Mark Francois MP: speeches

Speeches

• 23 Jun 2026 · Defence Spending and Readiness · Hansard source

  More

  Absolutely; industry is exasperated, from BAE Systems down to the smallest defence suppliers in the land. When we were in government, we published—with one year’s exception, I think—a detailed equipment plan every year so that industry could plan accordingly. That is what the DIP is meant to be, but still we do not have it. Labour Ministers tell us and their own Back Benchers again and again that they are increasing defence spending to the greatest extent since the end of the cold war. That is literally untrue. The Defence Secretary told the world in his resignation letter that Labour’s spending plans envisage going from 2.6% of GDP this year to 2.68% of GDP by 2030. That is a 0.08% increase over four years. How is that the largest increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war? Help me out, someone over there. It gets worse. Labour is also seeking £3.5 billion of in-year, self-inflicted, Treasury-driven cuts to the operational and readiness spending of our armed forces. That means fewer ships at sea, fewer planes in the air and fewer exercises on Salisbury plain—and the Russian and Chinese embassies must be laughing themselves silly. If Members will not take it from me, take it from the Chief of the Defence Staff—the professional head of the armed forces—who warned just a few days ago that if Labour continues on its financial path and does not fund the DIP properly, he will have no option but to cut back on readiness and training, which is exactly the activity that is meant to deter a potential aggressor in the first place. The blunt truth—as a Brit, I take no joy in saying it—is that this Government are the laughing stock of NATO. Indeed, in NATO’s own readiness index, the United Kingdom ranks 31st out of 32 NATO countries, with the only one below us Iceland by virtue of having no armed forces to ready. As the Government disintegrate before our eyes, we can only hope that their successors are both competent and courageous and actually believe in defending this country, which clearly this collapsing Administration do not. Another area that we want to press Ministers hard on is the fate of their benighted Northern Ireland Troubles Bill. The hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak, who famously described it as “not fit for purpose”, spoke powerfully in his resignation letter to the Prime Minister in defence of Northern Ireland veterans. He mentioned his battle in government, where he “set out the changes I believed were necessary, and the lines which I could not in good conscience go beyond. Those lines have not been accepted. I have run out of room to argue this case honourably from inside government. A serving minister cannot ask fellow veterans to trust a process he no longer trusts himself.” He went on: “We ask soldiers to fight for this country. In return, we owe them the kit to do the job and the loyalty to stand by them when it’s done. We are failing on both.” Nine former four-star officers have told the world that the troubles Bill represents a “direct threat to national security.” A group of former SAS commanders who were at the sharp end of the battle against republican terrorism told us: “Today every British soldier deployed must consider not only the enemy in front of them but the lawyer behind them… Make no mistake, our closest allies are watching uneasily, and our enemies will be rubbing their hands.” We absolutely cannot allow this situation to continue against those who defended the rule of law. Those who served in Operation Banner stood effectively as piggy-in-the-middle for decades between two warring communities. Over 700 of them were killed and thousands more suffered life-changing injuries. They and their comrades are now to be pursued through the courts via lawfare, actively aided and abetted by a Government who for months have promised multiple times to produce amendments to the Bill to protect veterans and, just as with the DIP, we have seen nothing of substance on which the House can rely, with no amendments and no letters of comfort for them, either. It is a matter of record that a number of those regiments who served in Northern Ireland on Op Banner came from the north-west of England, including from in and around the Manchester area. I think of the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment and its antecedent regiments, including the King’s Regiment, which traditionally recruited from Liverpool and Manchester—they did many tours of Northern Ireland. I therefore ask, in all seriousness, what is the attitude of the right hon. Member for Makerfield towards the benighted Northern Ireland Troubles Bill? If the new Prime Minister seeks some kind of reset for the Labour party, A good place to start would be to drop this dreadful piece of legislation, which threatens to put our soldiers in the dock solely to the advantage of those who sought to kill them. In lieu of that, he could agree to back the Northern Ireland Troubles (Criminal Investigations etc) Bill, the excellent new private Member’s Bill tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), which will have its Second Reading on 4 September and which in essence seeks to curtail any further investigations, inquests or inquiries against our Op Banner veterans unless compelling new evidence as certified by a UK Supreme Court Justice is produced. Some of us on these Benches have literally spent years seeking to defend those who defended us; let us hope that the new Prime Minister will agree. There has been consensus on one point this afternoon—I heard it again and again—which is that the first duty of Government above all others is the defence of the realm, yet the Armed Forces Minister resigned, the Secretary of State for Defence resigned and now the Prime Minister has resigned. This Administration has failed. It is broken. It is going. It made many mistakes, but worst of all, it failed to defend this country. For that, it deserves to come to an end.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Ms Nokes. I will not cut across your ruling, but I do nevertheless say that I wholly agree with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor). During the process of the Bill so far, we in His Majesty’s Opposition have sought to act as critical friends, agreeing with the Government when we think they have done the right thing and probing them when we think they could perhaps have done better. The Government have now tabled some 81 new clauses and amendments in toto. Many, as the Minister has said, are relatively minor or technical drafting improvements, but some are quite substantial, in particular those relating to the proposed new defence housing service and the service justice system. I would like to ask the Minister a specific question about Government amendment 54, the essence of which is that, where property held by the defence housing service is to be treated as property held on behalf of the Crown, the defence housing service should have “the same immunities, privileges and exemptions in respect of its holding of that property as would apply if it were property held by or on behalf of the Crown.” It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the House exactly what that means in practice.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Again, my right hon. Friend makes a very important point: allowing tri-service boards increases the potential pool, even of senior officers, who can serve. When we made that visit, the Minister was not able to be with us. That is no criticism; he is an MOD Minister, and he has a lot to think about—he has a great deal to think about at the moment—but he was not able to be there on that visit, so he did not hear it from the horse’s mouth. This issue was raised with us by practitioners in the service justice system.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  They told us as a Committee—I am looking round the House for nods of assent from others who were on the visit, and I am getting them—that it was a problem, and it was cramping the ability to hold court martials. All we were trying to do was justify the cost of the train ticket to the taxpayer and prove that we had listened to what we were told on the visit, so I do not quite take the Minister’s sanguine approach that there are plenty of officers to go round. I will not hammer the nail any further, but I respectfully ask him to look at this one more time, particularly after the contributions today.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  My right hon. Friend is of course a former MOD Minister himself and represents a large number of service personnel. It is obvious from his intervention that he understands the issue very well. What he has just asked me is wholly in line with the spirit of our amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley unfortunately has a competing commitment this afternoon with the Justice Committee and the report on jury trial, which I hope the House accepts is a very important matter. He hopes to join us later in the debate when he has attended to that. Given his medical expertise, he pressed this point with the Minister for Veterans and People at the same meeting that I have referred to. Sadly, again, we received an equally uninspiring reply. For the record, given that the King’s Speech also presaged new legislation on NHS organisation, we sought to suggest that one way to proceed might be to include an amendment in that Bill rather than in this one. In other words, that medical issue could be put in a Bill introduced by Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Care. I reiterate our request, perhaps to the Government more broadly, to consider what we still regard to be a sensible proposal. I turn now to amendment 5 on court martial boards. One issue highlighted during our visit to see the service justice system was the challenge of finding sufficient officers to serve on court martial boards who are in no way connected with the defendant. That can become more of a challenge as defendants become more senior, as the pool of officers from which to draw narrows as one moves up the promotion pyramid. The essence of the amendment is to allow retired officers to be drawn upon to help comprise the membership of boards for court martial, and therefore to widen the potential pool of those who might be available to undertake this important military and, indeed, civic duty.

