UK-EU Summit

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 13th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I absolutely respect the referendum result. If the hon. Gentleman bothered to read our manifesto, he would discover that there are red lines: we will not go back to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement. Let me say to the Conservative party that delivering on our manifesto promises will unlock huge benefits for the United Kingdom, reduce barriers to trade and accelerate economic growth. In an uncertain world, it will keep us safer, more secure and more prosperous. That is what this Government are working towards.

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

The Minister has referred to the Labour manifesto several times in a few minutes. Did it say anything at all about accepting dynamic alignment or becoming a rule taker—yes or no?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

The objective of negotiating a sanitary and phytosanitary veterinary agreement, so that agricultural products, food and drink can be traded more cheaply between the UK and the EU, is in the Labour manifesto, and we have a mandate for that. The Government will put more money in the pockets of working people and create greater long-term stability and security for the British people. Apparently, the Opposition are against that, and so, I hear, is Reform. To be fair, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) says that he thinks the current deal with the EU can be improved, but he has never told us exactly how, and we wait to find out.

Since last July, this Government have been getting on with the job of resetting our relationship with the European Union in a number of important areas.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[James MacCleary]

Not at the moment, no.

By contrast, the much-vaunted trade deal signed with India last week is worth just a fraction of our former deal with the European Union. It is around 20 times smaller than the economic boost that we gain simply by aligning with the EU on goods and services.

[Mr Francois]

On that point, will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James MacCleary]

Of course.

[Mr Francois]

The whole House will have noted that the hon. Member clearly failed to rule out a second referendum, because he did not much like the result of the first one. May I ask him this directly? Like the Government, as is obvious from their evasion this afternoon, are the Liberal Democrats prepared to accept a process of dynamic alignment, whereby we effectively become a passive rule-taker from the European Union? Yes or no?

[James MacCleary]

The right hon. Member makes two points. First, he mentioned a second referendum. I find this a fascinating contention. Elections happen every four years. At the last election, we returned a Labour Government. This argument that the result of that referendum in 2016 must be held in perpetuity—no matter what the British people think of it—suggests to me that everybody should join the Labour party, because now we will have a Labour Government in perpetuity, too. Perhaps Conservative Members might want to give some consideration to that.

Secondly, the right hon. Member used the term “rule-taker”. I find that fascinating, too. It was quite noticeable that in the negotiations on Brexit, Conservative Members became enthralled by the philosophy of cakeism to the extent that it became their mantra that we could have our cake and eat it, and that, apparently, modern trade deals do not require any give and take. The recent India trade deal, which has been so trumpeted by Labour Members and, which, of course, was started by Conservative Members, does involve the UK having to take some things as well. That is what a trade deal looks like, and it certainly looks like that when we are talking with the largest trading bloc on the planet. The key question that the right hon. Member should be asking is what benefit would it bring to British people. That, ultimately, is the job of any Government and any politician: what will benefit us?

[Mr Francois]

Yes!

[James MacCleary]

I am pleased that the right hon. Member agrees with himself.

By contrast, my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton and Sidmouth (Richard Foord) tells me of an engineering firm in his constituency that, due to the mountains of Brexit red tape, now finds it far easier to trade with South Korea than with Europe. This is not just damaging, but frankly absurd. The one thing that the Government will not do that is guaranteed to deliver growth is negotiate a bespoke customs union with the EU, yet they are hiking national insurance for businesses, stifling investment and refusing to support the most vulnerable in our society by not scrapping the two-child benefit cap or safeguarding personal independence payments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I agree with my right hon. Friend, and that is why it was an extremely ominous portent that the Minister at the Dispatch Box refused to answer him on the question of whether there would be alignment or subjection to the European Court of Justice. If the referendum was about one thing, it was about taking back control of our laws. In fact, many of us in the leave campaign at the time argued that the British people do understand sovereignty—they certainly did by the end of the referendum—and getting into permanent alignment of regulation or subjecting the meaning of laws applied in the United Kingdom to the scrutiny and jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice is giving back control. It is a dangerous thing for a Government elected on the principle of honouring the referendum result, and one who are now playing dog-whistle politics with immigration, to be backsliding in secret, with a sleight of hand, into allowing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and permanent alignment back into our law while pretending that is not happening. That is exactly what the Minister did at the Dispatch Box.

[Mr Francois]

rose—

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but I have another point that I wish to make.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

My hon. Friend will well remember that during the referendum a booklet was circulated to every household in the United Kingdom, which famously said:

“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

The people decided to leave, and some in this place spent three years trying to frustrate their decision. In that context, is he concerned that today the Minister blatantly refused three times to answer a straight question about whether the Government would concede dynamic alignment at the summit? Is that not the sort of duplicitous behaviour that made the public so angry in the first place?

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

I agree. But there is another dangerous game being played by another political party: the Liberal Democrats. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) pressed the hon. Member for Lewes (James MacCleary), who wants to rejoin the European Union, on whether there would be another referendum, and he did not say that there would be. That we would have a referendum to leave the European Union but not require a new referendum to rejoin it would be incendiary politics for this country.

Why have people become disillusioned with their politicians? It is because politicians seem to agree to one proposition and then do something completely different from what was voted for. I hope we can all agree on one proposition: that there could be no possibility of a proposal to rejoin the European Union or to accept dynamic alignment or the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice—except over its current limited areas, which will eventually expire—without a further referendum. That is a serious matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he has a little while to go before he stands at the Dispatch Box. I am after the Minister, not him, but we will get to that in due course. The reality is that the Government could agree to dynamic alignment—there was no denial of that. Essentially, the Government are going into this negotiation knowing full well that they are so desperate on phytosanitary matters that they will give way on dynamic alignment. That is exactly what the EU wants.

My real worry in all of this, however, is that we know what is going on—I will just move on to another topic, and then I will sit down and give other Members a chance to speak. Most of all, I am worried about bad faith. When we talked about improvements—which, to be fair to the Government, they did with the European Union—what did France do almost immediately? The Prime Minister is showing some leadership over Ukraine, trying to galvanise the other nations, which is his role. His role is to haul America and keep it with us, and he has been doing that. I do not have any criticism of that, but when the Prime Minister got involved, saying that Europe should form a coalition of the willing and that he wanted to drive that further forward and get some kind of agreement on it, what did France immediately say? “Not before you give us access to fishing.” That was it. In no world does fishing have anything to do with defence, yet France weaponised fishing to block off the UK, which had taken the—I think—generous position of saying that it wanted to galvanise Europe to do more.

The problem here is that if we take out the countries that joined since the Ukraine war, Europe across the board spends half of what the United States does on defence in dollar terms. We have more people and more industry in Europe, yet we spend half of what America does on weaponry and defence. That is a shocking position for a member of NATO to be in. We have not stood up. We have done better—still not good enough—but what the rest of Europe has done has been shocking. By the way, the country that just told us that we will not get any discussions unless fishing is on the agenda has been one of the worst spenders on defence in the European Union, let alone in global terms.

[Mr Francois]

Less than us.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Way less than us, and less than most of the others—it is at the bottom of the scale. I simply say to the Government that the Prime Minister is right to press on defence, to get the European nations to step up, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) said earlier, we have a mechanism for that. The Prime Minister is right to do it through NATO, and we must not allow Europe to slide away from NATO as its means of defence.

