Mark Francois MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jul 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to address the Lords amendments, following yet another Government defeat in the other place. As I said last month when we last debated this important Bill, His Majesty’s official Opposition are driven by a commitment to ensure that our brave servicemen and women receive the robust, transparent and fair support they deserve. The Bill, which aims to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted-like powers to gain access to military sites and information, holds the potential to improve the welfare and accountability framework for our armed forces. If implemented effectively, it could significantly enhance public confidence in the way in which the concerns of service personnel are addressed. I believe that this vision enjoys broad support across the House—although yet again I have to place on record that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and wellbeing of armed forces personnel and their families, no Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They cannot spend the whole of their lives on TikTok, particularly as it is a Chinese system. Our duty as His Majesty’s Opposition is to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promises without introducing unnecessary complexity. We must scrutinise the way in which the commissioner’s role integrates with the existing complaints systems, and what it means for those navigating them. Today we focus again on the key issue of whistleblowing, which was debated extensively in the other place and which now lies before this House yet again. Our amendments, championed by Baroness Goldie, sought to empower the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing concerns related to welfare and service issues, while guaranteeing anonymity for those who come forward, be they service personnel, their families or others. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of the Government’s Commons amendment on anonymity in reports, alongside our whistleblowing duty. The Government argue that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient, and that our amendment does not confer additional powers. That stance is, I am afraid, both inconsistent and unconvincing. The Minister’s own “Dear colleague” letter of 30 May generously acknowledged that Baroness Goldie’s amendments had sparked an important debate, yet the Government resist embedding a clear, statutorily protected whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure that vulnerable service personnel can raise concerns without fear of reprisal. Lord Coaker, speaking for the Government in the other place on 11 June, claimed that the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” might deter individuals from coming forward, citing Cabinet Office guidance. That suggestion is plainly daft. If the term “whistleblowing” is truly a barrier, why does the national health service successfully operate its “Freedom to Speak Up” policy, which explicitly uses the term? Why does the Children’s Commissioner issue an annual whistleblowing report? Those examples demonstrate that the term is not a deterrent, but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing. To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom. The Government further contend that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. That is simply untenable. Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is entitled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”, and section 29D of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides another clear statutory precedent. Those Acts show that including whistleblowing in legislation adds tangible value, ensuring protections for those who raise concerns. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and for the very Act that this Bill amends, how can the Government claim that it lacks clarity or value in this instance? That is totally inconsistent. The Government’s position is riddled with contradictions. In Committee, our broader amendment to empower the commissioner was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence as being too wide-ranging. In a spirit of compromise, we narrowed it to focus on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that the revised amendment is too narrow and lacks sufficient powers. Lord Coaker argued that our amendment, if passed, would limit the commissioner’s investigations to the same scope as current powers, without enabling access to sites, information or documents, or requiring the Secretary of State to co-operate or report to Parliament. If the Government believe that our amendment does not go far enough, why do they not support it and propose their own broader amendment to enhance the commissioner’s powers, which would almost take us back to the status quo ante? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively, as if arguments were being plucked out of thin air to block progress. Lord Coaker—with whom I dealt when he was in this place, and for whom, for the avoidance of doubt, I have immense respect—also claimed that our amendment excluded family members and terms of service issues, and would apply only to those subject to service law. That is incorrect. Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person “subject to service law or…a relevant family member.” Thus a corporal’s sister, for example, could raise a whistleblowing concern if the corporal faced abuse or bullying by a military colleague. This provision ensures that family members have a voice, directly contradicting the Government’s assertion to the contrary. Let me give a brief theoretical example. Let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner. That is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will know, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether all armed forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but I can say that as of today, more than 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward very much to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I am sure will be followed closely by the veterans community and their families. This is not an “angels on a pinhead” argument. It is actually quite important. The Government’s assurances about anonymity and communications campaigns to promote the commissioner’s role are welcome but insufficient. A campaign can be no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can trust—to be fair, I should add that when we debated the Bill before, the Minister talked about the issue of trust repeatedly. The other place recognised that, delivering another cross-party defeat to the Government in the last fortnight by amending the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Our amendment represents a reasonable compromise, aligning with the Government’s own wording on anonymity while embedding a vital whistleblowing duty. To block it would signal that the Government are not serious about working constructively with the Opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel, so I urge them to accept this compromise in the interests of all who serve. I will listen closely to anything further that the Minister has to say, but if the Government persist in offering assurances without statutory weight, I will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. Our service personnel deserve a system that hears their voices and protects their concerns, and if we carry on playing ping-pong—well, that is a sport that I was once quite good at.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  The purpose of this instrument is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire in mid-December 2025. In essence, the measure provides for the 2006 Act to continue in force for a further year, taking us up to a deadline of 14 December 2026. For those with an historical interest—among whom I include myself—the principle of the legislation dates back to the Bill of Rights 1688, as the Minister intimated, which, given that it followed on from the civil war, declared the “raising or keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless with the consent of Parliament, to be against the law.” This provision has resulted in the requirement, since 1688, that all legislation on discipline in the armed forces be annually renewed, hence this order. As the Minister stated, this instrument should have support across the House, and I am sure that it does. However, yet again, when we are debating defence—when we are debating an order that is fundamental to the discipline and integrity of our armed forces—there are no Reform MPs in the Chamber. Why? It is because Reform does not do defence. The Minister and I have seen that time and again over the past year—so there is a point of consensus, if he wants one. While this order might appear to be a mere formality, albeit an important one, it gives me the opportunity to ask my opposite number, the Minister for the Armed Forces, four important questions, but before I do, I will just report to the Minister that the cadets, who are an important part of the armed forces family, are indeed well disciplined and in good heart. I attended an Armed Forces Day event in Basildon on Saturday, as I have done for years, and was honoured to be invited to inspect the Air Cadets on parade. When I asked one very smart cadet why he had decided to join the Air Cadets, he replied, “Because my mum made me, Sir, although three years in, I’m very grateful that she did.” I also managed to grab a quick drink with some veterans in a local hostelry. However, mysteriously, all four MPs in the Basildon borough—none of whom are Labour MPs—appear not to have been invited this year. I can only presume that our invitations were lost in the post. I say gently to the Minister, more in sorrow than in anger, that playing silly partisan games like this is demeaning for the Labour-led council.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  I certainly hope there is. I very much hope that MOD Ministers are fighting tenaciously in private, even if they cannot say so in public, to have this mad order scrapped, and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans, just as the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister understands exactly what I mean by that, and I think that he and some of his ministerial colleagues may have been working on this. If they have, then we in good faith wish them Godspeed. I have one more question on this matter, and then I will move on. If it is the Government’s intention to still go ahead with the remedial order—again, the House would really welcome clarity on this—despite the fact that it would have disastrous consequences for recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, can he confirm exactly what the Government’s policy is? Is it to go down the remedial order route, or down the route of introducing new primary legislation, and if it is the latter, what are the timings for that new Bill? Fourthly and finally, the Minister for the Armed Forces has signed a formal statement to the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 are compatible with the European convention on human rights. However, there is a question: were British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition of the willing—perhaps following a ceasefire in Ukraine—what would happen to those British troops if they were to be involved in combat with Russian forces, or Russian acolytes? What guarantee could the Ministry give that if soldiers fired their weapons in anger, they would not subsequently be subject to lawfare under the Human Rights Act 1998, even decades after the event, as is the case in Northern Ireland? This is not an idle point. I understand that the issue of lawfare and its effect on recruitment and retention in the British Army has been raised at the most senior levels in the Army, including in recent meetings with the Chief of the General Staff. This is very much a live issue that deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least for the soldiers who might have to take these actions for real. Given all this, would it not be helpful—as suggested a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary—for the Minister to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European convention on human rights in relation to any British military operations related to Ukraine, so that soldiers who served in that conflict would be excluded from any lawfare prosecutions, even decades later? The Minister will know that the issue is materially affecting morale in the armed forces, and especially in the special forces community, so any reassurance he can give regarding a derogation would no doubt be gratefully received. To summarise, we obviously support this order to continue the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until December 2026. It would be helpful to have some idea of timings, and even of the content of the prospective Armed Forces Act 2026, as it is likely to be, to allow interested parties to plan. To maintain morale and discipline in our armed forces, perhaps the Minister could also confirm whether the Government would countenance derogation from the ECHR during future military operations, potentially including those in defence of Ukraine. Moreover, perhaps he could update the House on where we are on the Government’s proposed new legislation on legacy matters, and on the fate of the proposed remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998. Are the Government contemplating removing clauses from that remedial order, or are they abandoning it altogether, and instead relying on new primary legislation to achieve their aim? The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), gave us all very wise advice: we should increase defence spending. We certainly should, in this increasingly dangerous world; we can argue about by how much and how quickly. We Conservative Members want to work constructively with the Government and the Ministry of Defence, for the defence of the realm—but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

