Defence

Debate between Judith Cummins and Mark Francois

Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

I certainly hope there is. I very much hope that MOD Ministers are fighting tenaciously in private, even if they cannot say so in public, to have this mad order scrapped, and to defend the Northern Ireland veterans, just as the Northern Ireland veterans defended all of us. The Minister understands exactly what I mean by that, and I think that he and some of his ministerial colleagues may have been working on this. If they have, then we in good faith wish them Godspeed.

I have one more question on this matter, and then I will move on. If it is the Government’s intention to still go ahead with the remedial order—again, the House would really welcome clarity on this—despite the fact that it would have disastrous consequences for recruitment and retention, which the Minister mentioned a few minutes ago, can he confirm exactly what the Government’s policy is? Is it to go down the remedial order route, or down the route of introducing new primary legislation, and if it is the latter, what are the timings for that new Bill?

Fourthly and finally, the Minister for the Armed Forces has signed a formal statement to the effect that, in his view, the provisions of the Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2025 are compatible with the European convention on human rights. However, there is a question: were British troops to be deployed to Ukraine as part of some coalition of the willing—perhaps following a ceasefire in Ukraine—what would happen to those British troops if they were to be involved in combat with Russian forces, or Russian acolytes? What guarantee could the Ministry give that if soldiers fired their weapons in anger, they would not subsequently be subject to lawfare under the Human Rights Act 1998, even decades after the event, as is the case in Northern Ireland? This is not an idle point. I understand that the issue of lawfare and its effect on recruitment and retention in the British Army has been raised at the most senior levels in the Army, including in recent meetings with the Chief of the General Staff. This is very much a live issue that deserves to be raised in Parliament, not least for the soldiers who might have to take these actions for real.

Given all this, would it not be helpful—as suggested a number of times by my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), the shadow Defence Secretary—for the Minister to issue a formal declaration that we would derogate from the European convention on human rights in relation to any British military operations related to Ukraine, so that soldiers who served in that conflict would be excluded from any lawfare prosecutions, even decades later? The Minister will know that the issue is materially affecting morale in the armed forces, and especially in the special forces community, so any reassurance he can give regarding a derogation would no doubt be gratefully received.

To summarise, we obviously support this order to continue the operation of the Armed Forces Act 2006 until December 2026. It would be helpful to have some idea of timings, and even of the content of the prospective Armed Forces Act 2026, as it is likely to be, to allow interested parties to plan. To maintain morale and discipline in our armed forces, perhaps the Minister could also confirm whether the Government would countenance derogation from the ECHR during future military operations, potentially including those in defence of Ukraine. Moreover, perhaps he could update the House on where we are on the Government’s proposed new legislation on legacy matters, and on the fate of the proposed remedial order under the Human Rights Act 1998. Are the Government contemplating removing clauses from that remedial order, or are they abandoning it altogether, and instead relying on new primary legislation to achieve their aim?

The Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), gave us all very wise advice: we should increase defence spending. We certainly should, in this increasingly dangerous world; we can argue about by how much and how quickly. We Conservative Members want to work constructively with the Government and the Ministry of Defence, for the defence of the realm—but do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I can now announce the result of today’s deferred Divisions. On the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Mergers Involving Newspaper Enterprises and Foreign Powers) Regulations 2025, the Ayes were 338 and the Noes were 79, so the Ayes have it.

On the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003 (Suitability for Fixed Term Recall) Order 2025, the Ayes were 333 and the Noes were 168, so the Ayes have it.

[The Division lists are published at the end of today’s debates.]

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Debate between Judith Cummins and Mark Francois

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 2nd July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

I rise to address the Lords amendments, following yet another Government defeat in the other place.

As I said last month when we last debated this important Bill, His Majesty’s official Opposition are driven by a commitment to ensure that our brave servicemen and women receive the robust, transparent and fair support they deserve. The Bill, which aims to establish an independent Armed Forces Commissioner with Ofsted-like powers to gain access to military sites and information, holds the potential to improve the welfare and accountability framework for our armed forces. If implemented effectively, it could significantly enhance public confidence in the way in which the concerns of service personnel are addressed. I believe that this vision enjoys broad support across the House—although yet again I have to place on record that when we are discussing important legislation that affects the welfare and wellbeing of armed forces personnel and their families, no Reform Member of Parliament is in the Chamber of the House of Commons. They cannot spend the whole of their lives on TikTok, particularly as it is a Chinese system.

