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.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows well, the border posts are there to deal with checks in the red lane. That was something that was always envisaged. It is something that we always said that we would do. It is right that people should not be able to try to smuggle goods into the Republic of Ireland via Northern Ireland. That is why those posts, those inspection facilities, are there. The investment in them is to make sure that we can do those checks properly, as we assured the European Union that we would do. Part of having a functioning green lane is having enforcement of the red lane.

To his broader point about EU law, less than 3% of EU law applies in Northern Ireland. It applies with the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. As he knows, the consent vote next year allows them to remove all of those laws and to have a new approach, but it is there because, as we have heard, there is a balance to be struck, and Northern Ireland’s communities and businesses value not having a border on the island of Ireland. They value their access to the single market. We are in a position where we have the minimum amount of law required to fulfil that purpose. I believe sovereignty is important. I believe that those laws and the new ones that come through should come through only with the consent and oversight of the people of Northern Ireland. That is why the Stormont brake is so powerful: it puts power in the hands of the Assembly, of him and his colleagues, to decide what is best for Northern Ireland. That is what sovereignty means to me. It means giving Stormont the ability to say no, and I hope that he will give this framework the time and consideration that it deserves.

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

I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and for publishing both the White Paper and the legal text on the same day, which will materially assist the whole House. As a former Chancellor, he knows well that, on Budget day, the Government put a good gloss on whatever they are putting to the public. We then have to read through the Red Book to check on the fine detail. He has worked very hard on this agreement, so can he assure me and the whole House that when we go through the Red Book—or, in this instance, the detailed legal text—we will not find any nasty surprises that will materially undermine the position of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom?

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. I am pleased that we were able to publish all the documentation. I know that that was important not just to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), but to other colleagues as well. It is the right thing to do and, as I have said, I wish to give everybody the time and the space to consider the detail of the Windsor framework. I believe that it meets the objectives that we set out to achieve: it provides for the free flow of goods within the United Kingdom; it ensures Northern Ireland’s place in our Union; and it safeguards sovereignty for the people of Northern Ireland. I look forward to engaging with him and his colleagues over the coming days to answer his questions and provide any clarifications. I am confident that, when he goes through the detail, he will see that this is a good agreement. It is the right agreement for Northern Ireland and for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is a way for our United Kingdom to move forward together.

Procurement Bill [Lords]

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 9th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Angela Rayner]

I will come to chapter 3, which addresses transparency—although, again, I think it is unambitious. Look at what Ukraine does in terms of transparency; it is streets ahead. These are baby steps and are nowhere near enough. The hon. Member needs to look at the situation and at the Bill. It is not ambitious enough for the UK and does not prevent situations in which billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is wasted, as we have seen under this Conservative Government. The only fast-track lane that Labour would allow would be one for local businesses and enterprises that create wealth in our communities and contribute to a fairer society. The VIP lanes under a Labour Government would be for local businesses bringing innovation and wealth to their neighbourhoods, so social value would be a mandatory part of procurement. I hope that the Minister will look at that.

The Bill also misses a crucial opportunity to introduce real and workable non-performance claw-back clauses to contract design. There are ways of baking such clauses into contracts so that failing providers must return taxpayers’ money above a certain threshold. The current system just is not working; eye-watering waste continues without consequence. Being granted taxpayers’ money is a privilege. When suppliers do not deliver—just as we saw with PPE Medpro—we want our money back, but under the current proposals there is no way of even checking a provider’s past performance. Again and again, local authorities fall foul of the same failed providers as their neighbours.

Can the Minister explain why he is not using the Bill to make past performance a central pillar of our procurement? When I go to a restaurant, I can see past customers’ reviews of the food. Should the same not apply to multimillion-pound Government contracts? The Green Paper mentioned a procurement unit, but that has since been removed and replaced with a vague concept of “procurement investigations”. That toothless proposal will do nothing to crack down on waste or protect taxpayers’ money. By contrast, Labour’s office for value for money, which would be advised by a social value council, would have real teeth to ensure that taxpayers’ money is spent responsibly with regular checks. I hope that the Minister will work with me to strengthen that aspect of the Bill.

I have mentioned chapter 3 of the Bill, which I think is another sticking-plaster solution that misses the opportunity to create real transparency in public procurement. Although I welcome the limited measures the Bill takes to move towards transparency—by obligating authorities to issue a transparency notice before awarding a contract, for example, which the Minister mentioned—those are baby steps that barely scratch the surface of what is required. We must see end-to-end transparency, which means the creation of a public dashboard for Government contracts.

Clause 95 gives an unnamed authority the power to make rules about what procurement information can be shared and through which channels. That is symbolic of the poverty of ambition on display from the Government. The Minister could have used this opportunity to announce a system inspired by Ukraine’s anti-corruption blueprint, a dashboard that guarantees transparency in how taxpayers’ money is spent and bakes trust and integrity into the system. Even under attack from Russia, Ukraine is honest about how it spends public money. What is this Government’s excuse?

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

The right hon. Lady may not be aware, but the Infrastructure and Projects Authority audits all major infrastructure projects across the whole of Government every year and grades them on a dashboard system, so we already have one.

[Angela Rayner]

I say to the right hon. Member that we do not have a system that works. That is pretty clear to me because we can see the disastrous waste that currently happens in the system, and because companies that should be rewarded with contracts are not, while others get around the system.

I think we should go further still by finally shedding light on the amount of taxpayers’ money being shelled out to tax havens. Labour will push for the Bill to introduce full transparency about whether suppliers pay UK taxes, as well as public country-by-country reporting by multinational corporations. A Labour Government would go further by using public procurement to drive up standards of responsible tax, including by asking big corporations and businesses publicly to shun avoidance and artificial presence in tax havens.

Transparency is not just a nice thing to have; it actually saves money. A lack of transparency in the procurement system reduces competition and increases costs, leaving the taxpayer to shoulder the burden, so the adoption of open transparent contracting makes good financial sense. It leads to a more competitive procurement process and, ultimately, to cost savings.

As I said earlier, being granted public money is a privilege, and suppliers should in turn uphold the highest standards in the workplace. The Bill is an opportunity to drive up standards across the economy and ensure that public procurement is used as a means to promote decent work throughout supply chains and to reward businesses that treat their workers right. We must back the workers and the employers who create Britain’s wealth by using procurement to raise the floor on working conditions for all. I hope that the Minister will engage openly in Committee with proposals to include good work and the promotion of quality employment as strategic priorities.

That brings me to outsourcing. This Government have become too dependent on handing away our public services on the cheap, and we are all paying the price. It is ideological and not based on sound service delivery. The Bill presents an opportunity to introduce measures to end the knee-jerk outsourcing trend and to ensure that, before any service is contracted out, public bodies consider whether work could not be better done in house. When I worked in local government, we coined the phrase “not outsourcing but rightsourcing”. That is what a Procurement Bill should facilitate.

The pandemic showed us that a decade of Tory Government had shattered the resilience of British businesses and services and of our local economies. Instead of handing out billions to British firms to deliver services, jobs and a better future, big contracts were given to Tory cronies and unqualified providers. The Tories eroded standards at work, encouraging a race to the bottom.

But it does not have to be this way. From the Welsh Government and London’s Labour Mayor to local governments in Manchester, Southwark and Preston, Labour in power is showing that things can be done better. What we need is a public procurement policy that the public can trust and that will make winning contracts a force for our country’s good. Not more sticking-plaster solutions but a Bill that will restore trust in the way public money is spent.

--- Later in debate ---

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

As a former Defence Minister, I will confine my remarks to the Defence-related aspects of procurement, which feature multiple times in the Bill, particularly in parts 1, 2 and 4. The United Kingdom’s system of Defence procurement is broken. That is the considered opinion of the all-party Public Accounts Committee, on which I now serve, which concluded in its 2021 report, “Improving the performance of major defence equipment contracts”, that,

“The Department’s system for delivering major equipment capabilities is broken and is repeatedly wasting taxpayers’ money.”

The Government’s auditor, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, audits all major infrastructure programmes from HS2 downwards. It produces its findings each summer, in which it grades each project on a traffic light or dashboard system. The definition of a red project is that,

“Successful delivery of the project appears to be unachievable.”

Amber projects are those where,

“Successful delivery appears feasible but significant issues already exist”.

In its latest report of July 2022, the IPA audited 52 of the largest MOD procurement programmes from Dreadnought downwards, which total more than £80 billion of British taxpayers’ money. Of those, nine projects were rated red or unachievable, 33 were amber where significant issues already exist, seven were classified on national security grounds, and only three were rated green, whereby,

“Successful delivery of the project on time, budget and quality appears highly likely”.

I submit to the House that a system where barely 6% of our new major Defence programmes are judged to be confidently on track is indeed a truly abysmal record and fully in keeping with the PAC’s verdict of a “broken” system.

In a similar vein, in March 2021, the Defence Committee published a hard-hitting report, “Obsolescent and outgunned”, which highlighted that in two decades, the British Army has not successfully introduced a single new major armoured fighting vehicle into service. As it powerfully concluded:

“This report reveals a woeful story of bureaucratic procrastination, military indecision, financial mismanagement and general ineptitude, which have continually bedevilled attempts to properly re-equip the British Army over the last two decades.”

The biggest scandal in this sorry tale is that of the General Dynamics Ajax armoured reconnaissance vehicle which, after 10 years and the expenditure of over £4 billion of UK taxpayers’ money, has still not resulted in a single new vehicle entering frontline service, for which the MOD is even now unable to provide a definitive date. Even if it could, the future communication system on which the highly digitised Ajax would rely, called Morpheus, is still many more years from entering service. The lead contractor on the Morpheus evolve to open project is General Dynamics, the same prime contractor as for Ajax. Last year, the Defence Secretary commissioned Clive Sheldon KC to conduct an independent inquiry into the flow of information surrounding Ajax, including to Ministers, which is due to report very shortly. I suspect it may well prove uncomfortable reading for some of those who were working on the Ajax programme.

To take another example of a red programme, it has taken nearly seven years to integrate an airborne early warning radar into a Merlin helicopter to provide air defence coverage for our aircraft carriers—a project called Crowsnest. In stark contrast, during the 1982 Falklands war, we integrated an earlier version of the same radar into a Sea King helicopter in just over three months. This is just one more example of how ponderous, bureaucratic and inefficient our procurement system has now become.

One associated area that is also desperately in need of reform is the procurement of the maintenance of accommodation for service personnel and their families. The future defence infrastructure services—FDIS—contract, which went live earlier this year, is an utter shambles. Complaints about mould, lack of heating and multiple contractor visits, which still failed to carry out basic repairs, such as fixing broken boilers, have appeared in numerous media outlets in recent months. We cannot carry on like this. Our service personnel and their families deserve better. I understand that Defence Ministers may now genuinely be considering terminating the FDIS contract and seeking alternative arrangements. I co-authored a report for a previous Prime Minister on military retention—entitled “Stick or Twist?”—three years ago, in which we suggested establishing a bespoke housing association instead. Whatever solution Ministers now finally adopt, I earnestly hope they will stop reinforcing failure via FDIS and opt for something successful instead.

In summary, the Public Accounts Committee was right: our system of defence procurement is broken, and it is going to take much more than this Bill to fix it. With a war under way in Ukraine and the Government’s integrated review being updated as a result, there is now an opportunity to put right these weaknesses in our defence procurement process, which are deep-seated and have taken place, it must be said, under Governments of both colours for many years. We certainly need to increase our defence spending, but we also need to spend what we allocate for defence much more efficiently as well. This system is crying out for an extremely thorough analysis to be subsequently followed by dynamic reform. We cannot let this go on much longer. Our national security depends on it, and if hon. Members do not believe me, then perhaps ask a Ukrainian instead.

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to a maiden speech. I call Samantha Dixon.