I watched, as did many of its leaders, when Vice-President Vance lectured the European Union in Munich. What he said shocked the European leaders, as it was meant to—he laid into Europe quite vindictively—but fair enough. However, where we are now heading, towards somehow encouraging those countries peculiarly to form some kind of European Union defence organisation, is exactly what will give the American Administration permission to say, “Well, you can do this yourself.” We are already halfway there, by the way, because we are forming a coalition of the willing but America is not willing, and we are at odds with it over its relationship with Ukraine. We agreed about the ceasefire, but America has now changed its position and will now be holding negotiations before a ceasefire. I think that that is wrong, by the way. Although I am personally a big supporter of America, I think it is mistaken on that particular point and the Government are right.

My point is that we are putting the whole of NATO at risk for a phytosanitary and fishing deal. In what world does anyone do that? What are we doing it for? The answer, it seems to me, is that we are too desperate to curry favour with an organisation that, when push comes to shove and when it comes to defence, needs us more than we need it. It needs the UK to be locked into this because we are the key to so much of what it needs to do with defence. I say to the Government, “You have much stronger tools in your hand than you may think.” We have key persuasive powers on defence, and we should not sell them on the basis that they should become European and we should destroy NATO, or damage NATO, simply because we want to make some kind of adjustment or improvement which includes dynamic alignment and the loss of the possibility of future trade negotiation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gethins]

Seventeen billion is less than half the amount lost from the public finances. Those are not my figures, but the Labour Mayor of London’s figures. That is money lost without getting anything back in return, and the Scottish Government has lost £300 million in money that has not come from regional structural funds.

Let me turn to devolution and sovereignty. The EU is a Union fit for the 21st century. The UK is barely a Union fit for the 18th century, because it has not been modernised since. We have a Brexit deal that ripped up the devolution settlement, which Scottish Labour and others spoke out against but which has now been imposed on the devolved Administrations in a way that the EU could never do to its member states. I remind Members that not one of the 27 independent, sovereign member states of the EU consider themselves any less independent or sovereign for being a member of the European Union—not one of them. Just one did, and it is this British nationalist exceptionalism that is so utterly damaging to everybody in the UK.

The most sovereign country in the world is North Korea, because we give up a tiny bit of sovereignty with deals. All these other states that see themselves as sovereign—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp) talks of Ukraine. Ukraine wants to join the EU. He talks of democracy. The democrats in Georgia and Moldova drape themselves in European flags because they see that as the future of the rule of law, democracy and greater wealth for their country. Every country that has joined the EU got better off. The one country that left got worse off, and its citizens had fewer rights.

We all have to recognise that the EU is a security actor, and a majority of European states now see the EU and NATO as the twin pillars of security. Those sovereign states see that. While I welcome the UK Government’s steadfast support for Ukraine—both the current and previous Administrations—we are not realistic about the challenges we face. Putin’s Russia fears the EU. That is why we saw the initial war in Ukraine in 2014, because of the EU accession agreement. We know that, and everyone else gets it except those in the United Kingdom. The EU provides food security and energy security for its members, and sitting outside leaves us more isolated and less secure. Why is the UK so exceptional? What makes the UK so special? How is it that everybody else has got it wrong, but the UK has somehow got it right? It is a piece of nonsense that is damaging us all.

Turning to young people, I am getting tired of hearing Labour talk about youth mobility schemes. I would like the Minister to tell me whether a youth mobility scheme will be put in place, and then say how it will compare with the free movement we all enjoyed when we were in the EU. We are leaving younger generations with fewer rights and opportunities than we ourselves enjoyed, and that is a failure of our political generation—an abject failure.

I am sorry to say that the Prime Minister’s rhetoric yesterday feeds into that. That he was called out by Lord Dubs, a Labour Member of the House of Lords, and yet praised by the leader of Alternative for Germany should surely give Labour Members some cause for reflection—some cause to reflect on how others are seeing them right now. I would expect such rhetoric from Reform and others, but I did not expect it from the Labour party and I say to Labour Members, “I’m sorry, I oppose you sometimes and you stood against me, but I did not expect that from the Labour party.”

The worst part of this is that we are getting it from a Labour Government who do not really believe in what they are doing. I know that from working with them over the years. They do not believe in the damage this is doing. What is damaging us in politics right now is that people are standing up for things they do not really believe in. They do not say what they believe in. They might say, “I believe in leaving the European Union”—(Interruption.) The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) talks about Parliament—I just heard that—in a Parliament where we do not have an idea of British sovereignty. The definition of Scottish sovereignty—I would encourage him to read MacCormick v. Lord Advocate—is different from the idea of English sovereignty, because the supremacy of Parliament does not exist.

[Mr Francois]

I think it is fair to say that in the years I have been here generally most people have known what I believed in, but is the reason the hon. Gentleman is so incredibly angry this afternoon because, from his point of view, he lost not only one referendum, but two: on Scottish independence and then on the European Union?

[Stephen Gethins]

I will concede the point. I know what the right hon. Gentleman believes in. I was not surprised that he wanted to take me on not on the substance of what I said but rather on some of the semantics, because as the Secretary of State for Scotland said, a democracy ceases to be a democracy when it ceases to have the ability to change its mind.

My appeal would be this: yes, I believe in independence; I believe that the European Union provides a model that the UK Union does not. That is something I believe in, and some Members disagree with me and I respect them for that, and I know that Scottish Labour Members disagree with me on that, and I respect them for that as well. What I struggle with is that we know this is a bad deal with Europe. We know that staying outside the customs union and the single market is making us poorer every day. I would encourage Members to stand up and put the case of what they believe in, because that is the way to return respect back into politics—not repeat what has been said in the past, but truly look to the future.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to contribute to this important debate on the forthcoming UK-EU summit next Monday. As someone who has, I hope the House will concede, followed these matters reasonably closely for a number of years, I will focus on three broad areas. I will say something about the summit itself, make some points about the very worrying suggestion that we are about to waive a large part of our fishing rights, and raise my concerns and those of many others about the potential for so-called dynamic alignment by which the United Kingdom effectively would become a passive rule taker, despite voting peacefully and democratically to leave the European Union in the first place.

Before I do that, I pay a personal tribute to Sir Roy Stone, who has tragically passed away. He was a constituent of mine and lived just a few minutes away from me. I once inadvertently canvassed him some years ago during the local elections. As a highly professional public servant, he was completely inscrutable about his voting intentions. I subsequently worked with him closely for two years in the coalition Whips Office between 2010 and 2012. He was always very patient, especially with me. When I was the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, he always gave well-informed and canny advice. He believed passionately in the institution of Parliament and the principle of representative democracy, which he served so well. Our thoughts and prayers are with his widow, Dawn, and her family. May he rest in peace and always be warmly remembered.

A crucial summit will take place between the leaders of the UK and the EU in London next month. I recall being told repeatedly during the referendum campaign that if we left the EU, we would be isolated and friendless. All the meetings that have taken place in London recently, including one with virtually every EU leader at Lancaster House regarding the so-called coalition of the willing, show how absolutely ludicrous that assertion was. However, according to multiple media reports, it seems as if this summit could involve some kind of defence pact between ourselves in the UK and the European Union. As I have Front-Bench responsibility for defence, I shall not dwell at length on those matters, but hopefully we will have a lot more to say on them next week once the details of any such agreement have been made public and, crucially, we have had an opportunity to read the small print.

