Mark Francois MP: speeches

Speeches

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I rise to speak to amendments 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, and new clauses 1, 2, 3 and 6, which appear in my name and those of my hon. Friends. I will say a little about each amendment and new clause in turn. I will also refer to new clause 5, which appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty), and say at least a little about the multiplicity of Government amendments that have just been tabled, in particular Government amendment 54 on the proposed Crown immunity for the defence housing service. By your leave, Madam Chairman, I propose to speak to the amendments first and then to refer to the new clauses a little later in the debate so as not to try the patience of the Committee with an inordinately long speech. I hope that we have collectively done the House and, indeed, the armed forces a service in our scrutiny of the Bill so far. The Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill, most of whose members are here, held seven oral evidence sessions on the Bill’s contents, as well as making a fact-finding visit to the Defence Serious Crime Command in Fareham and to defence housing sites at Emsworth near His Majesty’s Naval Base Portsmouth. As a Committee, we received 47 pieces of written evidence and heard from 42 witnesses. Having held the evidence sessions, we then went through a detailed process of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and produced our subsequent report to the House, which was published on 29 April. The Bill has already had quite a detailed amount of scrutiny; however, it is right that a measure of such importance is now in Committee on the Floor of the House. I reiterate my disappointment that Reform does not regard these proceedings as important. I am sure that the rest of us do; that is why we are here.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is extremely sad that the hon. Gentleman is seeking to conflate two completely different issues, and I suspect that anyone who actually served on Operation Telic would understand that. Having made that point, let me turn to the Opposition’s new clause 2, which would require the Secretary of State for Defence to lay a defence investment plan before Parliament within a month of the passage of this Act, if it had still not been published by then, which, for reasons I will come to in a minute, is not as fantastical as it might seem. For context, today is the one-year anniversary of the publication of the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review. There is a lot of good in the document, but one of the criticisms made at the time was that much of the programmatic detail on which new equipment the Government intended to purchase for our armed forces was omitted. For instance, the Government talked about buying “up to” 12 new nuclear attack submarines. That could mean two. All that detail was going to be provided in the defence investment plan, but one year on, it has still not been published. This has drawn serious criticism from right across the defence industry, and also from the authors of the SDR. Indeed, the lead author, Lord Robertson, a lifelong Labour man to his fingertips, has accused the Prime Minister of “corrosive complacency” because of the ongoing delay in saying how the Government will fund the strategic defence review and its attendant equipment requirements. When we were in government, we used to publish a 10-year plan for the purchase of military equipment, universally known as the equipment plan.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As a matter of fact, that is not how I interpret what the NAO said—not at all.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Having addressed our amendments towards the opening of the debate, I will now speak to the new clauses. New clause 3 would create a veterans’ commissioner for England. My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made a good case for doing so during the Select Committee on the Bill, and did so again this afternoon. She received cross-party support—certainly in principle—from the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), who made an extremely thoughtful contribution. He also gave my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty) some support for new clause 5, which I will come to in a moment. When I was debating the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill—now the Armed Forces Commissioner Act 2025—with the Minister some months ago, he gave a commitment that the veterans’ commissioners for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland would be mirrored by the appointment of a veterans’ commissioner for England. However, that has still not come to pass. Could he explain to the Committee where the Government now sit on this issue? When can we expect them to honour their pledge to create a veterans’ commissioner for England? Have they begun any interview process, to at least begin to identify a suitable candidate for the role? The Government gave their word on this. The Committee would be grateful for an update from the Minister on where the Government are with this matter. I turn to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon, which has the support of over 20 hon. Members. The essence of the new clause is that no fees should be charged to serving or previously serving members of the armed forces, or their family members, who are applying for indefinite leave to remain under the immigration rules appendix for His Majesty’s armed forces. In practical terms, the new clause would amend the Immigration Act 2014 so that when members of the armed forces apply for ILR, in return for their willingness to serve the Crown, the attendant fees would be waived. This is a particular issue for Gurkha families, and foreign and Commonwealth personnel who are serving, or have served, in the armed forces.

