Mark Pritchard MP: speeches

Speeches

• 1 Jul 2026 · Israel: E1 Zone Expansion · Hansard source

  More

  I have said it before and I will say it again: I believe that the life of a Palestinian child is as precious as that of an Israeli child. That is the foundation of all of my views on this. May I congratulate the Minister for the middle east, and indeed the Prime Minister, who is not in his place, on having the courage and the leadership to recognise the Palestinian state when they did so? I supported that and continue to do so. Indeed, this urgent question justifies that position last September, because at that point we were all concerned that the viability of a Palestinian state was reducing as the weeks went by. We have seen that the extant policy of the current Israeli Government is to continue those illegal occupations and expansion. Will the Minister tell the House the latest on his discussions with Washington about the board of peace and reconstructing Gaza, ensuring that there is a viable Palestinian state? Finally, what is his view on whether the current Israeli Government’s position is likely to pertain beyond this autumn?

• 30 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey)—a man with honour, integrity and principle —for ensuring an extra £15 billion for the defence budget, and to the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is a man of a supreme gallantry. I respect the fact that they resigned on a point of principle, but we are still £13 billion short, of course. What reassurance can the Defence Secretary give to my constituents at RAF Cosford who are looking to see their housing refurbished and replaced over the next few years that that programme is still safe, and to those working on the Boxer and Challenger 3 vehicle programmes? I understand moving to autonomous vehicles, but are those programmes safe at Telford?

• 29 Jun 2026 · Asylum Accommodation · Hansard source

  More

  Missing from the statement, unless I missed it myself, was the word “deterrent”. The Minister suggests that it is good news, and people moving out of hotels into other accommodation is just that. What he does not mention, however, is that other accommodation also includes houses in multiple occupation, and there are only so many military sites that may or may not be available. Given that I wrote to him on 18 June, would the Minister meet me to discuss Stoke Heath in my constituency, a village—actually, a rural settlement—of about 352 people that is going to see the arrival of up to 121 asylum seekers? This rural settlement has no integrated public services and very few public services at all. The nearest bus stop, for example, is a 30-minute walk away. Will he accept that a community meeting being held on Thursday, chaired by myself, should at least have somebody from the Home Office or Serco in attendance? People are being kept in the dark. There has been secrecy—no consultation and no transparency. People have a right to know what is going on. Would he encourage a member of Serco to come along to that meeting and answer some of the local community’s concerns?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  The Leader of the House has many skills, as we all know, but many Members will not know that footballing skills are among them. In this world cup season, I suggest to him that playing fields have an important role in the football narrative of many boys and girls, and others playing football now, including for England. Is he aware of the campaign by the Shropshire Football Association, which has supported football since 1877, to protect where we play in Shropshire? We should ensure that our playing fields are protected, not built on. We understand that we have to build more houses, but that needs to be done on the right scale, and in the right place. Does he share my concern about the Government’s plan to remove Sport England as a statutory consultee?

• 25 Jun 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. It is a variant of it. I thank you for speaking up on behalf of all Members from across the House. At Deputy Prime Minister’s questions last week, I raised the point that an asylum centre had been put in my constituency with just hours’ notice, and yet Shropshire council, the unitary authority, had been given at least five days’ notice, or even weeks.