Nevertheless, I am sure that the Government’s tactic will be to try to talk almost exclusively about defence as a form of camouflage to mask likely concessions both on our fishing rights and, potentially, relating to our food. When the British people voted democratically to leave the European Union some nine years ago, they did so in order to decide their destiny for themselves. It would be completely against the spirit of the referendum, under the guise of some kind of reset with the EU, to surrender that principle next week. Moreover, after the absolute chaos of the Labour Government’s proposed Chagos deal, the Spanish Foreign Minister asserted only yesterday that the UK should make concessions over the sovereignty of Gibraltar as part of our reset at the summit. This is despite the fact that the Gibraltarians themselves voted by a majority of 99% to maintain the current position in their own referendum on the subject, a margin so emphatic that even the SNP would have to accept it.

On fishing, in early 2020 during Boris Johnson’s premiership, the United Kingdom agreed what was known as the trade and co-operation agreement between the UK and the EU. While there has been much recent talk of trade deals, including with India and now the US, the TCA was in effect a major, comprehensive trade deal with the EU, negotiated in the context of having left the European Union. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes), who is no longer in his place, that agreement was 1,245 pages long—I know, because I read it. In essence, the TCA guaranteed virtually tariff-free trade between the UK and the EU. Moreover, the fact that we had left the EU, including the customs union, meant that we were able to negotiate unilateral trade deals of our own around the world.

[Catherine Fookes]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

While we were in the customs union, it was possible to negotiate those agreements only collectively via the auspices of the EU. That is a fundamental difference. It is important to note that by using this critical Brexit freedom, we have been able to negotiate almost 80 independent trade deals with nations around the world since we left the EU, including important Commonwealth partners such as Australia, New Zealand, and now India. We have also joined the trans-Pacific partnership, which materially improves our access to Asian markets worth trillions of dollars. Moreover—

[Catherine Fookes]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

If the hon. Lady will let me finish this point, I promise I will do so, but I want to enjoy this bit.

We now have the delightful visage of our ambassador to the United States, one Lord Mandelson, having to acknowledge through metaphorically gritted teeth that we have been able to negotiate a trade deal with the United States—albeit one that is limited in scope—only because we left his beloved European Union. I think our Peter is struggling with that.

I will give way to the hon. Lady, who has been patient.

[Catherine Fookes]

If those trade deals were such sunlit uplands and such wonderful deals, can the right hon. Member explain to me why our seafood exports to the EU plummeted by 80% since the Brexit deal? Why did that happen on his watch, if that deal was so good?

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Lady pre-empts me. If she will give me a moment, I will get to fishing very shortly.

The TCA—part 2, heading 5—contains transition arrangements relating to fishing. In essence, the TCA allowed for a period of over five years during which there would be temporary arrangements on access to UK waters by EU fishing fleets. After that, under international maritime arrangements, the United Kingdom would become solely responsible for its own territorial waters, out to 200 nautical miles in some places. As this transition period is now approaching its expiration in 2026, the EU is pushing very hard to maintain its access to our fishing waters and—it would seem—even to expand its access in certain cases, were we naive enough to give in. It would be a complete betrayal of our fishermen if the United Kingdom Labour Government were now to grant major concessions to the EU in what will become indisputably our own sovereign waters once again come 2026.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a second—the bourgeoisie will have to wait. While our sovereign rights are enshrined in both the TCA itself and wider maritime law, we have yet to see the final details of whatever Faustian pact the Government have agreed with the EU on fishing. However, our fishermen and those of us on the Opposition Benches —although not Reform Members, who are not here—will be watching the Government very closely, and will be highly alert to the prospect of a sell-out on fish.

We then come to veterinary matters and SPS—and ultimately, therefore, food—which would involve the United Kingdom in a process known as dynamic alignment. In essence, this means that if the EU were in any way to change or modify its rules in those areas, we would in turn be compelled to follow the EU, regardless of the wishes of our own Parliament. In other words, we would become a “rule taker” in those areas, even though we have left the European Union. Moreover, it seems that these arrangements would apply throughout the United Kingdom, and in the event of a dispute, that would be arbitrated by the European Court of Justice rather than the UK Supreme Court or even an international tribunal.

[Joe Morris]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

To have left the EU but submit to becoming a passive rule taker would be entirely contrary to the spirit of the 2016 referendum. That is why, time and again today, no Minister will admit that the Government are going to do it next week.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

No.

When Labour talked about a “reset” in its general election manifesto, there was absolutely no reference to rule taking as part of any such accommodation. Labour would therefore be giving away our rights, entirely without the consent of the British people. That must be fiercely resisted and, if necessary, overturned. Moreover, there is the prospect of additional concessions over everything from so-called youth mobility schemes—a euphemism for a return to freedom of movement in another guise—to capitulation over net zero mechanisms and, specifically, the EU’s carbon border adjustment mechanism, or CBAM, which would make our remaining industries even more internationally uncompetitive than the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) has achieved to date.

As someone who sat here during the last Parliament—as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) kindly mentioned—and witnessed, night after night and week after week, the then Labour shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, now the Prime Minister, pulling every procedural trick from the depths of Erskine May in order to try to keep the United Kingdom in the European Union at almost any price and despite the referendum, I am in no way surprised that his Government are now attempting this act of capitulation. Our Prime Minister has always been a passionate Europhile; in short, he remains a remainer in his heart of hearts, and he always will.

What the Labour Government are up to—and I say again that they will try to use a defence pact in order to hide it—is beginning a process of gradually taking us back towards and even back into the European Union, if they think they can get away with it. They will never risk another referendum, because in 2016, almost up to the last minute, the polls were showing that remain might win, but when it came to it, the British people had the temerity to vote to govern themselves, despite the best efforts of the British Establishment and “Project Fear”. What they will do is try to take us back in very gradually, via a process of grandmother’s footsteps, or, to make another analogy, trying to boil a frog slowly. If they get away with submission next week, despite their manifesto commitments, they will eventually try to take us back into the single market—although, no doubt, under some other name—and if they can get away with that, they will suggest that we might as well rejoin the customs union. They will put the argument to the British people that we are so far back into the blooming thing that we might as well go the whole hog and rejoin it entirely—all without a vote or the consent of the people of the United Kingdom, at any stage, whatsoever.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I just want to draw something out. Dynamic alignment is not a small thing; it is huge, because it is rule taking. Can my right hon. Friend imagine our engaging in any other trade arrangement—with the United States or Australia, for instance, or the trans-Pacific partnership—and being in a position where we had to say, “We will accept your rules and your adjudication”?

[Mr Francois]

It would be far better to do this via a process of mutual enforcement, of which my right hon. Friend has always been a staunch advocate. When the Minister sums up the debate, we will ask him if he will rule out, very clearly, any prospect of dynamic alignment at the summit next week.

[Ben Coleman]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

This is a yes or no question. Perhaps the Minister, at that time—because he would not answer my right hon. Friend’s question yesterday—will give us an honest answer to an honest question. In fact, if he wants to do it now I will give way to him. A stunning silence! Well, as he has not the guts to get up, I will give way to his Back Bencher.