• 2 Jul 2025 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  No. Armed Forces Day is too important for this sort of silly nonsense, which embarrasses Basildon council in the eyes of the public and, indeed, its local MPs. In all seriousness, perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues on the council and make sure that this unfortunate oversight does not happen again. Defence is traditionally a bipartisan issue. We all believe in the defence of the realm, and I have always believed that it is the first duty of Government. However, I say to the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that he cannot have it both ways. He cannot on the one hand plead for unity between the Government and the Opposition and then, when it suits, imply that Opposition spokesmen are Russian, Chinese or Iranian fellow travellers just because they had the temerity not to agree with the Government on their bonkers Chagos deal. My honest advice to the Minister is to make up his mind and be consistent; he will then receive the respect that he asks for. I turn to the order. Armed Forces Acts are normally subject to quinquennial review. We had Armed Forces Acts in 2011, 2016 and 2021, and we can expect a further Act before the instrument expires in December 2026. Given the vagaries of parliamentary life, few things are certain, but assuming for a moment that it will be the Armed Forces Minister and I who will take this legislation through on behalf of our respective parties, this seems a good opportunity to ask the Minister two questions. First, what are the latest timings for that legislation, and when can we expect to see a Bill? Secondly, could he give the House some idea of the likely key themes of that Bill, and the areas, if any, in which the legislation is likely to differ materially from the Armed Forces Act 2021? In fairness, he dropped a hint a few moments ago that there will be service justice provisions; perhaps he could expand on that slightly, if he has the opportunity. I ask because there will be a large number of interested parties, including the armed forces themselves, obviously, the armed forces families federations, military charities and others. From previous experience, I can say that they will take a close and important interest in the Bill. Giving them as good a heads-up as possible is clearly desirable. Perhaps the Minister could assist the House with that. As the explanatory notes that the Minister referred to point out, were this order not to be passed, “The key effect…would be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands. Without the 2006 Act, those powers and procedures would no longer have effect; Commanding Officers and the Court Martial would have no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to His Majesty, but the power of enforcement would be removed.” Clearly, that would be very undesirable, and for the avoidance of doubt, we will most certainly not vote against this order in a few minutes’ time, but there is an important point here about members of the armed forces being required to obey lawful commands. That brings me on to my third question for the Minister. As recently as Defence questions on Monday, we debated in the Chamber the fate of the 300,000 or so British Army veterans who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner. They were lawfully commanded to help uphold the rule of law in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to protect all people in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition, from heinous acts of terrorism, whether by bomb or by bullet. As the Minister will be well aware, the Government have tabled a so-called remedial order that would cut out elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, thus potentially opening up some of those veterans to an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation. The order also makes it easier for the likes of Gerry Adams and his compadres to sue the British taxpayer for hundreds of millions of pounds. According to a press report in The Daily Telegraph yesterday and an associated answer by the Northern Ireland Secretary to a parliamentary question, the Government have decided to drop the part of the remedial order that would assist Mr Adams and his associates in suing the British taxpayer. If that report is true, we Conservative Members would warmly welcome it. However, it does not solve the problem of our brave veterans who served in Northern Ireland often being persecuted at the behest of Sinn Féin.

• 24 Jun 2025 · War Memorials · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman pre-empts me, but for the avoidance of doubt, most certainly—I am a great fan of the commission. In total, the commission cares for large memorials down to individual graves in some 23,000 locations, encompassing more than 150 countries and territories around the world. I recently visited Rayleigh cemetery in the heart of my constituency. It has a number of individual wartime graves, which are beautifully tended by the commission. In this context, I highlight a book published earlier this year by the acknowledged author Dr Tessa Dunlop, entitled simply, “Lest We Forget” with the subtitle “War and Peace in 100 British Monuments”. This excellent book summarises a whole variety of war memorials, commemorating events dating back to Roman times, right up to the present day. For the avoidance of doubt. I am not on commission from Dr Dunlop’s publishers, but I did meet her during the production of the book, not least because the 99th in her century of war memorials is located in my constituency at a place called Aaron Lewis Close in Hawkwell. Lieutenant Aaron Lewis was a commando gunner from 29 Commando Regiment, who was tragically killed during a mission in Afghanistan back in 2008. Working with the local authority, Rochford district council and the then-developer David Wilson Homes, we managed to arrange for a small square on that new development to be named in Aaron’s honour. At its centre is a memorial garden with a carved bench which commemorates Aaron’s service. For her book, Tessa Dunlop interviewed Helen Lewis, Aaron’s mother, who along with her husband Barry, have channelled their understandable grief at the loss of their son to create a wonderful charity called the Aaron Lewis Foundation, which has helped to raise hundreds of thousands of pounds, including to provide rehabilitation equipment for wounded service personnel. Similarly, we now also have Samuel Bailey Drive in Hockley, named after Squadron Leader Sam Bailey, an RAF navigator who died in a tragic mid-air collision between two RAF tornadoes flying out of RAF Lossiemouth over a decade ago. There are 2,000 or more military charities in this country, ranging from the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and SSAFA, down to individual charities often founded by family members following the death of a loved one in combat. Clearly, it would be impossible, to name all of those charities this afternoon, but nevertheless, I should like to pay tribute to the work of all of them collectively. To paraphrase that famous wartime medley, when talking about the plethora of military charities we have in this country, perhaps I could just say, “Bless them all, the long and the short and the tall”. Dr Tessa Dunlop has written an exceptional book, and I can thoroughly commend it to anyone who is interested in the whole subject of war memorials and everything they represent. I think we have 13 minutes left, Mr Stuart, so I will just take two more.

