Mark Francois

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has an established and rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts, and potential conflicts, that arise from the Law Officers’ past practice. That process sits against the backdrop of every lawyer’s professional obligation to be alert to, and actively manage, any situation that might give rise to a potential or actual conflict.

This rigorous process for identifying and managing conflicts sits alongside the system relating to ministerial interests, overseen by the Prime Minister’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. Both the Director General of the AGO and the Independent Adviser were provided with the Attorney General’s list of conflicts following his appointment.

If a Law Officer were to publicly confirm specific matters where they were conflicted, this would infer that legal advice had been requested by the Government on a specific matter, which would risk a breach of the Law Officers’ Convention.

In addition, a lawyer cannot breach a client’s confidentiality in relation to advisory work that had previously not been made public so this would limit the ability of a Law Officer to publish in full their previous caseload and conflicts schedule. In that regard, the Attorney General has been through the same process as previous Law Officers, none of whom have gone as far to proactively disclose their specific conflicts of interest for the reasons set out above.

By long-standing convention, the fact that the Attorney General may or may not have advised, and the content of his advice, is not disclosed outside government, as is reflected in the Ministerial Code.

As I set out to the House on 23 January and 6 February, the Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has an established and rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts, and potential conflicts, that arise from the Law Officers’ past practice. That process predates the appointment of the Attorney General and sits against the backdrop of every lawyer’s professional obligation to be alert to, and actively manage, any situation that might give rise to a potential or actual conflict.

This rigorous process for identifying and managing conflicts sits alongside the system relating to ministerial interests, overseen by the Prime Minister’s Independent Adviser on Ministerial Standards. Both the Director General of the AGO and the Independent Adviser were provided with the Attorney General’s list of conflicts following his appointment.

Impartiality of legal advice is vitally important for all government lawyers. The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has an established and rigorous process for identifying and dealing with conflicts, and potential conflicts, that arise from the Law Officers’ past practice. That process predates the appointment of the Attorney General and sits against the backdrop of every lawyer’s professional obligation to be alert to, and actively manage, any situation that might give rise to a potential or actual conflict, in order to ensure impartiality.

The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has spent £0 on external legal advice that covers international law matters commissioned from 5th July 2024.

However, the AGO has spent £7,028.40 for external legal advice covering international law matters that was sought and received by the previous administration prior to 5th July 2024.

A response for both questions has been issued here and here.

I refer to my answer given on 9 July HC66214. Korn Ferry continue to support the appointment process for the National Armaments Director role.

The competition was supported by Kornferry: details of the contract award and value are available here: https://www.contractsfinder.service.gov.uk/Notice/Attachment/be88f513-c01a-4620-89f9-1cb2cc686895 and here Executive & Non-Executive Recruitment Services - CCS

An announcement on the outcome of the recruitment process for the National Armaments Director role will be announced in due course.

Due to candidate confidentiality we are unable to confirm how many candidates are under consideration.

An announcement on the outcome of the recruitment process for the National Armaments Director role will be announced in due course.

Due to candidate confidentiality we are unable to confirm how many candidates are under consideration.

Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises (SMEs) are a vital part of the UK defence supply base, contributing to growth through high-skilled jobs and dual use technology. We are supporting their competitiveness through investment from the National Security Strategic Investment Fund and by improving access to defence supply chains through a new SME hub, which will set direct SME spending targets for the Ministry of Defence by June this year. Our new UK Defence Innovation Organisation will further support defence SMEs to take state-of-the-art technology from the drawing board to the production line, and into the hands of our Armed Forces.

There were no discussions with Cabinet colleagues prior to the decision by the Secretary of State for Business and Trade not to contest the claim brought by Kneecap for review of the decision not to award them a grant under the Music Export Growth Scheme.

We encourage responses to the request for input from all organisations that think their imports could be affected by any potential UK tariffs on a particular commodity code.

Lethal and non-lethal firearms under CN 93039000 are not classified as military weapons. Heading 9303 does not mention military weapons, military weapons are instead classified in the earlier headings, such as 9301 (9301 Military weapons, other than revolvers, pistols and the arms of heading 9307 (this heading covers semi-automatic firearms and rifles).

Organisations that have additional specific classification enquiries can be directed to the mailbox: classification.enquiries@hmrc.gov.uk

During my recent visit to China and Hong Kong, I raised the UK’s concerns over human rights abuses, including in Xinjiang and the detention of Jimmy Lai with counterparts at the Ministry of Commerce and the government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

During my visit to China, I held frank and honest discussions with my counterparts on the opportunities and challenges in the bilateral trade relationship, including improving overall reciprocity in market access, raising UK concerns on level playing field issues and market distorting practices and discussing economic security issues. I am unable to comment on commercial discussions during the visit, for reasons of commercial sensitivity.

