Mark Francois MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 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.

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

  More

  I wish the new veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland all the best, but suffice it to say that he has a hard act to follow. In conclusion, we hope that we have been a critical friend to the Bill. We have pressed the Government on death-in-service benefits, and on the continuity of education allowance and its implications for retention, and if we do not receive what I yet hope may be satisfactory answers from the Minister, we might be minded to press the amendments on those issues to a Division.

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

  More

  In a moment. Indeed, the Forces Pension Society response to the consultation, which I have here, calls on the Government to do just that. However, having given the Minister what I believe was fair notice in Committee, I raised the topic again with him at the last Defence questions on 6 January—although, in fairness, that was the day the Commons returned from Christmas recess. When I asked him what the Government had done about it, unfortunately he did not deliver a particularly convincing reply. I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

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

  More

  In a moment—please do not interrupt the Royal British Legion. It says: “The Government needs to understand the impact of their policy on veterans in order to better support those affected.”

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

  More

  I will not read them out, but the point, in terms of retention, is that this is not just an officer’s benefit. It is a very important benefit for senior non-commissioned officers. If the costs become unsustainable, there is a risk that they will leave the armed forces, and that someone whom it may have cost the Crown over £1 million to train will leave, which would very much be a false economy.

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

  More

  On Second Reading, we began by announcing that, with regard to the Bill, our aim was to be a critical friend, and that remains our aim today, although I feel that, at one point, we may become very critical. May I begin, however, in a bipartisan spirit by pointing out that, even though we are here today to debate the extremely important matter of the welfare of our armed forces, so far at least, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), the SNP has not made a single contribution to this discussion—and neither for the record has Reform. And in both cases, that is a shame. We debated this Bill in Committee in December, and following that I should like to speak to amendments 8 to 11, plus new clause 2, in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is in his place. First, though, let me commend the Chair of the Defence Committee for his speech. For the record, he is having a good run at the moment. He has had three Select Committee reports, on which he has been allowed to make statements, and the Committee has only been up and running for a few weeks, so that is a very fast start. I shall be relatively brief in my remarks on amendment 8, because we covered this issue in some detail in Committee. Moreover, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), as a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, made some incisive points about the amendment, not least in relation to the interaction between the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner and the chain of command. That point was also touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), before he was inexplicably distracted. Suffice it to say for now, it was mentioned numerous times across all parts of the Committee that, in addition to demonstrating their independence, the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to work hard in this new role to win the trust of armed forces personnel and their families. Indeed, during the public evidence session, General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, made the very constructive suggestion that the commissioner would need to undertake a lot of visits to armed forces locations to meet both personnel and their families as part of that trust-building process. When I was an MOD Minister, I tried to make a lot of visits, too, so I can well understand the merits of the general’s suggestion. According to the Government’s timetable, the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be up and running sometime in 2026. I hope that whoever takes up the post will be minded to listen to General Gregory’s sage advice. Turning to amendment 9, we raised pensions and death-in-service benefits in Committee. As I shall go on to explain, we were determined to raise this issue on Report, not least because it is both important and unresolved. I would like to look at one aspect of military pensions and then at death-in-service benefits specifically. It is interesting that we lack some important statistics about military veterans who have left the armed forces and then draw their service pension. For instance, we have an armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which is an annual exercise to tell us the attitudes of armed forces personnel on everything from housing repairs to overseas deployments. Similarly, we have a reserves continuous attitude survey, or RESCAS, to ask questions about the opinions of our much-valued reserves, and we also have a families continuous attitude survey, or FAMCAS, to seek the views of service families. However, there is no official veterans continuous attitude survey—no VETCAS, as it were—to tell us the opinions of veterans. However, a number of veterans charities gather data in this area outside the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to MOD Ministers about their estimate of the number of veterans who would be affected by the recent decision to seriously restrict winter fuel allowance availability. The response that came back from the Department around a fortnight ago was, in essence, that it did not have the data. I humbly suggest that someone needs to try to collate that data as soon as possible, because I am not sure the public would be pleased to learn that many veterans—although we cannot say precisely how many—could lose their winter fuel allowance as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget. Indeed, the Royal British Legion, which knows a thing or two about veterans, has expressed concern that the Government have “not identified how this policy change will impact older veterans”. A RBL spokesman recently said: “A large number of older people have served in the UK Armed Forces, many of whom face additional heating costs due to caring responsibilities or disability”—

