Mr Mark Francois
MP for Rayleigh and Wickford · Conservative · United Kingdom
“When the Defence Secretary agreed the SDR, he also signed up with the Treasury for almost £11 billion of efficiency savings. This was a Labour deal—a Faustian pact—between two warring Government Departments, but the effect of those in-year efficiency savings, or “spending cuts” in pub English, is now proving debilitating for our armed for…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have said it in the House, and we will see it through.” That is completely unambiguous, so imagine our anger when we then saw a letter from the permanent secretary to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, dated 25 September, which said not only that some £850 million of that money will be deferred to the next Parliament, but that…”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister might intervene and chide me for discussing submarine movements on the Floor of the House, but I am not—I am discussing the absence of submarine movements on the Floor of the House. We have also seen Army exercises cancelled on Salisbury plain and flying hours reduced for some of our RAF pilots.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I think it is because they are desperately trying to find someone—anyone—to go to one of their press conferences. Now, according to the Red Book, working-age welfare spending will increase to £221.5 billion in 2031-32. That is almost a quarter of a trillion pounds and an increase of over £57 billion since 2024-25.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles.” He should know.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In other words, a man who seemingly resigned on a point of honour, when he had the perfect chance to put that problem right, completely ducked it. All that Labour has done is kick the can down the road for a third time.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
The complete record
4,590 held · 4,589 searchable for Mr Mark Francois. The searchable lines are below in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 10.
This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.
“If it is true that the Defence Secretary has a plan for 2030, I ask him why the Labour Chair of the Defence Committee said yesterday in reaction to the Budget: “some of the key decisions on defence spending have lamentably been delayed until next year’s spending review. There is a cost to inaction. Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles.””
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend has been a staunch defender of Ukraine for many years in this House. Would he agree with what President Zelensky said yesterday, as reported in The Sun , when he advised this Government to prioritise UK defence spending and to do so without further delay? Does Zelensky know something the Government do not?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If I caused any offence, I am sorry, but I was reacting to the fact that the hon. Gentleman effectively said that the people on the Conservative Benches could not read, which I humbly suggest is not very polite.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to sum up for His Majesty’s Opposition this afternoon. Perhaps I can begin on a consensual note by pointing out that yet again, as we are debating these important economic matters, including the defence of the realm, there is no Member of Parliament from the Reform party present. They have taken no part in this debate at all. We know that they do not do Thursday afternoons, and they certainly do not do defence either.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He talks about being ready for war within 1,000 days, while at the same time imposing crippling cuts on the operations and training of our armed forces, who are there to deter war in the first place—si vis pacem, para bellum. The Budget totally failed to answer the question of how the Government will actually spend 3% of GDP on defence, and they are listening in Moscow, Beijing, Tehran and Pyongyang. This is a dereliction of duty by a Government who will the ends but do not will the means, who talk tough but act weak, who have let down the people of this country and will not defend them properly, and who must be held to account at the ballot box for their abject failure in defence of the realm.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We have said it in the House, and we will see it through.” That is completely unambiguous, so imagine our anger when we then saw a letter from the permanent secretary to the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, dated 25 September, which said not only that some £850 million of that money will be deferred to the next Parliament, but that an additional £1 billion of upgrades to single living accommodation for soldiers will be deferred as well. What the Government have done is cut nearly £2 billion of that investment in this Parliament, in a desperate attempt to meet exactly the Treasury-imposed efficiency savings target that, for five months, they swore blind to us they would not do. The Defence Secretary, who opened this debate, neglected to mention the MOD’s £3.5 billion efficiency savings target for this year.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I served for some five months on the Armed Forces Bill Committee, and we were told repeatedly that the money for housing would not be raided for short-term efficiency savings. In fact, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak told us in the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill on 18 March: “The £9 billion has been ringfenced; it has absolutely been secured for defence housing. Nothing in the DIP process will stop us getting on with the job of making these improvements and getting the job done. We have made that commitment to not just the armed forces community but the nation.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Investment in our nation’s defence and security cannot be kicked into the long grass. Our adversaries are not bound by fiscal years and spending cycles.” He should know. Yesterday we even learned from the depths of the Budget Red Book that the Chancellor has effectively cut the overall MOD budget by £1 billion in each of the next two years by pocketing reduced spending estimates on MOD pensions for the Treasury, rather than allowing the MOD to retain the cash and spend it on bolstering our defences. The Treasury has described these two £1 billion cuts in the defence budget as an “accounting adjustment”. Well, it is Enron accounting. It is smoke and mirrors, and it only helps our adversaries, not our armed forces. On defence housing, there is a similar story.