[Ben Coleman]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his nomenclature, and I am most grateful to my Jacobin friend for taking my intervention. I did not want him to finish without having the opportunity to answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouthshire (Catherine Fookes) put to him. Exports of UK seafood to the European Union have fallen by 80% since Brexit, and there have been lots of new checks, and there is lots of new paperwork and bureaucracy. What does he put that down to? Exports of seafood have collapsed. Does he put that down to Brexit, or to something else?

[Mr Francois]

People have made market choices, but under the common fisheries policy, we had the absurdity of so-called discards. Our fishermen had to throw fish, many of which were already dead, back into the sea in order to comply with the absurdities of the CFP. Hopefully, we will never return to that.

[Sir Bernard Jenkin]

This is something that I have looked at quite closely. The reason for the collapse is that the United Kingdom is not in the internal market, so we do not give direct applicability and direct effect to EU SPS laws. The EU procedure is to check every consignment of shellfish coming into the EU to see if it complies with EU standards, even though the provisions in EU law on clean rivers, clean beaches and clean water all exist in the United Kingdom, and our provisions are probably of a superior standard to those that apply in much of the EU.

[Mr Francois]

I defer to my hon. Friend, who is clearly a subject matter expert.

I will conclude, because others want a chance to speak. The Labour Government will go for dynamic alignment. They will sign us up as a passive rule-taker at the behest of the EU, despite the British people voting in 2016 to take back control of their laws. I have absolutely no doubt that if the Labour Government get away with this surrender summit early next week, that is precisely what they will do. It is therefore very important that we alert the British people, and the media that serve them, to exactly what Labour is up to, in an attempt to expose the situation and prevent it getting any worse.

In summary, we will not allow our obsessively Europhile Prime Minister—in this context, our “white flag” man—to surrender our right to govern ourselves. This surrender to the EU has absolutely no democratic mandate, and we will oppose it tooth and nail. If necessary, we will eventually overturn it. Remember what the booklet in the referendum said:

“This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

The British people decided to take back control of their own laws. It is not for Labour to give them away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)]

In human affairs, there is a persistent fascination with novelty. It is curious that people clamour for what is different—for the other, whatever that other might look like. It is this fascination that leads to the similar interest in—indeed, preoccupation with—internationalism, even to the point where that means giving up power to someone beyond these shores. It is a damaging preoccupation. At its most curious, it leads to the peculiarity of—I am sorry the hon. Member for Arbroath and Broughty Ferry (Stephen Gethins) is not here, because he made a remarkably articulate speech, as I told him afterwards—a representative of a nationalist party making the case against nationalism, and a Member who believes in sovereignty making the argument that sovereignty does not really matter, although he did qualify that by saying that sovereignty in Scotland meant something different. He and I will no doubt have an opportunity to debate that at some length in future.

That fascination fuelled the sentiment that, after the referendum, pervaded the Labour Benches and the Liberals; it is a matter of record that I do not have a liberal bone in my body of any kind, whether socially, culturally, politically or economically, and I shall make the case against free trade in a few moments. As a result of that fascination, the cadre of people who populate a good deal of the establishment—the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman) will know this, because a lot of the establishment live in his constituency; it is not surprising that they picked one of their own, really—could not bear to come to terms with the result of the referendum. For the people had spoken! And of course, the people’s will directly contradicted the assumptions—the presumptions—of that establishment, which they had foisted on the people for donkeys’ years.

I do not say, by the way, that all the guilt lies on the other side of the Chamber. This began with Harold Macmillan, and then was carried on by Ted Heath, who sold out our fishermen. It went on and on; the gallery of villains is almost endless. One thinks of Roy Jenkins. There were noble exceptions, including Labour’s Peter Shore, and Tony Benn, who made the case for national self-government in what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) told me was one of the best speeches he has heard in this Chamber in his years here. On our side, there were noble exceptions, too. Enoch Powell stands proud among those, but there were many others. [Interruption.] There was Michael Foot, of course, on the other side. I will not go into the whole list, Madam Deputy Speaker, just in case you thought I was going to. I was thinking of our lamented friend Sir Bill Cash, who gave such great service. He was seen as a bit of an outsider for the great bulk of his career, and then, in the last part of it, was proved right. My goodness, what is better than that in politics? They say all political careers end in failure, but Bill Cash’s didn’t; his political career ended in success.

[Mr Francois]

It has not ended yet. Sir Bill is a sprightly 83, and he has been texting some of us throughout the debate. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that Sir Bill’s great success was the sovereignty clause, which finally said, after years of campaigning, that this Parliament is sovereign? That is on the statute book because of Bill.

[Sir John Hayes]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; Sir Bill’s political career has not ended; his parliamentary one has. I can, like my right hon. Friend, acknowledge that Sir Bill has texted me this afternoon, along with no doubt many others—[Interruption.]—including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I just gathered. This tension—between the will of the people as expressed in the 2016 referendum, and the prevailing assumptions of what I described earlier as the liberal establishment—underpins this debate.

In the spirit of generosity, which I tend to employ—there are exceptions, by the way; Members can intervene on me, if they like—I note that there are those on the Government Benches, such as the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy), who acknowledge, albeit grudgingly, that the referendum result cannot be reversed and that we cannot go back into the EU. That was not what those people said immediately after the referendum, of course. They fought hard for ages to try to frustrate the outcome. They used every parliamentary technique they could conjure, as well as extra-parliamentary techniques, including well-funded legal cases, to try to derail Brexit.

The scepticism personified by my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey), who said she was doubtful about the Government’s intent, is well founded. I know that the Minister will want to reassure us, when he rises at the end of the debate, that that scepticism—in his case, at least—will not prove to be a prediction of what might happen next. Scepticism is well founded, though, because of the history. It was a Labour politician who said, “You don’t need a crystal ball when you’ve got the record book”—Aneurin Bevan, of course. We have the record book when it comes to Labour, and, worse still, when it comes to the Liberal Democrats.

I hope the Minister will be crystal clear, as he has been invited to be throughout the debate, on dynamic alignment, or, as I think it would be better described, dynamic realignment: realigning our relationship with the EU. Such alignment would bring us closer not to our friends and neighbours in Europe—of course, co-operation and collaboration is a natural part of mature policies—but to the EU, in terms of governance, regulation, law, interference in our affairs and, crucially, jurisdiction. It is the exercise of authority that we are really debating here—not the ability or, indeed, the willingness to share, but the danger of succumbing to a power that takes authority further and further from the British people.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) talked about some of the challenges the world faces and the answers to those global challenges. He was right to do so, by the way; I thought the first half of his speech was very good, although it got worse as it went on. The answer to those challenges is not to become more globalist or to give in to the forces he described that exert power in an unaccountable way, but to bring power back to the people.

When those of us who advocated Brexit spoke of taking back control, we did so partly because we wanted power to be vested in this Parliament, which is accountable to the people whom that power affects. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, are almost a model for this, and others would do well to follow your model. We are answerable to and known by our constituents; they understand that we make decisions on their behalf. New Members of the House will be coming to terms with what that means and its relentlessness. I do not mind it myself, but I can see how it could wear down souls less forceful and robust than me. It is that constant interaction with our constituents that is the lifeblood of democracy.