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

  More

  When I have finished this point, yes. The Forces Pension Society points out that the system is recoverable because the changes are subject to a consultation and are not currently due to come in until April 2027. Nevertheless, this is still a potentially worrying situation, especially for armed forces families in which parents are in a committed relationship with multiple children but have not, for whatever reason, decided to marry. We were prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt about that in Committee. Indeed, without wishing to be uncharitable, when I raised it he seemed slightly taken aback by the problem. I say that because my suspicion is that when the Treasury came up with this, the Ministry of Defence was blissfully unaware of it. I therefore suggest that MOD Ministers may not be directly at fault, but it is nevertheless their personnel and families who may be affected. Towards the conclusion of the Committee, I strongly suggested to the Armed Forces Minister that he should take this away for discussions with the Treasury, as there will be a consultation exercise on the changes before they come into force in the 2026-27 financial year, with the opportunity to change the policy and avert the problem.

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

  More

  Just a second—I am just going to reply to this one. Forgive me, but if my remarks were not in order, we would have been told so by now. Maybe one day, after many years of distinguished service, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) will become a Deputy Speaker of this House, but not today. I will continue, and then I will take the other intervention. We really need to do something about this issue. As the Forces Pension Society has pointed out, it would be totally contrary to the principles of the armed forces covenant—including the principle that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service to the Crown—if this were to go unanswered, and unmarried service widows and their families were to be punished in this way. I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for being patient.

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

  More

  The relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and veterans cropped up several times in Committee, and I commend new clause 2, on this subject, to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will know that the former Northern Ireland veterans commissioner recently resigned in part because he had concerns about the constraints on his independence to carry out his role, which concerns Members on the Conservative Benches. Does that concern the hon. and learned Gentleman as well?

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

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As we are on Report, we are trying to amend the Bill where we think it could be improved. Just because we have the Bill as originally produced on First Reading does not mean that it cannot be improved. If I may humbly say so, that is what Report is about. This subject is pressing—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for North Durham—as the consultation on it closes tomorrow. The Veterans Minister replied to me on this subject—hey presto!—just this morning. I quote from his letter: “I would seek to reassure the Right Honourable Gentleman that an existing exemption in Inheritance Tax legislation means that active members who die as a result of their service, are exempt from Inheritance Tax provisions.” However, that only applies to those killed while on active service. It does not apply to those who are still in the service of the Crown but die of natural causes, so I am afraid that the Veterans Minister’s reply is smoke and mirrors, as it deliberately ducks the issue of those who die of natural causes while still in service with living dependants. The Government have already upset farmers and business owners through their proposed inheritance tax changes; they surely do not want to upset service families as well. I say to the Minister that if, at what is now the third time of asking, we do not receive a satisfactory reply this afternoon, we will be strongly minded to press amendment 9 to a Division in order to hold Ministers to account and try to achieve positive change. With the consultation closing tomorrow, I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says about this issue in his response, but having given him two previous bites at the cherry, I am afraid that we may be likely to divide the House if we do not receive a satisfactory reply on behalf of those service families who may be affected. As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, amendment 10 covers three topics: the “operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance”, or CEA as it is known; “the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition” for the children of armed forces personnel; and “the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.” I will take those topics in reverse order. On service families’ accommodation, I welcomed in Committee the recent announcement that the Government intend to, in effect, buy back service family accommodation from Annington Homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) also welcomes these proposals because—as Ministers, to be fair to them, have already acknowledged on the Floor of the House—while in government, he spent a great deal of time working on the scheme. He is understandably very pleased to see those efforts come to fruition, albeit under a Government of a different colour, as indeed am I. We should give credit where it is due. Service housing was mentioned multiple times in Committee, and there seems to be little doubt but that it qualifies as a general service welfare matter. However, I have included the topic in this amendment to facilitate a brief discussion on the management and maintenance of service housing post Annington, as it were, and in the timeframe during which the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be in operation. The fact that the MOD will in effect recover the freehold of its properties and be the landlord opens up exciting opportunities to change the maintenance of service family accommodation and, indeed, of single living accommodation as well. The Minister will be aware that, when I was a Minister, I was commissioned by a former Prime Minister to write two reports: one was on armed forces recruitment, subsequently entitled “Filling the Ranks” and delivered in 2017; and as a result of the first report, a second one was on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?” and delivered in February 2020—barely a month before the nation went into lockdown because of covid. I know that some Defence Ministers have kindly taken the time and trouble to look at those reports, so I shall not attempt to repeat their contents here, except to make one specific point on the management of SFA. Having looked at the matter in detail, my team concluded very strongly that there must be a better way of managing service housing than the current Future Defence Infrastructure Services contract. Our alternative, which I believe now has new resonance as the homes are transferred from Annington back to the MOD, would be to form a dedicated forces housing association, the fundamental purpose of which would be “to provide high quality, well maintained accommodation for service personnel and their families at an affordable cost.” I think the Minister has kindly read this report, as has the Veterans Minister, who has responsibility for it, and I hope he will take that on board. We debated special educational needs in some detail in Committee, so I do not propose to repeat all of that again, but I refer the Minister to a recent Public Accounts Committee report that was published last week on the topic. The continuity of education allowance is a very important issue, particularly as it affects retention. The VAT increase of 20% will affect around 4,200 children of service personnel, but the MOD is increasing the CEA cap only by 12.5% for senior school students and 16.6% for junior school students, leaving their parents to make up the difference from their post-tax income. This has already come into effect from 1 January, or about three weeks ago. A joint briefing note from the Independent Schools Council and the Boarding Schools’ Association points out that the VAT will cover both tuition fees and boarding accommodation at independent boarding schools. In the worst cases, the VAT will have an adverse impact on military families using CEA, who could see their contributions increase by over 50% for senior school pupils. The Treasury’s VAT consultation said that it would “monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected military and diplomatic families, with the upcoming Spending Review being the right time to consider any changes to this scheme.” The spending review— [ Interruption. ] Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have until 6 o’clock. The spending review will not report until this summer, but military families are having to pay the increased costs now, and I have a whole range of quotes that I could read into the record.