• 25 Jun 2026 · Points of Order · Hansard source

  More

  rose—

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That this House has considered the role of Big Tech in society. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. It is good to see the Minister in his place, and indeed the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune). I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting the debate. Today, I want to look at the relationship between Government and big tech, and its impact on wider society and the communities we all represent, as well as the national and even global consequences of this expanding, what I term “unreliable relationship of reliance”. Let me be clear: the Government do not have the resources necessary for research and development of new technologies compared with the wealthy and global tech companies’ resourcing—I get that. Private sector collaboration makes sense and is of benefit to our country. Improving the efficiency of Government, public sector productivity, and the outcomes and effects of Governments—whatever their political complexion—is something that I support. However, I think the Government need to establish—this is something for the Minister; perhaps a legacy for him —their very own centre for tech research: a Porton Down for tech innovation and development, or an expansion of the R&D work of the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory. Not everything can or should be outsourced to the private sector—this is a Conservative MP saying that. Today, I want to highlight some of the potential, if not inherent, democratic dangers for the UK Government —both today’s Government and future Governments—as the relationship with big tech becomes more embedded, we become more reliant, and by osmosis, we cede ever more power and influence to tech companies over all the people we represent in this Parliament, and the Governments they elect. Perhaps UK Government data could be seen as the crown jewels of data—the ultimate state capture: data capture. Data is increasingly entrusted to companies with no democratic oversight or accountability. Some big tech companies regard democracy, governance and oversight, for all their faults, with distain and even contempt—an irritant to their commercial progress, rather than as a challenging and helpful partner. I believe that any Government being beholden to big tech—I do not mean collaboration, which is positive—is a strategic risk to our country, full of moral hazard. I submit that it is a potential and emerging medium-term strategic risk, where conflict between democracy and big tech will come into stark contrast. Today, we feel only the tremors of such a conflict, but it is for the future and for all Governments to address it before that tremor becomes an earthquake for our democracy and for politics more generally.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady raises a very interesting point. That is a challenge for all Governments and all Ministers, however able they are. We have a very good tech Minister here today, but it is a real challenge. The starting point is better co-operation, transparency and openness from big tech itself, as I set out in my introductory remarks. It is the owner or owners—as in shareholders, the board, the advisory board or even other clients and customers—who may object to collaboration between a particular Government and a tech company. That is problematic. Or could tech companies themselves find a moral or political argument to turn off a particular Government service at a particular moment in time? That has been seen in recent months in the conflict in the middle east. We have seen it in China where certain tech companies have switched off their moral compass to placate the Chinese regime in exchange for commercial advantage. Meanwhile, freedom and democracy in China is set back. What can the Government do? There need to be more robust legislative safeguards. The Government need to collaborate with tech companies, of course, but not to capitulate. In conclusion, tech companies should act as responsible corporate citizens, but they so often do not unless they are made to, and they are not made to enough for the reasons I have set out today. When Parliaments do regulate, tech companies fight it all the way. They weaponise the courts and demonise parents and legislators around the world who dare to even raise legitimate questions and scrutinise these companies. Big tech should not be asking what the minimum is it should do to keep Governments off its back, as it sees it, or to avoid negative publicity and public opinion. Big tech firms should be corporate leaders leading by example and setting high standards without Parliament or Ministers having to tell them what they should do. Big tech should do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Lady makes an important point. I will not name individual companies today—she has clearly put her views on the record—but no monopoly, be it a public or private sector monopoly, is good for our constituents, consumers and small and medium-sized businesses. She makes her case well. Will this universal knowledge that tech companies have—this data capture—always be used for good? Will it always be benign? Will it seek the common good or the corporate good?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and will touch on sovereignty later. The European Union—it is a positive in many ways—is looking at that. That is partly why I am making this speech today; it is about sovereignty too. Who knows the most—who owns or hosts the most data—and how that data is used determines who has the hierarchical advantage. I would argue that that gives the democratic or control advantage, not just the commercial advantage. The people, through democratically elected government, should always have ultimate control.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  I am conscious of time, so I want to give the Minister the opportunity to answer the questions I asked: who owns the data, who controls the data, and what does that mean for democracy and the balance of power?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  Let me make a bit of progress, and then I will try to come back to the hon. Lady. I have applied for this debate a few times—I have been lucky today, but we have only an hour, rather than 90 minutes. Is big tech politically neutral? Sometimes it does not seem like that. Is that of concern to the Government? Does the Minister agree that some Government data can never be white labelled? Are some big tech companies agnostic when it comes to the UK’s democratic values? Are they more interested in value than values? This is not speculation. Some—not all—of the most powerful figures in tech have openly questioned democracy and its relevance, authority and survivability. Some of those observers are not fringe voices shouting from the margins, but tech owners with capital, platforms and influence and with the ear of many of our constituents and, indeed, our Government. Again, big tech is a force for good in the world. I believe that. It provides huge benefits with regard to human geography, economic empowerment and borderless prosperity. But in so many ways, tech’s story has only just begun. That is one of the reasons why we need to have discussions like the one that we are having today. It is why Governments, wherever they might be, need to strike the right balance on how much power—how much of the people’s power—they cede to big tech and its shareholders. Many of its shareholders are known, but some are a bit more mysterious and, to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Gordon McKee), do not necessarily always share our values, or are certainly not in the UK.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  I did not have time to raise this issue in my speech. The National Security and Investment Act 2021 established the National Security Investment Unit, which was the right move. If a particularly sensitive company with strategic assets or a technology that affects UK interests is to be sold or receive outward investment, it has to be cleared by the Government. That is a welcome change, but it is rather perverse or even ironic that, when the situation is reversed, there is very little scrutiny.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that point. As I said, I am not going to reference particular tech companies or particular information or misinformation campaigns. I am trying to get Members across the House to raise their eyes a little and look at the big picture of the conflict, coming down the road, between big tech and sovereignty, democracy and all the people we represent. But the hon. Lady’s point is also on the record. Again, the close relationship between big tech and Governments is necessary, but is none the less becoming increasingly problematic and conflicted. Tech needs smarter regulation, certainly more competition, and a recalibration and rebalancing of its relationship with Government. The collaboration between the two should not mean Governments turning a blind eye to the breaking of laws, or big tech enjoying public policy vetoes. With big tech come big responsibilities. Governments should not rush to absolve big tech of the wrongs of tech in return for future technology transfer and unfettered access, and better terms for collaborations with Government. These questions arise, perhaps. If the relationship between Government and big tech is conflicted, is it also compromised? If so, does that compromise equate to a type of corporate kompromat? Who wins? Who loses? Who is in control? Has big tech gone beyond even the power of the global banking system in 2008? Has it become too big to fail, too big to challenge even if the challenge is by Ministers of the Crown, too big to be sufficiently stood up to and too big to be fairly taxed? If the Government’s mantra is “In tech we trust”, I hope this debate will challenge Whitehall and the Government on the fact that that laudable aim does not come without significant, inherent and strategic risks for the whole of our country, our institutions and democracy itself—the people we represent. Therefore the challenge for Government is how they preserve the benefits of private sector collaboration while ensuring that no single point of failure or future political, trade union or operational dispute can jeopardise or threaten the UK’s national security, sovereign capabilities or strategic interests. Who is ultimately in control? Is it the client—in this case, the Government—or is it big tech, or individual tech companies? Is there a master switch, and if so, whose hand is on it? If we are talking about a particular tech company, who within the tech company has the final say on disputed deployment of that tech, or on philosophical or political disagreements?

