Mr Mark Francois
MP for Rayleigh and Wickford · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Secondly, what actions is he as Defence Secretary, no doubt in consultation with the Chief of the General Staff, taking to push back against these pernicious in-year funding cuts imposed by the Treasury?”
“Taking him at his word, I must press him on some extremely worrying reports—first published in The Times on 3 September, and amplified in the Defence Eye journal on Tuesday—that British Army training is being seriously curtailed in order to provide in-year efficiency savings— “cuts”, in pub English— at the Treasury’s behest.”
“I am sure that I speak for the whole House in paying tribute to the Ukrainians for their fierce and determined resistance. They are fighting for the values of freedom and democracy, which this House has represented for centuries, so when we say, “Slava Ukraini!”, we mean it.”
“On behalf of the shadow Defence team, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the new Defence Secretary—Labour’s third in three months—to his place and to thank him for advance sight of this important statement.”
“Tragically, a number of innocent civilians were murdered in Kyiv last night. On supporting Ukraine and brave President Zelensky, there has been absolute solidarity between ourselves and the Labour party.”
“On housing numbers, there is no Reform MP present this afternoon, but Reform-led Rochford district council has just published its regulation 19 local plan.”
The complete record
Every one of 2,746 lines we hold for Mr Mark Francois, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 55.
“Everyone agrees we simply cannot go on with this endless stop-start cycle regarding Ajax, not least as it represents the Army’s largest procurement programme at £5.5 billion for acquisition, or £6.3 billion including life-cycle costs. It is also the Army’s biggest chunk of the long-delayed defence investment plan. In short, as safety is paramount, Ministers now have one of two stark options over Ajax: either they must fix it or fail it once and for all. Let us look at both. Ajax has always been too big to fail. Many senior generals, senior civil servants and GD directors have their careers effectively invested in the programme. Indeed, Sheldon relates in some detail the reluctance over a long period of DE&S senior management to even admit that there were serious failings with the vehicle.”
“The response of GD UK, in the form of Mr Robert Skivington, one of its then managers, was—disgustingly—to blame the Army’s crews and their commanders in an expletive-ridden social media post. In my sorry, decade-long experience of General Dynamics, that just about sums up their management—not their workers. Moreover, I had a chance encounter with the Ajax senior responsible owner, Mr Chris Bowbrick, at the Defence and Security Equipment International exhibition last September, during which he categorically assured me that Ajax was now safe—and he even shook my hand on it. If the Minister feels angry that he was misinformed, I feel exactly the same way.”
“Armed with letters from both of those very senior gentlemen confirming that Ajax was indeed ready to enter service safely, the Minister went ahead—we believe in good faith—and declared to the media that Ajax is “a vehicle that is safe, effective and truly cutting-edge.” I can therefore only imagine his horror when, on 22 November, a major regimental exercise on Salisbury plain to test Ajax’s battle-worthiness—involving two squadrons of Ajax vehicles, along with command and support variants, some 60 vehicles in all—had to be rapidly abandoned after 23 crew members reported serious vibration and noise-related injuries. Subsequently, the Minister even halted trials on individual Ajax test vehicles, after further injuries to test crews were discovered.”
“Given the controversial history of the programme, the Minister—who cannot be here today, but who is no fool—did exactly what I would have done, which was to ask for written assurances that the programme was safe, including from the Chief of the General Staff and the National Armaments Director. One key question, incidentally, is: who told both of them that it was safe?”
“In 2022, Defence Secretary Ben Wallace, rightfully exasperated by the endless delays and the quality of advice being given to Ministers, commissioned the wholly independent Clive Sheldon KC to undertake a detailed review of Ajax. Sheldon’s 172-page review—I have it here—was excoriating. To summarise it in one sentence, it painted a picture of a completely dysfunctional UK procurement system, in which serious concerns articulated at junior level were routinely ignored or explained away by senior managers. Nevertheless, the Army began preparing to bring Ajax into operational service. On 5 November last year, the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry headed up a major media event at General Dynamics’ Ajax production facility in Merthyr Tydfil to declare that Ajax had successfully achieved “Initial Operating Capability”.”
