Budget Responsibility Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 30th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I feel as though I am almost in Alice in Wonderland world when I listen to the Opposition response to this legislation. I certainly feel concerned that they, with the Cheshire Cat and possibly following the Queen of Hearts, might have been trying to pretend that their previous Conservative Prime Minister did not exist, or indeed that the former Member for Spelthorne was never ever the Chancellor. Those of us paying for a mortgage—and I declare a direct interest—know all too well that they were in charge and about the damage that they did with their disastrous mini-Budget, which is why this legislation is so important.

I would wager that that what their constituents would tell them if they suggested that the economic harm the previous Government did to this country, for which we will all be paying for generations to come, was solely to do with Ukraine or the pandemic. That mini-Budget was a political choice, but worse than that, it was a politically uninformed choice. The Government at the time consciously and purposefully made the decision on ideological grounds to press ahead with a Budget that cost 1% of our GDP, and to hell with the consequences, as we have all seen. That is why this legislation is so important.

I will always welcome a sinner who repenteth, so I am pleased that the shadow Minister recognises the value of independent scrutiny and, indeed, urges us all to go further. We will always welcome such an approach, because it is right and because our constituents deserve better, because we can see how bad things are and how broken this country is. What this Bill has at its heart are the funds to repair the damage done by the previous Administration. That is why the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is here today with this Bill to be clear with us about why it matters, why we put things on the books and why sound money is at the heart of it.

The markets did not react by accident and put up all our mortgages; they saw with terror the damage that bad leadership in the Treasury can do and have accordingly asked us to meet that challenge. Frankly, there is nothing progressive about crashing the economy, and that is exactly what the previous Government did. By putting on the record the need to report independently on fiscally significant measures, we are starting with a clean sheet and saying that we will not take such a reckless approach with other people’s money. At the end of the day, that is what this is: the tax revenues that are generated are the moneys of our constituents, and it is therefore right that we are careful about how we administer them.

However, I recognise that there are challenges in this legislation. I am speaking today because I hope to hear from the Ministers on the Front Bench further clarity about the concept of “fiscally significant”. As somebody who has always liked to be hawkish about public money, I think it is important that we are clear where we are investing, and I very much urge the Treasury to think about investing to save. I see in our broken society the damage that is done by poverty, poor public services and the higher costs that come with that, so I want us to be clear about the funding we have, where it is coming from and why every penny matters.

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

As the hon. Lady knows, the new Government have intimated that they may decide to mirror much new EU legislation, which could well have budgetary consequences. She and I have not quite always seen eye to eye on Europe, but does she agree, in that context, that it is actually a bad mistake to do what the Government want to do tonight and abolish the European Scrutiny Committee?

[Ms Creasy]

The right hon. Member pre-empts many of my concerns. There is a very strong story to tell about good fiscal discipline, but it is not possible to do that independently in a modern, global economy, so the scrutiny that we can provide in this place of a whole range of regulations does matter. Those include financial regulations—I think particularly about the City and issues around a financial transaction tax, for example. I have not yet convinced him of the merits of working more closely with Europe, but I am confident that one day we can do so. I agree with him, however, that this House should be fully part of that, just as I believe in the principles behind the Bill—that disinfectant comes from transparency and our ability to see what is going on. That is why the Government are so right to bring this legislation forward.

Let me move on to some areas where it is right to ask what we mean by fiscally significant. The right hon. Member and I might disagree about the deal we do in resetting our relationship with Europe, but there can be no doubt that that will have a clear economic impact on this country. I think of the hauliers who are considering whether they will give up bringing goods to the UK because of the Brexit border tax. The previous Government admitted that that measure was inflationary and could have a significant impact not just on our food security, but on our economy, pushing up the cost of living. Many of our constituents know that there is still too much month at the end of their money, and we should challenge any measure that makes that harder. That will also inflect our tax take.

The point I am getting to is that if we are talking about measures that are so fiscally significant that they count for 1% of GDP, a trade deal would easily meet that criterion. We need to be clear in the Bill what we ask of the Office for Budget Responsibility—which, after all, has provided evidence on the impact, for example, of leaving the European Union—and whether we consider its role in such matters. If we are going to put everything on the books, let us make sure that the public understand fully the decisions that we make and where the information comes from.

Another area in which we as a House need to act is our outgoings, especially when we are being asked to make very difficult choices about some of the most vulnerable in our communities, such as people who rely on welfare, or pensioners who rely on the winter fuel payment. We have to be honest: this country is pretty much bankrupt as a result of the previous Administration. If somebody in that dire financial position came into one of our surgeries, we would sit with them and talk about a debt relief order. We would look at their costs and particularly at consolidating the debts that they may have.

Many colleagues here will know that for many years I have been concerned about legal loan sharking. That is not just in people’s private lives, but in the public sector, and I consider the private finance initiative to be the legal loan sharking of the public sector. If we are talking about fiscally significant measures—measures that meet the test of £28 billion—we should consider that we have £151 billion of outgoings committed to private finance companies in this country, against £57 billion-worth of assets. Most people can see that those figures do not add up.