Our duty as His Majesty’s Opposition is to ensure that the Bill delivers on its promises without introducing unnecessary complexity. We must scrutinise the way in which the commissioner’s role integrates with the existing complaints systems, and what it means for those navigating them. Today we focus again on the key issue of whistleblowing, which was debated extensively in the other place and which now lies before this House yet again. Our amendments, championed by Baroness Goldie, sought to empower the commissioner to investigate whistleblowing concerns related to welfare and service issues, while guaranteeing anonymity for those who come forward, be they service personnel, their families or others. This is not a radical proposal but a reasonable compromise, incorporating the exact wording of the Government’s Commons amendment on anonymity in reports, alongside our whistleblowing duty.

The Government argue that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient, and that our amendment does not confer additional powers. That stance is, I am afraid, both inconsistent and unconvincing. The Minister’s own “Dear colleague” letter of 30 May generously acknowledged that Baroness Goldie’s amendments had sparked an important debate, yet the Government resist embedding a clear, statutorily protected whistleblowing function. Such a provision is essential to ensure that vulnerable service personnel can raise concerns without fear of reprisal.

Lord Coaker, speaking for the Government in the other place on 11 June, claimed that the terms “whistleblower” and “whistleblowing” might deter individuals from coming forward, citing Cabinet Office guidance. That suggestion is plainly daft. If the term “whistleblowing” is truly a barrier, why does the national health service successfully operate its “Freedom to Speak Up” policy, which explicitly uses the term? Why does the Children’s Commissioner issue an annual whistleblowing report? Those examples demonstrate that the term is not a deterrent, but a recognised and effective framework for protecting those who expose wrongdoing. To argue otherwise undermines the very concept of whistleblowing regimes across multiple sectors and public services in the United Kingdom.

The Government further contend that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. That is simply untenable. Section 340Q of the Armed Forces Act 2006 is entitled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”, and section 29D of the Police Reform Act 2002 provides another clear statutory precedent. Those Acts show that including whistleblowing in legislation adds tangible value, ensuring protections for those who raise concerns. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and for the very Act that this Bill amends, how can the Government claim that it lacks clarity or value in this instance? That is totally inconsistent.

The Government’s position is riddled with contradictions. In Committee, our broader amendment to empower the commissioner was dismissed by the Ministry of Defence as being too wide-ranging. In a spirit of compromise, we narrowed it to focus on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that the revised amendment is too narrow and lacks sufficient powers. Lord Coaker argued that our amendment, if passed, would limit the commissioner’s investigations to the same scope as current powers, without enabling access to sites, information or documents, or requiring the Secretary of State to co-operate or report to Parliament. If the Government believe that our amendment does not go far enough, why do they not support it and propose their own broader amendment to enhance the commissioner’s powers, which would almost take us back to the status quo ante? This inconsistency suggests a reluctance to engage constructively, as if arguments were being plucked out of thin air to block progress.

Lord Coaker—with whom I dealt when he was in this place, and for whom, for the avoidance of doubt, I have immense respect—also claimed that our amendment excluded family members and terms of service issues, and would apply only to those subject to service law. That is incorrect. Our amendment defines a whistleblower as a person

“subject to service law or…a relevant family member.”

Thus a corporal’s sister, for example, could raise a whistleblowing concern if the corporal faced abuse or bullying by a military colleague. This provision ensures that family members have a voice, directly contradicting the Government’s assertion to the contrary.

Let me give a brief theoretical example. Let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland under Operation Banner. That is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will know, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether all armed forces personnel who served in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but I can say that as of today, more than 164,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward very much to a debate in Parliament on 14 July on exactly that matter, which I am sure will be followed closely by the veterans community and their families.