• 2 Jun 2026 · Armed Forces Bill · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. I think she may have been here just a few months ago when we had a debate about the history of the Gurkhas in British service. I echo everything she said about the bravest of the brave. I therefore look forward to her supporting the new clause in the Division Lobby this evening. The Royal British Legion and Poppyscotland have campaigned on this matter for a number of years. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon for taking up the cudgels so effectively on their behalf this afternoon. As he argued powerfully, Governments of both colours have indicated in the past that they were minded to make this change. Indeed, it is worth reiterating that this proposal was in both the Conservatives’ and Labour’s 2024 general election manifestos, but the change has yet to come to pass. Having re-examined the issue within His Majesty’s Opposition and consulted shadow departmental colleagues, I am pleased to tell the Committee that should my hon. Friend seek to press the new clause—and should you grant that request, Madam Chairman—we on the Opposition Front Bench will support it. We encourage all hon. Members to do so, too. There would be a cost to the process, but we believe that, in return for service to this country, the Ministry of Defence should absorb that cost in its wider budget. The annual cost would be a very modest outgoing, given the scale of the defence budget. In other words, the Department would bear the cost, not those who have served or their families. People should not be disadvantaged for having offered to serve this country in uniform. My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon put the case very well, and I will not try the House’s patience by repeating it. Suffice it to say that I believe that there is a strong moral case for doing this, and I very much hope that the Government might be prepared to accept the amendment. If they are not, I hope that my hon. Friend will press his amendment to a vote, and in that case, I hope that the whole House will find it in their heart to support it. New clauses 1 and 6 relate to the European convention on human rights and its effect on armed forces personnel, including, potentially, reservists who might be mobilised under the auspices of the Bill. How did we get to a situation in which the convention has spread to the battlefield, not just in Europe, but globally? The history is significant here; it lies behind why we tabled the two new clauses. This all came about because of something called the al-Jedda case, which was heard before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords a couple of years or so before the United Kingdom Supreme Court was created back in 2009. The al-Jedda case was about the treatment of a prisoner detained in Iraq during Operation Telic, and was brought by a now disgraced lawyer called Phil Shiner. His name will be known to anyone who has ever served in the British Army. For the record, Shiner was subsequently convicted of fraud and struck off as a practising solicitor. Phil Shiner instructed legal counsel to put forward his case to the House of Lords. The lead appellant in that case, before he became a Member of Parliament, was one Keir Starmer QC. The Minister for Veterans and People got into some trouble over that, because when we highlighted the matter in the Commons, she was adamant that he had not been working for Shiner. Unfortunately for the Minister, we had the court records from the House of Lords, which showed very clearly that Keir Starmer, as he then was, was the lead appellant appointed and instructed—that word is used in the records—by Phil Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers. The Minister had the embarrassment of having to come to the Commons in February to correct the record and admit that our version of events, as explained to the Commons, was true. Phil Shiner was a persistent man, particularly when money was at stake, so several years after losing in the House of Lords, he took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. To be clear, Keir Starmer was not acting in that action. Shiner won, so the Strasbourg Court ruled that the European convention on human rights would then apply to any theatre in which British armed forces personnel were serving. Through that judgment, an industry was effectively created, which Shiner then massively exploited. He brought literally hundreds of cases against current and past British armed forces personnel. Many of the cases were funded by British taxpayers through legal aid, and were completely and utterly fabricated for money. It was the use of the ECHR that allowed him to do that. In other debates in the Chamber, we have heard senior Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, say that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Self-evidently, there must be, because otherwise why was Shiner struck off and convicted of fraud by a court of law? There can be—in fact, there were—hundreds of vexatious prosecutions against British military personnel. It was, for the record, Johnny Mercer, a former Member of this House, when he served on the Defence Committee some years ago, who led a sub-Committee investigation into this issue. Its very powerful report helped to bring Shiner to book, no doubt saving the taxpayer a lot of money, and leading to Shiner’s career ending in disgrace. To come to the present day, what if there were a ceasefire in Ukraine? Let us posit a situation in which, under the auspices of the coalition of the willing, British service personnel were deployed to Ukraine. If, by some happenstance, they became involved in a firefight with Russian troops who had made an incursion across the line of ceasefire, who is to say that years—maybe decades—later, those personnel would not end up in a court of law for obeying what they believed to be perfectly legitimate orders, after some second-guessing by a human rights lawyer, perhaps with Russian assistance? In short, we cannot allow this Government’s obsession with human rights to put our armed forces at risk, either now, in the future or historically, and potentially force them to fight ruthless opponents with one arm tied behind their back. This issue will not go away, and at some point, the Government will be forced to address it, be it through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or some other mechanism. The purpose of these new clauses is to force them to address it today.