Local authorities spend around £18 billion every two to five years on PFI repayments, of which about £4 billion is interest costs. That would suggest an average interest rate of around 35%. If somebody came into a surgery with a loan at a 35% interest rate, we would encourage them to go to a debt relief order. Our country is no different, and this matters because, individually, local authorities might not meet that fiscally significant threshold, but collectively, they will for us. We are not going to let hospitals and schools go bust and go out of business. Parklands high school in Liverpool was built under PFI. It was closed because there was not a demand for the places, but Liverpool city council is still playing £12,000 a day for that closed school. It has repayments of £42 million left and the company that owns it is making a profit of around £340,000 a year from the scheme.

Private finance companies are on our books, and they should be on our books nationally. They should be considered fiscally significant. We can do things to consolidate those loans and to reduce the outgoings that will come. My contribution to the Bill and the amendments that I might table, depending on what Ministers say, will relate to the fact that I think we need to be clear that everything that is fiscally significant—decisions that we might not proceed with and ones that we do—should be subject to that level of scrutiny.

The National Audit Office has given us plenty of information about the poor value for money of private finance initiatives. Many Members who have these schools and hospitals in their constituencies will have seen this at first hand. There is evidence from the Department of Health and Social Care about what could be done to consolidate loans that probably would generate savings that would be fiscally significant, when we talk about the sums involved. It would be fantastic to see the Office for Budget Responsibility pick this matter up as part of our knowing how much we have to pay out as a country; how much of a contribution we need to make. This money is going to private companies that, on the whole, are not paying tax in this country, so it is not generating revenue that can go back into paying for the repairs that need to come.

The previous Government started to look at these issues and then walked away. I know that this Government, with their commitment to fiscal discipline and fiscal transparency, will want to be open about the benefits, costs and fiscal significance both of the trade deals that we might make and of private finance initiatives. I look forward to hearing from Ministers about that. This is a very different world—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister is smiling. I am sure that he misses his colleague from Spelthorne, but I know he will not miss the opportunity to say sorry to all our constituents for the mess we have been left in and the reason why we need this legislation on the discipline of the OBR, and for the failure to tackle the long-term problems that have left legal loan sharks and poor trading opportunities for our constituents, because they are going to pick up the pieces for generations to come.

Public Spending: Inheritance

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 29th July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

This country is owed a £22 billion apology by the Conservative party, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the overspends, including on the hospitals programme; there is a £4 billion gap between what was announced and what is needed for those hospitals. There is also a £6.4 billion overspend on the asylum system. That was all unfunded and undisclosed until I disclosed it today.

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

I welcome the affirmation of the funding for Ukraine, which I presume was already fully allocated from the Treasury reserve, in the usual way.

On the mainstream defence budget, the Chancellor has announced that all departmental spending will now be reviewed every two years. Given the speed at which Whitehall works, this means that the minute one review is finished, work will start on the next. All public spending, particularly capital spending, will effectively be under permanent review. This will not work. How can we commit to 10-year defence programmes, such as the vital new Tempest fighter, if all departmental budgets are up in the air every two years?

[Rachel Reeves]

First, there is a £9 billion reserve for departmental expenditure, and it was spent three times over before I arrived in the Treasury. That is why we face these problems today.

Secondly, yes, we fully intend to set longer-term budgets for capital expenditure, but we will have three-year spending reviews every two years for day-to-day departmental expenditure, which is really important for giving certainty, so that Government Departments can plan for the future. Today, no Department or local authority knows its budget beyond next March. That is no position to put Departments in, including the Ministry of Defence.

Economy, Welfare and Public Services

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 22nd July 2024 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He speaks powerfully, and I pay tribute to his work in the last Parliament, particularly around education and skills. This is a really important point. For me, the most important pages of the manifesto that we stood on were the three grey pages at the back of it, which set out all our spending commitments and how they would be paid for. That was important, because to earn the trust of the electorate parties must be really clear about where the money will come from and what they will use it for. That is what we did in our manifesto, and it is what we will do in Government.

The shadow Chancellor made some points about GDP, comparing ours with that of other countries, but since 2010 UK GDP per capita—that is the most important measure, because it reflects how people feel and the money that they have—has grown slower than the G7 average, slower than the EU average, and slower than the OECD average. Treasury analysis that I requested when I became Chancellor shows that, had the UK economy grown at the average OECD rate these last 14 years, our economy would be over £140 billion bigger today. That could have brought in an additional £58 billion of tax revenues in the last year alone—money that could have been used for our schools, hospitals and other vital public services. Growth is about more than just lines on a chart; it is about the money in people’s pockets, and Treasury analysis shows that achieving the rate of growth of similar economies would have been worth more than £5,000 for every household in Britain.

The shadow Chancellor stood up and once again claimed that he bequeathed a great legacy. Seriously? The last Parliament was the first on record where living standards were lower at the end than at the start. The highest level of debt since the 1960s, the highest tax burden in 70 years, mortgages through the roof, the economy only just recovering after last year’s recession, economic inactivity numbers last week showing a further rise, and borrowing numbers last week showing over £3 billion more borrowing than the OBR expected—that is the Conservatives’ legacy. If that is a good inheritance, I would hate to see what a bad one looks like. I think deep down the shadow Chancellor knows that. In fact, he does know it.