Upholding national security remains the first duty of this government. The UK takes an active role in organisations including the International Telecommunication Union and the Third Generation Partnership Project, to shape standards to serve innovation while mitigating risks to the security of emerging technologies. We recognise that other states, including China, may seek to shape standards development in ways that differ to UK values. We need to co-operate with China where we can, while challenging where we must. To safeguard our democratic societies, we are taking steps with our allies to promote the international rules-based system that underpins our security.

Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries.

This right is recognised in the Radio Regulations. The Radio Regulations are the international framework for the use of spectrum by radiocommunication services, defined and managed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum.

The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum. It is possible that one country could challenge another’s spectrum use, for instance if it should cause harmful interference across borders, and if unresolved bilaterally could seek arbitration through an ITU body (Radio Regulations Board).

Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries.

This right is recognised in the Radio Regulations. The Radio Regulations are the international framework for the use of spectrum by radiocommunication services, defined and managed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum.

The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum. It is possible that one country could challenge another’s spectrum use, for instance if it should cause harmful interference across borders, and if unresolved bilaterally could seek arbitration through an ITU body (Radio Regulations Board).

Individual countries have the sovereign right to manage and use the radio spectrum, within their borders, the way they wish, subject to not causing interference with other countries.

This right is recognised in the Radio Regulations. The Radio Regulations are the international framework for the use of spectrum by radiocommunication services, defined and managed by the International Telecommunications Union (ITU). Individual countries, not the ITU, make their own sovereign spectrum assignments in accordance with the Radio Regulations. The ITU has no legal authority over these assignments regardless of the country’s civilian or military classification of spectrum.

The ITU cannot challenge the UK’s use of civilian or military spectrum. It is possible that one country could challenge another’s spectrum use, for instance if it should cause harmful interference across borders, and if unresolved bilaterally could seek arbitration through an ITU body (Radio Regulations Board).

Upholding national security remains the first duty of this government. The UK takes an active role in organisations including the International Telecommunication Union and the Third Generation Partnership Project, to shape standards to serve innovation while mitigating risks to the security of emerging technologies. We recognise that other states, including China, may seek to shape standards development in ways that differ to UK values. We need to co-operate with China where we can, while challenging where necessary. To safeguard our democratic societies, we are taking steps with our allies to promote the international rules-based system that underpins our security.

Our priority is always the safety of passengers and crew, and we continue to work with industry and regulators to drive improvements in safety standards. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has investigated fume events on aircraft, including research into the sources of fumes and their potential effects, and raised safety recommendations to address the issue of potential incapacitation of flight crew from such fume events.

Fume and smoke events must be reported as part of the UK Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Regulation. Such reports are analysed by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) airworthiness department specialists to inform policy and the scientific literature on toxicology of fume events is under continuous review by colleagues in the CAA’s Medical Department.

The CAA website includes a detailed overview of the research that has been undertaken on the topic and the conclusions of a recent study commissioned by my department and undertaken by the Committee on Toxicity (COT). This found that the levels of chemical contaminants reviewed in aircraft cabin air are unlikely to cause adverse health effects following acute or long-term exposures. The CAA continues to monitor developments and remains receptive to any new peer-reviewed published research or technological innovation.

Our priority is always the safety of passengers and crew, and we continue to work with industry and regulators to drive improvements in safety standards. The Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB) has investigated fume events on aircraft, including research into the sources of fumes and their potential effects, and raised safety recommendations to address the issue of potential incapacitation of flight crew from such fume events.

Fume and smoke events must be reported as part of the UK Mandatory Occurrence Reporting Regulation. Such reports are analysed by Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) airworthiness department specialists to inform policy and the scientific literature on toxicology of fume events is under continuous review by colleagues in the CAA’s Medical Department.

The CAA website includes a detailed overview of the research that has been undertaken on the topic and the conclusions of a recent study commissioned by my department and undertaken by the Committee on Toxicity (COT). This found that the levels of chemical contaminants reviewed in aircraft cabin air are unlikely to cause adverse health effects following acute or long-term exposures. The CAA continues to monitor developments and remains receptive to any new peer-reviewed published research or technological innovation.

The Department through its Future of Flight programme and support for Jet Zero technology is working with the CAA to enable testing of innovative aerospace technologies by mainly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). This includes:

• Introducing a new “Recognised Test Sites” status for Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) platforms which allow drones manufacturers and operators to apply for authorisation to conduct operations at these recognised test sites with streamlined procedures;
• Developing an Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) delivery model alongside industry;
• Expanding the Hydrogen in Aviation Regulatory Challenge in the current financial year by working with a range of companies, including SMEs, to prepare for the use of hydrogen as a zero-carbon aviation fuel.
• The Future Flight Challenge (a UKRI funded project) has provided funding to support innovators to access CAA expertise, guidance, and viewpoints on regulations by providing a focal point of contact and information.
• The CAA launched the Innovation Hub to create an environment where innovation in aviation can develop in line with the CAA principles such as helping innovators maximise regulatory preparation for the demonstration of their aviation systems, by testing them in safe environments and learning how they address regulatory challenges.

NHS Resolution (NHSR) manages clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England.

Information on NHSR’s revenue funding streams and planned expenditure for 2025/26 can be found in its Resolution through collaboration: 2025/26 business plan, available at the following link:

https://resolution.nhs.uk/corporate-publications/resolution-through-collaboration-2025-26-business-plan/our-resources/

We have interpreted this request to mean total payments spent on clinical negligence claims. NHS Resolution manages clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England, and it publishes data for payments made under their clinical schemes in its Supplementary Annual Statistics, available at the following link:

https://resolution.nhs.uk/resources/annual-statistics/

The data includes the damages and legal costs paid up until 31 March 2025. The data for 2025/26 will not be available until later in 2026. Sheets 1 and 2 provide payments totals for each financial year, for clinical claims by damages value band and specialty. Payments include those raised against both claims that were closed or open at the end of each financial year.

Payments for clinical negligence claims can relate to incidents which occurred many years ago, and so payments for one claim can occur over multiple years. This may include interim payments made in any year before settlement or in the year of settlement. It may also include final compensation payments or periodical payments of damages in the year of settlement or years after settlement. It does not include future periodical payments on settled claims that are due after the end of 2024/25.

We have interpreted this request to mean total payments spent on clinical negligence claims. NHS Resolution manages clinical negligence and other claims against the National Health Service in England, and it publishes data for payments made under their clinical schemes in its Supplementary Annual Statistics, available at the following link:

https://resolution.nhs.uk/resources/annual-statistics/

The data includes the damages and legal costs paid up until 31 March 2025. The data for 2025/26 will not be available until later in 2026. Sheets 1 and 2 provide payments totals for each financial year, for clinical claims by damages value band and specialty. Payments include those raised against both claims that were closed or open at the end of each financial year.

Payments for clinical negligence claims can relate to incidents which occurred many years ago, and so payments for one claim can occur over multiple years. This may include interim payments made in any year before settlement or in the year of settlement. It may also include final compensation payments or periodical payments of damages in the year of settlement or years after settlement. It does not include future periodical payments on settled claims that are due after the end of 2024/25.

The Very Senior Managers (VSM) pay framework was published in May last year and sets out the Government’s policy for senior manager remuneration. The framework aims to align the pay approach for all National Health Service organisations in England to create consistency and transparency.

The VSM framework includes pay ranges for integrated care boards (ICBs) and provider trusts, determined by population and turnover. Appointments which exceed the agreed pay thresholds and are not in line with VSM framework are submitted to the Department for approval.

The pay case for the recently appointed Chief Executive of the Mid and South Essex Hospitals Trust was approved by NHS England as it was routine case. The VSM framework outlines that the Chief Executive would be a ‘Level 1’ pay range as the overall accountable officer, with different pay bands based on organisation turnover. Based on turnover, the Mid and South Essex Hospital Trust is Band E. Further information on the minimum, operational maximum, and exception zones and can be viewed at the following link:

https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/the-nhs-very-senior-managers-pay-framework-nhs-provider-and-integrated-care-board-pay-ranges-15-may-2025/

There is no Chief Executive for NHS East of England in the current organisational structure. Currently the members of East of England senior management team consists of regional Executive Senior Managers (ESMs).

The ESM pay framework describes the salaries of the most senior health leaders in the Department’s arm’s length bodies, the pay bands, which are based on grade, are available at the following link:

https://faq-hrss.nhsbsa.nhs.uk/knowledgebase/article/KA-23569/en-us

Regional Directors are graded at ESM3 level.

The change programme to implement the new Model Region operating model is currently underway. As part of this programme, it is proposed that the Regional Director role will be retitled as Regional Chief Executive. NHS England will respond to the consultation on this proposed change in due course.