• 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.

• 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

  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?

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

  More

  In fairness to the hon. Gentleman, I will meet him halfway. I could get him references from Hansard for where the Opposition made exactly that point in the Chamber some weeks ago. We argued that, obviously, there would be expenditure at Faslane, at Lossiemouth and suchlike, so if the Government did not come up with the DIP by the third week in March then purdah could kick in—as I think is the convention—and mean that they could not then publish it until the middle of May. A minute ago, I asked the Minister to give us a date when the DIP will be published. That might be after the purdah period; I was listening. But—and I hope that the hon. Member will be equitable about this—we warned about the risk of the purdah window months ago. I think we now know that we are going to get a King’s Speech on 13 May. If that purdah block is in place, and it probably is, the earliest that we can realistically expect the DIP is another month further on, but we have been waiting nine months as it is. In fairness to the hon. Gentleman—and we may have fallen out on the previous new clause—he has a point, but I will admit that he has a point only if he will admit that we raised this publicly months ago. Even The Times has reported that there is an impasse. Its political editor Steven Swinford and its excellent defence editor Larisa Brown today produced an article entitled “Keir Starmer delays defence investment plan over cabinet split”, the opening sentence of which is: “Sir Keir Starmer’s ten-year plan for investment in defence will not be published until the summer as the government is split over how much should be committed to the armed forces.” We cannot go on with the Chancellor holding the armed forces to ransom. Bearing in mind what the hon. Member for North Durham said about purdah—I got that point—will the Minister, when he sums up this debate, at least give us a date by which the DIP will be published? At the very least, will he promise the Committee, and through us, the House, that it will be, at the very latest, by the time the House rises for the summer recess, which is currently programmed for 16 July?