Yesterday, the shadow Chancellor admitted what we all know: that the manifesto that he campaigned on was undeliverable, and the money for the tax cuts that he promised simply was not there. If he wanted to show the country that his party has listened, and learned from its mistakes, he would have used his speech this afternoon to apologise, but he did not, and that tells us everything that we need to know about this Conservative party: party first, country second; political self-interest ahead of the national interest; irresponsibility before the public good. Let me say this to the Conservative party, “We will not stop holding you responsible for the damage that you have done to our economy and to our country.” Never again will we allow the Conservatives to crash our economy. They failed this country. They shied away from tough choices, and we will not repeat their mistakes. It falls on us, this new Labour Government, to fix the foundations so that we can rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. We will govern through actions, not words, and we have already begun to do just that, because there is no time to waste.

Less than 72 hours after I was appointed as Chancellor, I put growth at the very heart of our work. Working alongside my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, I set out reforms to our planning system—reforms that the Conservative party did not deliver in 14 years. Our reforms restore mandatory targets to build the homes that we desperately need, end the absurd ban on onshore wind to deliver home-grown cheap energy and recover planning appeals for projects that sat on the desks of Ministers in the last Parliament for far too long. Those are tough decisions that the Conservative party already opposes.

Why was that my first act as Chancellor? Because getting our economy growing is urgent, and this King’s Speech shows that we are getting to work.

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

On the matter of mandatory housing targets, having been a constituency MP for 23 years and seen them tried in a number of different ways, may I humbly offer the Chancellor this, with all sincerity? There is such a thing as good development, but it only works if it is something that we do with people and not to people. This Stalinist approach will not work.

[Rachel Reeves]

I have been compared to a lot of things, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I have never been compared to Joseph Stalin.

Our approach is a brownfield-first approach. We will reintroduce those mandatory targets; of course it is up to local authorities and local communities to decide where the housing should be built, but the answer cannot always be no. If the answer is always no, we will continue as we are, with home ownership declining and mortgages and rents going through the roof. On the Government side of the House, we are not willing to tolerate that.

This King’s Speech shows that we are getting to work. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister set out, our programme for government is founded on principles of security, fairness and opportunity. Our No. 1 mission is to secure sustained economic growth in our great country through a new partnership between Government, business and working people that prioritises wealth creation for all of our communities.

We will fix the foundations of our economy so we can rebuild Britain and make every part of our country better off. There are a number of important pieces of legislation in the King’s Speech that will help us to grow the economy. In this speech, I will focus on three in particular: the Budget Responsibility Bill to restore economic stability, the national wealth fund Bill to drive investments and the pension schemes Bill to reform our economy. Those Bills speak not just to our programme for government, but also to trust in politics. They show that we will govern as we campaigned and that we will meet our promises to the British people.

In the election campaign, I said the first step we would take would be to restore economic stability, because stability is the precondition to a healthy, growing economy. It is how we keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible. After years of irresponsibility, we are putting our economy on firm ground once again. We introduced the new Budget Responsibility Bill on Thursday to deliver on our manifesto commitment to introduce a fiscal lock so that I can keep an iron grip on our country’s finances.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for kindly calling me to contribute to this important debate on the King's Speech, after 11 very good maiden speeches and 11 very promising—even fabulous—starts to parliamentary careers. Those who have been in this House a little longer will know that our great friend the late Sir David Amess, whose plaque now rightfully hangs on the wall, had a great talent for managing to combine a very large number of topics into one speech. I lack Sir David’s skill, so I will seek to confine my remarks this evening to three topics, all development related.

The first topic relates to an expansion in medical capacity for the NHS, and specifically to proposals to expand the Jones family practice in Hockley. I declare an interest: my wife Olivia has worked in the NHS for nearly 20 years. In essence, the plan is to expand the practice, with a first-floor extension to create eight new GP consulting rooms and additional training facilities. Rochford district council recently approved planning permission for the extension, and the senior partner, Professor Dr Mahmud, and his active practice management team are now seeking approval from local NHS bosses to support the scheme.

It is my intention as the recently re-elected local MP—for which I am very grateful to my constituents—to lend weight to these positive proposals. They are designed not just to expand capacity, but hopefully to provide training places for graduates from the new medical school at Anglia Ruskin University in Chelmsford. For the record, I have also been working for some time to try to expand Riverside medical centre in Hullbridge, and I will be pursuing that with the NHS as well.

Secondly, the town of Wickford has suffered a dearth of supermarket capacity in recent years. My constituents endured something of a perfect storm last year when the Aldi supermarket was closed, while at the same time the old Co-op nearby has effectively stood semi-derelict for three years. During that supermarket vacuum, my constituents were forced to fall back on the small Iceland in the high street and Wickford market.

I was very pleased to reopen the enlarged Aldi last autumn, and it is now doing a brisk trade. However, the Co-op still remains undeveloped and, while boarded up, is occupying valuable spaces in the town’s principal car park. It is a long and complicated saga. Suffice it to say that the site was bought several years ago by a development company named Heriot, which originally came up with a plan in conjunction with the supermarket chain Morrisons to redevelop the store, with an underground car park and some flats above. I always had doubts about the commercial viability of those proposals, especially the underground car park, and the scheme collapsed some months ago.