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

  More

  For the record, I am the shadow Veterans Minister. I am the shadow Armed Forces Minister and I do a bit of procurement on the side as well. We do take veterans very seriously on the Conservative Benches, but, as I will say later on, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure the Government do.

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

  More

  First, that is a matter for the Chair. Secondly, I presume that, if the amendment were not in order, it would not have been selected. This is not Treasury questions, so I do not propose to reprise the whole debate about the winter fuel allowance; I will save hon. Members from that agony. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister has taken the point on board. Perhaps when he winds up, he could say something—anything—about how many veterans the Government think are likely to be affected by the restriction of winter fuel allowance and whether he thinks that that is the right thing to do, not least in the spirit of the armed forces covenant. I turn to the specific matter of death-in-service benefits—a topic that, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar will remember, we raised in Committee last month. As ably pointed out by the Forces Pension Society, which I hope the House will accept is very much the gold-standard organisation on any matter relating to armed forces pensions—the clue is in the name—a problem has arisen because of the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax as announced by the Chancellor in her Budget of 30 October. In essence, if a member of the armed forces who is in a long-term relationship—and perhaps even has children—but is not married dies while in service, which does not necessarily mean in active operations, the death-in-service benefit that they would normally be entitled to might, under the Government’s proposed changes, become liable for inheritance tax.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Green Belt: Basildon and Billericay · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to my parliamentary neighbour for giving way. One of the most worrying things about Labour-run Basildon council’s new local plan is that 17,000 of the 27,000 proposed dwellings—just shy of two thirds of the total—are intended to be built in the green belt. Surely that is environmental and ecological vandalism.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Green Belt: Basildon and Billericay · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the principle, but I have read the local plan. There is not one specific word in there about plans to expand Basildon. There is an associated infrastructure delivery plan, which is a living document; it is three years out of date, and there is no specific plan in there for Basildon. I understand the theory, but Basildon borough council simply has not addressed this—it has said nothing about it at all.

• 17 Jan 2025 · Green Belt: Basildon and Billericay · Hansard source

  More

  Mid and South Essex hospitals trust, which runs Basildon hospital, reported that in the autumn, the hospital was running at between 98% and 99% of its bed capacity. In recent weeks, because of winter pressures and flu, bed capacity has exceeded 100%. The standard NHS ratio is 2.4 new patients for each house, so 27,000 new households is just under 65,000 new patients for Basildon hospital, which is already bursting at the seams. Surely the new local plan is unsound on that score alone; Basildon hospital just cannot cope with it.

• 15 Jan 2025 · Women’s Changed State Pension Age: Compensation · Hansard source

  More

  I can confirm that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for a number of years, and not just today. He will know that in July 2022, the Prime Minister—then the Leader of the Opposition—responded to Carol, a WASPI woman who rang BBC Merseyside to raise this issue. The Prime Minister said: “It’s a real injustice, and we need to do something about it”. What does my right hon. Friend think he meant by that?

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

  Despite what senior county councillors are telling Ministers, there is absolutely no clamour in Essex for devolution—quite the reverse. Nor do the public support the Government’s proposal to cancel the local elections; that is anti-democratic. If the Government do press ahead, why do we not take the opportunity to have a county-wide referendum in Essex to see whether the public—the council tax payers—really support this? They can vote for massive change or to remain as they are. If there is such a referendum—I never thought these words would pass my lips—I will gladly vote remain.