• 20 Jun 2025 · Green-belt Development: Rayleigh and Wickford · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the important matter of the potential development of the green belt in my Rayleigh and Wickford constituency. In addition, I am sure the Minister responding to the debate has many pressing demands from his constituency diary on a Friday, so I am personally grateful to him for being here in the House of Commons this afternoon to respond on behalf of the Government. To add context, I will briefly explain to the Minister a bit about the geography of my constituency and how that is pertinent in relation to future development. In essence, south-east Essex is something of a peninsula, bordered to the south by the River Thames, to the east by the North sea, and to the north by the River Crouch and the River Roach, which run inland from the North sea as far west as the village of Battlesbridge. There are two principal east-west arteries that run from London into south Essex, namely the A127, the Southend arterial road, and the A13, which runs broadly parallel to the A127, but further south, closer to the Thames. Both roads are already extremely busy during the morning and evening peaks. I am sure the Minister is familiar with the concept of heat maps, whereby the busier the road, the darker the shade of red they appear on the map. Both roads are effectively glowing bright scarlet during peak periods, because they are already at between 98% and 99% capacity in the morning and evening rush hours. In simple English, these roads are already maxed out, despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years. In simple English, these roads are already maxed out, despite a number of junctions being upgraded along both roads in recent years. When we look at medical infrastructure, the theme of a system creaking at the seams is unfortunately repeated. Both Southend and Basildon university hospitals are part of the Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust, along with Broomfield hospital at Chelmsford. The three hospitals were merged some years ago, admittedly under a Conservative Government, and it is fair to say that the merger has not been a great success. In the case of Southend hospital, according to the senior trust management, last autumn, prior to so-called winter pressures, the hospital was already at 98% to 99% bed capacity. Once winter pressures were added in, it went well beyond 100%, and unfortunately there were frequent incidents of patients on trolleys in corridors. The situation is similar at Basildon hospital, slightly further west. I have raised Basildon hospital with the Minister before. In addition, GP surgeries in south Essex have patient lists above the national average, and are under tremendous pressure too. For brevity, our education infrastructure is also under considerable pressure, especially with regard to places in special educational needs schools. I have tried the Minister’s patience by mentioning all of this in order to try and explain as frankly as I can the serious infrastructure pressures that residents in my constituency, and right across south Essex, are already experiencing. Given these, it is absolutely critical that any future development should incorporate large-scale infrastructure investment to be provided well in advance of the tens of thousands of extra houses that Labour is seeking to build in south Essex, as part of their desire to create an additional 1.5 million homes over the course of the Parliament. For the avoidance of doubt, I accept that there does have to be some additional house building. Clearly, young people cannot live at home with their parents forever. But any such construction has to be done sensibly, at a pace that the local infrastructure can realistically accommodate in an environmentally sustainable way, so as not to adversely damage the natural habitat nor degrade the quality of life of the people who already live in the area—they have rights too. When it comes to housing targets, I am afraid that the Minister and I have a very basic philosophical difference. I admit that under a previous Conservative Government we did at one time have a system of mandatory housing targets, whereby officials in Whitehall could set targets for house building for each local authority, and then left it up to the local authority via its local plan to decide where that arbitrary number of dwellings should be built. I was one of a number of Conservative Back Benchers who lobbied very hard to have that procedure changed to a system of advisory targets, whereby Whitehall could set a benchmark, but local authorities with special circumstances—for instance, a large proportion of green belt—were at the very least given the opportunity to argue back, and make a case for reducing such arbitrary targets if they threatened to be realistically undeliverable in practice. I very much regret that the incoming Labour Government immediately reverted to a system of mandatory targets, made worse by their overreliance on a computer algorithm in order to calculate the number of dwellings supposedly required in each local council area. The prospect of so-called devolution and local government reform, about which I am deeply sceptical, has only threatened to make this already complex situation even more confused. In short, I believe it is highly unlikely that Labour will achieve its 1.5 million target, not least because it now incorporates a policy of making 50% of all new dwellings affordable. That was exactly the same policy that was operated for years by the Labour Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan. It is a matter of record that Mr Khan never gets anywhere near his housing targets. Indeed, they have now been reduced at the expense of increasing targets in the home counties, including in my home county of Essex. The 50% affordable policy deterred many house builders from building anything at all. As it failed in London, I believe it will now fail elsewhere across the country. As one example, Phillip Barnes, group land director at Barratt Developments, which has a £5 billion per year turnover, raised concerns about the policy in a blog in August 2024. He warned that existing sites within the green belt in draft local plan applications for housing, “will not be able to provide 50% affordable housing”. He went on to say that since the draft NPPF—as it then was—Barratt “has already pulled four in-flight planning applications on draft allocated sites because the spectre of 50% renders the scheme unviable due to the unacceptably reduced (or removed) land value for the landowner”. Nevertheless, Labour’s doctrinaire adherence to the 1.5 million figure means that they are giving local authorities targets that are so high as to be realistically completely undeliverable—short of massive infrastructure investment, which the Government are clearly not in a financial position to provide. Last month alone, borrowing was £17 billion. I will now raise with the Minister some specific examples of where his Government’s policy is already beginning to cause threats of unsustainable development in the green belt. Some months ago, Labour-led Basildon borough council published their regulation 18 draft local plan. The proposals anticipate building an incredible 27,000 dwellings across the borough council area during the planning period out to about 2043, 4,200 of which are anticipated to be built in and around the town of Wickford in my constituency. For the reasons I have already articulated, there is absolutely no way that the infrastructure in and around Basildon, Billericay and Wickford can possibly cope with massive house building on that scale, not least because about half of the sites are in the current metropolitan green belt. Basildon borough council has published a number of documents supposedly related to infrastructure, but they are incredibly thin in actual content. For instance, the supplementary document on health and medical infrastructure says absolutely nothing in detail about the expansion of capacity at Basildon hospital at the heart of the borough. That is despite the fact that according to the NHS’s own metrics each new dwelling could represent an additional 2.4 patients for the hospital, producing an overall total just shy of 60,000 new patients for a hospital where they are, metaphorically, already coming out of the windows as it is. All Basildon’s extremely limp document on health says on the subject is that it will all be sorted out by the integrated care board. I have double-checked that with the leadership of the Mid and South Essex ICB, which is itself now in the course of a reorganisation into a countywide ICB. I was assured that there have been absolutely no discussions between Basildon borough council and the integrated care board about the expansion of capacity at Basildon hospital. Basildon’s reg 18 plans should be found unsound on those grounds alone. Moving on to the Rochford district council side of my constituency, we can already see how the Government’s targets are having an adverse effect there, too. As one example, Taylor Wimpey recently began a consultation on plans to build up to 350 houses in the metropolitan green belt, in an area of land between Mount Bovers Lane and Gusted Hall Lane in Hawkwell. The local community are up in arms about that, and if the Minister had the time to drive down Main Road in Hawkwell, he would see protest posters in almost every window against this completely unsustainable development in the environmentally sensitive upper Roach valley. The site is wholly inappropriate for development, and indeed it is specifically excluded within the current Rochford district council local plan. Policy ELA3 states: “The Core Strategy states that the Upper Roach Valley will be protected from development which would undermine the area’s role as a green space, providing informal recreational opportunities.” Moreover, policy URV1, which relates specifically to the upper Roach valley, says: “Policy URV1 seeks to protect the Upper Roche Valley from development so that it can become a ‘vast’ area for informal recreational opportunities.” The policy goes on: “The Council will strive to see the Upper Roach valley become a vast ‘green lung’ providing informal recreation opportunities for local residents. The Council will protect the area from development that would undermine this aim and will continue the approach of creating the right conditions for flora and fauna to flourish, with the minimum of interference.” I should explain to the Minister I am firmly opposed to the proposed Taylor Wimpey development, which is completely contrary to two very specific policies in the excellent Rochford district council local plan, as I have just emphasised. There are absolutely no “very special circumstances” that would justify house building on this scale in this part of the green belt, which is extremely popular with my constituents for leisure purposes, jogging and dog walking, all of which contribute to their wellbeing. However, this is by no means the only example of where inappropriate development is now being proposed in my constituency. When I was seeking re-election last year, Mr Speaker, my final leaflet was headed, “Give me a mandate to fight Dollymans Farm”. In short, this is another site in the metropolitan green belt, slap bang between the two largest towns in my constituency, namely Raleigh and Wickford. During the 2024 general election campaign, I warned about Bloor Homes, which has a reputation as a highly aggressive developer and, it must be