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?

• 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.

• 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.

• 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

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

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

  More

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

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

  More

  I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 2, at end insert— “(5A) The Commissioner shall operate independently from – (a) the Ministry of Defence; (b) the armed forces; and (c) any other government bodies and shall be free from any influence or interference in the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions.” This amendment would require the Commissioner to be independent from the Government and the armed forces and from any interference in the carrying out of their duties . Amendment 8 has been tabled to facilitate a debate on how truly independent the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner will be from the Ministry of Defence. The Committee may recall that this topic cropped up a number of times during our public evidence sessions on Tuesday. A number of Committee members asked witnesses about the extent to which the new Armed Forces Commissioner, as envisaged in the Bill, would be at arm’s length from the Department and therefore able to exercise truly independent judgment. The two generals, as opposed to the three tenors—Lieutenant General Sir Nick Pope, the chair of Cobseo, the Confederation of Service Charities, and Lieutenant General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, the Armed Forces Charity; I had the privilege of serving with both at the Ministry of Defence—both commented on this point. General Gregory in particular stressed that whoever takes up the commissioner’s job would have to work hard to earn the trust of members of the wider armed forces community. He suggested that one good way of doing that would be to get out and about—make visits to garrisons, naval bases and air fields to meet service personnel and their families and to hear their concerns face to face. There is an old infantry saying: “Time spent in reconnaissance is rarely wasted.” This would perhaps be another good example of that principle in action. One reason for the concern is that the Armed Forces Commissioner and their office, including their staff, will be funded by the Ministry of Defence rather than by Parliament. I am mindful of the old saying: “He who pays the piper calls the tune.” To draw an analogy, members of the House of Commons Defence Committee, who are elected by this House to hold the Department to account, are paid for by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority on behalf of the taxpayer and not directly by the Government. I would also draw an analogy with what has happened to the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. Under the previous Government, the OVA was deliberately set up as an entity outside of the Ministry of Defence, having its home in the Cabinet Office and with a very proactive Minister in the Cabinet in Johnny Mercer. He was able to not only hold the Ministry of Defence to account in Government but liaise with other Government Departments that had an important influence on veterans’ affairs. As an example, the Department of Health and Social Care is obviously very important to veterans. Once they leave the armed forces they are no longer reliant on the Defence Medical Services for their medical needs, and they transition to the NHS. The decision by the incoming Government to take that office and roll it back into the Ministry of Defence has led to some criticism, including from the veterans community themselves. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr Efford, I might return to that in more detail under new clause 2. For now, I remind the Committee that on multiple occasions on Tuesday the word “trust” was used, both by witnesses and members of the Committee questioning them. I ask the Minister what he can do this morning to reassure the Committee that the Armed Forces Commissioner, who, we understand from Tuesday’s session, is not likely to be up and running until early 2026, is going to be able to win the trust of service personnel and their families. Will the commissioner truly be in a position to act independently on their behalf and in their best interests? I hope the Minister can understand the context in which these questions are being asked. I eagerly look forward to what he has to say.

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

  More

  Q You mentioned special educational needs. Historically, it has been an issue that a service family may sometimes have to work for several years to get a statement for an SEN child. We now call it an education, health and care plan, but it was a statement in old money. It might take a family two years to get that from their local education authority. As an example, let us say it is the Wiltshire LEA if they are based at Tidworth. However, if they are then posted to Catterick, they have to go back to square one—or they did have to—in order to start that whole very painful journey again. We are all constituency MPs here, so we all know how difficult it can be. It is not a partisan point at all. Has there been any progress on that issue at all over the past couple of years, and if not, is it an issue that we should raise on Thursday? Abby Dryden: I think progress has been made, but there is a need for awareness of the fact that we are dealing with a highly mobile population, which is restricted by procedural requirements. Again, it is probably similar to some of the issues that we deal with in relation to care and treatment for certain medical conditions, which might be at the top of lists, then fall down to the bottom again when families change location. I would say that yes, generally, progress has been made in a moderate fashion. However, a lot of the time, there is nothing that helps people dealing with different bodies, such as NHS trusts or local authorities, which should be talking to one another in a meaningful way and identifying that progress has been made in one area—for example, that an achievement of a special educational needs status has been identified—and porting it over to another area. There is progress to be made. In our organisation, the welfare officers work predominantly with serving personnel, and a big part of what they do is maintaining the momentum for the family and their progress through systems and processes, in both NHS and educational settings.

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

  More

  Q Following on from your answer, how do you think armed forces personnel and their families need to be better supported than they are at present? Abby Dryden: Since 2018, we have collected detailed evidence on the experience that armed forces personnel have while they are in secondary care settings. We normally monitor the themes and trends that are identified by the people we work closely with. We identify about 10 trends each year, and we look at how we, as an organisation, and our funders can better understand how military personnel can be supported. In terms of the trends that we have identified, we usually find topics such as receiving care that is understanding of the unique position that armed forces personnel can find themselves in, the settings in which they receive care, and understanding that it is a highly mobile population. We often deal with people who have complex family arrangements or children with special educational needs, for example, and military personnel who are quite badly injured. In those circumstances, it is important to understand that service life is a hugely positive experience for many people, but there are certain times when an enhanced service provision would be beneficial. That could be when admissions to hospital take place or when there is an increased pressure on the family as a whole. In terms of understanding how armed forces personnel could be better supported, that would be very useful. What would also be useful for armed forces personnel is an understanding that creating a positive narrative—or mentioning some of the positives of service life—is important, as much as it is important to identify the negatives.

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

  More

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

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

  More

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

• 12 Sept 2024 · NHS: Independent Investigation · Hansard source

  More

  May I make the Secretary of State a little more nervous? The Darzi report makes seven high-level recommendations, the fourth of which is to drive productivity in hospitals. From 2017, in south Essex we saw a merger of Basildon, Chelmsford and Southend hospitals to create the Mid and South Essex NHS Hospital Trust. It has not been an unmitigated success. As local MPs, we were promised significant back office savings that could be channelled into patient care. In fact, the reverse has been true, and there has been such a turnover of senior managers in that trust in recent years it has been like a game of musical chairs. The trust is now trying to appoint three permanent managers and directors for each hospital to provide stability, which makes sense, but is offering a salary of £200,000 for each post, which is more than the Prime Minister earns to run the country. Now that this is on his watch, will the Secretary of State take a personal interest? We should pay a good rate for that job, but £200,000 sends the wrong signals to all the other very hard-working people in the trust.

• 10 Sept 2024 · Social Security · Hansard source

  More

  As I served with the hon. Lady on the PAC, I warmly congratulate her on her election as Chair of the Treasury Committee. The House has made a very good choice. Members of the Rayleigh, Rochford and District Association for Voluntary Service, whom I met last Friday, were genuinely worried about this policy. In a nutshell, their argument was that if people on very modest incomes are now frightened to heat their homes, that could lead to illness for many of those people, who will then present themselves to hospital and increase the winter pressures on A&E. By that method, it would be a false economy. The game is not worth the candle. What does the hon. Lady, whom I respect, say to that?