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 18 of 55.
“In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that “Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”. He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree.”
“At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case. That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity.”
“For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes. At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify.”
“We owe it to our service personnel to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are properly investigated.”
“A communications campaign is no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can rely on with confidence. The other place recognised that, delivering a significant cross-party defeat to the Government last month when Conservative peers, alongside others, successfully amended the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Lords amendments 2 and 3 are not just about process; they are about rebuilding trust. I will listen closely to the Minister’s response, but if the Government cannot move beyond their current position and continue to offer assurances without real statutory weight—I am afraid we find the amendment in lieu unconvincing—we will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House.”
“What protection in law would that officer have if they became seriously concerned that a Minister they were working for was about to breach the ministerial code? Not that any Minister here today would, of course. How would an officer faced with a moral dilemma of that magnitude be permitted to act as a whistleblower to raise concerns that Ministers had acted inappropriately—something that would certainly impact their general welfare as well as the reputation of the Government they served? We will see if the Minister has anything to add before we conclude. In summary—I know others are keen to speak—the Government have offered assurances about anonymity in the commissioner’s work and promised a communications campaign to raise awareness of the commissioner’s role. These are welcome steps, but, as I hope I have argued, they are not enough.”
“I do not know whether any armed forces personnel who served, or indeed are still serving, in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but as of today, over 131,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward to an early debate in Parliament on these matters. While we are of course in the hands of the Petitions Committee and not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this occasion, we are hopeful that the Committee might allow a debate to take place as soon as possible, and certainly prior to the summer recess. I see Labour Members nodding, so I am keen to get that into Hansard . Secondly, let us consider the theoretical example of an officer serving as a military assistant to a Minister on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence.”
“Now the Government claim that this revised amendment is too narrow and does not grant sufficient powers—too broad, then too narrow. That inconsistency displays a reluctance to engage with the substance of our proposal. To illustrate my point, let me offer two theoretical examples to the House. First, let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will be aware, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023.”
“Those Acts demonstrate that including whistleblowing adds tangible value to legislation, ensuring protections for those who expose wrongdoing. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and the very Act that this Bill is designed to amend, how can the Government argue that it lacks clarity or value in this context? Let me address the Government’s contradictory stance. In Committee in the other place, we proposed a broader amendment to empower the commissioner. In the other place, the Ministry of Defence dismissed it as too wide-ranging. In the spirit of constructive compromise, which has been the general tenor of the Bill throughout, we narrowed our amendment to focus specifically on welfare and service issues.”
“The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. I hope that if time allows, he will also make a speech. The Government themselves acknowledge that the commissioner provides an enhanced, independent route for raising concerns. Our amendments build on that by embedding a clear, accessible and statutorily protected whistleblowing function. That simplicity is vital for ensuring that service personnel, especially those who feel most vulnerable, can come forward without fear. The Government have further argued that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. However, that claim is simply untenable. As Baroness Goldie powerfully highlighted in the other place, the Armed Forces Act 2006—section 340Q is titled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”—and the Police Reform Act 2002 provide clear statutory precedent for the term.”
“Well, 131,000 people do not agree with what the Minister just said, clearly. If he is so confident in the Government’s case, can he say on the record that he would welcome their proposals being debated in Parliament for at least three hours before the summer recess? Presumably he is not frightened of a debate, so could he put that on the record?”
“The most pernicious part of this deal is dynamic alignment, by which we become an automatic rule-taker from the European Union. Labour has been briefing journalists that we have an opt-out from that. I have read the document in detail, and we do not. Besides, the ECJ is the ultimate arbiter in a dispute, so the EU will always win. The British people voted peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union, so why has the Prime Minister surrendered that right and made us a rule-taker from the EU once again?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret that in an earlier exchange the Prime Minister, who is still in his place, may have inadvertently misled the House. The point of contention is the arbitration mechanism for an SPS deal and dynamic alignment. The text says: “The SPS Agreement should be subject to a dispute resolution mechanism with an independent arbitration panel that ensures the Court of Justice of the European Union is the ultimate authority for all questions of European Union law”, which, of course, this is. The Prime Minister said that the Court goes back to the arbitration panel; it does that to convey its binding decision, so he is guilty of sophistry at best, and potentially something worse.”
“A group of Army veterans who feel totally let down by this Government have started a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which has so far amassed nearly 87,000 signatures in just over a week. Assuming that they successfully obtain the further 13,000 that are required, may I ask whether we can then debate, in Parliament, the question of why Labour wants, via its proposed remedial order, to make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government, while legally abandoning our brave veterans and throwing them to the wolves?”