said, treated my former constituents appallingly in a proposed development of some 660 homes at Ashingdon, which is now on the eastern fringe of my constituency. That development was rightly opposed by Rochford district council, but Bloor subsequently won at appeal, where—among other things—Rochford district council’s hired transport consultant mysteriously changed sides the night before the public inquiry commenced. As part of its proposals, Bloor offered a number of section 106 commitments, including a new doctor’s surgery on the site. Some two years later, not one brick has been laid to that end. Despite my attempts to raise this matter with the integrated care board on several occasions prior to the boundary changes, there is no sign whatsoever of Bloor undertaking any proactive activity to keep its word about the GP surgery. To me, that sounds a powerful warning regarding its proposals at Dollymans farm. In essence, Bloor now envisions initially building 1,300 dwellings on the Dollymans farm site. Its proposals for Dollymans farm are a Trojan horse. The site is firmly within the metropolitan green belt and would represent completely inappropriate urban sprawl. I remind the Minister that paragraph 142 of the national planning policy framework—the so-called planning bible, which I am sure he now knows off by heart—states: “The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open”. To allow development at Dollymans farm would be utterly contrary to that fundamental tenet of the NPPF. The 1,300 homes initially proposed take up only a fraction of the land on the whole Dollymans farm site, as was confirmed at a recent public consultation exercise that the company held at Rawreth village hall and that I attended. One need only take a single glance at the proposed site plan to see that this proposal is a Trojan horse, and that if the 1,300 dwellings are approved, further applications for thousands more on the same site will no doubt follow. We simply do not possess the transport, medical or educational infrastructure to cope with urban sprawl on this scale, about half a mile from the Wick. As the local MP, I intend to fight these totally unsustainable proposals tooth and nail. Because of so-called devolution, the Labour Government have cancelled the local elections in Essex. However, there is a by-election in the Wickford Park ward on Thursday 26 June, and those Wickford residents who are lucky enough to have a vote can use it on Thursday to protest against Bloor Homes’ completely unsustainable proposals to build so many homes in such an inappropriate location. I therefore urge my constituents—whatever their personal politics might be—to vote for the Conservative candidate, Lewis Hooper, on Thursday in order to demonstrate to Bloor Homes that we really mean business, and we do not want its development at Dollymans farm. Perhaps the most egregious example of attempts to overdevelop my constituency relates to the proposed new town on the border between Southend and Rochford, in the area around Bournes Green. In essence, the proposal is for around 10,000 dwellings, 5,000 on either side of the Rochford-Southend border. In answer to a question to the Deputy Prime Minister on Monday 7 April 2025, she confirmed to me in the Commons that those dwellings on the Rochford side would be, in her words, “above and beyond” the mandatory housing target—which is already over 10,000 dwellings—that Rochford district residents are being threatened with by this current Labour Government. For the record, I am completely opposed to these proposals as well. However, I particularly wish to draw to the Minister’s attention the fact that there appear to have been some serious irregularities in how all of this was proposed, and I would be grateful for his close attention to them. When the original expression of interest was sent in some months ago, Rochford district council was something of a rainbow coalition, but led by the Liberal Democrat group. It transpires that the expression of interest that was sent to the Department—the new towns taskforce—was never approved by any committee of the council, let alone by the full council itself. There is even some confusion about whether or not the leader of the council, who was then Councillor James Newport, actively endorsed the proposal. In short, the whole initiative appears to have been effectively officer-led and officer-dominated. Since then, the leadership of Rochford district council has changed hands, as the Liberal Democrat group effectively collapsed and is now divided into various factions, some of whom no longer identify as Liberal Democrats. I shall not try the Minister’s patience with all the twists and turns in this process, but none the less, suffice to say that at times it has been like something out of Gilbert and Sullivan. The new Conservative-led administration, working with Rochford District Residents and several others, is attempting to bring stability to the council. At a meeting of the planning policy committee on 11 June, the council formally decided to withdraw its support for the expression of interest as submitted to the new towns taskforce. In other words, Rochford has withdrawn from the proposed new town—a decision that I wholeheartedly support, as we just do not have the infrastructure to cope with it. Moreover, in her speech to that committee, the redoubtable Councillor Danielle Belton said the following about how the EOI was submitted in the first place: “This is about transparency and doing right by the communities we serve. So finally, I should add that as the incoming Leader of Rochford District Council, I’m very concerned about what appears to have happened here—but I think it is important to establish the facts and learn from them. So, for that purpose, I will shortly be establishing an independent, externally-led investigation, to get to the bottom of all this and how, exactly, this submission came to be sent in the first place. We will then report the findings of that investigation to Full Council—and via them to our residents—in due course.” Given that an external investigation has now been initiated, I am sure the Minister will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further in detail; suffice to say at this stage that something appears to have gone seriously wrong in how the expression of interest was submitted, which is even more reason for the council rightfully to withdraw from the whole process. Before leaving this topic, I should perhaps add in passing that there are emerging rumours that Brentwood borough council—which shares the same chief executive as Rochford, Mr Jonathan Stephenson—has also submitted an EOI for a new town, but for far larger numbers than were envisaged for the Rochford-Southend equivalent. I merely observe that there appears to be a bit of a pattern here. I will leave that for my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart)—he is in his place in the Chamber, listening to this news about his constituency—to pursue with Brentwood borough council, and no doubt eventually with the Minister on a separate occasion. To summarise, 24 years’ experience as a constituency MP has taught me that there is such a thing as good development, but that works only if it is something that is done with people, rather than to people. My genuine fear—I hope the Minister will appreciate what I am saying—is that Labour’s top-down approach, from both central Government and Labour-led Basildon council, very much appears to be doing things to people, rather than with them. I was elected to Parliament to represent my constituents, and I can assure the Minister that Essex people are not slow in putting across their point of view, as my email inbox regularly testifies.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Wickford Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to have been given this opportunity to raise a number of important issues that are of considerable concern to my constituents in the town of Wickford, and in particular the future of the old Co-op supermarket site in the centre of the town. I am personally grateful to the Minister for being here on a Friday afternoon to respond to the debate when no doubt he also has constituency demands on his diary, so I thank him. Perhaps I could begin on a sombre note by paying tribute to the late Councillor David Harrison, who passed away only recently. David Harrison had represented Wickford on Basildon borough council for many years and had given decades of his life to public service in the town of Wickford, which he clearly loved. He also served very successfully as the mayor of Basildon borough. He will be much missed by people of all parties, and I pay tribute in the House to his service and offer my condolences as the town’s MP to his widow, Linda, and her wider family at this extremely difficult time. For context, I point out to the Minister that Wickford has been through a rather challenging time in recent years, especially since the covid pandemic. We have seen a number of banks and several other retail outlets close on the high street, which has contributed to a decrease in footfall. I recently visited the Nationwide branch in Wickford to congratulate it on remaining open, and on its wider corporate commitment not to close any high street branch across the country until 2028 at the earliest. I understand that will roll on, year by year. Incidentally, I also visited the Nationwide branch in Rayleigh a little over a week ago for much the same reason and to celebrate it reopening once again on a Thursday to revert to a five-day-a-week service, so well done Nationwide. Nevertheless, we also lost our police station in Wickford several years ago, and that has been boarded up ever since. Basildon borough council originally intended to replace it with flats, but it now has an alternative proposal to redevelop it as a community safety hub. We look forward to further details, including what the opening hours will be. To add to that, Greater Anglia, which operates the train line from Southend through Wickford into Liverpool Street, demolished a large part of Wickford station several years ago to extend the platforms to accommodate the new class 720 trains. I am pleased to report that the 720s have proved considerably more reliable than their rather elderly predecessors. Nevertheless, it has taken Greater Anglia several years to confirm plans to rebuild the station. I personally lobbied Ministers at the Department for Transport, under the previous Conservative Government, to come up with the multimillion-pound funding necessary to rebuild the station and, in a bipartisan spirit, I am pleased to report this afternoon that Greater Anglia has recently signed a contract with Walker Construction. The rebuild of the station will now commence this summer and should be completed by the end of 2026 at the latest, and hopefully a little earlier, weather depending. In addition to the rebuild, which I believe will be very popular with my constituents, there is further good news: McDonald’s has recently acquired the old unoccupied Prezzo restaurant in Wickford High Street and is now refurbishing it to provide a brand new McDonald’s, due to open this summer. I suspect that will also prove popular with my constituents. Crucially, that should increase footfall on the high street and will be welcomed by local traders, even if that provides competition to other restaurants in the town. Moreover, local businesses in the town centre recently voted to form a new business improvement district in order to pool their efforts, in