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister might intervene and chide me for discussing submarine movements on the Floor of the House, but I am not—I am discussing the absence of submarine movements on the Floor of the House. We have also seen Army exercises cancelled on Salisbury plain and flying hours reduced for some of our RAF pilots. These are exactly the wrong things to be doing if we are trying to send messages to Vladimir Putin, a former KGB colonel, to deter him from further adventurism—for instance, in the Baltic states. Yesterday, the Labour Chair of the Defence Committee—I am afraid I am going to quote him again—excellently summed it up by saying that “some of the key decisions on defence spending have lamentably been delayed until next year’s spending review. There is a cost to inaction.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When the Defence Secretary agreed the SDR, he also signed up with the Treasury for almost £11 billion of efficiency savings. This was a Labour deal—a Faustian pact—between two warring Government Departments, but the effect of those in-year efficiency savings, or “spending cuts” in pub English, is now proving debilitating for our armed forces. The in-year cuts were some £2.5 billion in the previous financial year and £3.5 billion this year, 2026-27. One of the reasons it took nearly a month to get HMS Dragon to sea was that maintenance cuts occurred under the efficiency savings programme. We now see the vast bulk of the Royal Navy tied up alongside the quayside, partly because of maintenance issues but also to save money. For many months, we had a period in which not a single one of our nuclear attack submarines was at sea.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In other words, a man who seemingly resigned on a point of honour, when he had the perfect chance to put that problem right, completely ducked it. All that Labour has done is kick the can down the road for a third time. Our armed forces therefore cannot realistically plan because they do not know how much money they will really have to spend on this nation’s defence, and they are now going to have to wait at least another year before they do. The House need not take it from me; Chris Mason, the political editor of the BBC, in summarising the Budget on the 6 o’clock news last night, said, “The biggest questions this Government still faces, such as the long-term funding of defence, this Budget didn’t answer.” In fact, it is even worse than that.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Rawmarsh and Conisbrough (John Healey) was immediately reincarnated as the Chancellor of the Exchequer. However, he then found himself with the boot very much on the other foot. Given his understanding of defence, and the solemn terms in which he wrote his letter, it was not unreasonable to assume that, having now seized control of the bridge at the Treasury, he would be ideally placed to meet his own request to name the date for 3% and how to finance it. Otherwise, why did he resign? I am therefore genuinely deeply saddened to see that, yesterday, he failed his own test. All we were given was an offer to produce a plan for 3% in the Government spending review, which will take place next year.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have here his resignation letter, dated 11 June, and I quote from it directly: “After explaining to you that I would not be able to accept a DIP settlement that does not give our Forces the resources they need, I am now left with no other option than to submit my resignation as your Defence Secretary.” It is also worth recalling that the then Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), resigned in company with him, partly over this and also because of his very severe reservations about the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill—a wicked Bill—which he famously described as “unfit for purpose”. Once the previous Prime Minister then fell, miraculously, having resigned as Defence Secretary, the right hon.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“At the time of the SDR, we were told that that level of detail would be provided in the subsequent defence investment plan. The House was promised this in the autumn, then by Christmas, then by the new year, then in the spring, and it was finally published only in late June 2026. Nevertheless, when the DIP was eventually published, the Government kicked the can down the road for a second time and still failed to provide a definitive date for when, and crucially how, this country would spend 3% of GDP on defence. Indeed, the then Defence Secretary, now the Chancellor, famously resigned, seemingly on a point of honour, because the Government had failed to give a date for 3%.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“He promised to “begin work”—his words—on how this would be achieved by the time of the spending review next year. The Labour Government have already had two years to answer this question, so why do they need a further year now? When Labour published the strategic defence review in June 2025, all three authors of the review, led by Lord Robertson, a respected former Secretary-General of NATO, were absolutely adamant that the bill for implementing their recommendations was a minimum of 3% of GDP on defence. Unless and until the Government definitively commit to spending that money, it is very difficult for our armed forces realistically to deter a war with any aggressor, and in particular the Russians—not the Trussians!”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I think it is because they are desperately trying to find someone—anyone—to go to one of their press conferences. Now, according to the Red Book, working-age welfare spending will increase to £221.5 billion in 2031-32. That is almost a quarter of a trillion pounds and an increase of over £57 billion since 2024-25. The Prime Minister famously said at the Dispatch Box just a few weeks ago that “national security…cannot come at the expense of social security.” —[ Official Report , 9 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 1036.] That really is a segue to what I principally want to say this afternoon. What the Chancellor announced yesterday was not a detailed programme for how to spend 3% of GDP on defence, but just a plan to have a plan—which is not really a plan at all.”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sure the right hon. and learned Lady can confirm to the House that she is a Treasury Minister. I have here the press release issued by—the Treasury—which says, “Exclusive. Chancellor John Healey tells Krishnan Guru-Murthy Labour will not bring welfare bill—””
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was reading the press release, but I accept your admonition. Anyway, it says that the bloke who is in charge of the Treasury has told Krishnan Guru-Murthy that Labour will not bring the welfare bill down in this Parliament and the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—to give the right hon. and learned Lady her correct title—has just said that it will. Who is right? Is it the right hon. and learned Lady, or is it her boss? They cannot both be, can they?”
House of Commons29 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I declare an interest: my wife, Olivia, works as a radiographer in the national health service. The thrust of the Government information given to all our constituents is about catching cancer as early as possible; part of the dilemma is that the Government position on prostate cancer screening seems to run against that. Over the weekend, I had a dozen emails from constituents who either have had prostate cancer or have family members who have been touched by it. Does my hon. Friend agree that, given that dichotomy, the Government should perhaps play it a little safe and be prepared to look at this again?”
House of Commons26 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can I ask the Leader of the House for an urgent debate, replied to by a Health Minister, so that we can address the problems at Basildon, and do our best to put them right for both the patients and the staff?”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Can we have an urgent debate on the crisis at Basildon hospital? It is rated inadequate by the Care Quality Commission, and it now appears that the CQC will prosecute the hospital early next year for the sad death of two patients from sepsis in 2022 and 2023. Just the other day, 20 ambulances were racked up in the car park outside the A&E department. To be clear, this is not the fault of the hard-pressed and increasingly demoralised staff; it is the fault of the wholly inadequate management of the hospital and, sadly, of the equally inadequate management of the trust of which it is part. We cannot let this situation deteriorate further.”
House of Commons22 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, one that explains very well why veterans have lost confidence in the coronial system. Does he agree with David Johnstone, the Northern Ireland Veterans Commissioner, who recently said: “Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids.”?”
House of Commons20 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Part of the growing threat from Russia—and it is growing —includes increased maritime activity, both in the English channel and in the surveillance of critically important undersea cables, including by specialist Russian submarines. Part of our response should surely be to increase our own submarine patrols around our shores. However, for many months, not a single one of our Astute class attack submarines has been on patrol. I know that it is not the Government’s policy to comment on submarine movements, but I am asking about the absence of submarine movements. Why, on Labour’s watch, have our attack submarines been embarrassingly tied up alongside for months at a time, while the Russians are roving in the North sea and the Atlantic?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Unfortunately, that is indicative of the terrible mess that the Government have got themselves into over this benighted piece of legislation, which was described by eight former four-star generals and one air chief marshal as “a direct threat to national security.” General the Lord Dannatt, a distinguished former Chief of the General Staff, reacted to the Bill by asking why, if it were enacted, anyone would ever consider joining the British Army in the future.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am privileged to be speaking for His Majesty’s Opposition in this very important debate. I will speak to our new clauses 13 and 21 and our amendment 47, which stand in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. In my remarks, I will also refer to at least some of the Government’s 144 amendments; to amendment 23; and to new clause 55 regarding inquests, which has been tabled by the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), who is in his place. We face an unusual situation this afternoon, in that we are debating a Bill that had its Second Reading more than a year ago and that has required not one but two carry-over motions just to keep it alive.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have two replies. First, if “new and compelling” is such a bad phrase, why have the Government included it in one of their own amendments? Secondly, yes, it should be a high bar.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Just a second—I know the hon. Gentleman is keen, but let me answer the Secretary of State first. This is the whole problem with the Bill. For years, many of our veterans have faced the sword of Damocles. They have been perennially investigated and re-investigated, often at the hands of Republican Sinn Féin—mainly for political reasons, because they want to rewrite the history of the troubles. Our wording does not stop any future investigation; it just means—”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Hang on. It just means that we cannot keep raking over the coals again and again, unless someone provides evidence that is new and compelling. The legal test has not been chosen at random. It is based on similar examples, including in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021, passed by a Conservative Government.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Nevertheless, in a number of cases, former soldiers have been subject to an unfavourable verdict at the end of an inquest, which is then used by Sinn Féin and their acolytes to attempt to forward the findings of the inquest to the prosecuting authorities in Northern Ireland, who then attempted to charge them. Through that process, often funded by the taxpayer via legal aid, many in the republican movement have attempted to systematically pursue veterans and place them in the dock.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As the Committee will know, he is more than capable of speaking for himself and I do not wish in any way to steal his thunder, but given the order of speeches I thought it appropriate to say something now. The essence of new clause 55 is, as I understand it, that it would prevent the continuation of a dual-track approach under the auspices of the Bill, as any new investigations of whatever kind would have to take place under the aegis of the legacy commission. This is a very important point. We have seen, in previous years, what I have referred to before as the conveyor belt of inquests, whereby a veteran—often by now quite elderly—is subjected to a sometimes gruelling inquest. The purpose of an inquest is to establish how someone died, not to apportion guilt or blame.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Some issues even relate back to their service in Northern Ireland in very difficult circumstances, where they often had to act, in effect, as piggy in the middle between two warring sectarian communities. The essence of our amendment is that those factors should be taken fully into account, including the number of times that a veteran has been previously investigated, before any prosecutions are proceeded with. Our new clause 13 is included in order to restrict resort to civil actions, lest veterans be pursued by a treble whammy combination of the legacy commission, coronial inquests and civil actions on top. New clause 55 is tabled in the name of the former Veterans Minister, the hon. and gallant Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described the Bill as not fit for purpose.