the corner on the same corridor, and we always knew to hide when David was coming back from the competition, except that in his final year he entered his French pug named Vivienne. She was named, incidentally, after Julia Roberts’s character in “Pretty Woman”. Only my mate could name a pet after a lady who earned her money in that way. When David put Vivienne in, he was asked by a local journalist, “Why should members of the public vote for Vivienne rather than one of the other dogs?” His answer was, “Because Vivienne wants Southend to become a city.” He won twice: after he was murdered, Southend did become a city, so we like to think he won in the end, and on a wave of public sympathy, Vivienne was indeed voted the Westminster dog of the year. My great friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) and I had the privilege of accepting the award on David’s behalf, with Vivienne in tow. I am delighted to tell the House that I am very honoured to have been asked to become a patron of the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation, a duty I have proudly taken up this week, partly in David’s memory. I will attempt to match his legacy in campaigning for animal welfare, and I am deeply indebted to the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation for giving me that opportunity. Secondly, David always had a strong interest in the national health service. He served for many years as a senior member of the Health Committee of this House. I declare an interest at this stage, as I am proud to say that my wife Olivia works as a senior neuroradiographer in the NHS and has done for many years. I am very proud of what she and all the other staff of the national health service achieve for us day in and day out. I had the privilege of going on a ride-out with the East of England ambulance service a few weeks ago. I was accompanied by a senior paramedic named Emily, who showed me the ambulance service in action. We were in an emergency response vehicle, and I was immensely impressed not just by her professionalism, but by her empathy with the people with whom she came into contact—an absolute professional. I am pleased to report that, while the East of England ambulance service has been through a turbulent time—it was in special measures for a while—it came out of special measures under the leadership of its previous chief executive, Tom Abell. Whereas before there were often a dozen ambulances in the car park early on a Thursday evening, when we went to Southend hospital as part of my ride-out, there were only three. However, there is an issue at Southend because the A&E unit is, shall we say, not very well designed. There is a very narrow entrance to it, such that if there is a trolley in the corridor, it is very difficult to get people in and out. So I am pleased to report that the hospital trust has secured £8 million of capital to completely rebuild A&E with a proper, purpose-designed entrance that ambulances can back into and discharge their patients from more quickly. The first phase of that will, I hope, open prior to Christmas, and it will also be possible to expand capacity in A&E and to treat more patients more quickly. That was something David and his successor, Anna Firth, campaigned for very hard, and he would be pleased to know that. I campaigned some years ago to expand primary care in my constituency. I helped to get an expansion of Audley Mills surgery in Rayleigh, and I have been involved in campaigns to expand two others: the Riverside medical centre in Hullbridge and the Jones Family practice in Hockley. As it happens, Tom Abell has now taken over as the chief executive of the new Mid and South Essex integrated care board, and I had a meeting with him about these surgeries only a week or so ago. I am pleased to report to the House that it was a very positive meeting, and I am therefore hopeful that we will be able to secure those expansions. I did say that I would tell the House about the 1983 general election, but I am not sure whether what I am about to reveal has previously been in the public domain. For context, in 1979 Basildon was one of the largest constituencies in the country, so in the early 1980s the boundary review basically divided it in two along the A127 arterial road. David never liked the term “safe seat”, because he felt it implied that one took one’s constituents for granted, which he palpably never did. However, the pundits said that a safe Tory seat had been created around Billericay to the north of the A127 and a safe Labour seat had been created in Basildon new town, so at the time it was regarded as a one-all draw. But a Tory sacrificial lamb still had to come along and fight this seat, so along came David Amess. He had fought a Newham seat at the 1979 general election in his late 20s, and at age 31 he became the Conservative candidate for Basildon. The campaign did not get off to an auspicious start. In those days, electoral law required that prospective candidates should have a formal meeting at which they would be legally adopted by their party. David’s local association had hired the Northlands community centre in Pitsea to have the meeting. Unfortunately, there had been a miscommunication, and when they arrived the place was padlocked up. There were no mobile phones in those days, so a colleague was immediately dispatched to a nearby telephone box to try to get the council caretaker to come and open the community centre. These efforts proved unsuccessful. By now it was approaching dusk, so he was adopted as the parliamentary candidate while standing under a lamp post in the community centre car park—and thus he went into battle. David being David, he fought a feisty campaign. There was lots of music and balloons, and it was all very high profile. However, as he told me when we had supper a few years ago, he thought that he was going to lose but that he would go down fighting. So in the run-up to the count, he wrote a defiant speech, saying that although he had been defeated, Margaret Thatcher would surely win the election and carry the torch forward. He arrived at the election count armed with this speech, steeling himself for what was to come. As hon. Members will know, at an election count there is a moment before the result is read out when the returning officer calls the candidates and agents together to go through the result with them first, and to make sure there are no irregularities and no one wants a recount. The call went out for candidates and agents, and David walked across. There was a small huddle around the returning officer, who turned to David and said, “We’ve completed the count, and there is a clear winner. Well done, Mr Amess—you’ve won.” David looked at him and said, “What?” and the chap said, “You’ve won. You’ve been elected. You’re the Member of Parliament for Basildon. I’m going to read it out in five minutes’ time. I hope you’ve got your speech ready.” David looked at the returning officer in awe, and said, “Could you just give me one moment?” He dashed into the gents, ripped off some loo paper and jotted down some bullet points, because obviously the speech he had prepared was no longer appropriate, and he went out on to the stage. For the record, he won by 1,379 votes. The result was read out and he observed all the courtesies, and he thanked the returning officer and other officers for conducting an efficient count, he thanked the police for maintaining order, and then he said, “I never doubted for one moment that I would win this seat. I always knew that by fighting an active and lively campaign, I would be elected to represent the people of Basildon in the House of Commons.” And so it was sheer chutzpah literally from the first moment. Those of us who knew him know that he carried on like that for the rest of his career, and that is why the House loved him. David always had great concern for all colleagues on all sides of the House, so if he were here now he would be thinking of those about to make their maiden speeches, and he would say something like, “Don’t worry, don’t be nervous, you’ll be absolutely fine.” And of course you will. After all, you worked very hard to get here—even if you were not adopted under a lamp post. So ladies and gentlemen, it is wonderful to have this debate in his name, and I thank the House and the Chair for the great honour of being allowed to open it. To all those who are about to make their first speech in Parliament, I say, “I wish you all the very best of luck—but not too much.”

• 12 Sept 2024 · Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate · Hansard source

  More

  Yes, of course—even on the Adjournment.

• 12 Sept 2024 · Sir David Amess Adjournment Debate · Hansard source

  More

  I generally agree with my right hon. Friend, particularly about defence matters, and he has summed my great friend up very well. At the end of my speech, however, I will make a small revelation about David and the 1983 general election, which I hope colleagues will find amusing.