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  Happy new year to you, Mrs Harris, and to everyone else at this important debate, which was ably introduced by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the Chairman of the Petitions Committee. It is an extraordinary thing that we are debating a petition calling for a general election, barely six months from the previous election. It is even more extraordinary that that petition generated over 3 million signatures in just a few weeks. It is also highly noteworthy that of the 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK, six of the top 10 by number of signatures are in the county of Essex. That includes my constituency of Rayleigh and Wickford, which is at No. 8. I do not see an Essex Labour MP here. Having spoken to my constituents at surgeries and out and about in my patch, and having seen their emails, perhaps I can suggest some reasons why. The first reason is the economy. In late May, during the general election campaign, Labour’s then shadow Chancellor gave a major speech on what Labour’s economic policy would be if it won. In that speech, famously, she promised that all Labour’s policies were “fully funded and fully costed”. She said that as a result there would be no need for any further tax increases if Labour won in July. Then, within four months of the Budget, the very same person announced a gigantic £40 billion of tax increases, on everything from national insurance to inheritance tax, stamp duty, capital gains, farming, landlords, pubs, school fees and even, potentially, service widows. The Chancellor’s justification for one of the largest tax increases in British peacetime history was this supposed £22 billion black hole, even though £9 billion of it was caused by a combination of public sector wage increases, including for junior doctors and train drivers, made after Labour came to office, as the public were all too aware. Labour’s central economic proposition—the need to fix this supposed black hole—was a sham from the start. That is why it has never been taken on by the public, who saw right through it from the start. Labour gave the same justification for withdrawing the winter fuel allowance from up to 10 million pensioners. That option, long favoured by Treasury mandarins, was one that Labour often accused us of being willing to implement, although we never did. It was a Labour Chancellor who eventually did so, supposedly to save £1.5 billion in a full year. However, such has been the subsequent shift among pensioners to sign up for pension credit, largely in order to keep getting the allowance, that a large part of that £1.5 billion has effectively already disappeared and could be negated entirely, thus proving the withdrawal of the allowance to be a total own goal, not just morally but financially. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), my neighbour, reports that more than 20,000 pensioners in her constituency have had their winter fuel allowance withdrawn. As she puts it, they and their families are furious with Labour. Then we have Labour’s plan for so-called devolution, as outlined in a White Paper before Christmas. In Essex, it would replace a two-tier system of local government with another two-tier system of local government that would take decisions even further away from local people. It is a Trojan horse designed to concrete over our green belt in Essex and is based largely on Sadiq Khan’s systems, as is clear from reading the White Paper. I can tell the House that the last thing we want in Essex is another Sadiq Khan. There is also great frustration about the small boats. Labour promised to “smash the gangs”. That was its slogan, and that is what it was: a slogan, not a policy. The smuggling gangs remain decidedly unsmashed. Instead, without any credible deterrent, the small boats keep coming: they are up by a third since Labour took office. Labour clearly has no plan whatever, so the boats are going to keep coming while the Government look on. So many of Labour’s plans were based on economic growth. From us, they inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7. [ Laughter. ] It was! And it is now flatlining under Labour. That is why we had the five missions, and now we have the six milestones; soon we will have the seven wonders of the world. We cannot increase growth by whacking up taxes across the entire British economy. There are 7,287 people in my Rayleigh and Wickford constituency who have signed the petition. We cannot know why every one of them signed it. Perhaps they were enraged that Labour promised no new tax increases and then put taxes up by 40 billion quid. Perhaps they are among the up to 10 million pensioners who have had their winter fuel allowance taken away by the Chancellor. Perhaps they are among the 3.8 million WASPI women who were led up the garden path by Labour, from the PM downwards, prior to the general election and were dumped unceremoniously thereafter. Perhaps they believed Labour’s promises to smash the gangs, only to see arrivals increase by a third since Labour took office. Or perhaps they have just realised that when Labour promised change, what it really meant was more taxes, more bureaucracy and even more boats. Whatever it was, we now have a Labour Government who, by breaking so many of their promises so early to those who elected them, have already all but surrendered their moral right to govern. The British people want change all right: they want a change from Labour, and the sooner the better.

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

  I am completely opposed to increasing VAT on school fees, but at least Labour did put that in its manifesto. Have my right hon. Friend’s constituents told him, as mine have told me, that one of the reasons they are so angry about the decision on winter fuel allowance is that it was not in the manifesto, they were not told that was what they were voting for and, therefore, Labour has no mandate for it at all?