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“General Sir Peter Wall, another former Chief of the General Staff, and General Sir Nick Parker, a former commander of the UK Land Forces, argued in a recent public statement: “We have consistently proposed a straightforward solution: a single route through which families can seek answers, but no renewed adversarial proceedings against previously investigated veterans unless genuinely new and compelling evidence has been independently established.” Let me turn to our amendment 47. Many veterans of Op Banner, which commenced 57 years ago, are now in the autumn of their lives. Some suffer from physical ailments and some from mental health issues, including memory loss.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, we are trying to prevent lawfare. That is the whole point of the new clause. Ours is a far clearer definition than that which the Government have proposed—that evidence should be “essential”. That is a much lower bar, and, crucially, what “essential” would mean is undefined in the Bill—essential to whom? There is considerable support for our amendment within the veterans community and from those who commanded them.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If the hon. Gentleman will just let me finish this point, then I will. The Northern Ireland Veterans’ Commissioner, David Johnstone, recently described the process in the following stark terms in The Times . He said: “Because the coronial system allows for appeals, judicial reviews, all the way up to the Supreme Court, and families can access legal aid, it is lawfare on steroids”. As the Committee knows, we on the Conservative Benches are opposed to the Bill in principle. Nevertheless, we believe that it would be helpful were this amendment to be passed. Therefore, should the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak wish to press his amendment to a Division, we would certainly support him in the Lobby tonight.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The process still remains the punishment, and the ultimate outcome is still the same: the veteran ends up in the dock.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“This is a green light for the continued pursuit of veterans after decades have passed and where there is nothing new to learn.” Generals Wall and Parker have reached this conclusion: “The Government must decide whether it is prepared to protect those who served lawfully on its behalf from endless legal process. If that is its intention, it must say so unequivocally and legislate accordingly. If it is not, it should stop pretending that its amendments offer veterans meaningful protection.” It is obvious that veterans do not support the Government’s amendments, because they are very clear in their own mind that the Bill, even amended, still provides a mechanism for pursuing them via lawfare, to the advantage of those such as Sinn Féin.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“By reinstating Coroner’s Inquests and civil actions, the Government has reopened the very legal routes historically used to drag former soldiers and police officers back into adversarial proceedings—often decades after events were thoroughly investigated.” On behalf of our special forces, the Special Air Service, the Special Boat Service and the Special Reconnaissance Regimental Association collectively pointed out in their public statement: “The amendments still allow: (i) a re-investigation to commence without even the suggestion that new evidence is available; and (ii) a veteran to be compelled to participate in that investigation even if their involvement is not for purposes of obtaining new evidence—all that is required is that the investigator should consider that it is ‘essential’ to re-investigate (and a meaning of essential is not provided).”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“With regard to the Government’s amendments—as there are 140 of them, I cannot go through them individually; you would not thank me for that, Ms Ghani—the Secretary of State sort of implied that they have support from the veterans community. I have to say that that is incorrect. Even despite his amendments, he has not achieved his aim there. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement summarised the Secretary of State’s amendments in the following words: “Despite repeated assurances that veterans would be protected from additional prosecutions, the amendments now tabled remove those protections entirely.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I think, in fairness, I was very clear in my opening remarks that people were murdered by both republican and loyalist terrorists. There were men of violence on both sides who sought to kill innocent people to forward their appalling aims. I respectfully say to the hon. Gentleman that even members of the republican movement have been critical of the Bill. Danny Morrison, a former Sinn Féin publicity director and one-time spokesman for Bobby Sands, told a documentary about Operation Banner in August this year: “There’s absolutely no doubt about it that the British Government, in a way, has to protect its Veterans, because if it doesn’t now, who’s going to go and fight overseas in another conflict?” That is a very realistic point.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State, in his intervention, said something very important. He gave an example of where an ICRIR investigation had brought comfort to a family. It is important that he placed that on the record. If ICRIR, established under the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, is succeeding in that sense, does it not make sense to pray in aid the old motto that if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend again; he is making an extremely thoughtful contribution to what has been a very respectful debate all round. Conditional immunity was a fundamental principle in the 2023 legacy Act. It was based in part on the Select Committee report of 2017 and on lessons learned from the South African truth and reconciliation commission. I am very grateful to him for making it absolutely plain that the legacy Act offered only conditional immunity, adjudicated by ICRIR, in return for information, such as where one of the disappeared might have been buried. It is a very important point and I am grateful to him for making it.”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Briefly, it is good that the Secretary of State is prepared to entertain compelling new evidence in at least one context, but he knows as well as I do, and as well as veterans do, that in the Government’s amendment that relates to a witness but not to suspects. It still does not stop those investigations starting again, does it?”
House of Commons19 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Minister mentioned roads unlocking house building. Labour wants to build 100,000 houses in south Essex, from Grays to Shoeburyness, so why did it cancel the widening of the A12 some months ago? Last week, it cancelled upgrades to the A127, too. It makes no sense to build all those houses, but if we are going to do that, it is insane to cancel the road upgrades that we need to accommodate that building. Why did Labour do that? None of this is joined up, is it?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am sorry, but the Minister cannot get away with that. Labour cancelled the widening of the A12, which had been planned for years, and it cancelled the upgrades to the A127. Please answer my question. How can Labour propose building 100,000 houses while cancelling strategic road programmes? It does not make sense.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As a south Essex MP, I had my first briefing on the lower Thames crossing about a decade ago. The estimated cost at that time was between £2 billion and £2.5 billion. After, I think, five rounds of consultation, partly at the behest of environmental activists, which have delayed the whole thing for years, we now have a bill of between £9 billion and £10 billion. Under the first plans, the project would have been paid for by the state, but now Government policy is that 90% of it will be paid for by the private sector. I have asked the Transport Secretary three times which banks or companies will pay for it. Does my right hon. Friend know, because she will not tell me?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“For the record, the first Dartford tunnel opened in 1963, under a Conservative Government, and the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Thurrock opened in 1991, under a Conservative Government. Is not the risk that if the lower Thames crossing is 90% funded by private finance, which I am not opposed to in principle, the toll charges could be so ruinous that it will be very difficult for ordinary motorists to afford it? We would have some confidence if we knew who was going to fund the scheme, but until we know that, we are going to be worried, aren’t we?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Gentleman has obviously spent a lot of time looking into this matter, and I commend him for that. As a result of his discussions, could he estimate when we might know who the funders will be—is it another year or two? When will it be? As he has obviously spoken to the Road Haulage Association as well, what does he think the initial toll will be for a lorry going through the tunnel?”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The hon. Member is making a very thoughtful speech. I was recently on a private holiday in Texas, being driven by a friend. In that state, there is a number of toll roads, so people have a chip attached to the windscreen that allows them to transition from public roads, as it were, to toll roads and back again, with that chip recording what they have to pay as they go from one to the other. The technology to do this already exists—I saw it with my own eyes. We are just a bit worried that the Government might be a bit too keen to adopt it.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My hon. Friend brings valuable ministerial experience to the House. I think it is fair to say that the lower Thames crossing has a very long and checkered history, just as HS2 has a very long and checkered history—in both cases, under Governments of different colours—but he is absolutely right: in south Essex, the scepticism about future tolls on the lower Thames crossing is largely based on the fact that the tolls on the QEII bridge are still in operation.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Department of Health and Social Care has a particular challenge at Basildon hospital, which is pretty much maxed out as it is. According to the NHS’s own planning metric, it works on a basis of 2.4 additional potential patients per dwelling. The plans say there will be 28,000 additional houses in the Basildon borough, and 35,000 in Thurrock, thanks to Reform and Labour; that is 63,000 in total. When we factor in the 2.4 multiplier, that is 151,200 additional patients—at least by my maths—for a hospital in Basildon that is completely maxed out today as it is.”
House of Commons15 October 2026Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