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

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again this afternoon, Mr Efford. This will be a brief contribution. When I was a Minister, I had the privilege of visiting the MOD police at what was then RAF Wethersfield, which is now used for much more controversial purposes, but that is outside the scope of this Bill. I was shown a convoy protection exercise—the Minister will understand what I am talking about—and I was very impressed by how efficient and effective the MOD police were at guarding a precious cargo in that exercise. The MOD police are affectionately known as “MOD plod” throughout defence, but sometimes I feel they are slightly under-sung heroes. They keep many people safe, and I place on record our appreciation for the MOD police and everything they do to keep us safe and protect vital assets in defence, as I am sure the Minister would echo.

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

  More

  I have one question about clause 53. The clause is titled: “Extent in the Channel Islands, Isle of Man and British overseas territories”. However, subsection (2) says: “The provisions mentioned in subsection (3) extend to— (a) the Isle of Man, and (b) the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar.” Similarly, subsection (5)(b) says: “any of the British overseas territories, except Gibraltar.” The Minister will know that there are some sensitivities about policing and such matters in Gibraltar as a result of negotiations with the Government of Spain. I will not attempt to get into a wider row this afternoon about the fate of Gibraltar. However, after the Government’s big climbdown on Chagos, we are rather hoping that they will look again at the arrangements that affect the Rock. Suffice it for this afternoon—and just to prove I have read it—perhaps the Minister could explain why there are two exceptions for Gibraltar in this clause?

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

  More

  I hope that we are all much refreshed. I should say up front that, while we have been able to conduct this Committee for most of the time in a relatively consensual manner, I fear that on this subject there may be some fundamental differences of principle at stake and that therefore we may find it genuinely difficult to agree. I would have been intrigued to know the attitude of Liberal Democrat members of the Committee, as we are debating the effect of the European convention on human rights on service personnel, but unfortunately they are no longer here. Nevertheless, the essence of new clause 13 is that it would reinstate a duty removed during the passage of the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021 to require the Secretary of State to consider derogation from the ECHR during significant overseas operations. Similarly, the essence of new clause 15 is that it would make provision for members of the reserve forces who have been deployed under the provisions of the Bill to be exempted from the ECHR for the period of that deployment. Let me say at the outset that I have never met a member of His Majesty’s armed forces, whether past or present, who believed that the military should not operate subject to legal constraint. After all, soldiers fight to defend our democratic way of life and, in Northern Ireland, they fought to uphold the rule of law. We have had for decades the law of armed conflict, which has at its heart the well-established Geneva convention. It is not as if we have never had any boundaries to control the actions of armed forces personnel. How did we get to the situation in which we are today, where the European convention on human rights has spread to the battlefield, not just within Europe but globally? The history is significant, and it lies behind why we have tabled the new clauses. It all came about because of something called the al-Jedda case, which was heard before the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords a couple of years or so before the United Kingdom Supreme Court was created. I think, from memory, that the UKSC was stood up in 2009, but this case, or at least at the first crank of the handle, as I will go on to explain, predated that. In essence, the al-Jedda case was about the treatment of a prisoner detained in Iraq. The case was brought by a now disgraced lawyer called Phil Shiner. His name will be known to anyone who has ever served in the British Army. For the record, he was subsequently convicted of fraud and was struck off as a practising solicitor, although, at least to date, he never went to jail. The Appellate Committee of the House of Lords heard this case, and Phil Shiner instructed legal counsel to put forward his case to the House of Lords. The lead appellant in that case, before he became a Member of Parliament and our Prime Minister, was one Keir Starmer QC. The Minister for Veterans and People got into some trouble over this, because when we raised it in the Commons, she was adamant that that individual had not been working for Shiner and was merely acting as a so-called third party, as a kind of expert witness to the court on a point of law. Unfortunately for the Minister, we had the court records from the House of Lords, which showed very clearly that Keir Starmer, as he then was, was the lead appellant, appointed and “instructed”—that word is used in the records—by Phil Shiner’s law firm, Public Interest Lawyers. That law firm, I am pleased to say, is no longer in business, and quite right too. The Minister for Veterans subsequently had to come to the Commons in February and go through the embarrassment of having to correct the record and admit that our version of events, as explained to the Commons, was true. How did we get from there to now? Phil Shiner was a persistent man, particularly when money was at stake, so several years after losing in the House of Lords, he took the case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. To be clear, the current Prime Minister was not involved in the case at that stage, but he clearly had been previously. Shiner won, so the ECHR, which we were then subject to, ruled that the European convention on human rights would then apply to any theatre in which British armed forces personnel were serving. Through that judgment, they effectively created an industry that Shiner was very expeditious in exploiting. He brought literally hundreds of cases against current and past British armed forces personnel—many of the cases were funded by British taxpayers through legal aid and were completely and utterly fabricated—for money. It was the use of the ECHR that allowed him to do that. In other debates in the Chamber, we have heard senior Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, say that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Self-evidently there is, because otherwise why was Shiner struck off and convicted of fraud by a court of law? There can be—in fact, there were—hundreds of vexatious prosecutions against British military personnel. It was, for the record, Johnny Mercer when he served on the Defence Committee some years ago, when he was the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, who led a sub-committee to look into this issue. Its very powerful report helped to bring Shiner to book, no doubt saving the taxpayer a lot more money, and led to his career ending in disgrace. But what if there was a ceasefire in Ukraine? Let us posit a situation in which, under the auspices of the coalition of the willing, British service personnel were deployed to Ukraine. If, by some happenstance, they became involved in a firefight with Russian people who had perhaps crossed the line of ceasefire, who is to say that years—maybe decades—later, those personnel will not end up in a court of law for obeying what they believed to be perfectly legitimate orders, but which were subsequently second guessed by a human rights lawyer? For the avoidance of doubt, that is why the new clauses would alleviate such a situation. In short, we cannot allow this Government’s obsession with human rights to put our armed forces at risk—either now, in the future or, indeed, historically—and potentially force them to fight ruthless opponents with one arm tied behind their back. This issue is not going to go away, and at some point the Government, be it through the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill or some other mechanism, will be forced to address it. The purpose of these new clauses is to force them to address it today. It is a shame that we are not going to hear the Liberal Democrats’ view on this, but I will be intrigued to hear the Government’s. Before that, however, I suspect that we will hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 20, page 34, line 27, at end insert “or (iii) a retired holder of such a rank.” This amendment would add retired officers to those qualified for membership of the Court Martial.