“Labour could have appealed those judgments to the Supreme Court but chose not to. Labour MPs and peers have already voted for this barmy process in the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 February. Labour will now be expecting all its MPs to vote for it again this autumn. Given that many of the young soldiers who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland were recruited from “red wall” seats—from Barnsley to Blackpool, and from Bolton to Burnley—how on earth do this Government expect any Labour MP to do Gerry Adams a favour at the expense of the veterans who opposed him, and then to go back to their own seats and look their constituents, including veterans and their families, in the eye?”
“The Minister has referred to the Labour manifesto several times in a few minutes. Did it say anything at all about accepting dynamic alignment or becoming a rule taker—yes or no?”
“The whole House will have noted that the hon. Member clearly failed to rule out a second referendum, because he did not much like the result of the first one. May I ask him this directly? Like the Government, as is obvious from their evasion this afternoon, are the Liberal Democrats prepared to accept a process of dynamic alignment, whereby we effectively become a passive rule-taker from the European Union? Yes or no?”
“My hon. Friend will well remember that during the referendum a booklet was circulated to every household in the United Kingdom, which famously said: “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.” The people decided to leave, and some in this place spent three years trying to frustrate their decision. In that context, is he concerned that today the Minister blatantly refused three times to answer a straight question about whether the Government would concede dynamic alignment at the summit? Is that not the sort of duplicitous behaviour that made the public so angry in the first place?”
“I think it is fair to say that in the years I have been here generally most people have known what I believed in, but is the reason the hon. Gentleman is so incredibly angry this afternoon because, from his point of view, he lost not only one referendum, but two: on Scottish independence and then on the European Union?”
“In essence, the TCA guaranteed virtually tariff-free trade between the UK and the EU. Moreover, the fact that we had left the EU, including the customs union, meant that we were able to negotiate unilateral trade deals of our own around the world.”
“This is despite the fact that the Gibraltarians themselves voted by a majority of 99% to maintain the current position in their own referendum on the subject, a margin so emphatic that even the SNP would have to accept it. On fishing, in early 2020 during Boris Johnson’s premiership, the United Kingdom agreed what was known as the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. While there has been much recent talk of trade deals, including with India and now the US, the TCA was in effect a major, comprehensive trade deal with the EU, negotiated in the context of having left the European Union. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who is no longer in his place, that agreement was 1,245 pages long—I know, because I read it.”
“Nevertheless, I am sure that the Government’s tactic will be to try to talk almost exclusively about defence as a form of camouflage to mask likely concessions both on our fishing rights and, potentially, relating to our food. When the British people voted democratically to leave the European Union some nine years ago, they did so in order to decide their destiny for themselves. It would be completely against the spirit of the referendum, under the guise of some kind of reset with the EU, to surrender that principle next week. Moreover, after the absolute chaos of the Labour Government’s proposed Chagos deal, the Spanish Foreign Minister asserted only yesterday that the UK should make concessions over the sovereignty of Gibraltar as part of our reset at the summit.”
“I recall being told repeatedly during the referendum campaign that if we left the EU, we would be isolated and friendless. All the meetings that have taken place in London recently, including one with virtually every EU leader at Lancaster House regarding the so-called coalition of the willing, show how absolutely ludicrous that assertion was. However, according to multiple media reports, it seems as if this summit could involve some kind of defence pact between ourselves in the UK and the European Union. As I have Front-Bench responsibility for defence, I shall not dwell at length on those matters, but hopefully we will have a lot more to say on them next week once the details of any such agreement have been made public and, crucially, we have had an opportunity to read the small print.”
“He was a constituent of mine and lived just a few minutes away from me. I once inadvertently canvassed him some years ago during the local elections. As a highly professional public servant, he was completely inscrutable about his voting intentions. I subsequently worked with him closely for two years in the coalition Whips Office between 2010 and 2012. He was always very patient, especially with me. When I was the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, he always gave well-informed and canny advice. He believed passionately in the institution of Parliament and the principle of representative democracy, which he served so well. Our thoughts and prayers are with his widow, Dawn, and her family. May he rest in peace and always be warmly remembered. A crucial summit will take place between the leaders of the UK and the EU in London next month.”
“Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute to this important debate on the forthcoming UK-EU summit next Monday. As someone who has, I hope the House will concede, followed these matters reasonably closely for a number of years, I will focus on three broad areas. I will say something about the summit itself, make some points about the very worrying suggestion that we are about to waive a large part of our fishing rights, and raise my concerns and those of many others about the potential for so-called dynamic alignment by which the United Kingdom effectively would become a passive rule taker, despite voting peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union in the first place. Before I do that, I pay a personal tribute to Sir Roy Stone, who has tragically passed away.”