collaboration with the borough and town councils, to help revive economic activity in the town. As the local MP, I attended some of the preliminary meetings in this process, and I wish the newly created BID all the best for the future. My main purpose in this debate is to talk about the economic regeneration of Wickford, but given that Labour-led Basildon borough council released its regulation 18 draft local plan a few months ago, it would be remiss of me not to take the opportunity to point out to the Minister that I am strongly opposed to the council’s proposals to try to cram 27,000 new dwellings into the borough by 2043, including some 4,200 in and around Wickford itself. The local infrastructure in the borough simply cannot accommodate mass house building on this scale. I appreciate that we do need some new houses in the borough—young people cannot be expected to live at home with their parents forever. None the less, we simply do not have the infrastructure, particularly the road infrastructure and medical facilities, to accommodate mass concreting over the green belt on this scale. In particular, there are no firm proposals whatsoever to expand Basildon district general hospital, which is at the heart of the Basildon borough. According to the NHS’s own standard metrics, it works on the basis of 2.4 prospective additional patients per household, which would mean pro rata almost 65,000 potential patients at the hospital, which is massively oversubscribed as it is. According to the hospital trust’s management, even before so-called winter pressures kick in, the hospital is normally running a bed occupancy rate of between 98% and 99%. The borough council’s response has been completely unconvincing, frankly. It simply palmed off all responsibility for plans to expand the hospital on to the integrated commissioning board, which itself is now in the course of a major reorganisation. Having checked personally with the leadership of the current Mid and South Essex ICB, I can report that it has never been consulted by the council on any plans to expand Basildon hospital. Indeed, when the council published a supplementary document to the local plan, specifically regarding healthcare infrastructure, even then there were no clear proposals whatsoever to expand the hospital. I believe that the plan should be found unsound on that one key point alone, so I hope the Minister will understand why I wish to get my concerns firmly on the record. Having done that, I will now turn to an area of great concern for my Wickford constituents: the fate of the old Co-op supermarket site in the centre of the town, just behind the high street. There is a long-running and complicated saga, of which I have given the Minister at least some notice, so rather than try his patience by attempting to go through every detail, I will try to summarise the background. Several years ago, the Co-op closed its supermarket at this site. In addition, some two years ago, Aldi, which operates the other main supermarket in the town, demolished its store in order to build a larger, modernised one. The net effect was that for much of 2023 there was a perfect storm in terms of the lack of supermarket provision in Wickford, other than a small Iceland store on the high street. This meant that my constituents often had to travel some distance to do their weekly shop, a particular challenge for those who are elderly or do not have access to their own car, or both. I am pleased to tell the Minister that I subsequently reopened the newly reconstructed and indeed enlarged Aldi supermarket in November 2023, and it now appears to be doing a brisk trade. Nevertheless, this leaves the outstanding question of what will happen to the old Co-op site, which is currently in a state of poor repair and is boarded up. Given other recent developments in Wickford, which have led to a diminution in car parking spaces across the town, the car park adjacent to the Co-op site now effectively acts as the main car park for the town itself, yet a considerable number of those places are currently unavailable because of the hoardings that surround the dilapidated Co-op site—I can see the Minister nodding, so he clearly follows my argument, for which I am grateful. Several years ago, the Co-op site was acquired by a company called Heriot, a South African-based developer that sought to redevelop a supermarket on the site. Its first attempt was to agree an arrangement with Morrisons that would have led—eventually—to a brand-new supermarket, incorporating an underground car park and up to 137 flats above the store, some up to seven storeys high. I have to tell the Minister that I was never really convinced of the viability of those proposals, especially given the high cost of developing underground car parks post covid, and the plans were generally quite unpopular across the town, too. The plan fell through, partly I think because of some of the financial challenges that Morrisons has been experiencing as a supermarket chain, which are well documented in the press. Heriot then entered into negotiations on an alternative scheme with Asda, which I shall refer to in more detail in a moment. For its part, Basildon borough council, understandably becoming impatient at the lack of a planning application from Heriot, threatened to issue a section 215 notice compelling Heriot to clean up the site and ultimately to demolish the old supermarket, as it was becoming a considerable eyesore—it still is. In response, and after a couple of years of preparation, Heriot finally submitted a formal planning application to Basildon borough council in February 2025, based on a revised scheme for a brand-new supermarket with no underground parking and a reduced number of flats, with three storeys of accommodation above the store as opposed to seven. My understanding is that this planning application is extant and is due to be determined by the borough council’s planning committee, hopefully by the end of May—next month. I know that the Minister will be reluctant to comment on the merits of the planning application, not least because of his quasi-judicial position in the event of a potential appeal. I hope, however, that he will at least be prepared to acknowledge that, after a number of years with a blighted, derelict supermarket, it would certainly be to the advantage of the town if the borough council were minded to pass the application in a timely manner. In short, as he is the Minister for Local Growth, I would suggest to him that if the Government are so committed to growing business, this scheme should appeal to them. That brings me on to the new proposal with Asda. As I am sure the Minister is aware, Asda has been through considerable financial difficulties of its own, following its sale by Walmart, and the company is now loaded with a considerable amount of debt. As a result, its former chief executive Allan Leighton, a man with a rightly strong reputation in the retail industry, has taken over as executive chairman and is attempting to turn the company around—although he is on record as saying that this might take some time. Despite Asda’s reluctance to comment publicly on its negotiations with Heriot, I have to tell the Minister that it is, in effect, an open secret across the whole of Wickford that Asda and Heriot have been working on a new scheme, the design of which is already reflected in the planning application that I have just mentioned. Indeed, I can tell the Minister that, even when I was out canvassing in Wickford nearly a year ago at the general election, multiple constituents raised with me where the Asda scheme had got to. If it drags on much longer, there is a real risk that Asda will suffer serious reputational damage as a company that struggles to make a decision. Specifically, I understand that the proposed scheme has been deferred several times from consideration by the Asda board and indeed was meant to be discussed at an Asda board meeting last week, only to be deferred yet again. I find this extremely disappointing, because—given the background that I have outlined, which I hope the Minister can appreciate—my constituents are now thoroughly fed up with what one might call, to use a military term, the paralysis by analysis that Asda has shown over all of this. I attended Wickford town council’s annual town meeting just last night, where this matter was a topic of considerable discussion among the 40 or so residents present. The general view of the audience was that Asda seemed completely incapable of making a decision either one way or another. As someone who was there said, I can say that it was not exactly Asda’s finest hour. For my own part as the local MP, I must confess that I have found Asda an extremely difficult company to deal with as it is generally very uncommunicative. I understand that one of Mr Leighton’s inherited challenges is poor industrial relations between Asda’s management and the staff in its stores; if it communicates with its staff in the way that it communicates with MPs, I am not surprised. For the record, Asda already has a successful store in my constituency in Rayleigh, which is often very busy, especially at the weekends, and, prior to the 2010 boundary changes, when South Woodham Ferrers was part of my constituency, it also had a very successful store there. I am not against Asda as a company per se, but the way in which it has treated both me as a Member of Parliament and, far more importantly, my constituents leaves a very great deal to be desired. As the Minister can probably tell, I am now completely exasperated by the total inability of Asda to make a decision either one way or another. Accordingly, yesterday I wrote to Allan Leighton, the executive chairman, and have asked for a personal meeting with him in order to try and explain to him some of the background that I have sought to lay out in this Adjournment debate, and then to try to elicit a final decision from him and his company either one way or another. We cannot go on with this endless prevarication by one of the nation’s largest supermarket groups. In truth, I suspect that Mr Leighton had never even heard of Wickford before yesterday; well, he has now. To summarise, I am pleased that Greater Anglia has finally let the contract to rebuild Wickford station, which will commence this summer and conclude by the end of next year, and that McDonald’s is now converting the old Prezzo restaurant to open this summer, which I am sure will materially help to increase footfall on the high street. But we still have the major outstanding issue of what will happen to the old Co-op supermarket site. I very much hope that Labour-led Basildon borough council will agree to pass Heriot’s planning application—ideally next month—not least as Basildon council’s deputy leader, Councillor Adele Brown, told the town council annual meeting last night, while I was there, that it is now intending to support the application. That would represent a major multimillion-pound investment into Wickford and the borough. Finally, given that it is an open secret across the whole of Wickford that Asda has been talking to the developer for over a year now, the time really has come for Asda to make its mind up either one way or another. I very much hope it will, which is why I have asked to meet personally with its executive chairman, Allan Leighton, to try to obtain formal confirmation of this. The time for hesitation has passed; I hope Asda will proceed and that my constituents can have a supermarket in Wickford that is fit for the 21st century.

• 25 Apr 2025 · Wickford Town Centre Regeneration · Hansard source

  More

  On one level, I am loath to intervene on the hon. Gentleman, because he is being so charming and I do not want to spoil the moment. Just to place it on the record, on devolution, I do not quite see it the way that he and the Government do. None the less, he has been very helpful. We have a very active town council in Wickford and we have a very active BID. I will pass on his very kind offer to visit the BID. Perhaps he could come after—hopefully—we have celebrated the news that Asda will go ahead. Is that a fair deal?

• 7 Apr 2025 · New Towns · Hansard source

  More

  Our local paper, The Echo , revealed last week that Labour-led Southend council and Lib Dem-led Rochford council are planning to build a new town of up to 10,000 houses on the border between the two. I understand that if this is done under the new towns fund, those numbers would be in addition to Rochford’s housing target, rather than making up part of the target. We would be talking about building nearly 20,000 properties by 2043, which is totally unsustainable, given that our infrastructure is creaking as it is. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether those new-town houses on the Rochford side would go towards our meeting the target or be in addition to it?

• 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.

• 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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 16 Dec 2024 · English Devolution · Hansard source

  More

  Trying to create multiple unitary authorities in Essex will not work, will not have public support, will take the best part of a Parliament to implement and will not save money—in fact, quite the opposite—and there is a risk that local government will grind to a halt in the meantime. As for mayors, in 23 years of canvassing in my constituency, I have never once had a constituent say to me on the doorstep, “I want a mayor of Essex.” Indeed, looking up the road to London, the last thing on earth that we in Essex want is another Sadiq Khan.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Okay, thank you. We live in an increasingly litigious world, including the wider prevalence of so-called lawfare issues on the modern battlefield. Therefore it seems important to us that the commissioner should have access to senior legal advice in carrying out their duties. We believe that could best be provided by a qualified King’s counsel, perhaps specialising in areas of employment law and other matters that would relate to the welfare of armed service personnel and their families. There is a live issue in the armed forces community: if they take life, which sometimes they are required to do in the service of the country, what are the legal implications for them, maybe even decades later? The issue is generally referred to as lawfare. Let me give a specific example of why this matters, Mr Efford. I am going to refer to a case that has concluded; I reassure you and your Clerk that the sub judice rule does not apply, I believe, because the case is over. On 10 December, the BBC reported, under the heading “Ex-lawyer spared jail over false Iraq War claims”, that “Phil Shiner was given a two-year suspended sentence at Southwark Crown Court after pleading guilty to three counts of fraud relating to legal aid claims made in 2007.” For background, “The former boss of Public Interest Lawyers was struck off by the Solicitors Regulation Authority in 2017 for pursuing false torture and murder allegations against British troops.” The article continues: “A lengthy inquiry into wider allegations of abuse at the hands of British soldiers established ‘beyond doubt’ that all the most serious allegations had been found to be ‘wholly without foundation and entirely the product of deliberate lies’.” According to the National Crime Agency, Mr Shiner received around £3 million towards the cost of legal aid for the cases in which he was involved.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As we come round the final bend, hopefully the Committee will recall something that cropped up quite a lot in Tuesday’s public evidence session. A number of witnesses mentioned veterans, and there were quite a few questions, so we thought it appropriate to table a new clause to facilitate a debate on this subject, and specifically on how the Armed Forces Commissioner might, if at all, be able to engage on issues of veterans’ welfare, including with the existing veterans commissioners. There is concern within the veterans’ community about the incoming Government’s decision, first, to remove the Veterans Minister from Cabinet and, secondly, to roll the Office for Veterans’ Affairs into the MOD, whereas previously it was at least independent from that Department, if not wholly independent from the Government, when the OVA lived in the Cabinet Office. I am not imagining that this is a matter of concern. I have a letter here that was written to the Minister for Veterans and People, dated 30 July 2024, co-signed by the Scottish Veterans Commissioner, the Veterans Commissioner for Wales and the then Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner. The letter highlights very well the issue of genuine independence from the MOD. For the avoidance of doubt, the letter’s tone is in no way personally critical of the Veterans Minister, whose military service we fully acknowledge and salute this afternoon; the nub of the issue is the fact that the OVA has been moved. The letter says: “Firstly, as a junior minister you have no seat in Cabinet. We understand that SofS will represent veterans at this level but his responsibilities are broad and he is not focusing daily on veterans’ affairs; nor will you, with your entire MoD people portfolio… Secondly, the subordination of the OVA under your control”— that is, the MOD’s control— “whilst tidying-up the government wiring diagram, also concerns us. The major factors that impact on veterans, such as health, housing, employment, education and social care are not MoD controlled. As such, locating the OVA in the Cabinet Office made sense, to best coordinate and cajole other departments into taking veterans’ needs into account.” I have now kept my word to the hon. Member for North Durham, who challenged me to talk about this—I have done my best. The letter from the three veterans commissioners goes on to say: “Veterans have little faith in the MoD leading on veteran policy and delivery. This attitude has been entrenched through the perception of adversity and neglect that many veterans have experienced in their dealings with the MoD. It is a tough message, but one that we are duty bound to deliver.” The previous Government cannot be blamed for this one, because we created the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and deliberately gave birth to it, as it were, in the Cabinet Office and not the MOD. Much of today’s debate has been about the independence, or otherwise, of the Armed Forces Commissioner. Well, here are three veterans commissioners collectively expressing their “concern” about the Government’s decision to take the OVA and roll it back into the MOD, where the risk is that the Department will end up marking its own homework. Veterans clearly preferred it when the OVA was at least semi-independent under the Cabinet Office, and when Johnny Mercer was an extremely proactive member of the Cabinet pushing very hard on a range of these issues.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The clue is in the name: the shadow Cabinet is there to shadow the actual Cabinet. If there is not a Veterans Minister in the actual Cabinet, it is not necessarily axiomatic that there would be one in the shadow Cabinet. To be clear, the decision to take the Veterans Minister out of the Cabinet and the Cabinet Office, and roll them in under the Ministry of Defence as—no disrespect—a junior Minister, was a decision taken by the Labour Government— [ Interruption. ] Excuse me—one at a time! I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hamble Valley to my left—dare I put it that way—saying that the Prime Minister promised he would not do that. It was a decision taken by the Labour Government. I have read out the comments from the commissioners, who are there to represent the interests of the veterans’ community; I am not imagining it. The community are clearly very concerned, so perhaps we could hear the Minister’s reply.

• 12 Dec 2024 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. What it has to do with the Bill is that this issue cropped up quite a lot in the public evidence session. I respectfully refer him to the Hansard report of Tuesday’s proceedings. A number of witnesses raised the veterans issue, and I believe a number of members of the Committee followed up with questions. We had tabled the new clause by Monday night because we knew that there was concern within the veterans’ community about the independence of the OVA and therefore the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner, which to be fair is a theme that we have discussed repeatedly today. That is the context in which the new clause was tabled on Monday evening, but it is worrying that one of the three veterans commissioners apparently felt compelled to resign because some in Government were seeking to crimp what they were trying to do on behalf of the veterans they were appointed to serve. Now that the OVA is back within the MOD, and given that the decision was taken on the Government’s watch, I would like some reassurance from the Minister—we have a MOD Minister here, not a Cabinet Office Minister—that there will be no further attempts to impinge on the independence of any veterans commissioner by anyone in Government, any more than we would want them to impinge on the independence of the Armed Forces Commissioner. I have three very specific questions to that effect; then I will allow the Minister to reply. First, where is the veterans commissioner for England? We were told, when I raised this issue on Second Reading, that the Department was working on it. At one point, there was going to be a UK-wide veterans commissioner, which then seemingly morphed into a veterans commissioner for England. We have one for Scotland and one for Wales—we had one for Northern Ireland too, but he resigned—so where are we on the veterans commissioner for England? Why should English veterans be at any disadvantage compared with their counterparts from the other three nations of the awesome foursome? Those English veterans served the Crown too. Where is their commissioner? Secondly, what is the timetable for replacing the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner? Presumably the Government do not want that post to remain vacant for long, particularly with all the utter chaos over the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. Thirdly, what formal assurances can the Minister give on the record that this will not happen again? Those are my three questions.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Dowd. Having read my Order Paper over coffee, may I offer you my congratulations on your appointment to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee? It is an extremely responsible post in which we all have utter confidence that you will do very well. Good luck, Sir.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for his kind words about my father. I absolutely agree with him about the very important role played by the Royal Navy in maritime bomb disposal, including by the brave divers he alluded to. For completeness, as the hon. Gentleman is a former RAF officer, we should place on record that a great deal of work was undertaken in the second world war defusing German bombs that had landed on RAF airfields, perhaps most famously during the battle of Britain—so the Royal Air Force played its part in the battle against bombs as well. I turn to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. As the involvement of Britain’s armed forces, particularly the Army, switched from Northern Ireland through the Balkans and then into the middle east, including the first and second Gulf wars and the war in Afghanistan, again the threat from bombs—often referred to at that time as improvised explosive devices or IEDs—remained ever present. As General Sir Richard Dannatt, a former Chief of the General Staff, recalled in his memoir “Leading From The Front”, “Initially the Taliban had taken us on with small arms, machine guns and rocket grenades, but as they tired of being killed in large numbers they resorted to the classic insurgent tactic of avoiding direct combat and attacking us instead with IEDs, in exactly the same way as the Iraqi militias and the provisional IRA had done before them.” The Minister himself served in Afghanistan, and we pay tribute to him for his service. The need to respond to the IED threat, which was eventually responsible for a large number of casualties—both fatal and non-fatal, but none the less in many cases life-changing—was an important aspect particularly of Operation Herrick, the allied campaign in Afghanistan. As Simon Akam explained in his challenging book “The Changing of the Guard: the British Army since 9/11”, “The IED became the signature weapon of the Helmand Conflict. No longer could troops move freely; instead they adopted the ‘Afghan snake’, painstakingly walking in a line behind a young soldier holding a Vallon Mine Detector.” Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, a former Milton Keynes MP and a previous Minister for the Armed Forces, worked on EOD disposal during Operation Herrick. We pay tribute to him and all his EOD colleagues for their service. Even today, the task of explosive ordnance disposal—now carried out principally by 11 EOD regiments of the Royal Logistics Corps—remains as vital as ever, both in protecting our civilian population from domestic acts of terrorism and in permitting the conduct of military operations. Some of the savage fighting in Ukraine has included the widespread use of booby traps and other IEDs, and therefore the threat remains as live as ever on the modern battlefield. Indeed, in its helpful briefing note for this important debate, the Mines Advisory Group highlights that the Ukrainian Government estimate that about a third of their territory, or 156,000 sq km —an area bigger than England—remains potentially contaminated with explosive ordnance. For the record, the previous Government invested in the latest EOD technology for our own armed forces, including the Harris T7 bomb disposal robot, which is the successor of the iconic Wheelbarrow from Northern Ireland, and, more recently, the T7’s highly nimble little brother, the Harris T4—a programme that was encouraged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) when he was the Procurement Minister at the MOD. Let me turn directly to the speech by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, who summarised very well the challenge still posed by unexplained ordnance in the present day—not just, as she pointed out, in Ukraine, but in a number of other countries around the world, including Laos and Lebanon. We should pay tribute to the work of two UK-led organisations, the Mines Advisory Group and the HALO Trust, which have led the world in seeking to step up and to address the challenge. Given all this, in addition to responding to my point about the legacy Act, will the Minister answer three specific questions? First, are the Government minded to continue spending at least the same amount on overseas mine disposal in 2025-26 as they are spending in 2024-25? Secondly, much of that spending is deployed via the FCDO’s GMAP and the UK’s integrated security fund; is any of that funding from the MOD budget, and if so, could it be vulnerable to the strategic defence review? The third question is related to the second: when do we expect the outcome of the SDR to be published? I ask that this morning because rumours are now circulating that it could be as late as June 2025. While we have the Minister’s company this morning, could he provide an update about the likely timing of the publication of the SDR? As he knows, it is keenly anticipated. In conclusion, I pay tribute to all those personnel, be they from the armed forces or civilians, who have had the courage to take part in the extremely dangerous task of explosive ordnance disposal across the decades. It is harrowing work, and not for the faint hearted. In risking their lives, they have helped to save the lives of countless others. Sadly, a number of those employed in that highly dangerous line of work made the ultimate sacrifice, and we rightly pay tribute to them this morning as well. We will remember them.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community · Hansard source

  More

  Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I would like to say that he has spoken powerfully about the work that was undertaken by British armed forces personnel during the troubles, and subsequently in addressing the unexploded ordnance threat in Northern Ireland. When I was the Armed Forces Minister, I had the privilege of visiting one of those units and seeing for myself the incredible work that it did. Would he join me—and, I am sure, all Members this morning—in paying tribute to those incredibly brave men and women who risk their lives day after day to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland?

• 11 Dec 2024 · Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community · Hansard source

  More

  Perhaps I should begin by declaring a personal family interest in this subject. My late father, Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, served on a minesweeper named HMS Bressay from 1943 until the second world war ended, so he was involved in bomb disposal of a sort. Perhaps more accurately it was mine disposal, but nevertheless he personally faced a threat from large explosive devices, albeit in a maritime context. As his son, I am proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition on this very important subject this morning. I congratulate the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) on securing this important debate and, if I may say so, for introducing it so ably. She made a very knowledgeable contribution, no doubt drawing on her own military experience. In particular, she illustrated the challenge posed to the international community by the sheer scale of this problem around the world. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) spoke powerfully about the threat from terrorist bombs in Northern Ireland, which is a subject to which I would like to return. The hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Calvin Bailey)—an RAF veteran, if I may call him that—also addressed the international scale of the challenge. Last but not least, I am supported by our shadow Defence Parliamentary Private Secretary this morning, my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who as a former Royal Marine, like the Minister, understands quite a lot about the subject. I would like to begin my own contribution with a historical perspective on bomb disposal operations in the British armed forces, before moving on to address both military and, increasingly, civilian operations in this crucial field of activity, right up to the present day. Bomb disposal, or, to give it its more formal title, explosive ordnance disposal—EOD for short—can be traced back for over a century. During the first world war, squads of men were assembled to help deal with unexploded bombs left after raids on London and the south east by German zeppelin bombers and their Gotha Giant aircraft counterparts—a bombing campaign that was very well summarised by Neil Hanson in his book “First Blitz”. In addition, with the advent of truly industrialised warfare in the first world war, teams of engineers were needed to dispose of unexploded munitions, particularly high explosive shells that had fallen among the allied trenches on the western front but failed to detonate. Even at that time, this was highly skilled and extremely dangerous work—a characteristic that has remained true right through to the present day. By the time of the second world war, although the need for bomb disposal on the battlefield was undiminished, with the advent of the mass bombing of civilian targets, the need for bomb disposal on the home front expanded accordingly. This led to a high death toll among those brave enough to undertake the task of dealing with unexploded bombs—or UXBs, as they were characterised at that time. Juliet Gardiner, in her book entitled simply “The Blitz”, describes the losses in the following terms, which I think are quite evocative: “Sometimes a UXB might embed itself a few feet in the ground, or fall into a static water tank or a gasometer but many penetrated deep below the surface and were difficult to get at. The defusers’ survival would have depended on staying one step ahead of German technology, since as soon as they learnt how one time delay mechanism worked, it would be replaced by another. By the end of 1940, 123 officers and men of the bomb disposal squads had been killed and 67 wounded. The deaths did not cease with the end of the war, as UXB’s continued to be uncovered. By 1947, 490 had been killed in the battle to extract these great torpid iron pigs from their holes and render them harmless.” The need for EOD workers continued as a facet of British military operations since the end of the second world war, right up to the present day. For instance, dealing with both republican and so-called loyalist bombs was a key facet of Operation Banner, the British Army’s campaign to support the civil authorities during the period of the troubles in Northern Ireland. A number of bomb disposal officers were killed and many were wounded during the course of the troubles, as the hon. Member for Strangford rightly reminded us. The scale of the task that they were up against was well summarised by Desmond Hamill in his book “Pig in the Middle” about the British Army’s role in Northern Ireland. He summarised the challenge as follows: “Over the years the Provisionals have become expert at designing and manufacturing booby-traps. Only the week before, a bomb disposal sergeant had been killed by a bomb within a bomb in County Fermanagh. It had been packed into a milk churn, and when the sergeant had cleared the timing device and was lifting it out, a detonator underneath set off the second bomb which exploded.” As the author went on to explain: “The bombs were often very simple and very deadly. The components were readily available—a few pounds of explosives, a detonator, a battery and a couple of feet of wire. The triggering device could either be a plate buried in the ground or even a clothes peg.” As the Minister will be well aware, hundreds of thousands of British soldiers served on Operation Banner during the troubles. Hundreds were killed, not just in bomb disposal, and many thousands were maimed or had life-changing injuries, from both republican and so-called loyalist terrorism. Perhaps when he sums up, the Minister could say a few words about why the Government still intend to abolish the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which will leave many Northern Ireland veterans open, yet again, to an endless cycle of reinvestigation, much of it politically motivated at the hands of Sinn Féin. Our veterans, who faced the threat of terrorist bombs every day of their service in Northern Ireland, really do deserve better than this from their Government. Let me turn to the Falklands. Diffusing unexploded bombs is not just a challenge on land, as pointed out by Lord Ashcroft in his book “Falklands War Heroes”. During the 1982 Falklands war, chief marine engineering mechanic Michael Townsend was awarded the distinguished service medal for his role in assisting with the disposal of two bombs that had hit his ship, HMS Argonaut. The principal bomb disposal task with which he assisted was undertaken by Staff Sergeant Jim Prescott and Warrant Officer Second Class John Phillips, both of the Royal Engineers. Assisted by Townsend and several of the crew, the two bomb disposal experts succeeded in disarming and disposing both Argentinian bombs that had landed on the Argonaut. Unfortunately, however, Staff Sergeant Prescott, from 49 Squadron Royal Engineers, was killed two days later while attempting a similar task with two further unexploded bombs that had landed on HMS Argonaut’s sister ship, HMS Antelope. His colleague WO2 Phillips was badly injured, losing one of his arms in the latter attempt. I mention that particular example not just to pay tribute to the extreme bravery of all three men involved, one of whom sadly lost his life, but also to point out that dealing with ordnance of this type is not purely confined to the land domain.

• 11 Dec 2024 · Explosive Ordnance Disposal Community · Hansard source

  More

  My father.