• 14 Apr 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Fourth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I again place on record our thanks to you, Mr Efford, and to our excellent Clerks and the team who organised a very good visit down to Portsmouth, where I think we learned a lot about the operation of the service courts in practice—I certainly did. A number of issues were raised in that discussion, not least about the operation of juries in courts martial, and who serves on those jury panels, how they are selected and why. I will give two or three examples of the issues that came from that and then talk to the amendment. The current practice, when an officer is being tried for an offence, is that only officers may serve on a jury panel in a court martial. Some people raised questions with the briefers that day about why that should be, and it is an interesting issue. The book answer from the Department was that officers should be tried by a jury of their peers, and therefore it should be other officers who serve on that panel. There is an issue that follows from that about the rank of the officer being tried and the rank of the officers that then serve on the panel. We learned about a practical constraint, which is that if a relatively senior officer is being tried, let us say a colonel or above—to take an Army example—there is only a relatively small pool of people who could be trawled to sit on that panel to pass judgment on that officer. In the civilian world, we would not have a system where, if a professor were being tried, only graduates could sit on the panel. The civilian system is that people are chosen entirely at random from the electoral roll and are asked to do jury service, which they are mandated to do, with certain exceptions set out in statute. In the civilian world, people are not tried by people of—how can I put it?—an equivalent educational or social status. As the saying used to be, it is a jury of 12 good men and true; now it is, rightly, a jury of good men and women and true who assess someone’s guilt or innocence. In the military, we still carry out the process in this ranked, structured way. Let us say that we had a lance corporal who was being tried for being drunk and disorderly—perhaps he had got into a bar brawl after the end of an exercise; he had gone out at the weekend, had let off a bit of steam and this had led to him allegedly committing an offence. At present, as I understand it, only senior non-commissioned officers of the rank of the equivalent of colour sergeant or above could pass judgment on that lance corporal. That raises an interesting question: why should another corporal or lance corporal, who likes a night out on a Friday as well, not be allowed to serve on that panel? Why does it have to be a colour sergeant or equivalent? Forgive me, Mr Efford, I am using Army ranks because that is what I am most familiar with from my service, but the point holds good across all the services. Why should only a colour sergeant or above be allowed to pass verdict on a lance corporal or even a private soldier? A number of such issues cropped up from our visit. Also, as in the old saying that the Minister reminded me of, time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. This was a good example of that practice. The amendment was drafted specifically to address one of those issues—the potential shortage of officers to serve on court martial panels, especially if a relatively senior officer is being tried, when by definition the pool of available serving officers to serve on a panel is limited. We have tried to come up with a practical suggestion, which is to use retired officers of equivalent rank. I am also interested to hear what other members of the Committee think of the wider issue, which is, does this have to be as hide-bound by rank as it is at the moment? I am interested in the Minister’s view as well, not least because he has been a commanding officer. If we are to keep the system in essence as we have it at the moment, however, would it not make sense to be able to draw on a pool of retired officers of the required rank, who might have a little more time on their hands? We would not be taking anyone away from ongoing operations, and we could take time from their lives in order for them to continue to serve in a military context in the important task of administering service justice. That, in essence, is the intention of the amendment, but we also tabled it to provoke, I hope, a wider debate—I am looking at one or two Labour Back Benchers in particular, because they were vocal about this when we were in Portsmouth, so now is their chance—about why we do things in the way that we do them, and whether there is some potential for change, but if not, why not? I hope that I have laid out the issue fairly clearly for the Committee.

