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 15 of 55.
“For the record, I was not quoting the NISTA report; I was quoting the IPA report. I asked the Minister three very specific questions, and he has 12 minutes left. I fear he is denial about the problems in this programme. To prove me wrong, with his 12 remaining minutes will he answer unambiguously the three very direct questions that I asked about the status of the programme?”
“That is unacceptable. The reason for this debate—I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper) for securing it—is that both Boeing and the MOD have been stonewalling on this issue for nearly a year. The Minister cannot just say, “I will write to the right hon. Gentleman.” He is in Parliament; he has had plenty of time to prepare and he has lots of civil servants to advise him. He must not fob me off with a letter, or fob off the Chairman of the PAC, who now wants to see the permanent secretary about it. The Minister has had plenty of time; he must answer now, in Parliament, the three very direct questions about the status of the programme. If he does not, the world will conclude that he has something to hide.”
“By this method, they seek to remove some provisions of the legacy Act that, they state, have been found in the lower courts to be incompatible with the 1998 Act—even though the incoming Government could have appealed to the UK Supreme Court but, seemingly deliberately, did not. The net effect of that remedial order is twofold. First, it would allow the conveyor belt of coronial inquests in Northern Ireland to resume, a number of which have led to verdicts against the soldiers—at Clonoe, for instance—”
“The Labour party’s election manifesto stated their intention to repeal that Act in favour of new legislation, although no such legislation has been forthcoming, even in draft form. Labour has even sought to claim that the legacy Act somehow protected alleged IRA terrorists from prosecution, when it was the Blair Government that famously handed hundreds of such men letters of comfort so that they could not be prosecuted anyway—and, even if they were, they would only get a maximum of two years, even for murder, as brilliantly pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). Pending new legislation, the Government have produced a so-called remedial order under the auspices of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
“Of those, well over 700 were murdered, and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries, at the hands of both republican and so-called loyalist terrorists. If we include the UDR and the RUC GC, as the right hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), the leader of the DUP, rightly said, the total comes to more than 1,400 dead. The previous Conservative Government introduced the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 to try to assist the community in Northern Ireland to move on from the difficult history of the troubles and to provide protection for many of those veterans from an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation, often inspired by Sinn Féin.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, as we debate this critical petition, which has over 176,000 signatures, some 6,000 of which were added today. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), who introduced the debate so ably. It is a privilege to have in the Public Gallery some 30 veterans who served their country bravely in Northern Ireland, including five from the Royal Hospital Chelsea. For obvious reasons, these veterans have a very strong interest in our proceedings today. I say to them, and to all those who served alongside them, “Thank you for your service.” For context, some 300,000 British soldiers served in what became known as Operation Banner, the British Army’s mission to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland.”
“Our veterans, who unlike the provisionals never received letters of comfort from the Blair Government, and many of whom now effectively have a sword of Damocles hanging over them yet again, deserve a straight answer from the Secretary of State this afternoon. In addition to the powerful moral argument against this misguided policy, as made by many of my hon. Friends and others today, there is also its potential adverse effect on recruitment and retention.”
“Indeed, we now understand that the British Government and their counterparts in the Irish Republic have been negotiating some form of sordid backstairs deal, part of which, we fear, will lead to further attempted prosecutions of veterans while assisting Gerry Adams in return. This form of Government-sanctioned lawfare is self-evidently a case of two-tier justice at its worst, and that is why we on the Opposition Benches are utterly against it. Will the Secretary of State therefore provide absolute clarity on whether the Government still intend to proceed with a remedial order, which would likely result in a high-stakes vote this autumn, or whether they now intend to go straight to primary legislation instead?”
“Moreover, the three Veterans Commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who are neither ill-informed nor naive, recently issued a powerful joint statement that “we stand united in our firm support of the motion to be debated in Westminster on 14 July…we are deeply concerned by the prospect of retrospective legal action being taken against veterans who were carrying out their lawful duties, often under immense pressure and threat.” Incidentally, the Government have been dragging their feet for months on their absolute promise to create an English Veterans Commissioner, and we now know why.”
“We believe that the anxiety and uncertainty created by the current situation is unfair and is having a substantial negative impact on veterans and their families.” I cannot speak for the Royal British Legion—but, having met the organisation recently, were the Government to proceed with this ill-advised course so obviously injurious to veterans, I cannot foresee the legion standing idly by.”
“324.] Nevertheless, the remedial order, pushed through the Joint Committee on Human Rights barely a month later with Labour and, I am sad to say, Liberal votes, remained unchanged, and still does. These proposals have evoked considerable concern, not least from the Royal British Legion, which stated in its briefing note: “The Royal British Legion calls for the Government to urgently provide clarity and their intent regarding the process of legacy prosecution.”
“No. My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) brilliantly highlighted Clonoe in his very moving speech. The remedial order would also remove the clauses in the legacy Act that currently prevent Gerry Adams and several hundred of his associates from attempting to sue the British Government, and thus the taxpayer, for compensation. At Prime Minister’s questions on 15 January, the Prime Minister faithfully made this promise: “We are working on a draft remedial order and replacement legislation, and we will look at every conceivable way to prevent these types of cases from claiming damages—it is important that I say that on the record. —[ Official Report , 15 January 2025; Vol. 760, c.”
“It would be an act of sheer folly, and aid to our enemies, to continue with this act of military self-harm so that, put bluntly, even fewer people will join the Army and even more will leave. This is therefore not just morally but operationally mad, and a gift to our adversaries to boot.”
“Who would wish to serve a Government who may ask them to risk their life fighting for the state, only to be prosecuted in a courtroom half a century later? As General Lord Dannatt, a highly respected former Chief of the General Staff, put it so well: “Why would any sensible young person think of putting on the Queen’s uniform if they thought they could be tapped on the shoulder years after an operation and questioned over false allegations?” The Secretary of State will already be aware from his colleagues in the MOD, some of whom have a distinguished special forces background, that this process is having an adverse effect on morale in the special forces community, and in the Army more widely.”
“They defended us. Do not aid and abet their former mortal enemy. Let these brave men live out their lives in peace.”
“How could they possibly go back to their constituencies and look local veterans and their descendants in the eye after voting for such a pernicious proposal? Perhaps I can conclude with a poem. It is by Rudyard Kipling, and is called “Tommy”, about the ordinary British soldier and the ingratitude of his country after he had fought for it in war. Perhaps the Secretary of State will recognise the final stanza: “For it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Chuck him out, the brute!” But it’s “Saviour of ‘is country” when the guns begin to shoot; An’ it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ anything you please; An’ Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool—you bet that Tommy sees!” Secretary of State, these brave men fought against the IRA, one of the most ruthless and vicious terrorist organisations the world has ever seen. They did their duty to their country.”
“I will answer the hon. Gentleman on recruitment. If it had not been for the brave men sitting in the Public Gallery, there would be no Good Friday agreement. Thank God they joined up and had the courage to serve. I say to the Secretary of State, in all candour, that what he is doing is wrong. Many of the soldiers who served bravely in Northern Ireland were recruited from so-called red wall seats, from Blackburn to Bury and from Bolton to Burnley, and they served in proud regiments in Northern Ireland to uphold the rule of law. Surely the Secretary of State will not try to dragoon Labour MPs through the Division Lobby to throw veterans to the wolves while doing Gerry Adams a favour. The events of the past fortnight show that Labour Back Benchers can no longer be taken for granted—and surely not on this.”
“May I join the tributes to Lord Tebbit? He was a political giant in his day and far more capable than the “Spitting Image” puppet ever gave him credit for. May we have a debate in Government time on emerging proposals to cancel education, health and care plans? I say in all sincerity to the Leader of the House that we all know from our constituency work that the special educational needs system is broken and needs reform, but abolishing EHCPs would only lead to a backlash from angry parents and probably a major Back-Bench rebellion. Whatever her Government are going to do, please, in all seriousness, don’t do that.”
“The largest road programme in the UK is the lower Thames crossing from Tilbury to Gravesend. It is now scheduled to cost about £10 billion, and the Government say that 90% or more of that will be funded from the private sector. I asked the Secretary of State last month on the Floor of the House which institutions exactly are going to finance that, and she replied, in essence, “I’ll get back to you.” So can I ask her again, because the longer the Government refuse to answer this question, the more sceptical people in Essex and Kent will become about whether that much-needed, vital strategic link is ever going to get built at all?”
“I endorse the tribute to the late Tessa Jowell—she was a remarkable lady. The Secretary of State pointedly refused to rule out scrapping EHCPs. If that is her intention, may I genuinely offer her some advice? Please do not do that. I have had parents in my surgery in tears of frustration, some of whom have had to spend over two years navigating a bureaucratic assault course to get an EHCP. [ Interruption. ] Please—if those EHCPs are taken away, there will be an anguished and angry backlash, so whatever the Secretary of State is contemplating on SEN, I ask her please not to abolish EHCPs.”
“I will listen closely to anything further that the Minister has to say, but if the Government persist in offering assurances without statutory weight, I will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. Our service personnel deserve a system that hears their voices and protects their concerns, and if we carry on playing ping-pong—well, that is a sport that I was once quite good at.”
“A campaign can be no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can trust—to be fair, I should add that when we debated the Bill before, the Minister talked about the issue of trust repeatedly. The other place recognised that, delivering another cross-party defeat to the Government in the last fortnight by amending the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Our amendment represents a reasonable compromise, aligning with the Government’s own wording on anonymity while embedding a vital whistleblowing duty. To block it would signal that the Government are not serious about working constructively with the Opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel, so I urge them to accept this compromise in the interests of all who serve.”
“I do not know whether all armed forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but I can say that as of today, more than 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward very much to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I am sure will be followed closely by the veterans community and their families. This is not an “angels on a pinhead” argument. It is actually quite important. The Government’s assurances about anonymity and communications campaigns to promote the commissioner’s role are welcome but insufficient.”
“Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person “subject to service law or…a relevant family member.” Thus a corporal’s sister, for example, could raise a whistleblowing concern if the corporal faced abuse or bullying by a military colleague. This provision ensures that family members have a voice, directly contradicting the Government’s assertion to the contrary. Let me give a brief theoretical example. Let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner. That is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will know, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.”
“If the Government believe that our amendment does not go far enough, why do they not support it and propose their own broader amendment to enhance the commissioner’s powers, which would almost take us back to the status quo ante? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively, as if arguments were being plucked out of thin air to block progress. Lord Coaker—with whom I dealt when he was in this place, and for whom, for the avoidance of doubt, I have immense respect—also claimed that our amendment excluded family members and terms of service issues, and would apply only to those subject to service law. That is incorrect.”
“If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and for the very Act that this Bill amends, how can the Government claim that it lacks clarity or value in this instance? That is totally inconsistent. The Government’s position is riddled with contradictions. In Committee, our broader amendment to empower the commissioner was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence as being too wide-ranging. In a spirit of compromise, we narrowed it to focus on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that the revised amendment is too narrow and lacks sufficient powers. Lord Coaker argued that our amendment, if passed, would limit the commissioner’s investigations to the same scope as current powers, without enabling access to sites, information or documents, or requiring the Secretary of State to co-operate or report to Parliament.”
“Why does the Children’s Commissioner issue an annual whistleblowing report? Those examples demonstrate that the term is not a deterrent, but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing. To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom. The Government further contend that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. That is simply untenable. Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is entitled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”, and section 29D of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides another clear statutory precedent. Those Acts show that including whistleblowing in legislation adds tangible value, ensuring protections for those who raise concerns.”
“That stance is, I am afraid, both inconsistent and unconvincing. The Minister’s own “Dear colleague” letter of 30 May generously acknowledged that Baroness Goldie’s amendments had sparked an important debate, yet the Government resist embedding a clear, statutorily protected whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure that vulnerable service personnel can raise concerns without fear of reprisal. Lord Coaker, speaking for the Government in the other place on 11 June, claimed that the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” might deter individuals from coming forward, citing Cabinet Office guidance. That suggestion is plainly daft. If the term “whistleblowing” is truly a barrier, why does the national health service successfully operate its “Freedom to Speak Up” policy, which explicitly uses the term?”
“Today we focus again on the key issue of whistleblowing, which was debated extensively in the other place and which now lies before this House yet again. Our amendments, championed by Baroness Goldie, sought to empower the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing concerns related to welfare and service issues, while guaranteeing anonymity for those who come forward, be they service personnel, their families or others. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of the Government’s Commons amendment on anonymity in reports, alongside our whistleblowing duty. The Government argue that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient, and that our amendment does not confer additional powers.”
“I believe that this vision enjoys broad support across the House—although yet again I have to place on record that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and wellbeing of armed forces personnel and their families, no Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They cannot spend the whole of their lives on TikTok, particularly as it is a Chinese system. Our duty as His Majesty’s Opposition is to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promises without introducing unnecessary complexity. We must scrutinise the way in which the commissioner’s role integrates with the existing complaints systems, and what it means for those navigating them.”
“I rise to address the Lords amendments, following yet another Government defeat in the other place. As I said last month when we last debated this important Bill, His Majesty’s official Opposition are driven by a commitment to ensure that our brave servicemen and women receive the robust, transparent and fair support they deserve. The Bill, which aims to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted-like powers to gain access to military sites and information, holds the potential to improve the welfare and accountability framework for our armed forces. If implemented effectively, it could significantly enhance public confidence in the way in which the concerns of service personnel are addressed.”
“I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has said, but I am afraid I remain unconvinced. I think he used the phrase “flip it to see it”. I could offer him another one: jaw-jaw is better than war-war. Baroness Goldie has done a great job in the other place in bringing together people from across the political spectrum to concentrate on this very important matter. I recommend that the House votes against the Government today in order to send the Bill back to the other place, where there should be all-party negotiations, including with Government Ministers, to see if we can find a way through. As things sit here and now, I am afraid we must press this into the Division Lobbies. Question put .”
“One of the fundamental tenets of the strategic defence review, as the Minister is now broadening this out, is that we should be prepared to fight and defeat a peer enemy by 2035, which is 10 years from now. Why, after all the hullabaloo about the much-vaunted defence review, have this Government returned to what in the 1920s was known as the 10-year rule?”
“I attended an Armed Forces Day event in Basildon on Saturday, as I have done for years, and was honoured to be invited to inspect the Air Cadets on parade. When I asked one very smart cadet why he had decided to join the Air Cadets, he replied, “Because my mum made me, Sir, although three years in, I’m very grateful that she did.” I also managed to grab a quick drink with some veterans in a local hostelry. However, mysteriously, all four MPs in the Basildon borough—none of whom are Labour MPs—appear not to have been invited this year. I can only presume that our invitations were lost in the post. I say gently to the Minister, more in sorrow than in anger, that playing silly partisan games like this is demeaning for the Labour-led council.”
“As the Minister stated, this instrument should have support across the House, and I am sure that it does. However, yet again, when we are debating defence—when we are debating an order that is fundamental to the discipline and integrity of our armed forces—there are no Reform MPs in the Chamber. Why? It is because Reform does not do defence. The Minister and I have seen that time and again over the past year—so there is a point of consensus, if he wants one. While this order might appear to be a mere formality, albeit an important one, it gives me the opportunity to ask my opposite number, the Minister for the Armed Forces, four important questions, but before I do, I will just report to the Minister that the cadets, who are an important part of the armed forces family, are indeed well disciplined and in good heart.”