Whoever knew who their Member of the European Parliament was? I could not remember who the Tories were, let alone the Members from the other parties. People certainly did not enjoy that kind of intimate relationship and sense of mutual ownership when we were members of the EU. We feel as though we own our constituencies and they feel as though they own us, and quite right too. [Interruption.] I am being chided, Madam Deputy Speaker. I first heard of my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) when he arrived here—I never knew who he was before then. I say that without disrespect.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir John Hayes]

rose—

[Mr Francois]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Doughty]

No.

In a world of turmoil and uncertainty—

[Mr Francois]

Is there a red line on dynamic alignment—yes or no?

[Stephen Doughty]

I have answered that question already. [Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 30th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Under the last Government, we saw 1 million incidents of fly-tipping. Under Conservative councils, we see enforcement down and fly-tipping up: look at Tory-led Northumberland, where instances of fly-tipping are up 76%. We are introducing tough powers to seize and crush the vehicles of commercial fly-tippers, who now face up to five years in prison for operating illegally. That is a Labour Government clearing up the mess left by the Conservatives.

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

A week tomorrow, the whole nation will come together to commemorate VE Day. Those who fought in world war two, including my own father, would often attest that no one did more to maintain their morale in adversity than Dame Vera Lynn, the forces’ sweetheart. For several years, a doughty band of campaigners has been trying to create a national memorial in her honour. I am pleased to tell the House that they now have a stunning design, that they have a site—appropriately, at Dover—and that they have already raised over three quarters of the funding that they would need. At this very special time, will the Prime Minister lend his support in principle to this noble endeavour, and will he accept a personal briefing on the campaign—in which case I suspect that he and I will meet again?

General Election

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 6th January 2025 Westminster Hall

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

Happy new year to you, Mrs Harris, and to everyone else at this important debate, which was ably introduced by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), the Chairman of the Petitions Committee.

It is an extraordinary thing that we are debating a petition calling for a general election, barely six months from the previous election. It is even more extraordinary that that petition generated over 3 million signatures in just a few weeks. It is also highly noteworthy that of the 650 parliamentary constituencies in the UK, six of the top 10 by number of signatures are in the county of Essex. That includes my constituency of Rayleigh and Wickford, which is at No. 8. I do not see an Essex Labour MP here. Having spoken to my constituents at surgeries and out and about in my patch, and having seen their emails, perhaps I can suggest some reasons why.

The first reason is the economy. In late May, during the general election campaign, Labour’s then shadow Chancellor gave a major speech on what Labour’s economic policy would be if it won. In that speech, famously, she promised that all Labour’s policies were “fully funded and fully costed”. She said that as a result there would be no need for any further tax increases if Labour won in July. Then, within four months of the Budget, the very same person announced a gigantic £40 billion of tax increases, on everything from national insurance to inheritance tax, stamp duty, capital gains, farming, landlords, pubs, school fees and even, potentially, service widows.

The Chancellor’s justification for one of the largest tax increases in British peacetime history was this supposed £22 billion black hole, even though £9 billion of it was caused by a combination of public sector wage increases, including for junior doctors and train drivers, made after Labour came to office, as the public were all too aware. Labour’s central economic proposition—the need to fix this supposed black hole—was a sham from the start. That is why it has never been taken on by the public, who saw right through it from the start.

Labour gave the same justification for withdrawing the winter fuel allowance from up to 10 million pensioners. That option, long favoured by Treasury mandarins, was one that Labour often accused us of being willing to implement, although we never did. It was a Labour Chancellor who eventually did so, supposedly to save £1.5 billion in a full year. However, such has been the subsequent shift among pensioners to sign up for pension credit, largely in order to keep getting the allowance, that a large part of that £1.5 billion has effectively already disappeared and could be negated entirely, thus proving the withdrawal of the allowance to be a total own goal, not just morally but financially. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), my neighbour, reports that more than 20,000 pensioners in her constituency have had their winter fuel allowance withdrawn. As she puts it, they and their families are furious with Labour.

Then we have Labour’s plan for so-called devolution, as outlined in a White Paper before Christmas. In Essex, it would replace a two-tier system of local government with another two-tier system of local government that would take decisions even further away from local people. It is a Trojan horse designed to concrete over our green belt in Essex and is based largely on Sadiq Khan’s systems, as is clear from reading the White Paper. I can tell the House that the last thing we want in Essex is another Sadiq Khan.

There is also great frustration about the small boats. Labour promised to “smash the gangs”. That was its slogan, and that is what it was: a slogan, not a policy. The smuggling gangs remain decidedly unsmashed. Instead, without any credible deterrent, the small boats keep coming: they are up by a third since Labour took office. Labour clearly has no plan whatever, so the boats are going to keep coming while the Government look on.

So many of Labour’s plans were based on economic growth. From us, they inherited the fastest growing economy in the G7. [Laughter.] It was! And it is now flatlining under Labour. That is why we had the five missions, and now we have the six milestones; soon we will have the seven wonders of the world. We cannot increase growth by whacking up taxes across the entire British economy.

There are 7,287 people in my Rayleigh and Wickford constituency who have signed the petition. We cannot know why every one of them signed it. Perhaps they were enraged that Labour promised no new tax increases and then put taxes up by 40 billion quid. Perhaps they are among the up to 10 million pensioners who have had their winter fuel allowance taken away by the Chancellor. Perhaps they are among the 3.8 million WASPI women who were led up the garden path by Labour, from the PM downwards, prior to the general election and were dumped unceremoniously thereafter. Perhaps they believed Labour’s promises to smash the gangs, only to see arrivals increase by a third since Labour took office. Or perhaps they have just realised that when Labour promised change, what it really meant was more taxes, more bureaucracy and even more boats.

Whatever it was, we now have a Labour Government who, by breaking so many of their promises so early to those who elected them, have already all but surrendered their moral right to govern. The British people want change all right: they want a change from Labour, and the sooner the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

I am completely opposed to increasing VAT on school fees, but at least Labour did put that in its manifesto. Have my right hon. Friend’s constituents told him, as mine have told me, that one of the reasons they are so angry about the decision on winter fuel allowance is that it was not in the manifesto, they were not told that was what they were voting for and, therefore, Labour has no mandate for it at all?

[Sir John Whittingdale]

I entirely sympathise with my right hon. Friend’s point. The winter fuel decision was a very direct breach of an undertaking given, but even with VAT on schools, which he correctly says was in the Labour party manifesto, it was said that the money it raised—if it does raise any money, which a number of us doubt—would be invested in employing teachers and go to schools. However, in the last few days, we have heard that there is no guarantee of that at all and the money will just go to the Treasury. The assurances given about how this will benefit state pupils have, again, proved worthless.

There will not be an election unless something extraordinary happens; under our system, only the Prime Minister or Parliament can call an election early. I suspect the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), is the only other person here who can remember when a Labour Government were brought down in a confidence vote in 1979. With a majority of 170, that is unlikely to happen to this Government. Prime Ministers who have called elections earlier than five years have found that it was not always a wise decision—as was certainly the case in 2017 and, arguably, in 2024—so the truth is we are likely to have this Government in power for the next five years, but I believe it is unlikely to be longer.