• 26 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 3, page 7, line 26, at end insert— “(e) provide earmarked accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel, who do not live with them (in accordance with any relevant court order).” This amendment would make the Defence Housing Service responsible for providing accommodation to facilitate “contact visits” for children of service personnel who have separated, in accordance with any relevant court order regarding access. My hon. Friends and I tabled this very specific amendment for two reasons. I remember that during my time as a Minister, which was more than a decade ago, when I visited Army garrisons, Navy facilities or RAF airbases and discussed service family accommodation, the issue often cropped up of providing accommodation for contact visits. In practice, that usually means providing SFA quarters that are ringfenced specifically to allow serving personnel to hire them temporarily, for example so that children who do not ordinarily live with them can stay with them on camp during a contact visit. This is obviously still an issue. I recall it cropping up in conversation when the Committee visited Portsmouth. When we visited the patch, we were shown some houses that, from memory, still had diggers outside because they were about to be refurbished for exactly that purpose. That tells me that this is still a bit of a challenge even now. Incidentally, that example bears out the value of the Committee visiting to see and learn these things for ourselves. As the Minister reminded me, it was Napoleon who said that time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. Our visit was a very good example of that maxim in practice.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Defence · Hansard source

  More

  When I spoke from this Dispatch Box barely a month ago, I had literally just returned, hot foot, from Ukraine. Those who were here that evening might recall that I conveyed to the House a personal warning from the Speaker of the Rada, the Ukrainian Parliament: “No one knows the Russians better than us. If we fall, you and your friends are next.” —[ Official Report , 25 February 2026; Vol. 781, c. 423.] Not only is that war in Ukraine sadly ongoing—and has been for 12 years, not four years—we now face a very challenging situation because of the two concurrent conflicts in the middle east and Ukraine. Yet again, as we debate defence in this House, the plastic patriots of Reform are absolutely nowhere to be seen. Tonight’s debate is all the more pressing given the Government’s fundamental failure to display the requisite sense of urgency that is now clearly required. As an example, the Government’s much-vaunted strategic defence review, published last July, states on page 43: “This Review charts a new era for Defence, restoring the UK’s ability to deter, fight, and win—with allies—against states with advanced military forces by 2035.” That is nine years from now. Our Chief of the General Staff is on record as saying that he believes we might have to fight Russia by 2027 and the First Sea Lord estimates only a couple of years after that, yet it is the official policy of His Majesty’s Government that we will be prepared to fight a peer enemy almost a decade from now. That has terrible echoes of the so-called 10-year rule of the 1920s, and we all know what happened after that. The all-party, Labour-led House of Commons Defence Committee, with its excellent Chair the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), recently accused the Government of proceeding “at a glacial pace” in improving Britain’s war preparedness. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) reminded us, on 10 March, after a classified briefing, the Committee issued a joint statement and urged hitting 3% on defence spending in this Parliament. That is already Conservative party policy. The matter cropped up yet again at the Liaison Committee yesterday, when the Prime Minister was clearly floundering about the ability of his Government to respond to emerging threats and about why the defence investment plan—the DIP—has still not been published. Nowhere is the complete lack of strategic thinking from this Government more abundantly clear than in their barmy proposal to spend £35 billion of British taxpayers’ money to lease back the vital strategic outpost of Diego Garcia, which belongs to us in the first place. There is no credible legal threat to the sovereignty of Diego Garcia, and certainly none that would justify the expenditure of that much of taxpayers’ money. Instead, that money should be spent directly on our own defence. Why do I say that the threat is not credible? First, when we signed up to the International Court of Justice, we specifically included an opt-out for any cases involving current or former Commonwealth countries. Any judgment by the ICJ—even a mandatory one, and we should remember that this one is only advisory—would still not be legally binding on the UK, because of that crystal clear opt-out. Secondly, the Government attempted to argue that via the International Telecommunications Union, which is a UN agency like the ICJ, we could somehow lose control of our military spectrum. Again, that is absolute nonsense, because article 48 of the ITU treaty, to which we are a co-signatory, states clearly: “Member states retain their entire freedom with regard to military radio installations.” Again, that legal threat simply does not exist. Even the Government’s then telecommunications Minister, the hon. Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant) confirmed that in a written answer to me a year ago on 12 February 2025. Thirdly, the Government’s last trench, as cited on Second Reading of their Diego Garcia Bill, was the desperate argument that we could somehow lose a case under the UN convention on the law of the sea at the international tribunal for the law of the sea. However, article 298(b) of the UNCLOS treaty, to which we are a co-signatory, states clearly that we have an opt-out in the event of any disputes concerning “disputes concerning military activities, including military activities by government vessels and aircraft engaged in non-commercial service”. Quod erat demonstrandum. We can throw in the Pelindaba treaty on nuclear non-proliferation, which Mauritius has signed and will prevent basing of nuclear weapons on the islands anyway, and, crucially, the 1966 Anglo-American treaty, which means that the United States has a formal written veto over Labour’s deal with Mauritius. The Americans are now almost certain to exercise that veto after we denied them the initial use of the runway, which our Ministers allegedly sought to protect in the first place. Ministers must surely know that the whole benighted deal is as dead as a dodo, and still they cannot bring themselves to admit it. They are totally and utterly in denial over Chagos. The same obsession with human rights from a Prime Minister who once described himself as a human rights lawyer first and a politician second—he was not kidding there, was he?—has also led to the utterly despicable position of the Government, in their Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, seeking to pursue our veterans through the courts via a process of lawfare and two-tier justice. That is while alleged terrorists, who those veterans were sent to the Province to fight, effectively walk free with letters of comfort in their pockets. Not only is that morally wrong on a whole range of levels, but it has a debilitating effect on recruitment and retention, especially within our own special forces community. That is an area where, even to this day—as I am sure the Minister for the Armed Forces would agree—our nation remains world-class. Then we come to the delay to the defence investment plan, which is simply unconscionable with not one war under way, but two. When the Government published the strategic defence review last year, they delayed most of the decisions on equipment capabilities to a subsequent defence investment plan, which we were promised would be published in the autumn. We were then faithfully promised it would be published by Christmas, and here we are in late March, all promises broken, and there is still no DIP. Ministers have been claiming for months that they have been working flat-out on this plan. What would have happened if they had not been trying? The reality is that we still do not have this document, because the Ministry of Defence is totally and utterly at war with His Majesty’s Treasury. That vital intergovernmental relationship has effectively broken down, and the Prime Minister is simply too weak to bang heads together and force the plan to be published.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Does my hon. Friend agree that the words that we have used in the amendment are taken verbatim from the Minister’s letter of 9 March 2026? We asked him to provide a definition of due regard; he duly wrote to the Committee very promptly, and we have quoted the first sentence verbatim. These are not random words; this is the Minister’s definition. All we are seeking to do is place it in the Bill.

• 24 Mar 2026 · Armed Forces Bill (First sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I apologise, Mr Efford. As you say, get it right! This was not a contentious Bill on Second Reading. As we said during that debate, we think our role is primarily to act as a critical friend to the Bill. That does not mean we will not disagree on anything at all, but it does mean that, now we are in Committee, we will attempt to approach the Bill in a constructive manner. I hope we can do a lot of that in a collegial way. I want to place on record our thanks and, I am sure, those of all right hon. and hon. Members, to the Clerks and yourself, Mr Efford, for organising some extremely effective evidence sessions—we have already taken a lot of evidence on the Bill—and in particular for organising an extremely effective visit to Portsmouth to look, among other things, at the operation of the service justice system and defence housing. That has all been a positive start and, within reason, we will attempt to continue in the same manner. We have no objection to clause 1 standing part of the Bill.