Nevertheless, Heriot is working on what might be called a plan B, and for some months has been in what it describes as “advanced talks” with another major supermarket chain. For commercial reasons Heriot asked me not to name the supermarket in this speech, something I have agreed to respect—although I have to say that the name of the company in question is now effectively an open secret, and was even being reported back to me on doorsteps by my Wickford constituents during the general election.

I spoke to the directors of Heriot in advance of this debate, who assure me they are seeking to bring their commercial negotiations to a conclusion as soon as possible. They are well aware of my frustration at these three years of delay, which I conveyed to them again this morning, and they have asked me to relate that they realise that my Wickford constituents have already waited a long while for a new supermarket. That is an issue I campaigned on heavily at the general election, so I hope Heriot will be able to announce something definitive this summer. My message to Heriot is simple: “You have had more than enough time—get on with it.”

Finally, over two decades I have seen examples of both good and bad development in my constituency. Young people cannot live at home with their parents into their 50s and 60s, so it must be possible to build some houses in a sustainable manner to meet the housing need. Crucially, however, the infrastructure required to accompany them has to be built first. To put it another way, from long experience, if development is to be successful—and it can be—as I said earlier, it has to be done with people, rather than to people. The proposals at a place called Dollymans Farm in my constituency, which I was re-elected with a mandate to oppose, are precisely the opposite of that. We all want to find somewhere suitable and appropriate for people to live, but we have to do that in the right way.

Draft Postal Packets (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2023

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 General Committees

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard. I think that point of order is fundamental because without the papers, how can people consider this legislation properly? All that was available when I came in was the explanatory memorandum. The list of members is not available, which seems to be a deeply unsatisfactory state of affairs when the names of the members have changed so rapidly during the course of the day. When we are playing the hokey-cokey with members of the Committee, the House at least ought to be informed of who those members are. I suggest a brief adjournment while the papers are provided, and then we should come to the other points of order.

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard. I have two quick points.

First, I understand that the knife on the Illegal Migration Bill will fall at 6.26 pm. If you were a cynic, you would believe that the Government deliberately timed this debate for this evening, knowing that it would be ripped up by all those votes, bearing in mind we had 18 votes on the Bill last week. If you are a cynic, it is perfectly obvious to see what the Government have done; they have timed the debate now so it will be interrupted by the votes. However, can you confirm, Mr Pritchard, that if these proceedings are interrupted, there will be injury time so the debate will begin again quite a long while later, after the votes have taken place?

Secondly, for the record, the Committee of Selection nominated Members to this SI Committee last week in the normal way, including my hon. Friends the Members for Windsor, for Rochford and Southend East, for Devizes, for Dudley North and for Don Valley. I understand that some or all of those people indicated to the Whips in conversations over the weekend that they had what theologians might call “doubts” about the Government’s approach. Some even threatened to vote against the legislation, whereupon they were summarily removed from the Committee by the Whips, using a procedure that is normally used only for last-minute substitutions and very special circumstances—for instance, if a family member is ill.

In 22 years in this House, I have never known the Whips, from either side, to do this. This is beyond sixth-form politics. This is manipulating the parliamentary process because the Windsor framework is clearly a failure, and it is such a failure that the Whips have to rig Committees to get it through, so they have found a bunch of other Members, at short notice, who perhaps, shall we say, are not quite as inquisitive as the five who were nobbled. You have been here a long while, Mr Pritchard; have you, in your time in this House, ever known anything quite as shameful as this?

[Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard, I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford have said. I have been here nearly 40 years, and I have never seen anything like this. I really do deeply resent the fact that this has been done in the manner in which it has been done. Already, comments are being made on the Floor of the House, which are part of the record, and it is an extraordinary situation. I have never seen anything like it and I think that it is outrageous.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

Further to that point of order, Mr Pritchard. As we all know, “Erskine May”, the bible of parliamentary procedure, cannot account for every possible circumstance under the sun. Therefore, Members of Parliament are used to operating within a number of well understood conventions—we might call them our traditions, for want of a better phrase. If Back Benchers see those conventions being deliberately abused, they rightly get very upset, which is exactly what is happening before your eyes.

For some years, I served on the Committee of Selection, so I know well how the procedure works. If someone is nominated to the Committee, but unfortunately cannot attend, the convention is that they try to find a substitute. If a family member is ill or there is some other pressing reason why they cannot be there, they basically ask a friend or a colleague to substitute for them. There is a procedure whereby the Whips can facilitate that, without having to reconvene the whole Committee of Selection. Everybody understands that; that is the norm.

What is not the norm is for people to be taken off a Committee against their will. That is completely irregular. That is what has happened here—five times over, for the same Committee. That is not in order; that is not a convention; that is the Government trying to rig a Committee and to get rid of people whom they thought might have the moral courage to vote the wrong way. It is bent, and that is what they have done.