“The purpose of this instrument is to provide for the continuation in force of the Armed Forces Act 2006, which would otherwise expire in mid-December 2025. In essence, the measure provides for the 2006 Act to continue in force for a further year, taking us up to a deadline of 14 December 2026. For those with an historical interest—among whom I include myself—the principle of the legislation dates back to the Bill of Rights 1688, as the Minister intimated, which, given that it followed on from the civil war, declared the “raising or keeping of a standing army within the United Kingdom in time of peace, unless with the consent of Parliament, to be against the law.” This provision has resulted in the requirement, since 1688, that all legislation on discipline in the armed forces be annually renewed, hence this order.”
“The order also makes it easier for the likes of Gerry Adams and his compadres to sue the British taxpayer for hundreds of millions of pounds. According to a press report in The Daily Telegraph yesterday and an associated answer by the Northern Ireland Secretary to a parliamentary question, the Government have decided to drop the part of the remedial order that would assist Mr Adams and his associates in suing the British taxpayer. If that report is true, we Conservative Members would warmly welcome it. However, it does not solve the problem of our brave veterans who served in Northern Ireland often being persecuted at the behest of Sinn Féin.”
“As recently as Defence questions on Monday, we debated in the Chamber the fate of the 300,000 or so British Army veterans who served in Northern Ireland on Operation Banner. They were lawfully commanded to help uphold the rule of law in support of the Royal Ulster Constabulary GC, now the Police Service of Northern Ireland, and to protect all people in Northern Ireland, of whatever tradition, from heinous acts of terrorism, whether by bomb or by bullet. As the Minister will be well aware, the Government have tabled a so-called remedial order that would cut out elements of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, thus potentially opening up some of those veterans to an endless cycle of investigation and reinvestigation.”
“Without the 2006 Act, those powers and procedures would no longer have effect; Commanding Officers and the Court Martial would have no powers of punishment in respect of a failure to obey a lawful command or any other form of disciplinary or criminal misconduct. Members of the armed forces would still owe allegiance to His Majesty, but the power of enforcement would be removed.” Clearly, that would be very undesirable, and for the avoidance of doubt, we will most certainly not vote against this order in a few minutes’ time, but there is an important point here about members of the armed forces being required to obey lawful commands. That brings me on to my third question for the Minister.”
“I ask because there will be a large number of interested parties, including the armed forces themselves, obviously, the armed forces families federations, military charities and others. From previous experience, I can say that they will take a close and important interest in the Bill. Giving them as good a heads-up as possible is clearly desirable. Perhaps the Minister could assist the House with that. As the explanatory notes that the Minister referred to point out, were this order not to be passed, “The key effect…would be to end the provisions which are necessary to maintain the armed forces as disciplined bodies. Crucially, the 2006 Act confers powers and sets out procedures to enforce the duty of members of the armed forces to obey lawful commands.”
“Given the vagaries of parliamentary life, few things are certain, but assuming for a moment that it will be the Armed Forces Minister and I who will take this legislation through on behalf of our respective parties, this seems a good opportunity to ask the Minister two questions. First, what are the latest timings for that legislation, and when can we expect to see a Bill? Secondly, could he give the House some idea of the likely key themes of that Bill, and the areas, if any, in which the legislation is likely to differ materially from the Armed Forces Act 2021? In fairness, he dropped a hint a few moments ago that there will be service justice provisions; perhaps he could expand on that slightly, if he has the opportunity.”
“He cannot on the one hand plead for unity between the Government and the Opposition and then, when it suits, imply that Opposition spokesmen are Russian, Chinese or Iranian fellow travellers just because they had the temerity not to agree with the Government on their bonkers Chagos deal. My honest advice to the Minister is to make up his mind and be consistent; he will then receive the respect that he asks for. I turn to the order. Armed Forces Acts are normally subject to quinquennial review. We had Armed Forces Acts in 2011, 2016 and 2021, and we can expect a further Act before the instrument expires in December 2026.”
“No. Armed Forces Day is too important for this sort of silly nonsense, which embarrasses Basildon council in the eyes of the public and, indeed, its local MPs. In all seriousness, perhaps the Minister could have a word with his colleagues on the council and make sure that this unfortunate oversight does not happen again. Defence is traditionally a bipartisan issue. We all believe in the defence of the realm, and I have always believed that it is the first duty of Government. However, I say to the Minister, on the Floor of the House, that he cannot have it both ways.”
“My right hon. Friend chaired the Select Committee on which I served some years ago, when it produced a very good report on this issue, so he is an expert on this. All I will say is that when it comes to legacy issues, Labour often provides legal support, but not necessarily always to veterans. If the Minister wishes to maintain morale in the armed forces past and present—this order is clearly necessary for doing that—perhaps he will take this opportunity to clarify the Government’s position. Do they still intend to table a remedial order, or to move straight to what the Labour manifesto describes as new legislation in the field of legacy matters? Which is it?”
“Are the Government contemplating removing clauses from that remedial order, or are they abandoning it altogether, and instead relying on new primary legislation to achieve their aim? The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), gave us all very wise advice: we should increase defence spending. We certainly should, in this increasingly dangerous world; we can argue about by how much and how quickly. We Conservative Members want to work constructively with the Government and the Ministry of Defence, for the defence of the realm—but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
“To summarise, we obviously support this order to continue the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until December 2026. It would be helpful to have some idea of timings, and even of the content of the prospective Armed Forces Act 2026, as it is likely to be, to allow interested parties to plan. To maintain morale and discipline in our armed forces, perhaps the Minister could also confirm whether the Government would countenance derogation from the ECHR during future military operations, potentially including those in defence of Ukraine. Moreover, perhaps he could update the House on where we are on the Government’s proposed new legislation on legacy matters, and on the fate of the proposed remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998.”
“This is very much a live issue that deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least for the soldiers who might have to take these actions for real. Given all this, would it not be helpful—as suggested a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary—for the Minister to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European convention on human rights in relation to any British military operations related to Ukraine, so that soldiers who served in that conflict would be excluded from any lawfare prosecutions, even decades later? The Minister will know that the issue is materially affecting morale in the armed forces, and especially in the special forces community, so any reassurance he can give regarding a derogation would no doubt be gratefully received.”
“However, there is a question: were British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition of the willing—perhaps following a ceasefire in Ukraine—what would happen to those British troops if they were to be involved in combat with Russian forces, or Russian acolytes? What guarantee could the Ministry give that if soldiers fired their weapons in anger, they would not subsequently be subject to lawfare under the Human Rights Act 1998, even decades after the event, as is the case in Northern Ireland? This is not an idle point. I understand that the issue of lawfare and its effect on recruitment and retention in the British Army has been raised at the most senior levels in the Army, including in recent meetings with the Chief of the General Staff.”
“If it is the Government’s intention to still go ahead with the remedial order—again, the House would really welcome clarity on this—despite the fact that it would have disastrous consequences for recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, can he confirm exactly what the Government’s policy is? Is it to go down the remedial order route, or down the route of introducing new primary legislation, and if it is the latter, what are the timings for that new Bill? Fourthly and finally, the Minister for the Armed Forces has signed a formal statement to the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 are compatible with the European convention on human rights.”
“I certainly hope there is. I very much hope that MOD Ministers are fighting tenaciously in private, even if they cannot say so in public, to have this mad order scrapped, and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans, just as the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister understands exactly what I mean by that, and I think that he and some of his ministerial colleagues may have been working on this. If they have, then we in good faith wish them Godspeed. I have one more question on this matter, and then I will move on.”