• 16 Mar 2026 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  There are growing rumours that the Government plan to bring back their ill-fated Northern Ireland Troubles Bill to the Commons next week. If that is true, it will give us the perfect opportunity to debate the Prime Minister’s links with Phil Shiner, the disgraced lawyer who was convicted of fraud and struck off for making multiple false allegations against British soldiers. The Northern Ireland Secretary has told the House repeatedly that there is no such thing as a vexatious prosecution. Do MOD Ministers now agree that that is not just naive but simply untrue, especially after the case of Phil Shiner —a man universally hated across the British Army?

• 25 Feb 2026 · Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  As ever, my hon. Friend is entirely right. The sale of hydrocarbons, including to China and India, is effectively Putin’s windpipe. Some people now refer to Russia as “China’s gas station”. If we could do more against those ships, it would be important for Ukrainian morale. We were told time and again that when the Ukrainians hear that a shadow fleet vessel has been impounded or captured, it raises their morale. This is something that we could do, in difficult circumstances, to raise their morale even further. Between us, my hon. Friend and I have made the point, and hopefully the Minister can follow up on it. The third theme that I want to stress before I finish is that we were thanked again and again for Britain’s support militarily, diplomatically and economically, and for our humanitarian aid. Wherever we went, people said, “Thank you.” I think it is true to say that the previous Government gave real leadership in Europe on this and I think it is true to say that the current Government have continued in the same vein, but the House should know that people from the Office of the President downwards went out of their way to thank us for everything that Britain, and indeed this House, has done. The Speaker of the Rada gave us a sombre warning. He said: “No one knows the Russians better than us. If we fall, you and your friends are next.” It is important that this House appreciates that. I do not want to spoil the non-partisan spirit of this debate, but there are lessons for us in the United Kingdom not just about the overall level of defence spending, but about the long-delayed defence investment plan. I say to the Secretary of State for Defence that we desperately need that document. We cannot wait much longer, and we have waited since the autumn, so the ball is in the Secretary of State’s court. It would be good for Ukrainian morale to see Britain committing to a long-term equipment programme.

• 21 Jan 2026 · Northern Ireland Troubles: Legacy and Reconciliation · Hansard source

  More

  As the Secretary of State well knows, the Blair Government handed out hundreds of so-called letters of comfort to alleged IRA paramilitaries following their release from prison. John Downey, the alleged Hyde Park bomber, produced such a letter during his trial at the Old Bailey, whereupon the trial was immediately abandoned. Our Northern Ireland veterans have no such letters of comfort. Does the Secretary of State agree that that letter of comfort let John Downey off on that particular occasion?

• 14 Jan 2026 · Ajax Programme · Hansard source

  More

  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 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. 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. 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. 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”. 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? 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. 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. 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. I am not a qualified engineer, so I cannot pronounce on whether the problem is fixable. Some analysts argue that the vehicle is now so heavy—at up to 43 tonnes it is just two tonnes lighter than a world war two Panther main battle tank—and flawed that it cannot be saved, short of a fundamental redesign which would cost billions of pounds. However, if this really can be sorted by technical means, then conceptually we surely need a deep fix which effectively puts the problems to bed definitively. If that can somehow be achieved at GD’s expense, then all well and good. Nevertheless, the risk is that the MOD and GD merely tweak the vehicle yet again and then rerun that exercise—perhaps six months from now—with almost exactly the same outcome. In that context, I would humbly remind the Minister of Einstein’s definition of madness, which is doing the same thing over and over again and somehow expecting a different result. Conversely, if it emerges that Ajax is somehow fundamentally flawed and cannot be fixed, then the other option is to end the cycle of denial, rip off the plaster and fail it. That would then involve the Ministry of Defence in potentially tortuous negotiations with General Dynamics, in essence, to get its money back so that it could spend it on something else, such as the BAE CV90, which now successfully serves in many NATO countries—and which lost out to Ajax in the first place. If GD was not willing to accept liability, although many think it should, the MOD would probably have no recourse other than to sue it for liquidated damages for delivering a vehicle that was demonstrably not fit for purpose. To conclude, that could involve the Department in a highly aggressive court case potentially lasting years, but which would no doubt also be highly injurious to the reputation of General Dynamics as a global defence manufacturer. This cannot go on; Ministers must fix it or fail it once and for all.

• 18 Dec 2025 · Jury Trials · Hansard source

  More

  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?