“Concerns regarding vibration and noise-related injuries to crews were first flagged by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory as far back as 2014, but it was not until November 2020—six years later—that Ministers were first informed that trials had been suspended over safety concerns. Defence Equipment and Support, after much internal angst, then issued a formal stop notice in June 2021. Ajax trials were eventually restarted in 2022, but not before the programme had been subject to trenchant criticism from the Defence Committee, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, the National Audit Office—which famously concluded that Ajax was “flawed from the start”—and the Public Accounts Committee to boot.”
“The coalition Government, at the Cardiff NATO summit in 2014, announced that Ajax would be manufactured in Merthyr Tydfil, using hulls imported from Spain. In short, Labour originally ordered Ajax, but the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats decided where it would be built. Unusually, this was to encompass both a development and production contract running simultaneously. Moreover, an early decision was taken to up-gun Ajax from a 30 mm to a 40 mm weapon, involving a major redesign of the turret. In all, the Army eventually insisted on an incredible 1,200 additional requirements, totally contrary to the off-the-shelf principle.”
“As the Defence Committee report of February 2007—I have it here—brutally concluded: “This is a sorry story of indecision, constantly changing requirements and delay...It is high time the MoD decided where its priorities lay.” That was 19 years ago. Following much criticism, FRES was abandoned and eventually re-emerged as the Ajax family of armoured vehicles, with six variants. In March 2010, during the dying months of the Brown Government, the decision was taken to meet the requirement by purchasing the vehicle known as ASCOD, which was also being procured by the Spanish army, in Spain, from US contractor General Dynamics. Crucially, this was originally intended to be an off-the-shelf procurement, with minimal design modification, to enter service in 2017.”
“I have with me the actual minute of the Committee’s 2022 visit, which confirms exactly what my hon. Friend said. Ajax’s genesis goes back several decades, under Governments of multiple colours. It effectively began life in the 1980s under the Conservatives as an Anglo-American reconnaissance vehicle programme called TRACER—the tactical reconnaissance armoured combat equipment requirement. Eventually that programme broke down, and the United States continued to develop the Bradley family unilaterally. Back in Britain, under Tony Blair’s Labour Government, the programme evolved into the future rapid effect system—FRES—which itself ran into considerable trouble.”
“As my hon. Friend knows, seven of the top 10 constituencies in terms of numbers of people who have signed the petition are in Essex, and they include my own constituency. That is how unpopular Labour is in Essex. Does he think that might have anything to do with why Labour councillors want to cancel the local elections in Essex in May? Or is that just an amazing coincidence?”
“Is the hon. Gentleman seriously saying—his attitude is unbelievably patronising—that the more than 1 million people across the UK who signed the petition are basically all children who do not know what they are doing? That is his implication, which is deeply insulting to 1 million-plus people, including our constituents.”
“The hon. Gentleman may recall that 17.3 million people voted in that referendum, peacefully and democratically, to leave the European Union. That is a lot more people than voted for Labour at the general election. If he is not prepared to respect the opinion of the million people who signed the petition, and as he is all about numbers today, will he respect the will of the 17.3 million people who voted to leave the EU? Or is that not a big enough number for him either?”
“Happy new year, Mr Speaker. Can we have an urgent debate on the need to proceed with the local elections in May? In July 1945 we held a general election, even though we were still involved in fighting the second world war in the far east. If we can have a general election in wartime, why can we not have local elections in peacetime four months from today, including in Labour-led Basildon, Southend and Thurrock? What is Labour frightened of—other than losing, of course?”
“The measures will not solve the whole problem of roadworks, but they should certainly help, and my constituents and I will be grateful.”
“Another way to improve road safety is to reduce driver frustration caused by roadworks, particularly those that overrun. That is why in 2022 I launched a campaign to “Can the Cones” and introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to tighten up on roadworks regulations. I lobbied the then Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), and after the election I lobbied the road safety Minister, who kindly gave me a hearing. I welcome the fact that the Government have just announced that they are tightening the regulation of roadworks, particularly by increasing the fines for those that overrun, which was integral to my Bill. I give credit where it is due and I thank the Minister personally for listening.”
“I commend the Committee’s report and the hon. Member for summarising it so excellently. There are several questions I would like to ask him, but for brevity I will confine myself to one. A few minutes ago, he suggested that the Government should consider including a cable repair ship in its new defence equipment programme, and I think we would have sympathy with that, but for that we need a defence investment plan. The House was faithfully promised such a plan in August and then very faithfully promised it by Christmas, but the rumour is that we will not get it till March. Would he agree with me that we need that equipment plan sooner rather than later, and ideally this month rather than having to wait till March?”
“I apologise for intervening on my right hon. Friend so early on, but he has mentioned Russia several times. He will be aware that there has been much talk about ceasefires, but there is no sign of one yet, because Putin still thinks he is winning in Ukraine. Would he agree with me that, if we really want to compel Putin to stop killing Ukrainians, we need to increase sanctions on the Russian Government, particularly on their hydrocarbons, which means action not just by us and Europe, but further sanctions from the United States?”
“Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Solicitor General is aware of Operation Nova, which is funded by the Department of Health and Social Care and assists veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice system, so may I set her a theoretical challenge? Let us assume that an Op Nova veteran who fought in Afghanistan goes out one evening and is assaulted in a bar, perhaps by someone who does not like soldiers very much, but the situation is confused, and the soldier—the veteran—ends up in the dock. Should not that person, who fought for his country in a war zone and in this country’s uniform, be entitled to put his defence in front of a jury of his peers?”
“They’re not going to risk that! Mr Speaker, we know you are an animal lover—the world knows that—but some may recall that our great friend, Sir David, was a passionate animal lover, too. One cause that was very close to his heart was pig farrowing crates. Another was banning the import of foreign hunting trophies, which is an awful trade. There was a private Member’s Bill in the last Session that sailed through the Commons but ran into trouble in the Lords. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are committed to banning the import of hunting trophies? At the moment, they are not providing any private Member’s Bill Fridays for other reasons, so how will that ban be achieved?”
“In contrast, while our Ministers prevaricate, our Polish allies are digging anti-tank ditches along the border with Belarus. The Romans had a saying: “Si vis pacem, para bellum” —he who desires peace should prepare for war in order to deter it. The Conservatives announced a £50 billion sovereign defence fund this morning to do precisely that.”
“Moreover, in-year—now—Defence Ministers are pursuing an efficiency savings exercise—“savings cuts” in pub English—of £2.6 billion in the Department’s operating budget, which is materially affecting our readiness for war and thus our ability to deter it. In summary, our commitment across this House to the brave Ukrainians remains unwavering, but as someone once famously said, “To govern is to choose.” Yet again, the Government have avoided making choices, moving key capability decisions even further to the right yet again. When it comes to the future procurement of vital military equipment for the defence of the United Kingdom and our allies, they have kicked the can so far down the road that we can no longer see the can at all—even with an Ajax.”
“It means that things are moving very slowly, rather than moving at pace, given the threats from adversaries.” Is it any wonder that his all-party Committee recently described the Government’s progress on increasing war readiness in Britain as “glacial”? We also welcome the ongoing financial commitment to Ukraine, which follows a similar path to our approach when in government. Would that we had such financial clarity at home. The three distinguished authors of the strategic defence review were adamant that it required defence expenditure of 3% of GDP to deliver it. But the Government cannot even give the year in which that will be reached because they are incapable inter-departmentally of agreeing it.”
“Roberto Cingolani, the corporate CEO of Leonardo, said recently: “We cannot subsidise Yeovil forever”. That frustration will be repeated up and down our defence manufacturing base, from primes to fourth-tier subcontractors, the latter of whom struggle to subsidise anything at all. Is it any wonder that Mr Kevin Craven, the chief executive of ADS, said only yesterday in the Financial Time s that the “delay in releasing the Defence Investment Plan…is frustrating, to say the least”? If we are to defend the Ukrainians successfully, we have to be able to defend ourselves. At the Liaison Committee on Monday, the Chairman of the Defence Select Committee, who as ever is in his place, told the Prime Minister: “the Government does not seem able to agree on the money involved. It cannot deliver the defence investment plan on time.”
“However, if British troops were to participate, they would need to have modern, effective equipment. That brings me to the elephant in the House: where is the long-awaited defence investment plan? Prior to the summer recess, the Defence Secretary assured us that the DIP would be published in the autumn. As the autumn came and went, it slipped right, but Ministers remained adamant that the DIP would still be published before the House rose for Christmas. So where on earth is it? As there were multiple references to industry in his statement, let me say to the Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry that our defence industry will rightly be furious at this continued delay. To give just one example, we still have no decision on the new medium helicopter—a programme vital for the future of Leonardo’s workforce of thousands at Yeovil.”
“A world war one Admiral, Sir Jackie Fisher, once remarked, “Ultimately, all nations desire peace…but peace on their terms.” We cannot allow peace on Putin’s terms, as that peace would surely not last for long. It is also worth reminding our American allies that article 5 of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once—by them, in 2001, following the appalling attack on the twin towers. Thousands of Americans were murdered that day, as were several hundred Britons. When the Americans rightfully called for help, within weeks British special forces were working alongside their American counterparts, killing terrorists in the caves of Tora Bora. Alliances work both ways. For the record, when the call came, we turned up. The Minister also made reference to the coalition of the willing.”
“I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement. On behalf of His Majesty’s Opposition, I echo the Minister’s rightful tribute to Lance Corporal George Hooley of the Parachute Regiment, who gave his life for the cause of freedom while serving in Ukraine. His sacrifice will never be forgotten. There are things that we welcome in this statement, including the imposition of further sanctions and the provision of new equipment, including drones, missiles and in particular air defence equipment for Ukraine. We must not forget that Vladimir Putin is a former KGB colonel who has sanctioned the barbaric use of highly accurate cruise missiles against children’s hospitals in Ukraine. In particular, I agree with the Minister that no enduring settlement of the war can be reached over the heads of the Ukrainians.”
“Absolutely; it does pertain to the statement. We had been hoping for a Christmas present in the form of a defence investment plan. The Minister has told the House that the Government are working, in his words, flat out—”
“Labour’s process of local government reorganisation is descending into farce. Two days ago, the Secretary of State assured the House that next May’s elections were going ahead. Now, the day we rise for Christmas, the Minister comes here and says, “Well, they might not.” I back to the hilt the Conservative leader of Essex county council, Kevin Bentley, when he says that they must go ahead. He is right, but what about the lower tier? What about Labour-led Basildon, Labour-led Thurrock and Labour-led Southend? Are they allowed to run away and hide, just because Labour is tanking in the polls?”
“Get them on site, and let’s get that new supermarket opened in a way that my constituents in Wickford—who have waited more than long enough—deserve.” In my final 10 seconds, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you, all MPs, the staff of the House, and our own staff—without whom this job would be impossible—a very merry Christmas.”
“Heriot recently got planning permission, yet it still has not managed to secure a contract with a new tenant. There are rumours all over the town of Wickford that it has been talking to everyone from Lidl to Waitrose, although I will believe the latter when I see it. My constituents in Wickford are exasperated with Heriot. They just want a new supermarket. They deserve one by now, so I make a plea in the Commons to the directors of Heriot, with whom I have had numerous meetings: “Please, please bring this to fruition. You’ve got planning permission; pick one group and do a deal with them.”
“This is a big win for the local community; we had a public meeting in April at which there was overwhelming public support for the idea. The planning application has been slightly delayed because of red tape, but Riverside assures me that that application will go in soon, and it should be a relatively straightforward conversion. Hopefully, that annexe—which I think will be very popular in the village of Hullbridge—will open some time in the summer of 2026. That is a good-news story. We then have the saga—and it is a saga—of the old Co-op supermarket site in Wickford. In a nutshell, the Co-op closed over three years ago. The site was bought by a South Africa-based developer called Heriot. It tried to do a deal to redevelop the site with Morrisons, but that fell through; it tried to do one with Asda, but that also fell through.”
“As I have three minutes, I just want to raise two quick issues. The first, I hope, is good news; it is to do with Riverside medical centre. I have been trying for seven years to get an extension on its GP practice, but because of the unbelievable NHS bureaucracy, about which I will not try the patience of the House, it has not been possible to do so until recently, even though a brand new housing estate called High Elms Park, built by Barratt Homes, has produced many extra residents who need a GP. The parties have now come up with an innovative solution. Barratt has just sold the last couple of houses on the estate, and for a notional £1 it is going to donate its sales office to the practice, which will convert it into a GP annexe that can accommodate three GPs with attendant training and administrative facilities.”
“Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am too experienced to try to displease you in any way. For clarity, I was responding to the fact that the hon. Gentleman had accused— [ Interruption. ] Pardon me. He had accused my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) of saying something that, as Hansard will prove conclusively in the morning, he clearly did not say. If the hon. Gentleman and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, feel that that word was inappropriate, I withdraw it. However, I still believe that the hon. Gentleman was wrong.”
“There would be no guarantee of a public inquiry, and the application could even be given to a planning inspector to deal with it behind closed doors by written representations—by letter—so that local people and their councillors would not have a chance to say anything at all. That is completely undemocratic, is it not? Why have a local plan at all?”
“The Conservatives were right to abolish Whitehall-imposed mandatory housing targets, and Labour was wrong to bring them back. May I ask the Minister specifically about call-ins? Under the well-established system, the Secretary of State might have called in, on average, about 20 applications a year if they raised issues with national implications, and there was almost invariably a full public planning inquiry. Under Labour’s proposals, councils will have to notify the Secretary of State if they intend to refuse any application for more than 150 homes. The Secretary of State could then call it in before local councillors have even had a chance to vote on it.”
“Regarding Northern Ireland veterans who served on Operation Banner, the Government’s Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has now been powerfully described by eight retired four-star generals and an air chief marshal as: “A direct threat to national security.” Can the Minister confirm that not all the Government’s six protections for veterans are even in the Bill, and that, moreover, at least half of them also apply to alleged paramilitaries?”
“That is not true. We had hoped to hear from the wannabe future Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns), but as we have not— [ Interruption. ] He is not denying it. If what the Minister claims is true, how does she explain the recent comment by General Sir Peter Wall, the former head of the British Army, who said that the protections are “a meaningless insult and only become relevant once re-investigation is under way”? Respectfully, who knows more about defending our veterans: a brand new Minister or a former chief of the general staff who actually commanded them?”
“For the avoidance of doubt, I am on this side of the Westminster Hall Chamber only because it is so packed that this was the only remaining chair. I have not defected to the Labour Party and I never will—nor to anyone else. Can my hon. Friend confirm that this policy was not in Labour’s general election manifesto, so it has absolutely no electoral mandate to extend the surveillance state over the people of this country with this gimmick?”
“Unfortunately, it was right that Loveday Ryder, the previous chief executive of the DVSA, had to resign because of this terrible ongoing problem. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need new leadership at that organisation, to grip this problem with alacrity? We must particularly address the problem of bots sweeping up the tests, as there is not much point in increasing the number of tests if the bots capture them. We are then back to the 6 am problem of parents dialling in, which he has articulated so well.”
“We do need to build more homes, including more affordable homes, but they have to be built in an environmentally sustainable way. Why are Ministers, through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, taking powers such that any planning application for more than 150 houses, if turned down by the democratically elected councillors, is sent straight to the Secretary of State? Why have local elections and elect people who know their own area to take decisions if they will simply be overruled automatically by someone whose whole mantra is “Build, baby, build and let the devil take the consequences”?”
“I listened carefully to the Minister’s rather Kafkaesque reply, but could I ask him a technical question? Given that the Prime Minister oversees the code and appoints the independent adviser, when the independent adviser reports, who adjudicates whether to take further action, because it could be argued that the Prime Minister has a vested interest? Should another Minister take that decision—perhaps the Health Secretary, or does he have a vested interest, too?”
“The lower Thames crossing—or the late and tardy crossing, as it is now known in Essex—is the second largest piece of infrastructure in the country after High Speed 2. When will the work actually commence, when will the crossing be open to traffic, and—this is my third time asking the Secretary of State this question at the Dispatch Box—specifically which banks and companies will fund it? Many people in Essex are beginning to believe it is never going to happen.”
“We learned in 2014 that there are some specialist units, such as the Royal Marines or the Royal Engineers, who have capabilities to offer in these circumstances that can really make a difference to local people. Is that something that she and the First Minister might at least be prepared to consider?”
“Although I am not a Welsh MP, I would like to express my sympathies for what the people of Monmouthshire are going through. In 2014, when I was the Armed Forces Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I spent weeks in Cobra meetings helping to co-ordinate military assistance in response to the severe flooding in the west country, particularly on the Somerset levels. Can I offer a suggestion? We all hope that this will not happen again, and certainly not quickly, but if there are further named storms, has the Minister or the First Minister considered speaking to the Ministry of Defence about military aid to the civil authorities—so-called MACA arrangements?”
“If the Bill is as good as the Secretary of State would have the House believe, why have nine very senior four-star officers—eight generals and one air chief marshal—written to The Times and described it as “a direct threat to national security”?”
“Moreover, the veterans are rightfully furious that Ministers are seeking to persuade their Back Benchers to support this benighted legislation by telling them they are doing it at the behest of service widows to “go after the IRA”. I do not know a single Op Banner veteran who actually believes that assertion. Indeed, the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement has condemned it—in its words, not mine—as “completely untrue”.”
“For context, for years Sinn Féin and its old comrades’ association, the IRA, have sought to use lawfare via a conveyor belt of coronial inquests and civil prosecutions to pursue our veterans through the courts. This is not just an attempt to punish those soldiers who bravely opposed them—much of it, ironically, taxpayer-funded. More broadly, it is part of a politically inspired campaign to rewrite history in the terrorists’ favour. It was this process that our 2023 legacy Act effectively ended, hence why republicans are so desperate to repeal it. The veterans can clearly see this, and they are genuinely mystified—and, indeed, extremely frustrated—that Ministers cannot.”
“Many of those who deployed on Op Banner were recruited at a young age from tough northern towns in what we would today call red wall constituencies, from Bury to Bolton and Blackburn to Burnley, which are currently mostly represented by Labour MPs. Ministers reassure them that their commitment to our veterans is “unshakeable”, and yet, as the veterans have highlighted, in this 107-page Bill, with its 98 clauses and six schedules, the word “veteran” does not appear once. Moreover, the so-called six protections for veterans—which General Sir Peter Wall, a former head of the British Army, called a “meaningless insult” to them—also apply in the most part to paramilitaries, a fact that Ministers are now simply too embarrassed to admit.”
“Thank you, ma’am. This has been a lively and, at times, impassioned debate, and rightly so, when we remember what is at stake. Some 300,000 British soldiers served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner between 1969 and 2007. They were sent there by this House to uphold the rule of law during a decades-long sectarian conflict, often playing piggy in the middle between two warring sets of armed paramilitaries. Thank you for your brave service. One week on from Armistice Day, we should also remember that over 700 of those soldiers were murdered by both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries at the hands of the same terrorists who were responsible for some 90% of all fatalities during the troubles, most of them against innocent civilians, whether Catholic or Protestant.”
“To put it another way, when the Division bells ring in a few minutes, and for the avoidance of doubt, we stand four-square with our veterans. Who now will stand with us?”