“In a moment. While we were in the customs union, it was possible to negotiate those agreements only collectively via the auspices of the EU. That is a fundamental difference. It is important to note that by using this critical Brexit freedom, we have been able to negotiate almost 80 independent trade deals with nations around the world since we left the EU, including important Commonwealth partners such as Australia, New Zealand, and now India. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership, which materially improves our access to Asian markets worth trillions of dollars. Moreover—”
“If the hon. Lady will let me finish this point, I promise I will do so, but I want to enjoy this bit. We now have the delightful visage of our ambassador to the United States, one Lord Mandelson, having to acknowledge through metaphorically gritted teeth that we have been able to negotiate a trade deal with the United States—albeit one that is limited in scope—only because we left his beloved European Union. I think our Peter is struggling with that. I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been patient.”
“It would be a complete betrayal of our fishermen if the United Kingdom Labour Government were now to grant major concessions to the EU in what will become indisputably our own sovereign waters once again come 2026.”
“The hon. Lady pre-empts me. If she will give me a moment, I will get to fishing very shortly. The TCA—part 2, heading 5—contains transition arrangements relating to fishing. In essence, the TCA allowed for a period of over five years during which there would be temporary arrangements on access to UK waters by EU fishing fleets. After that, under international maritime arrangements, the United Kingdom would become solely responsible for its own territorial waters, out to 200 nautical miles in some places. As this transition period is now approaching its expiration in 2026, the EU is pushing very hard to maintain its access to our fishing waters and—it would seem—even to expand its access in certain cases, were we naive enough to give in.”
“In other words, we would become a “rule taker” in those areas, even though we have left the European Union. Moreover, it seems that these arrangements would apply throughout the United Kingdom, and in the event of a dispute, that would be arbitrated by the European Court of Justice rather than the UK Supreme Court or even an international tribunal.”
“In a second—the bourgeoisie will have to wait. While our sovereign rights are enshrined in both the TCA itself and wider maritime law, we have yet to see the final details of whatever Faustian pact the Government have agreed with the EU on fishing. However, our fishermen and those of us on the Opposition Benches —although not Reform Members, who are not here—will be watching the Government very closely, and will be highly alert to the prospect of a sell-out on fish. We then come to veterinary matters and SPS—and ultimately, therefore, food—which would involve the United Kingdom in a process known as dynamic alignment. In essence, this means that if the EU were in any way to change or modify its rules in those areas, we would in turn be compelled to follow the EU, regardless of the wishes of our own Parliament.”
“In a moment. To have left the EU but submit to becoming a passive rule taker would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the 2016 referendum. That is why, time and again today, no Minister will admit that the Government are going to do it next week.”
“If they get away with submission next week, despite their manifesto commitments, they will eventually try to take us back into the single market—although, no doubt, under some other name—and if they can get away with that, they will suggest that we might as well rejoin the customs union. They will put the argument to the British people that we are so far back into the blooming thing that we might as well go the whole hog and rejoin it entirely—all without a vote or the consent of the people of the United Kingdom, at any stage, whatsoever.”
“What the Labour Government are up to—and I say again that they will try to use a defence pact in order to hide it—is beginning a process of gradually taking us back towards and even back into the European Union, if they think they can get away with it. They will never risk another referendum, because in 2016, almost up to the last minute, the polls were showing that remain might win, but when it came to it, the British people had the temerity to vote to govern themselves, despite the best efforts of the British Establishment and “Project Fear”. What they will do is try to take us back in very gradually, via a process of grandmother’s footsteps, or, to make another analogy, trying to boil a frog slowly.”
“Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) kindly mentioned—and witnessed, night after night and week after week, the then Labour shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, now the Prime Minister, pulling every procedural trick from the depths of Erskine May in order to try to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union at almost any price and despite the referendum, I am in no way surprised that his Government are now attempting this act of capitulation. Our Prime Minister has always been a passionate Europhile; in short, he remains a remainer in his heart of hearts, and he always will.”
“No. When Labour talked about a “reset” in its general election manifesto, there was absolutely no reference to rule taking as part of any such accommodation. Labour would therefore be giving away our rights, entirely without the consent of the British people. That must be fiercely resisted and, if necessary, overturned. Moreover, there is the prospect of additional concessions over everything from so-called youth mobility schemes—a euphemism for a return to freedom of movement in another guise—to capitulation over net zero mechanisms and, specifically, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which would make our remaining industries even more internationally uncompetitive than the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) has achieved to date. As someone who sat here during the last Parliament—as the hon.”
“It would be far better to do this via a process of mutual enforcement, of which my right hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate. When the Minister sums up the debate, we will ask him if he will rule out, very clearly, any prospect of dynamic alignment at the summit next week.”
“In a moment. This is a yes or no question. Perhaps the Minister, at that time—because he would not answer my right hon. Friend’s question yesterday—will give us an honest answer to an honest question. In fact, if he wants to do it now I will give way to him. A stunning silence! Well, as he has not the guts to get up, I will give way to his Back Bencher.”
“People have made market choices, but under the common fisheries policy, we had the absurdity of so-called discards. Our fishermen had to throw fish, many of which were already dead, back into the sea in order to comply with the absurdities of the CFP. Hopefully, we will never return to that.”
“This surrender to the EU has absolutely no democratic mandate, and we will oppose it tooth and nail. If necessary, we will eventually overturn it. Remember what the booklet in the referendum said: “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.” The British people decided to take back control of their own laws. It is not for Labour to give them away.”
“I defer to my hon. Friend, who is clearly a subject matter expert. I will conclude, because others want a chance to speak. The Labour Government will go for dynamic alignment. They will sign us up as a passive rule-taker at the behest of the EU, despite the British people voting in 2016 to take back control of their laws. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Labour Government get away with this surrender summit early next week, that is precisely what they will do. It is therefore very important that we alert the British people, and the media that serve them, to exactly what Labour is up to, in an attempt to expose the situation and prevent it getting any worse. In summary, we will not allow our obsessively Europhile Prime Minister—in this context, our “white flag” man—to surrender our right to govern ourselves.”
“It has not ended yet. Sir Bill is a sprightly 83, and he has been texting some of us throughout the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that Sir Bill’s great success was the sovereignty clause, which finally said, after years of campaigning, that this Parliament is sovereign? That is on the statute book because of Bill.”
“A week tomorrow, the whole nation will come together to commemorate VE Day. Those who fought in world war two, including my own father, would often attest that no one did more to maintain their morale in adversity than Dame Vera Lynn, the forces’ sweetheart. For several years, a doughty band of campaigners has been trying to create a national memorial in her honour. I am pleased to tell the House that they now have a stunning design, that they have a site—appropriately, at Dover—and that they have already raised over three quarters of the funding that they would need. At this very special time, will the Prime Minister lend his support in principle to this noble endeavour, and will he accept a personal briefing on the campaign—in which case I suspect that he and I will meet again?”
“(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the alleged incitement to murder Members of Parliament by the Irish republican group Kneecap.”
“So, as it is within her gift, will the Home Secretary now seriously reconsider their request to examine potential failures by Prevent that may have contributed to David’s death, via the auspices of the Southport inquiry? Is that not the least we can do? Thank you, Mr Speaker.”
“The incoming Labour Government concluded that fighting the appeal would be “not in the public interest.” Can the Home Secretary tell the House which Government Minister approved that absurd decision to effectively surrender to Kneecap over this, and why? Thirdly, Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury—the organisers of which, incidentally, received some £1.5 million of taxpayer subsidy during the covid pandemic. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be unconscionable for Kneecap to appear, at least while the police inquiry is under way? Kneecap should surely be barred today. To be crystal clear, do the Government agree with that—yes or no? Finally, Kneecap have now offered a “crocodile tears” apology to Katie Amess. Have that family not been through enough already?”
“Two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered within the past decade, in the line of duty while meeting their constituents. Frankly, that could have been any of us. I should like to ask the Home Secretary, albeit in absentia, four specific questions. First, how long is this counter-terrorist police inquiry likely to take? The video plainly speaks for itself. How could the words “Kill your local MP” possibly have been taken out of context? Secondly, we now know that Kneecap applied for a £14,000 Government grant, during the previous Parliament, which was vetoed, quite rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). Kneecap then appealed against this decision as “discriminatory”.”
“I say that as I look across the Chamber at the plaque for our fallen comrade, Sir David Amess, and at the one behind me for our fallen comrade, Jo Cox. They both died serving their constituents. Through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, may I ask Mr Speaker three things? First, will the Home Secretary come to this House by no later than tomorrow and make a full statement on what the Government understand has happened here and exactly what they intend to do about it to protect all those in public life, not just MPs and their families? Secondly, will the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who I see is in her place—I did notify her of my point of order—give a public explanation, ideally via a statement, of how it came to pass that this band were given some £14,000 of British taxpayers’ money in a grant?”
“On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise a point of order, about which I have given Mr Speaker prior notice. All of us in this House know that Mr Speaker has a deep personal commitment to the safety of Members of Parliament and their families. In that context, a video has emerged this weekend of a concert held in London some months ago, at which an Irish republican band, called Kneecap, told a cheering audience that, “The only good Tory is a dead Tory”. The band then implored the audience to, “Kill your local MP”. I am not a lawyer, but to my mind that is incitement to murder. Quite rightly, counter-terrorism police are now investigating. This is beyond despicable and the issue affects all parties.”
“As Mr Speaker is chairing a Speaker’s Conference on MPs’ safety, can we implore him through you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to write to the organisers of Glastonbury festival and say that this House does not think it is appropriate that Kneecap should be allowed to appear, at least until the investigation is completed? I ask this on behalf of all MPs and all our families. I hope that that is not unreasonable.”