We will use that time to regain trust. The new leader of the Conservative party is right that we have to work to do. We did not get everything right and, indeed, made some bad mistakes. We need to learn from that, just as the Conservative party did in 1974 and 1997, when we reflected on the reasons why we lost and worked hard to regain trust. However, in the meantime, we also have a job to do over the next five years in holding this Government to account. I echo the remarks of the Father of the House: even if this debate does not bring about a general election, I hope that Labour Members will listen to the voices expressed in terms of the 3 million signatures on the petition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I start by thanking those who organised the petition, including Mr Westwood, for securing this debate on today of all days. It is my birthday, and I can think of no better place to be, so I thank them very much for that. I also thank the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for ably setting out the constitutional position as to when the next general election will be. We know that it will be held on or before 15 August 2029. It is the Prime Minister’s decision when he wants to make a request, but the election must be held by then.

Labour did win a general election a little over six months ago with a huge mandate for the policies set out in our manifesto. We secured 9.7 million votes. In the same election, the Conservatives secured 6.8 million votes, Reform 4.1 million votes and the Liberal Democrats 3.5 million votes. Given those figures, it is perhaps no surprise that lots of people are unhappy with the outcome of the general election in July.

The reason stated in the petition was that we are not going to fulfil our manifesto promises, that we have gone back on our manifesto promises, and that is why there needs to be a general election now. That is what I will focus my contribution on; I want to address that point, because nothing could be further from the truth. We are going to make the most of the full term we have in government to deliver on the policies set out in our manifesto.

One of the first promises we made was to manage the public finances properly, to balance the books on day-to-day spending, as any responsible Government should. We knew this one would not be easy, but we are simply not prepared to continue with the fiction that no difficult decisions are required to fund our NHS properly, to rebuild our schools and to pay down the £22 billion black hole left by the former, Conservative Government. If the Opposition parties—I include all of them in this—are serious about rebuilding trust in politics and politicians, they must stop pretending that no difficult decisions are required to balance the books. They must actually set out exactly where the axe would fall if they were in government. They will not be taken seriously by the British public at the next general election unless they do.

On that point, we must remember the context in which the previous general election was called in the first place. The Conservatives thought they could get away with spending money they did not have in government: they spent the national reserve three times over in the first three months of this fiscal year. They promised compensation to the victims of the infected blood scandal without allocating a penny to pay for it, and they did exactly the same to the postmasters. They promised 40 new hospitals and did not allocate anything close to the money required to actually deliver them, and then they called an election that they thought they might lose so that somebody else could sort out the mess. We have heard it even here today: they are still pretending, even now, that they would not have given out a single penny in pay rises to our public sector workers. Our armed forces, of course, were very fortunate to receive their largest pay rise in 22 years.

[Mr Francois]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way? This is supposed to be a debate. Will he give way?

[Mr Sewards]

I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not he would support that pay rise. I am very happy to give way—I was just coming to the end of my point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

As Hansard will show, no one said that we would not have given public sector workers a pay rise. No one on these Benches uttered those words, but the £9 billion that Labour awarded was part of that supposed £22 billion figure. Does the hon. Gentleman contest that?

[Mr Sewards]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The simple fact is that the Opposition have to make a decision about exactly how much they would have given in public sector pay rises. They chose to dodge that decision and hand it on to the next lot—to us. As a result, we have had to take decisions to close a £22 billion black hole that they knew full well they were leaving and that there was no way we could have known we were inheriting. Their financial mismanagement has led to this. The Conservatives have not changed and, unfortunately, given the contributions from the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, they appear unwilling to do so. They are not serious people. We will get on with fixing their mess and fulfilling our manifesto commitments.

Turning back to the manifesto, I encourage anybody to look at the progress we have made despite the inheritance I have set out: a 3.3% increase in day-to-day spending on public services; a record £22.6 billion for the NHS to ensure that we can put on 40,000 new appointments every week and cut waiting times; an increase in the core schools budget so that we can recruit 6,500 new teachers; a rail nationalisation Bill that takes back public control of our trains; a Renters’ Rights Bill that bans no-fault eviction; a water measures Bill that punishes those who pollute our water; a crime and policing Bill to take back control of our streets; a Great British Energy Bill to deliver clean, secure energy; and the Employment Rights Bill, which delivers workplace rights fit for a modern economy so that people are protected at work. Every single one of those things was in our manifesto. It will take us five years, but we will deliver the things we set out in our manifesto.

I could go on, but I am sure Opposition Members will be very grateful and forgive me if I do not. In government, we will continue to deliver for working people. To those in my constituency who signed the petition, I say that I fully appreciate and understand their anger and frustration, but we were elected not to deliver quick fixes; we were elected to deliver long-term results for the United Kingdom. We will sort out this mess and we will leave our country in a better place than we found it, unlike the previous Government. Six months is not enough time to fix all our country’s problems, but we will make real progress on them over the next four years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mark Francois to ask the final question.

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

Prime Minister, you mentioned veterans a few minutes ago. As we approach remembrance time, one group of veterans we all owe a great debt to are those who served during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Hundreds were killed and thousands were maimed, by both republican and so-called loyalist bombs. Many of those veterans are now in the autumn of their lives, yet you are proposing to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which was designed in part to protect them from endless investigation and reinvestigation. Why, sir, are you throwing those veterans to the wolves to pander to Sinn Féin?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The right hon. Member has been here for a long time—“you” is not me, and I do not want it to be me.

Infected Blood Compensation Scheme

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

If I understand the hon. Gentleman’s intervention correctly, he is talking about the different organisations that already exist. We will consider all the recommendations in the round, but he is absolutely right to highlight the hugely important role of those organisations. The Infected Blood Compensation Authority will look to work with the different support organisations. That is vital.

The scheme is based on the recommendations and principles put forward by the inquiry. In line with those, and supported by advice from the inquiry response expert group, it was updated following the engagement exercise that Sir Robert Francis KC undertook in June with victims and representatives of the infected blood community. The Government have sought to design a fair and comprehensive compensation scheme, which will also be quick and simple for eligible applicants to access.

I turn first to eligibility. The scheme and the regulations define people who are eligible as infected people, in line with recommendation 2 of the inquiry’s second interim report. That covers people infected with HIV, hepatitis C and hepatitis B, and it includes people directly infected by treatment with blood as well as people indirectly infected via transmission from a directly infected person.

Secondly, the regulations establish a core route for claiming compensation as an infected person. The core route provides for compensation to be awarded under five categories or heads of loss, as set out in recommendation 6 of the inquiry’s report: an injury impact award, a social impact award, a care award, a financial loss award and an autonomy award. Together, they will comprise the total compensation award to infected individuals, or to the estate of any deceased infected individuals, to recognise the wide-ranging harm resulting from their infection.

Earlier this year, the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024 established the Infected Blood Compensation Authority in law to deliver the scheme. I am proud to have campaigned with many Members across the House to have delivered that change in legislation; I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Salisbury (John Glen) for his role. I am proud that this Government are now delivering on that commitment.

The regulations before the House will provide the Infected Blood Compensation Authority with the legal powers that it needs to begin making payments. They also provide further detail on how it will accept applications and pay awards. The authority, under the chairmanship of Sir Robert Francis, has been working hard to design and implement effective, simple and secure processes that put the infected blood community at the heart of its work.

Last week, the Infected Blood Compensation Authority reached out to the very first claimants under the scheme. The authority is taking a test-and-learn approach that will ensure that it can take feedback on board and improve the service before it opens its full compensation service. I hope that that step provides confidence that we are absolutely committed to driving forward progress to meet our shared intention of beginning payments by the end of this year, as I have previously said to the House. I will do everything in my power to ensure that all those who are entitled to compensation receive it as soon as possible.

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

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I commend him for the way in which he is handling this very sensitive matter; he has got the tone just right. On behalf of a constituent, Mr A, who was infected by being born of a mother who was infected, I have corresponded with Sir Robert Francis KC. If my constituent were here, he would be keen to know that the compensation scheme will cover people in his circumstances, both for their physical and mental distress. For the avoidance of doubt, could the Minister please confirm that those people will be covered by the scheme as well?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Yes. First of all, and I am sure I speak for everyone in the House, I express my sympathies to the right hon. Gentleman’s constituent and his family. The right hon. Gentleman is entirely right to raise the case directly with Sir Robert Francis. I urge Members across the House to look up the details of the Infected Blood Compensation Authority on the gov.uk website and point their constituents in that direction—the authority is already setting out newsletters—and to do as the right hon. Gentleman has done and write directly to the authority. On the basis of being infected through transmission from his mother, his constituent clearly fits the category of an infected person under the scheme. He is precisely the kind of person the scheme is designed to help. The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the case on the Floor of the House today in this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

I am conscious of your warning about the sub judice rules, Madam Deputy Speaker, as there is ongoing litigation on this issue, but I hope and believe that nothing I say in my brief contribution will in any way overshadow the prerogative of the courts.

This has gone on for far, far too many years. I have dealt with two constituents in particular, both of whom came to my constituency surgery to explain to me as their Member of Parliament what they had gone through and how it had affected them—and it clearly had, in both cases. I hope the House will forgive me if I judge that it is not right to go through their cases in detail, but they were both extremely polite and eminently reasonable in what they were asking for, and both were deeply frustrated by how long the process had taken. I will send them both a copy of the Government’s regulations and, because they are rather complicated, a copy of the explanatory notes, which I hope they will find to be of as much use as I have. As result of this afternoon’s proceedings, I hope not just that they will be able to achieve some financial redress, to which I am certain they are absolutely morally entitled, but that they will be able to achieve some peace of mind, because it is very clear to me that both those people’s lives have been materially affected by the issue. One of them said to me, “It’s not about the money. I just want to be able to bring this to a close.” I hope that the House will understand that sentiment. If hon. Members had heard it in the way I heard it face to face, I am sure they would have been as convinced as I was.

I want to say a few brief thank yous, because, as we all know, this has been a very long and complex journey—not just for those who were affected by the scandal, but for those who have had to deal with the consequences many years later. This was not the national health service’s finest hour, and it took a great deal of campaigning by many people to get the system to put its hand up and admit that something had gone wrong—in fact, dreadfully wrong. Had it not been for the persistence of some of those individuals, we would not be having this debate this afternoon.

However, someone had to deal with the consequences. I pay tribute to two brilliant public servants: Sir Brian Langstaff and Sir Robert Francis—there were others—who have both, in their own way, had to attempt to exercise what one might call the judgment of Solomon in dealing with this extremely detailed and complex issue. They have both done their country a service.

I also commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) and the former right honourable Member for Horsham, who is no longer a Member of the House. When they were in government, they both attempted to deal with this very complex issue. Having had some private conversations with the former right honourable Member for Horsham, with whom I served on the Defence Committee in the previous Parliament, I know that this matter preyed on his mind and that he really tried to do his best.

My last thank you goes to the current Paymaster General, who is clearly trying to achieve a resolution as speedily as possible and who has dealt with this issue in a very empathetic manner this afternoon. I speak for two constituents, but I am sure that we all have constituents who have been affected by the scandal, and many people across the country will be grateful for the way in which he is evidently attempting to handle it. I wish him godspeed in all his endeavours. This went on for too long and affected too many people but, hopefully, at last, we can collectively begin to put this right and give those people not just redress, but some sort of peace of mind.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I know that a few Members who were not here for the opening speeches have just turned up. If they can make their way to the Chair, I can have a conversation with them about contributing to the debate.

Iran-Israel Update

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As I said very clearly, we have urged de-escalation and calm heads to prevail, and we continue to do everything we can to get more aid into Gaza.

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

On air defence, I wholly commend our RAF pilots and their superb Typhoon aircraft, but we have only 137 Typhoons. Because of budget pressures, the MOD plans to retire 30 of them next year and sell them off, which would now be akin to selling Spitfires before the battle of Britain. When the Prime Minister has a moment, will he go back to his office, place that ridiculous decision under immediate review and, at the very least, put those Typhoons in a war reserve, in case one day we need them for ourselves?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He will know that individual equipment and capability decisions will be made by a service chief, in conjunction with Ministers. I am happy to look at the point he raised, but we are increasing our purchases of F-35 aircraft and collaborating with Japan and Italy on building the next generation of fighter aircraft—something in which we are leading the world. It will be fantastic for British jobs here at home.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 19th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Actually, rough sleeping levels were about a third lower in 2022 compared with the peak in 2017. Since our landmark Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 came into force, more than 600,00 households have successfully had their homelessness prevented or relieved, and we are investing £2 billion over the next three years to continue to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping.

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

The Prime Minister mentioned our armed forces. May I mention them again? We lost 457 personnel killed in Afghanistan, and several thousand suffered life-changing injuries. So I and some of my colleagues on the Defence Committee were absolutely stunned to see a video posted by our own Chairman lauding the Taliban’s governance of Afghanistan but not mentioning that they are still trying to identify and kill Afghan civilians who sided with NATO forces, nor the fact that they do not like girls to go to school. Can I make it plain that that was not in our name, and can I have the Prime Minister’s assurance that that silly and naive act was not in his name either?

[The Prime Minister]

I join my right hon. Friend in paying tribute to our brave serving personnel and veterans, and I thank them for their service, as we touched on earlier. We have repeatedly called out, and will continue to repeatedly call out, the human rights abuses that we see around the world. He mentions rightly the prohibition on women being educated in Afghanistan, which is something that we have spoken about in the past. We will also continue to have dialogue with regimes. That does not mean that we consider those regimes to be legitimate or that we approve of their actions, but that is all part, as he will understand, of establishing normal diplomatic presence in countries where the situation allows. I will very happily look into the specific case that he raises.

Afghan Resettlement Update

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 18th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Johnny Mercer]

Each individual Afghan—not each family—is entitled to £7,100 additional funding as they move into their receiving local authorities. There is an ongoing programme of support for those individuals. The idea that this cohort can simply be abandoned when we move them out of the hotel is clearly misguided. I have visited most of the hotels now and I have not come across a lot of female-only-led families. I have met one or two, but where we see them, we will do everything we can to support them.

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

I hardly need remind the Minister, as he fought in Afghanistan, but I will take the liberty of reminding the House that we lost 450 personnel killed in that theatre, and thousands more, unfortunately, sustained life-changing injuries. The right hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) is abroad on a Select Committee trip, but I have communicated with him by text to give him notice that I intended to mention him in the Chamber, so I have observed the courtesies of the House. Last night, following a visit to Afghanistan, he posted an utterly bizarre video lauding the Taliban management of the country—something a fellow member of the Defence Committee described to me barely an hour ago as a “wish you were here” video—in which he made no mention of the fact that the Taliban is still attempting to identify and kill Afghan citizens who helped our armed forces, or of the fact that young girls in Afghanistan do not even have the right to go to school under that Government. I wish to make plain, on behalf of the Committee, that he was speaking for himself, even though he used the title of Chairman of our Committee in a number of associated articles. Not in our name. He is entitled to have whatever bizarre opinions he wants, but does the Minister agree that any Select Committee Chairman who wants to remain a Select Committee Chairman should be careful to make clear that he speaks only for himself and not imply that he speaks for a number of other people who barely agreed with a word that he said?