You, Mr Pritchard, should not be facilitating that. You yourself, sir, admitted that the final membership of this Committee was finalised only 50 minutes before it was due to begin. That is extraordinary. Why? Because so many shenanigans were going on behind the scenes.

I offer the Whip on duty, my right hon. Friend the Member for Pendle—who, for the record, I happen to respect—and the Minister some genuine advice: do not move the motion, because everyone can see that this has become a farce. Accept that this has gone wrong—it was a mistake—so do not move it and bring it back another time. That is by far the best thing to do in the circumstances. Do not move the motion, allow the dust to settle and let us discuss the draft regulations, which are not due to come into force until 2024, in the proper way when we have more time. However, do not force the Committee to go ahead on a basis that is blatantly and obviously rigged.

[The Chair]

I will make a few points in response. As I said in my preamble, all Members who attend may speak; they just cannot vote. I know that does not address all the right hon. Gentleman’s points. So that I am not misunderstood, let me say I received the latest copy 50 minutes before the Committee began; that was not when the last submission of changes was made, which was 10.50 am this morning—to be absolutely clear—but I get his wider point.

I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman recognises conventions, because in my fourth and final point in response I will mention a convention to him. It is for the Committee of Selection to decide its own rules. If the Committee or the House decides that more comprehensive review is needed, the Procedure Committee may look at it, but that is not a suggestion from the Chair. It is just a matter of fact.

On a point of order back to the right hon. Gentleman, he used a very unparliamentary term. He will have to withdraw the word “bent”. Before I call the former Leader of the House—[Interruption.] Order. I can only deal with one point of order at a time.

[Mr Francois]

If that is your ruling—

[Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg]

The Chair does not have the authority to order my right hon. Friend to withdraw in Committee. The Speaker has that authority on the Floor of the House; the Chairman of a Committee does not have that authority. He may ask, but he cannot insist.

[Mr Francois]

For the avoidance of doubt, I will withdraw it anyway. You and I have known each other for many years, Mr Pritchard; if you think that word was disorderly, out of respect for you and mindful of the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset, I will withdraw it. I will replace “bent” with “rigged”.

[The Chair]

It is not a matter of my opinion of what is orderly or disorderly; it is a matter of what the House thinks. I have heard a lot worse over those many years.

Russia: UK Companies

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Cartlidge]

As I said to the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge)—I apologise if this becomes a relatively repetitive point—I am not going to comment on specific individual companies. As I say, there is very good reason for that, and it is a long-standing Treasury policy that I think any Government would follow.

We have set out our policy. In my opening answer to the right hon. Member for Barking, I read out the statement from the Prime Minister when he was the Chancellor. We have been very clear that we want to see companies divesting from Russia. There are some complexities in there—of course there are—but the direction of travel is very clear.

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

As a Member of the House of Commons Defence Committee, I visited Ukraine about three weeks ago. We were welcomed literally with open arms, so grateful are the Ukrainians for staunch British support. They know a hard winter is coming, so may I make a practical suggestion? They clearly need more weapons, but they also desperately need generators in order to keep hospitals and other critical facilities operating even if they lose main power stations to missile strikes. Is there anything the Minister and the Government can do to encourage UK companies of all types that might be able to spare even one or two generators from their stocks to get them to Ukraine, where they would be put to incredibly good use?

[James Cartlidge]

My right hon. Friend speaks not only with his expertise on the Defence Committee; he also served in His Majesty’s armed forces and, of course, as a Defence Minister. He makes a very important point, and I was delighted to hear about his visit. It is inspirational to me and, I think, to the rest of the country when we see leading British politicians going over to Ukraine and showing that we are not afraid to go there. We will give the Ukrainians every form of support that we can.

On the specifics of that support, my right hon. Friend makes a good point about generators. I do not know the specific answer on that, but I do know that the Foreign Secretary recently set out measures to provide ambulances. Of course, the energy network is being affected by attacks from Russia, so military support remains so important, because that is how we enable the Ukrainians to defend themselves so that they can thwart these attacks. It will be tough, and there will be further attacks—this is not going to finish tomorrow—but we are doing all we can, and it helps when people such as my right hon. Friend are going out there and showing the support of the British people.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Cartlidge]

As ever, Mr Speaker, you have saved the best till last. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words. There is a legal side to protecting our economy—the sanctions regime protects it from the impact of sanctioned individuals and companies—but I think the most important way to protect our economy is by providing support this winter to our businesses and constituents, including constituents in Northern Ireland. We will be bringing forward many energy schemes with specific application in Northern Ireland; I know that he takes a keen interest in them. We are working with BEIS to ensure that we deliver those programmes in Northern Ireland, as well as in the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Ultimately, we are supporting not just the people of Ukraine, but our businesses and our constituents.

[Mr Francois]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It cannot come now. It has to come after the next statement.

[Mr Francois]

It is just something that we wanted the Business Secretary to hear.

[Mr Speaker]

Well, we cannot change the rules. There are more Members than you with points of order—that is my problem. I would be opening a can of worms. I would love to, but I dare not.

Brexit: Opportunities

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 16th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[Michael Ellis]

I am happy to confirm that my party is the party of business. We do listen to business, and business prospers in this country under Conservative Governments and will continue to do so. Of course, our ears are open and always will be to views from all sides. That includes and, in fact, specifically in relation to regulations, will include businesses.