• 1 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  May I begin by saying that we Conservative Members stand four-square with the Government on their response to Romania? It is a NATO ally, and it deserves our support. While overall trends in recruitment and retention may have stabilised, there is still a serious problem of personnel leaving the special forces. We know from the personal accounts of former Special Air Service commanders that this is due in no small part to the Government’s facilitation of lawfare against their comrades who served in Northern Ireland. To aid retention, what is the Secretary of State’s personal response to the three special forces regimental associations that publicly warned him in late April that “The egregious mistreatment of veterans and the ongoing infringement of their rights has to end”?

• 1 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Recruitment and Retention · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State said he did not recognise “my” description. It is not mine. It is in a statement of 22 April from the three special forces regimental associations. Those are not my words; they are theirs. I will ask him again. If we are to persuade people to continue serving their King and country in uniform in very high-threat situations, we need to address these legitimate concerns. For months now, the Government have been promising to table amendments to their benighted troubles Bill to provide additional protections for veterans, but as with the defence investment plan, we are still waiting for Godot. When exactly will those long-promised amendments be published, and by which Minister?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Further to that point of order, the Minister’s excuse for not guaranteeing that the documents will be available by 18 June is that he would need to secure parliamentary time. This is news to some of us, who have been here a while and understand that the Government effectively control the timetable of Parliament. Indeed, every Thursday when the House is sitting they make a business statement to tell us what is coming up in the next two weeks. Mr Speaker, are you aware of anything in the Standing Orders or Erskine May that would prevent the Government from making a business statement on Thursday, naming a day for publication after the Whitsun recess?

• 19 May 2026 · Lord Mandelson: Government Response to Humble Address · Hansard source

  More

  Do Labour MPs not realise that it is because of high-handed behaviour like this that they suffered such a drubbing on 7 May? The Minister has said that the documents will be published after we return from Whit on 1 June, but he has repeatedly refused to answer whether or not they will be published by the Makerfield by-election on 18 June. Let me ask him yet again: can he guarantee to the House and the constituents we represent that this large batch of documents will be published in advance of the Makerfield by-election on 18 June—yes or no?

• 14 May 2026 · Supreme Court Dillon Judgment · Hansard source

  More

  As is traditional, I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement, in that—as he said himself—the judgment in the Dillon case is a complex one. We on the Conservative Benches certainly agree. I suspect that this judgment will be pored over and, indeed, argued over at considerable length, not least in the other place should Labour’s benighted troubles Bill ever make it there. I will just make a point about immunity, and the concept that lay behind the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I was serving on the Select Committee on Defence under my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)—an excellent Chairman—when, in 2017, we produced an extremely detailed report on this complex issue. In fairness, I think the Secretary of State has read that report. What was proposed by the Select Committee is akin to what the legacy Act turned out to be, and that in turn was based on the South African truth and reconciliation commission. We never legislated for absolute immunity for anybody; we legislated for conditional immunity, so that if someone who was involved in a troubles-related fatality came forward to give evidence to the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery—I will return to the commission in a moment—the commission could judge whether they had fully co-operated with it, such as by revealing the burial place of one of the so-called disappeared. If the commission believed that that individual had genuinely co-operated in good faith, they would be granted immunity. If not—if the commission felt that that person was lying, dissembling or trying to hide something—the commission could recommend that a prosecution still go ahead. Contrary to the Government’s position, the legacy Act and ICRIR, which the Act established, only ever allowed for conditional immunity. It is important to put that on the record this morning. I have three specific questions for the Secretary of State about his statement. First, will he say a bit more about the relationship between the Dillon judgment and the Windsor framework? He touched on it, but can he expand? Secondly, as he knows, many of the cases brought against veterans were funded by legal aid in Northern Ireland. He referred very briefly to the implications for legal aid, but can he say something more about that? Thirdly, we heard at business questions a few minutes ago that the Armed Forces Bill will be returning to the House in Committee on 2 June. I was quite involved with that Bill. Under its programme motion, the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill has two days for Committee and remaining stages. When do the Government plan to bring it back to the Floor of the House? Perhaps he could answer that specifically. I am sad to say that Labour has been cynical today. I humbly remind the Secretary of State that when we debated and voted on the related remedial order back on 21 January, almost a third of the Labour parliamentary party abstained, famously including the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Al Carns). As we all know, he is otherwise occupied today. Even the current Prime Minister abstained. He blew the whistle and sent his troops over the top to vote for this benighted legislation that he did not have the courage to vote for himself. That brings me to encapsulating exactly what is going on today. While this Government prepare to tear themselves to pieces over a mixture of post-electoral fear and vaulting ambition, what is the Labour party’s absolute priority this morning? It is to advance legislation to facilitate the prosecution of brave Northern Ireland veterans, many of whom gave their lives to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland—in essence, to defend all of this around us today. That sums up the Labour party. It has clearly chosen today as a not-so-good day to bury bad news. The very bad news is that despite all its protestations to the contrary, Labour would rather help Sinn Féin chase those who fought for their country. The public will see this for what it is: not a complex legal treatise, but a disgrace.