This is not an “angels on a pinhead” argument. It is actually quite important. The Government’s assurances about anonymity and communications campaigns to promote the commissioner’s role are welcome but insufficient. A campaign can be no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can trust—to be fair, I should add that when we debated the Bill before, the Minister talked about the issue of trust repeatedly. The other place recognised that, delivering another cross-party defeat to the Government in the last fortnight by amending the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Our amendment represents a reasonable compromise, aligning with the Government’s own wording on anonymity while embedding a vital whistleblowing duty. To block it would signal that the Government are not serious about working constructively with the Opposition to improve the welfare of our armed forces personnel, so I urge them to accept this compromise in the interests of all who serve.

I will listen closely to anything further that the Minister has to say, but if the Government persist in offering assurances without statutory weight, I will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. Our service personnel deserve a system that hears their voices and protects their concerns, and if we carry on playing ping-pong—well, that is a sport that I was once quite good at.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Points of Order

Debate between Judith Cummins and Mark Francois

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Francois]

We do not normally heckle points of order, but, if the right hon. Lady is going to do that, I will say that our party’s leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), refused the grant. The band appealed, and this Government did not oppose the appeal. Those are the facts. Will the right hon. Lady please explain to us exactly how that happened and how we can get the money back? I did not want to make this issue partisan, but she interrupted me.

Thirdly, I understand that Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury, which, under the circumstances, would be unconscionable. 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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of some aspects of his point of order. As he knows, we do not discuss security matters on the Floor of the House, but I understand that the police are investigating the incidents. I have had no indication that Ministers intend to come to the House to make a statement, but the right hon. Gentleman has put his points on the record.

English Devolution and Local Government

Debate between Judith Cummins and Mark Francois

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Labour is cancelling the local elections for antidemocratic reasons—it is as simple as that. [Interruption.] Labour Members do not want to hear it, but it is as simple as that. If the Secretary of State really believes that there is widespread public support in Essex for this devolution process, let us have a referendum to prove it. And finally, if local government is as skint as she says, why is this Government going pay 18 billion quid to Mauritius to rent back a base that we already own? How does that help local government?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I want short, on-point questions.

Service Accommodation

Debate between Judith Cummins and Mark Francois

Thursday 19th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

For the record, I declare an interest: I participated in the inquiry while serving on the Committee in the previous Parliament. I thank the Committee Chairman for kindly pointing that out. Also for the record, we welcome the Annington decision, partly because we had done a lot of work on that prior to the election. I thank the Minister for playing fair on that.

Now that we have hopefully resolved the issue of the ownership of the estate, there is still the question of its management. Changing the ownership does not fix the boiler. Will the Chairman of the Committee be pleased to hear that, in the same bipartisan spirit, we are happy to work with the Department and Ministers to see if we can provide proposals for improving the management of the estate now that, hopefully, we have resolved the ownership question?

Building Homes

Debate between Judith Cummins and Mark Francois

Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Mark Francois.

[Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and good luck in your new role.

It is possible to have successful development, but from experience it has to be something done with people and not to people. This policy is the latter. These pernicious top-down targets have the practical effect at ground level of setting one town against another, one village against another and one local community against another; and given the Chancellor’s statement on public spending yesterday, who will pay for the tens of billions of pounds-worth of infrastructure that would be required to make all this work? All experience shows that, on development and house building, the man or woman in Whitehall really does not know best. Why then, is the Secretary of State going back to the old, failed way of doing it, which will not work?

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Judith Cummins and Mark Francois

Monday 14th September 2015 Commons Chamber

[Julie Cooper (Burnley) (Lab)]

14. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the local government grant formula in directing funding to areas of need.

[The Minister for Communities and Resilience (Mr Mark Francois)]

Councils facing the highest demand for services receive substantially more funding, including through formula grant. With the introduction of business rates retention in 2013-14, there has been a deliberate shift away from keeping authorities dependent on grants and towards providing councils with the tools and incentives they need to grow their local economies.

[Judith Cummins]

The Minister’s implication that areas of need are being fairly treated by the local government grant formula is simply not proven by the evidence. Research by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy found that many councils serving the most in need have been worst hit by the cuts. Indeed, in the list of councils worst hit by the cuts, Bradford council came 353rd out of a possible 383. Surely he agrees this is not fair.

[Mr Francois]

Bradford has an area spending power of £2,295 per dwelling, which is 10% above the national average, and Bradford council also has £136 million in its reserves. It might want to deploy part of those reserves to address some of the challenges it faces.