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

I commend my right hon. and learned Friend and his team on their excellent TIGRR report and on his very welcome statement. If he needs a uniform, I am sure Gieves & Hawkes will be happy to oblige him, for a reasonable fee. He said in his statement that we will establish a commission “to receive ideas from any British citizen on how to repeal or improve regulations”. I urge him to go further and include EU citizens—in particular, Michel Barnier, the former chief negotiator, who is now running to be President of France and has developed very strong views about repealing EU legislation that affects France. If he does not want to live under its laws any more, can we ask him to suggest which of its heritage laws we should junk as well? And as the Government will want to get on with it, can we remind Mr Barnier that the clock is now ticking?

[Michael Ellis]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good, apposite point. We will certainly take that back.

Northern Ireland Protocol

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2021 Commons Chamber

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

If I may, I shall begin by commending my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) for so ably introducing this very important debate and by agreeing with him that we should thank the Backbench Business Committee for finding valuable time for it, especially as our Prime Minister is now due to meet senior members of the Irish Government on these matters only next week.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has pointed out, the Northern Ireland protocol contains a safeguarding clause in article 16 in the event that the protocol is not working as intended. Either party can activate article 16, in which case they then have to proceed under the provisions of annex 7. It should be remembered that the European Commission, not the UK Government, invoked article 16 on the evening of 29 January 2021. If the rumours were to be believed, Dublin was not even consulted about this action. Dublin found out from London, not from Brussels. The supreme irony is that, in doing so, the European Commission, which took the decision, effectively sought to create a hard border on the island of Ireland for medicines and, crucially, vaccines, despite having sworn blind for three years, during what I describe as the battle for Brexit in this House, that that was absolutely the last thing that they ever wanted to do. I am sure that the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), who has helpfully reassured us this afternoon that he is not an apologist for the European Union, will be the first to acknowledge that.

Invoking article 16 in that way was, I think it is fair to say, widely derided as a mistake, and the European Commission withdrew it by the cold light of morning. The Commission was really doing it for internal reasons, because of, among other things, the slow roll-out of vaccines, unfortunately, on the continent; nevertheless, the fact that it did it, when it clearly should not have done, means that our Prime Minister is absolutely entitled, as he has said many times, to keep article 16 on the table if the European Commission refuses to be reasonable in renegotiating the Northern Ireland protocol, or even replacing it.

One thing, though, that all protagonists in this debate seem to agree about is their willingness and, in fact, strong desire to uphold the 1998 Good Friday agreement, which has indeed been crucial in bringing peace and stability to Northern Ireland for over two decades. It is fundamentally based on the principle of consent, as the leader of the Democratic Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), and his colleagues have reminded us, but it is now as plain as a pikestaff that the Northern Ireland protocol no longer enjoys the consent of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland.

If the House will not take that from me, it could take it from the new leader of the DUP, whom I wish all the best with his onerous responsibilities at this time. If the House will not take it from him, it could take it from the Nobel prize winner Lord Trimble, who has pointed out, importantly in this context also to audiences in the United States, who follow these matters closely, that the Northern Ireland protocol no longer enjoys the consent of the Unionist community in Northern Ireland. Very wisely, in my view, he has recommended a system of mutual enforcement as a far better alternative.

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Does my right hon. Friend recognise that Lord Trimble is not just a Nobel peace prize winner, but one of the two architects of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, the other of whom is now dead, and therefore the greatest authority on what is going on? I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. Is it not the reality, therefore, that those who had nothing to do with it now say they are experts, when the real expert says that it is exactly what it is—damaging?

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Lord Trimble helped to create the Good Friday agreement, at great risk not just to his political career but arguably to his own life, and not least because of that he is respected around the world. If people will not listen to me or even, though I find it difficult to believe, to my right hon. Friend, they should listen to David Trimble.

In February 2021, the European Research Group, which I have the privilege to chair, produced a detailed report on the Northern Ireland protocol, entitled “Re-uniting the Kingdom: How and why to replace the Northern Ireland Protocol”. A copy has been lodged in the Library of the House of Commons. The executive summary of that document says:

“The European Commission’s bungled invocation of Article 16, regarding vaccines, in late January 2021 has, rightfully, been widely criticised. Nevertheless, it has created a unique political opportunity for the United Kingdom Government to seek to negotiate a replacement of the Protocol with alternative arrangements, based on the concept of ‘Mutual Enforcement.’…If the EU remains unwilling to contemplate this, the U.K. Government should retain the option of invoking Article 16 itself and/or consider instigating domestic legislation, to replace the Protocol, via utilising Section 38 (The Sovereignty Clause) of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act, 2020.”