• 14 May 2026 · Supreme Court Dillon Judgment · Hansard source

  More

  If it believes they have co-operated—that is the nuance.

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  On that point, will the Prime Minister give way?

• 13 May 2026 · Debate on the Address · Hansard source

  More

  The Prime Minister will know that in the recent Supreme Court Dillon judgment the Court ruled that the Conservatives’ Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 overwhelmingly was not incompatible with the Human Rights Act—he knows that. He referenced the awful events in Golders Green, rightfully, and he defended the police officers against attacks and the leader of the Green party, rightfully, and said that they had to take split-second decisions. If Northern Ireland veterans had to take split-second decisions to uphold the rule of law in Northern Ireland, what is the difference?

• 28 Apr 2026 · Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but is it not true that the post of UK ambassador to Washington would be held by someone who would therefore have access to extremely sensitive intelligence, potentially including nuclear co-operation? Surely the fact that Mandelson had been found to have been working for a Russian company post the invasion of Ukraine should have completely barred him from the appointment, on that ground alone.

• 27 Apr 2026 · Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Hansard source

  More

  May I take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend and Lord Nash on a hard-fought but important campaign? We now have a commitment in principle from the Government that they will ban the use of social media by under-16s, which will be welcomed across the country by concerned parents. Can she reassure me and the House that all that fighting was worth it?

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  Come on.

• 20 Apr 2026 · Security Vetting · Hansard source

  More

  If, as we have been assured, there was no law that prevented the permanent under-secretary from telling the Prime Minister the outcome of Mandelson’s developed vetting, then presumably by the same token there was no law that prevented the Prime Minister from asking. Can he be very clear with the House on one point? Did he as Prime Minister ever ask the question, “Did Mandelson fail his vetting?” and if he did ask that question, who did he ask it of and when did he ask it?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Clearly, all members of the Committee regard the mental health of our armed forces personnel and their families as equally important as their physical health. We therefore understand and welcome the intent of this clause.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Ministers keep talking about this “largest sustained increase” in defence spending since the cold war. Why, then, were there £2.6 billion of efficiency cuts last year, and why is there a target for £3.5 billion efficiency cuts this year?

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Opposition have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for North Devon is trying to achieve. There has historically been something of a cliff face. The medical requirements of a person serving in the armed forces are primarily attended to by Defence Medical Services; when that person leaves the armed forces and becomes a veteran, they transfer to the national health service. It is probably fair to say that in some cases there is a hiatus in medical information and records when that transfer takes place, and I am sure that it would be possible to improve it. Some GP practices have veterans champions and some practices automatically ask someone who signs on with them, “Are you a veteran?” Unsurprisingly, those practices tend to be better at making sure that medical records are passed on. The hon. Member raised the specific case of the medical records of nuclear test veterans. I am not impugning the Minister, but I think the Ministry of Defence could try harder to ensure that those specific records are made more freely available. On the more general point, we could do better at the transfer of records, particularly for those people who have suffered episodes of mental ill health, which are perhaps not immediately obvious. The vast majority of armed forces personnel leave military service in good shape, both physically and mentally, but I know from experience that for some veterans—the Minister has taken a real interest in this—there is, perhaps some years after they have left, what the professionals call a “trigger event”. Perhaps their father is diagnosed with a terminal illness with very few weeks to live and is then gone. That can suddenly bring out in the veteran all sorts of issues, perhaps relating to their service and operations. In those circumstances, unfortunately, people can spiral down very quickly; they might have trouble with their relationships, lose their job or become reliant on drink or drugs. In the worst cases, they might lose their home and end up in a dingy one-bedroom flat in the rough end of town—and in the worst of all cases, sometimes, they even take their own lives. This is not in any way a partisan point. Governments of all colours have tried to work on the problem, as have charities such as Help for Heroes, the Royal British Legion and Veterans Aid—I think of everything that Hugh Milroy has done in this space—but we could do more. Being able to pass across medical records in a timely and accurate way when people leave would help in those circumstances, even though sometimes problems lie hidden, for want of a better phrase, and come out only some years later. For those reasons, I have a lot of sympathy with what the hon. Member for North Devon proposes.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is very clear that the hon. Member for North Durham basically implied that we are aligned with the Russians. That is a despicable thing to say.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  On the issue of recruitment and retention, the Committee will recall from an earlier debate that I produced a report called “Stick or Twist?” for a previous Prime Minister, which was submitted in February 2020, just one month before the nation went into lockdown. The essence of that report, which contained multiple recommendations—all but one were eventually adopted by the Ministry of Defence, to varying degrees—was that there are a variety of reasons why people twist, or leave HM armed forces. However, the overwhelming reason, which has been consistent for a number of years, is the overall effect of service life on family life. People can be picked up for short-term deployment, sometimes overseas, and not see their partners and children as often as they would like. Sometimes, the cumulative effect of that—the pressure—becomes too much. For the record, there are a number of other factors, and it is often a decision in the round—normally, it is a combination of factors that persuades someone eventually to leave—but sometimes there is one straw that breaks the camel’s back. I gave the example in a previous debate of someone who had to miss his best friend’s wedding because he was trawled to the British Army Training Unit Suffield as a watchkeeper. He was a rising cavalry officer, who spent nights sitting in a tent with a laptop or reading a novel, and he came back and basically told the Army to stuff it. That was a very poor leadership decision by somebody. Other factors could include pay, childcare and the expense and difficulty of obtaining it, housing—we have debated that previously at some length—and spousal employment, as people sometimes leave because of the effect on their partner’s career rather than on their own.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As that was technically an intervention, I will have the first crack at it, but I am sure the Minister heard what the hon. Lady said. I see what she is trying to do here. Within the NHS there is the mantra “no decision about me without me”. If an NHS patient requests their medical records, they are meant to get them in a timely manner. We could all name constituency examples where that has not necessarily always been the case. Nevertheless, that is the principle, and it seems to me that it should apply equally to people who have served in the armed forces, who should suffer no disadvantage by virtue of their service, under the armed forces covenant. I am certainly sympathetic to what the hon. Lady said, and I am sure the Minister will be, too.

• 16 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Seventh sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 6 National Veterans’ Commissioner (England) “After section 366 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert— ‘366A National Veterans’ Commissioner (England): establishment (1) Within 12 months of the passing of the Armed Forces Act 2026, the Secretary of State must appoint a National Veterans’ Commissioner for England (“the Commissioner”). (2) The Commissioner shall act independently in carrying out the functions of the office. (3) The Commissioner shall, amongst others, perform the following functions— (a) promote the interests of veterans in England; (b) monitor the operation and effectiveness of the Armed Forces Covenant in England; (c) review the effect of public policy and public services on veterans and their families; (d) identify barriers faced by veterans in accessing housing, healthcare, employment, education, and other public services; (e) make recommendations to the Secretary of State and to public authorities on improving support for veterans. (4) In exercising these functions the Commissioner may— (a) carry out reviews and investigations into matters affecting veterans; (b) consult veterans, service charities, public authorities, and other relevant organisations; (c) publish reports and recommendations. (5) The Commissioner shall prepare an annual report on the exercise of the Commissioner’s functions. (6) The Commissioner may at any time prepare a report on any matter relating to the interests of veterans in England. (7) The Secretary of State shall lay any report prepared under this section before both Houses of Parliament. (8) The Secretary of State must make arrangements for— (a) the provision of such staff, accommodation, and other resources as they consider necessary for the Commissioner to carry out their functions; (b) the publication of the Commissioner’s reports. (9) The Commissioner is to be appointed for a term of three years and may be reappointed for a further term. (10) The Secretary of State may remove the Commissioner from office only on grounds of— (a) incapacity, (b) misbehaviour, or (c) failure to discharge the functions of the office. (11) In this section— “public authority” has the same meaning as in section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998; “veteran” means a person who has served in His Majesty’s armed forces.’”— (Sarah Bool.) This new clause would require the Government to appoint a National Veteran’s Commissioner for England and sets out its functions. Brought up, and read the First time. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.