Mark Francois MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave Review · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Christina Harris sadly lost her job when she had to take time off to care for her seriously ill daughter Skye, who I am pleased to report is now in remission. Christina started a parliamentary petition calling for employers to hold open the jobs of those parents who, through no fault of their own, have to take time off to care for a seriously ill child—a bit like maternity leave in principle. She achieved a debate in Westminster Hall in February, which the Minister replied to. He then kindly met her some weeks later and, if I may say so—I was there—he dealt with her incredibly empathetically and listened carefully to what she said. As the Minister said, the review will have a “broad scope”. Can he offer any hope to my constituent Christina Harris with regards to her idea and to the approximately 4,000 parents each year who through no fault of their own find themselves in similar circumstances?

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  In a bipartisan spirit, perhaps the Minister will allow me to relay a brief apology. I promised the Chair of the Defence Committee that I would explain why he and some of the Committee are not here, when ordinarily they would be. They are on an overseas trip directly related to defence business. It would help keep me honest if the Minister allowed me to place that on the record.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  Given the topic, I am genuinely honoured to open this debate on behalf of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition on the subject of Armed Forces Day. I had the honour to be present in New Palace Yard on Monday to watch members of the armed forces raise the armed forces flag in Parliament, in a ceremony presided over by Mr Speaker and his Chaplain, the Rev. Canon Mark Birch MVO. It was a joyous occasion, and I am pleased to say it was very well attended by many MPs. My opposite number, the Armed Forces Minister, is the proud son of a submariner, and I am the equally proud son of Stoker First Class Reginald Francois, who served on the minesweeper HMS Bressay on D-day. We are both naval brats, as he put it—at least after a fashion. It is now established that Armed Forces Day is held on the last Saturday of June. This Saturday there will be many ceremonies across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, including in my county of Essex, and I hope to attend the celebration in Basildon, the town in which I grew up. This is a time when people across our four nations come together to celebrate the role of the whole armed forces family—regulars, reserves, veterans, cadets and, of course, their loved ones—in defending our country and our democratic way of life. I will say something about those four categories—regulars, reserves, cadets and veterans—in my remarks this afternoon. Beginning with reserves, Armed Forces Day and, indeed, Armed Forces Week normally enjoy bipartisan—perhaps I should say tripartisan—support in Parliament. Touching on this allows me to say something about the value of the reserves to our armed forces. In doing so, I declare an interest having served as an infantry officer in the 5th Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment, in the Territorial Army, in the 1980s during the cold war, when —this dates me—the Berlin wall was still up. I greatly appreciate the extremely important role that our reserves in the Royal Naval Reserve, the Army Reserve, the Royal Auxiliary Air Force, the RAF Volunteer Reserve and others play in supporting our regulars in the defence of the realm. In that context, I recently saw an analysis showing that, following the 2024 general election, there are now 17 Conservative MPs who have served or are serving in either the regular or reserve armed forces of the Crown. However, the Conservatives have no monopoly on military service, as the same survey rightly showed that Labour has 13 MPs in a similar position and the Liberal Democrats have eight. For completeness, I should add that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) also served in the Territorial Army, so he is with us on that point. I sometimes feel that he is always with us—he is virtually omnipresent in the Chamber. It is therefore true to say that the armed forces enjoy support across the political spectrum, at least from those of us who are here. I merely note in passing that, yet again, when defence is being discussed in this Chamber there is no Reform MP present to grace our proceedings. It is ironic and telling that Members of a party that likes to wrap itself in the flag—a flag it does not own—cannot be bothered to turn up to debate the service of those who loyally serve under that flag. Bluntly, Reform does not do defence. Nevertheless, I hope that most of what I say in the next few minutes will be broadly consensual, with perhaps one exception, which I will come to near the end. The role of our armed forces in defending our way of life down the centuries is just as pertinent today as it has ever been, with the war in Ukraine, where brave Ukrainians continue to resist Vladimir Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion of their country, alongside the continued turmoil in the middle east. On the regulars, those who serve in our armed forces deserve our unstinting and ongoing support. Numerous studies show that the vast majority of people who serve in the armed forces benefit greatly from the experience. As well as serving their country, they often learn valuable skills and trades that make them highly marketable in the civilian jobs market—indeed, that can be a problem for retention, as the Minister intimated. When I served as a Defence Minister, albeit over a decade ago, one powerful statistic was that 80% of those who left the armed forces found a job within six months, and I believe the figures are equally good, if not better, today. People who are smart, disciplined and trained to turn up on time and to be resourceful are always likely to be attractive to employers.

• 26 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Day · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. We should do everything we can to help all veterans, whatever their gender, to find good employment after their service, and that certainly includes female veterans. Forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, but as it is taking place in the hon. Lady’s constituency, why on earth are Kneecap being allowed to appear at the Glastonbury festival? Why on earth have the organisers allowed that to take place? [ Interruption. ] Moving on, we need to bear in mind that without—

• 3 Jun 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner Bill · Hansard source

  More

  For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes. At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case. That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that “Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”. He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  If the hon. Lady will let me finish this point, I promise I will do so, but I want to enjoy this bit. We now have the delightful visage of our ambassador to the United States, one Lord Mandelson, having to acknowledge through metaphorically gritted teeth that we have been able to negotiate a trade deal with the United States—albeit one that is limited in scope—only because we left his beloved European Union. I think our Peter is struggling with that. I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been patient.

• 13 May 2025 · UK-EU Summit · Hansard source

  More

  In a moment. While we were in the customs union, it was possible to negotiate those agreements only collectively via the auspices of the EU. That is a fundamental difference. It is important to note that by using this critical Brexit freedom, we have been able to negotiate almost 80 independent trade deals with nations around the world since we left the EU, including important Commonwealth partners such as Australia, New Zealand, and now India. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership, which materially improves our access to Asian markets worth trillions of dollars. Moreover—

• 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.

• 18 Mar 2025 · Military Co-operation with Israel · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. In accordance with parliamentary tradition, may I congratulate the new hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate? As I understand it, he is a graduate of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, so I hope he will appreciate it if I make a few points in my speech about the defence-related events that have taken place recently at some British universities. Perhaps I can begin by making some general comments about the situation in Gaza, as raised by several hon. Members this afternoon. I was on the Front Bench in the House of Commons on Thursday 16 January 2025 when the Foreign Secretary delivered the statement to Parliament concerning the ceasefire deal. Clearly, the events last night, including the bombing of targets in Gaza, are very concerning, as several hon. Members have already highlighted. The release of the remaining 59 hostages held by Hamas since the atrocities of 7 October 2023 is key to a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza and to building a better future. The British Government should be directly involved in efforts to find a way through this very difficult moment. The international community must also reiterate that there can be no role for Hamas in Gaza’s future. The Foreign Secretary argued back in January that the only viable long-term settlement of this issue is via a two-state solution, which would permit the creation of a credible Palestinian state not under Hamas control, alongside an Israel with secure borders, free from terrorist attack. That has long been my view too. We all want to see an end to the suffering in the middle east, particularly in Gaza, but I believe it is only via a two-state solution that that can ultimately be achieved. As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, the Opposition believe it is necessary to retain a viable defence manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, both for strategic reasons and because the defence industry plays a vital role in ensuring the nation’s prosperity. In economic terms, the Aerospace, Defence and Space trade body estimates that in 2022-23 defence work contributed approximately £38.2 billion to the United Kingdom economy, with exports reaching £38.7 billion. ADS also estimates that the defence, aerospace, security and space sectors combined supported 427,500 direct jobs in the same year. In addition, it is worth recording that the UK’s defence industry has been a key supplier of equipment for the defence of Ukraine. For example, the new light anti-tank weapon, NLAW, was used very effectively by Ukrainian troops in the defence of Kyiv in the first days of the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022. Not only were many of those weapons manufactured in Belfast, but for years, Britain had been training Ukrainian troops, following the first invasion of Ukraine, including Crimea, in 2014. It was a combination of British military training and British-supplied equipment that helped prevent Russia from overrunning the capital of Ukraine in the first few days of that invasion. It is probably true to say that had we not provided the Ukrainians with those NLAWs and, crucially, trained them to use them in complex anti-tank ambushes, the Russians would probably be having dinner in Kyiv this evening. There is an inscription on the Korean war memorial in Washington, which says quite simply, “Freedom is not free.” That freedom has to be defended, and in the modern world that requires military technology. While I can understand the passion articulated by the hon. Member for Leicester South in this debate, I say to him most respectfully that he is able to make those arguments in a democratic forum and publicly criticise the Government of the day because he is fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy. That is not something we can say of all the countries in the middle east. Moreover, yesterday saw the death, at the age of 105, of the last remaining battle of Britain fighter pilot, Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, DFC. We pay tribute to his brave service in Parliament today. Importantly, had we not had a defence industry in 1940, manufacturing Spitfires and Hurricanes, this debate would not even be taking place. We need a defence industry, and we need people at university to be allowed to freely choose to enter it without fear of intimidation.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 15 Jan 2025 · Local Government Reorganisation · Hansard source

  More

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

• 6 Jan 2025 · General Election · Hansard source

  More

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

• 6 Jan 2025 · Defence Industrial Strategy: SMEs · Hansard source

  More

  On defence industrial strategy, the new amphibious multi-role support ships are several years away—a point the Armed Forces Minister obviously appreciated when, in opposition last January, he wrote to his local paper to say that scrapping HMS Albion and Bulwark would be bad for our national security, for the Royal Navy and for Devonport. When the Defence Committee looked at this issue a few years ago, it firmly concluded that the decision would be “militarily illiterate”, yet today the Ministry of Defence is all for it. Even if the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry does not agree with the Defence Committee, does she at least agree with the Armed Forces Minister that these vital ships should be retained?

• 6 Jan 2025 · Armed Forces Commissioner: Appointment · Hansard source

  More

  During debates on the Bill in Committee I raised the worrying issue that under the Treasury’s proposed inheritance tax changes, service personnel who are unmarried but in a long-term relationship could have their partner’s service benefit taxed should they die while in service. The Forces Pension Society has rightly highlighted that that would be totally contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. Has the Minister yet raised this with the Treasury, as we strongly suggested last month he should, and if so what progress has been made?

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

  More

  For the convenience of the Committee, I will take amendments 9 and 10 in reverse order. Essentially, amendment 10 is intended to ensure that the office of the commissioner is sufficiently well resourced to undertake its role effectively, independently of the Ministry of Defence. The explanatory notes to the Bill intimate that once the office is up and running, it will start off with a budget of approximately £5 million, as the Minister confirmed on Second Reading. The Bill does not mandate a specific number of staff to assist the commissioner; it is not that prescriptive. Given that the role has a wider remit than that of the Service Complaints Ombudsman, it seems likely that more staff will be required to carry out the expanded function—not least because it will now include visits to service establishments, some of which the commissioner could be empowered to conduct on an unannounced basis, subject to certain safeguards, if they thought that the issues that they were examining merited it. The purpose of amendment 10 is to reinforce the idea that the office should be adequately resourced by mandating the financial assistance provided by the Secretary of State, which is effectively the commissioner’s budget, should increase by at least real terms each year, defined using the consumer prices index measure of inflation, which is published by the Office for National Statistics. I hope that amendment 10 is relatively uncontroversial and that the Minister might even be tempted to accept it. We can but try. Amendment 9 would mandate that at least one member of the commissioner’s staff be a King’s counsel.

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

  More

  There are two questions there. On the first, the honest answer is that it depends on the KC. In my limited experience, different King’s counsels tend to charge different rates. One would hope that the commissioner would employ someone who was good at their job, so yes there would be a public expenditure cost. If the hon. Gentleman will permit me, I am going to come in a moment to the exact rationale for why we have sought to mandate that at least one of the commissioner’s staff should be a qualified KC; he slightly pre-empts me. But I hope I can convince the Committee that there is a genuinely good reason for doing so and I am going to produce at least one real-world example. If that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, I will make some progress. Did the hon. Member for Portsmouth North, sitting next to him, also seek to intervene or have I inadvertently answered her question?

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

  More

  I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point, for which I thank her. There are a number of wider issues—one of them is education, and particularly special educational needs—and I will touch on those in the clause stand part debate, if it pleases the Chair. The hon. Lady may recall that I gave the Minister a pretty fair heads-up about that on Tuesday. I tabled the amendment so that we could raise the specific issue of pensions, which is a concern for armed forces personnel, rather than discussing it under clause stand part. To drive that point home before I conclude my remarks, Larisa Brown, the excellent defence editor of The Times , has just published an article online entitled, “Call to spare troops’ loved ones from inheritance tax trap.” Its subheading is: “Death in service payments for unmarried members of the armed forces who die off-duty will be subjected to the levy under plans announced in the budget”. In answer to the hon. Lady’s question, this is very much a live issue as of about 14 minutes ago.

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

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I do not have the NAO report in front of me, and that is my fault—forgive me—but from memory, it made the point that this was a nationwide problem. The scale of the problem was such that it did not just affect region or another; it touched pretty much everywhere. I think the NAO focused mainly on England and Wales, but certainly in those two nations this was a big problem, and I have nothing to lead me to believe that it is not a problem in Scotland or Northern Ireland. On childcare, I should add that one result of “Stick or Twist?” was that the then Defence Secretary, Ben Wallace, managed to use the report as ammunition to persuade the Treasury to invest quite a lot of money in childcare facilities for armed forces personnel. The Minister will know how difficult that can be. It included improving childcare facilities at a number of military installations around the country and, in some cases, extending the hours to something more akin to wraparound childcare. For the record, if only for that, the report was worth writing. I think we have given this issue a good go, and I know my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wants to raise another, so I will leave it there. I am sure the Minister understands the spirit of this clause stand part debate, and I very much hope that he can give us some good news in this area. I am sure that the whole Committee, as well as the armed forces and their families, would welcome that.