We want to renegotiate this, and we hope that the European Commission and member states will be reasonable. After all, it swore blind that it would never remove the backstop, but after three months of negotiation it did, so there is a clear precedent for it. We would rather do this in a spirit of mutual negotiation, but I am reminded of the words of the late Baroness Thatcher, who famously said: “Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley”. Baroness Thatcher may no longer be with us, but her spirit lives on. We must retain Northern Ireland as a fundamental part of the United Kingdom. If, when push comes to shove, that means that the Northern Ireland protocol has to go, so that the vital principle of consent within the Good Friday agreement can be maintained for the peace and wellbeing of the people of Northern Ireland, then so be it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Francois]

My right hon. Friend kindly referred to me earlier and, far more importantly, to Lord Trimble. Does he agree that, although there are often risks in doing something, in this situation there are also risks in not doing something? If we do not address the serious discontent in one community in Northern Ireland, there is a real risk, as he hinted, that people with a dark past will seek to exploit this for their own ends and use violence rather than democratic debate to advance their objectives, which are not in the interests of the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Harper]

My right hon. Friend puts it very well. There are serious risks here, which is why we need to address the perfectly reasonable concerns that many people have in Northern Ireland.

It would be helpful if the Minister could indicate when the Government will set out their thinking—obviously, there is not long to go before the recess—and whether that will be announced in such a way as to give us the chance to question Ministers. The right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), who leads the Democratic Unionist party, set out its checklist for how it is going to test any proposals that the Governments bring forward. It would be helpful to know—I do not expect the Minister and the United Kingdom Government to completely agree with the right hon. Gentleman—

Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Wednesday 10th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sir David Amess]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I have already been speaking for six minutes and I have not even started my speech, so I need to move on quickly. We want to get this legislation on to the statute book quickly, and people will be frustrated.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) mentioned Finn’s law. Given that you are a fellow Essex Member of Parliament, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Giles Watling) was interested in the matter, I should say that I was privileged to be at the event at which Paul Nicholls, together with the chief of police, unveiled the monument to police dogs. I met Finn and the whole thing was just a tear-jerker. My right hon. and learned Friend spoke about the dog barking when the legislation went through the House of Lords, and I can testify to that.

Now to my brief speech. It is true that a dog is a man’s best friend but, as we have heard already, there are too many examples of cruelty. There is a danger that we will talk about more and more horrific things, such as dogs being forced to fight against each other and the latest thing, which is sport trophy hunting. How is it that companies can be trying to attract Brits to go abroad, where these magnificent animals are enclosed, so that they can cut off their tusks and heads and so on? It is absolutely barbaric. Shame on anyone who goes on one of those holidays.

I am told that 26% of households in the United Kingdom own a dog and 18% own a cat. The vast majority of British people look after their pets well. We have one or two farmers present; introducing children to animals at an early age is a good way to get them to treat animals well. I know that not all children can necessarily empathise with animals, but I think that that would help. I join others in saying I am so glad that, as a developed country renowned for its historical championing of animal welfare, we are to have this legislation.

In 2017, the RSPCA investigated 141,760 complaints. That is a huge number. In 2018, the RSPCA phone line received 1.1 million calls. I am sure that none of them was made from the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), but an awful lot were certainly made in Essex. The way in which the animals are protected is the first vital part of the Bill. The second important part is that it will act as a deterrent. The Bill recognises that the root of the problem is really with animal abusers, and although it may take a few months to kick in, all the literature that I have read agrees that this legislation will act as a meaningful deterrent.

There are too many examples of animal cruelty. Recently, in a national newspaper, we heard about a French bulldog that had just had puppies. How could someone have chained that dog to a car—we all saw it—and dragged it along the road? That is just horrendous, and the person responsible has still not been caught. I am glad to say that the RSPCA is on the case.

Just last week, The Independent reported that a driver in Somerset was luring birds on to a road with chips before mowing them down. That is sick behaviour beyond belief. In another shocking example, which took place at the end of last year, a man in the UK hit a dog with a hammer and strangled it with a washing line just because it was getting on his nerves—perhaps he had mental health problems. None the less, these are absolutely despicable incidents, and they are happening in our country.

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

My hon. Friend mentioned dogs. He will recall that, seven years ago, he and I helped to co-open the Dogs Trust Rehoming Centre at Nevendon in my constituency. I visited it again last week. Will he join me in commending the superb work that it does, rehoming nearly 900 dogs a year? If he wants to talk about compassionate, loving and focused animal welfare, the Dogs Trust is about as good as it gets, and Lisa Cooper and all her staff there are a living embodiment of that.

[Sir David Amess]

And the Dogs Trust will be very pleased with that plug that my right hon. Friend has given it. I was there. It is a magnificent Dogs Trust, and my own family has had two rescue pugs from it over the years. It is absolutely fantastic.

My right hon. Friend has just reminded me that, when I entered this place for the first time, animal welfare did not have the high priority that it does today. That is not criticising the background of colleagues; it is just saying that we did not give the matter as high a profile as we do today. I do remember, though, that when my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire had a wonderful debate on monkeys, the House was absolutely packed—but that was quite a rarity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Anna Turley]

I really appreciate that sentiment; that was very decent of the right hon. Gentleman. So often these cases bubble up in the media but then disappear. If this place is for anything, it is for responding to situations such as this and acting. I am proud that we are all here today to do that.