[Johnny Mercer]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his moral clarity in this space. Members must be extremely careful to identify when they are speaking for themselves and when they are representing a group of individuals and elected Members of this House. As I said previously, the Government position remains unchanged. The fall of Afghanistan was a tragedy. We fought the Taliban for many years, and 457 British service personnel lost their lives in Afghanistan in pursuit of freedom, peace and women’s rights, none of which are found in Afghanistan today. Whenever we speak about that country, we should bear that sacrifice in mind, because it is an everyday occurrence for families up and down the country.

NATO Summit

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 13th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

On NATO co-operation with the EU, I agree wholeheartedly with the Secretary-General, who set three very clear conditions for supporting EU defence initiatives: first, that they are coherent with NATO requirements; secondly, that they develop capabilities that are available to NATO; and, lastly, that they are open to the fullest participation of non-EU NATO allies. That has been the established position, and it is one we fully support.

The hon. Member asked about the Black sea grain initiative, which is due to expire on 17 July. I commend President Erdoğan’s leadership on this issue, in particular over the last year. I spoke to him at the conference last week on this, and he is working to engage with the Russians on extending the grain deal, as are other allies. It is important that the grain deal is extended because, as we know, around two thirds of the grain leaving Ukraine is destined for low and middle-income countries, and we do not want Russia to inflict any more suffering than it already is.

The hon. Member also asked about undersea cables and undersea infrastructure. I agree with her that that requires attention and focus, which is why the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology are working collaboratively, together with industry, to make sure that everyone is doing their part to protect what is critical infrastructure. The MOD is developing particular capabilities to monitor and protect that infrastructure, and it is something that we have put on the agenda through the joint expeditionary force, which obviously comprises the northern European nations. We are hosting, in fact, as I think she alluded to, a potential headquarters for more focus on that area, and I look forward to discussing that with my JEF allies towards the end of this year.

Lastly, on galvanising international support for Ukraine, that is something I do when I am at these international summits. Particularly when I was last in the US, one of the things I did was spend half a day in Congress talking to congressional leaders from both parties to illustrate to them the importance of providing support to Ukraine not just now, but for years into the future. I am delighted that the US has played a leading role in the multilateral security guarantees, and it is important that it does so. However, as we are seeing, we are broadening the coalition of support for Ukraine, and being at these international summits and talking to world leaders shows that the UK is leading by example and leading from the front. I was very pleased that France has just announced that it will also now be providing long-range weapons to Ukraine, following the UK’s lead, and making an enormous difference to Ukraine’s counter-offensive.

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

On Britain’s contribution, had our excellent Defence Secretary not effectively foreseen the Russian invasion and provided thousands of NLAWs—next-generation light anti-tank weapons—to the Ukrainians, with the appropriate training, to blunt the assault, Russian generals would be having lunch in Kyiv today. The British Army, relative to its size, has made a larger contribution of critical equipment—the key organs, as it were—than any other army in NATO, including the United States. We can be immensely proud of that, but those organs need to be grown back for our own security and to maintain our contribution to NATO. Will the Prime Minister do everything he can across Whitehall to promote the requisite sense of urgency to regrow those organs and, critically, to provide the resources to do it?

[The Prime Minister]

I agree wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend that this House and the entire country can and should be proud of the leadership we have shown on Ukraine. He is right that we need to rebuild the stockpiles we have provided. That is why, in the Budget, £5 billion extra funding was provided for the armed forces, with a large chunk of that going particularly to rebuild those organs and those stockpiles, coming on top of the half a billion that was provided in the autumn statement. Just this week, for example, we announced a new contract with BAE to provide critical 155 mm rounds, which, as he will be familiar with, are absolutely mission-critical. Because we now have the funding to provide long-term contracts, we can increase defence production. That is good for our security, it is good for the security of our allies and, crucially, it also creates jobs, particularly in the north of England.

Infected Blood Inquiry

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) on securing this debate. As a member of the Backbench Business Committee, I was delighted to agree to their application for it.

The background to this debate is well known, but it deserves to be on the record again. In the 1970s and 1980s, about 5,000 people with haemophilia and other bleeding disorders were infected with HIV and hepatitis viruses through the use of contaminated clotting factors. Some of those people unintentionally went on to infect their partners, often because, as has been said, they were simply not aware of the infection they had. Since those times, more than 3,000 people have died, and fewer than 250 of the 1,250 people infected with HIV are still alive. It has to be remembered that they are alive only because of advances in the treatment of that condition, which were simply not available at the time of their original infection. In addition, many people who did not have a bleeding disorder were infected with hepatitis C as a result of blood transfusions during that period. The best estimates we have—of course they are estimates, given that these things were not particularly well recorded—suggest that about 27,000 were infected with hepatitis C. About 10% of them were still alive and seeking justice as of 2019.

It is safe to say that justice has not been speedy or quick for those affected by this scandal. Decades have been spent campaigning for justice, and now it is often being done by a son or daughter, as the length of time that has passed means that the fight is being passed on to a new generation.

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

I am here this afternoon on behalf of several constituents, but particularly Mr Adam Fleming, who has been adversely affected by this issue and, understandably, feels very passionately about it. May I make a simple plea to the Minister, through my hon. Friend? This has gone on for so many years and a compassionate Government would surely do everything they could to accelerate the payment of compensation. Does he agree with me and many others that now, really, enough is enough?

[Kevin Foster]

I am only too happy to agree with my right hon. Friend about that. Some of my oldest outstanding cases—I am sure this is the same for him—ones that I inherited from my predecessor, who had been pursuing them for 18 years before my election, relate to victims of this scandal. It is time to bring this matter forward and to give them the justice for which they have waited so long and that they so totally deserve. Sadly, as I mentioned, in many cases it will now be a son or daughter, or the next generation, who is waiting, given the time that has elapsed since the original infection, the inevitable passage of time and the conditions concerned turning into fatal outcomes.

The establishment of the infected blood inquiry in 2017 gave hope that the long wait for justice was finally nearing an end. Although it is making progress, it is worth noting that more than 500 people affected by the scandal are estimated to have died since the inquiry began, in addition to the thousands we have already lost. Therefore, I have no problem in agreeing with my right hon. Friend that there is no time to waste in delivering compensation to surviving victims and others affected.

On 5 April, the infected blood inquiry published its report on compensation and redress. The key recommendation is that a compensation scheme should be set up now and begin work this year. The inquiry chair has said:

“The scheme need not await the final report to begin work, since this second interim report fully covers the inquiry's recommendations on financial redress”.

The report makes several recommendations, including that each affected and infected person should be able to make a claim in their own right; and, given the passage of time, that people should be able to make claims on behalf of the estates of people who have died. Simply the passage of time should not be allowed to reduce the liability for this scandal.