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  It is unusual for me to intervene, but I am glad the hon. Lady mentioned that number. I had no idea it was that many contracts for that particular company, and that underscores some of the points I was making. I can think of certain service companies, which I will not mention today, that have multiple contracts, some of which they deliver well, and some of which have been a complete disaster under successive Governments. I can think of some global IT companies—not big tech, but the old, traditional hardware companies—where some of those programmes are delivered well, and some have been a complete disaster. To have so many contracts in the hands of so few is concerning.

• 23 Jun 2026 · Role of Big Tech in Society · Hansard source

  More

  Just a minute: no deviation, repetition or hesitation—never from the Minister, who was completely direct, cogent and excellent as ever. But the question remains for all of us: who owns and controls the data and what does that mean for democracy? That is not a party political point. Is that control and oversight of the governance sat in an office in San Francisco or elsewhere, or is it in a Minister of the Crown’s office here in Whitehall? That will be an ongoing debate that goes to the fundamentals of why we are all here. The people must have the power, not large corporate entities. I think we all agree that we need to see more competition. Tech is a force for good, but we need to ensure that it has oversight.

• 22 Jun 2026 · Schools Funding · Hansard source

  More

  St Andrew’s primary school in Shifnal in my constituency is about to see a multimillion rebuild—or a new build in phases. Most of that money, but not all, will come from the Department for Education. Will the Secretary of State commit to ensuring that the funding is delivered, so that the school continues to offer the extra 25 places, as well as the 26-place nursery, that are part of the scheme? We have had false starts before, but this needs to be delivered—we need commitment from the Government.

• 22 Jun 2026 · G7 Summit · Hansard source

  More

  Can I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he is looking even more prime ministerial than he did on Wednesday? I wonder what has changed since then. This is the end of an era, because the love-in between the Deputy Prime Minister and myself could be coming to an end, as he may not be at the Dispatch Box much longer—I hope that is not the case. Is it not clear that Paris is not a place for British Prime Ministers? When Margaret Thatcher went to Paris for a security conference in 1990, she was gone as Prime Minister within four days. The right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has gone as Prime Minister within five days of visiting Paris for a security conference. In the communiqué from the G7, there is a reference to Ukraine and energy. When will the UK end its temporary licences for the import of Russian diesel and jet fuel through third countries? It is scheduled to end in 2027. Could the Deputy Prime Minister bring that date forward?

• 17 Jun 2026 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  May I say to the Deputy Prime Minister that he is looking very prime ministerial today? He certainly has my vote if he decides to run for Labour leader on Friday. [ Interruption. ] Trust me, it is a deliberate ploy. On a serious note, Stoke Heath is a small rural settlement in Shropshire, in my Wrekin constituency. Over the past few hours, I have been informed—at a very late point, I think, by the way—that 121 asylum seekers will be going into that settlement. That is a 35% increase in the population in a matter of weeks. It is equivalent to 44,000 asylum seekers coming into the Deputy Prime Minister’s constituency. While this is a tolerant, compassionate and understanding nation, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with me that that level of dispersal into a small, isolated, rural community is just not fair?

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The shadow Minister is making an excellent contribution, as always, and I completely agree with her. I support the Bill, but I think it is thin. I also support the former Attorney General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), and the comments about legal ambiguity. That runs through the whole Bill. The Home Secretary talked about diplomatic cover, saying that diplomats will not be affected by this, yet it is public knowledge that intelligence officers from certain countries operate under diplomatic cover. For example, if an intelligence officer from an embassy in the United Kingdom gave a great big bag of cash to a small criminal—I will not mention where they might be from—and said, “Go and commit some sabotage,” or “Go and commit some arson,” how would that be prosecuted in the courts? How is the Crown Prosecution Service going to disaggregate that? It would have to say, “This bit we can prosecute, but the other bit, the important bit, we cannot.”

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the Home Secretary will know, this is the fifth or sixth national security-related Bill in the past few years—the most Bills on national security issues that we have seen in any Parliament. She will also know that the UK intelligence community has more powers as a result of these Bills, as well as bigger budgets and more responsibilities than ever before. I commend all those serving in our agencies for their distinguished service. However, I am concerned that there are parts of Government that are currently not covered by aspects of the oversight of our intelligence community by the Intelligence and Security Committee. I commend the excellent members of that Committee; I am a former member, so I can commend them in the House today. It is absolutely vital that the intelligence services have independent oversight. Unfortunately, the legislation that oversees the ISC is 30 years old and 10 years old. We are having all these national security Bills, but we do not have commensurate Bills to improve oversight and accountability of our intelligence agencies. It needs to change, because we cannot have an echo chamber in the UK intelligence community. There needs to be parliamentary oversight with the power of sanction—summons and sanction. At the moment there is no power.

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Home Secretary for giving way again; she has been generous. Does she believe that the Bill sufficiently covers the areas of non-state actors and non-kinetic activity, which are being used more and more?

• 17 Jun 2026 · National Security (State Threats) Bill · Hansard source

  More

  The right hon. Gentleman references Cuba in the context of this legislation. The United States has elections—whether they elect the right president or not, is a matter for the Americans—but the Cuban people do not have that luxury. On direct or indirect threats to the United Kingdom’s interests—this is indirect threat—he will know that many Cuban nationals have been sent to Ukraine to fight in Russia’s illegal war. They are killing Ukrainian soldiers and aiding and abetting the bombing of civilians. Putin is losing, but if he did win, Cuba would have been aiding a regime that is not in our national security interest.

• 10 Jun 2026 · Defence Investment Plan · Hansard source

  More

  On defence procurement more widely, may I turn the Minister’s attention to the land mobility programme, and in particular the light mobility vehicle contract? He will know that the Land Rover is retiring after 70 years of faithful service, and that defence engineers in Shropshire are currently building the Boxer and the Challenger 3 tank. When that contract is looked at, would he come to Shropshire, meet RBSL and, most importantly, sign the contract in Shropshire?

• 10 Jun 2026 · Railways Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I am grateful to the Minister. Before he moves on, the issue of open access agreements is very important, because there is an inherent conflict in the arrangements in the Bill. I am unclear about whether it is the Transport Secretary or the Office of Rail and Road who will take decisions. The open access bid from Wrexham, Shropshire and Midlands Railway would see a direct link from Shropshire to London, with trains stopping in the important market town of Wellington. He talked about economic growth, and if that direct access were to be allowed, it would give a multimillion-pound boost to the market town of Wellington. Who will make the decision on that?