Scamp, as I said, was found buried alive. The people of my constituency were horrified by the two cases I have mentioned. I pay tribute to their response. Vigils were held in my community for those animals. Hundreds of people came to lay flowers and candles and to send out the message, loudly and defiantly, that the perpetrators do not represent our community. They do not represent the people of Redcar, who are decent and kind and love animals. But the people are angry: they feel that the criminal justice system has let them down, as do the majority of people across our nation of animal lovers.

On researching how these crimes could have resulted in such impossibly lenient sentences, I was astonished to find that the maximum sentence for any form of animal abuse is just six months’ custody. Incredibly, that has not changed since the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which was introduced, essentially, to make it an offence to override or overload animals pulling loads on the street or in pits. The law is lagging a century behind. If we are to continue declaring ourselves to be a nation of animal lovers, this Bill is necessary to send a loud and clear message that we take animal cruelty seriously.

I join others in paying tribute to the animal welfare organisations that have supported this campaign and for their efforts—day in, day out—in saving and protecting animals and investigating crimes. Specifically, I would like to thank the RSPCA, the Dogs Trust, Battersea Dogs & Home and the League Against Cruel Sports. I also thank the wider public for their contribution to the progress that the Bill represents. Colleagues across the House will have been lobbied by many of their constituents who have passionately held views on the need to protect animals and ensure that sentencing is a proportionate punishment.

[Mr Francois]

I entirely endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) about the powerful contribution that the hon. Lady has made. I pay tribute to her powerful track record on this issue. We are often called a nation of animal lovers. Does the hon. Lady agree that love is not enough? We also need protection. This Bill will now help to protect the animals that we all love.

[Anna Turley]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. As I said in my introductory comments, as human beings we have a duty of care, love and protection towards animals who have been bred alongside us for thousands of years and that we have cared for, protected and nurtured. That is our responsibility to them. I hope that this legislation will send out the message and that anyone who cannot understand it will be dealt with severely.

I also thank my community in Redcar and Teesside who have shown their compassion and given the Bill so much support—signing petitions and responding to the terrible acts with a determination to help change the law.

I take on board everything that has been said about getting the Bill through as quickly as possible and I have no wish to slow its progress, but before I finish I want to bring an issue to the Minister’s attention, as I will throughout the Bill’s progress, to make the most of the opportunity. It concerns the trend of filming animal cruelty with the aim of sharing and uploading videos to social media. As I said, Baby’s aggressors deliberately filmed their despicable acts for entertainment. There are many examples on social media of video clips of cruelty going viral—people kicking cats or tormenting small animals. The perpetrators are not content simply with inflicting injury on animals; they are motivated by the prospect of the films going viral, getting hits and being shared. That is grotesque and demonstrates a greater level of malicious intent, which possibly requires a specific deterrent. I urge the Government to consider the possibility of an aggravated sentence for those who film themselves undertaking such acts. I will table an amendment in Committee and ask the Government to support it.

Finally, I want to say a word about Baby and Scamp, because it is in their names that I sought to change the law. We will probably never know the full level of cruelty and torture that those silent and defenceless animals endured. We can only begin to imagine the pain experienced and the fear that they felt. We cannot undo the suffering caused to them, but we can show each other that such cruelty has no place in our communities, and that such depraved behaviour will face the punishment that it deserves. I wholeheartedly welcome this Bill—Baby’s Bill—and I thank the Minister for bringing it forward. I look forward to voting it through, to put right the injustice and send a message that our society will not tolerate cruelty to our best friends.

Leaving the EU: Economic Impact of Proposed Deal

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The analysis shows that in all the scenarios being considered, including no deal, a deal based on the 2018 White Paper will give a better result for our economy for every sector, for every region and for every country—including Scotland—of the United Kingdom.

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

As the Chairman of the Select Committee on Exiting the European Union said, today is D minus 37, so in some five weeks from today we will have honoured the wishes of 17.4 million UK citizens and left the European Union. Military veterans living in Cyprus will also be affected by some of these changes, not least because we recently signed a double taxation treaty with the Cypriot Government. The Minister personally intervened in that negotiation, to allow a five-year transition period for military veterans receiving state pensions to have longer to adjust. He played a blinder and honoured the covenant, and on their behalf I thank him today for everything he did to look after them.

[Mel Stride]

I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend for his extremely kind words. As ever, he is too modest. It was not my effort alone that secured the result that we achieved for those very important veterans in Cyprus—he raised the issue, brought it to my attention in Committee, and worked hard with me to make sure that we achieved the right, just and desired outcome.

Treasury

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 17th July 2018 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the First Delegated Legislation Committee on 18 June 2018.

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

My first specific question is, assuming that the tax treaty comes into force fairly shortly, in what tax year would the new arrangements arise? In other words, would these veterans be charged at the new rate of 20% or more in the current tax year—2018-19—or would it only cut in, as it were, in a full tax year, in 2019-20? For anybody who is looking to plan, that is an important piece of information that, understandably, they want to know.

[Mel Stride]

My right hon. Friend asked in which tax year the measures would kick in, and the answer is in 2019-20 at the earliest.

[Official Report, First Delegated Legislation Committee, 18 June 2018, c. 8.]

Letter of correction from Mel Stride:

An error has been identified in my response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois).

The correct response should have been: