Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 5th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

I agree with those words the Secretary of State for Defence said previously. I hope he was speaking to highlight problems with the Government, as those in opposition must do; I am afraid that my Government did not resolve that issue. At the end of my speech, as the Minister will know, I will pitch to him how things should be different.

The bureaucracy of the scheme is astonishing. Thousands of applications remain unresolved, some of which were submitted as far back as 2021. Many of these people have had to flee and hide with their families, because they risk death—I will come back to a particular case that highlights all that. The long lack of transparency and the long delays have left these individuals in personal and collective danger.

The scheme has narrow and inconsistent eligibility criteria. Individuals who have served alongside UK forces have been excluded due to narrow definitions and specific eligibility categories that rule them out. Others have been denied protection because they were employed by subcontractors rather than the Ministry of Defence, yet they carried out the same vital work and faced the same risks as others who were directly employed.

Then there are the broken promises. The UK Government assured those who served with the British forces that they would not be left behind, yet lives are still at risk. First-hand reports from Afghanistan show that former allies are now being targeted by the Taliban. I did not serve in Afghanistan—I did serve in the British military, a fact of which I was proud—but there are some in this Chamber today who did serve there and who know from first-hand experience what was going on.

Throughout all of this, as I lay out the individual case, there is a very simple theme: we must stand by those who stood by us, because if we do not, we are not worthy of being British or of the freedoms we uphold and fight for. Those who stood by us fought for those freedoms, too; they supported us in those fights, and we cannot abandon them, given the threats they now face. The fact that they are in hiding, fearful for their lives, is an absolute travesty, and the idea that we could have forgotten them should be a badge of shame for any British Government and for the British establishment.

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

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The right hon. Gentleman will know that he cannot intervene from the Front Bench in an Adjournment debate.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Consideration of Lords amendments
Tuesday 3rd June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, perhaps I could begin by referring briefly to the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), which immediately preceded this debate. As a Navy wife, she clearly fully understands the vital role of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary in supporting our armed forces, and as the son of someone who served in the Royal Navy in the second world war, I have grown up to appreciate everything that the RFA does for us. It is a wonderful organisation. I was sitting on the Front Bench throughout her speech and I wish her Bill all the best.

As the shadow Armed Forces Minister, I rise to speak as a critical friend of the Armed Forces Commissioner Bill, driven by a commitment to ensuring that it delivers real and meaningful support for the brave men and women who serve our country. Our armed forces personnel deserve a system that honours their sacrifice and guarantees fairness, accountability and transparency when concerns arise.

To recap, the Bill at its core seeks to strengthen oversight by establishing an independent Armed Forces Commissioner modelled partly on the German system, with Ofsted-like powers to access military sites and relevant information for investigations. If implemented well, it could improve the lived experience of our servicemen and women, bolstering public confidence in how their issues are handled.

A truly independent, well-resourced commissioner is a vision that I believe commands support right across the House. Saying that, where are Reform Members? This is legislation that is designed to enhance the welfare of our armed forces and their families, so why are they not here? Having checked in Hansard, I know that they were not here yesterday either. They took no part in either of the urgent questions, and no part whatsoever in the statement or the very long debate that followed it. Why? It is because Reform Members do not do defence. They are one-club golfers with one single issue, and unfortunately the welfare of our armed forces personnel and their families does not seem to be it. Their empty Benches speak volumes, and while I am at it, are there any Scottish National party Members here? Oh well, they do not take this very seriously either, do they?

[Chris McDonald (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this point. I have sat in this House on, I think, all the occasions when we have been discussing defence, and I was also sorry to note that there were no Reform Members here for either the VE Day debate or the Remembrance Day debate. Does he agree that that shows the complete dereliction of a party that aspires to govern?

[Mr Francois]

For a party that sometimes likes to wrap itself in the flag, if I can put it like that, one would think that when it came to our armed forces, Reform would be more bothered. Empirically, that is not always the case. We are not allowed to take photographs in the Chamber—that is a mortal sin, Madam Deputy Speaker; it is an interview-without-coffee offence for you or the Speaker—but if we were allowed to take such a photo, or if someone else, perhaps outside the House, wanted to take such a photo, those empty Benches would speak volumes.

At the heart of the amendments we are debating today is the issue of whistleblowing. Admittedly, this issue was not much discussed in Committee in March, as I think the Minister would testify. At that time, the two key issues that emerged were the potential adverse effects of inheritance tax changes on death-in-service payments, on which I am afraid the Government have done virtually nothing, and VAT on school fees, including for military children. All I will say on the latter is that we eagerly await the outcome of the High Court case.

That brings me to the critical issue, which was debated at some length in the other place and is now before us: the need to empower the commissioner to investigate concerns raised by whistleblowers while protecting their anonymity. In the other place, our Opposition spokesperson, Baroness Goldie, argued passionately that the commissioner must have explicit authority to investigate whistleblowing concerns within the scope of this Bill centred on welfare and general service issues, to ensure that those raising concerns—whether service personnel, their families or friends—can do so anonymously. Indeed, the Minister in his “Dear Colleague” letter dated 30 May outlined that

“Baroness Goldie’s amendments raised an important debate”.

He says today that the amendments were well intentioned, and we agree. The Government, however, contend that existing mechanisms—a confidential hotline, investigation teams and improved complaints processes—are sufficient. This is where we do not agree. They argue that our amendment is unnecessary because it does not confer additional powers on the commissioner.

[Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)]

Recently, General Sir Roly Walker, Chief of the General Staff, said that he was “ashamed” by the stories of sexual misconduct—predominately crimes committed against women in service. He also said that lots of these crimes go unreported, so lots are unknown as well as the terrible ones that are known. How can we have a truly effective independent commissioner if there is no whistleblowing function through which these crimes can be reported?

[Mr Francois]

The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful argument. I hope that if time allows, he will also make a speech.

The Government themselves acknowledge that the commissioner provides an enhanced, independent route for raising concerns. Our amendments build on that by embedding a clear, accessible and statutorily protected whistleblowing function. That simplicity is vital for ensuring that service personnel, especially those who feel most vulnerable, can come forward without fear.

The Government have further argued that whistleblowing lacks a clear legal definition. However, that claim is simply untenable. As Baroness Goldie powerfully highlighted in the other place, the Armed Forces Act 2006—section 340Q is titled “Investigation of concerns raised by whistle-blowers”—and the Police Reform Act 2002 provide clear statutory precedent for the term. Those Acts demonstrate that including whistleblowing adds tangible value to legislation, ensuring protections for those who expose wrongdoing. If whistleblowing is robust enough for the Police Reform Act and the very Act that this Bill is designed to amend, how can the Government argue that it lacks clarity or value in this context?

Let me address the Government’s contradictory stance. In Committee in the other place, we proposed a broader amendment to empower the commissioner. In the other place, the Ministry of Defence dismissed it as too wide-ranging. In the spirit of constructive compromise, which has been the general tenor of the Bill throughout, we narrowed our amendment to focus specifically on welfare and service issues. Now the Government claim that this revised amendment is too narrow and does not grant sufficient powers—too broad, then too narrow. That inconsistency displays a reluctance to engage with the substance of our proposal.

To illustrate my point, let me offer two theoretical examples to the House. First, let us consider the possibility of a whistleblower being someone who served in the British Army in Northern Ireland. This is an extremely topical issue at present, as the Minister will be aware, given the Government’s appalling remedial order to excise key parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023. I do not know whether any armed forces personnel who served, or indeed are still serving, in Northern Ireland have privately signed the parliamentary petition entitled, “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, but as of today, over 131,000 people have signed it. We therefore look forward to an early debate in Parliament on these matters. While we are of course in the hands of the Petitions Committee and not you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on this occasion, we are hopeful that the Committee might allow a debate to take place as soon as possible, and certainly prior to the summer recess. I see Labour Members nodding, so I am keen to get that into Hansard.

Secondly, let us consider the theoretical example of an officer serving as a military assistant to a Minister on the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence. What protection in law would that officer have if they became seriously concerned that a Minister they were working for was about to breach the ministerial code? Not that any Minister here today would, of course. How would an officer faced with a moral dilemma of that magnitude be permitted to act as a whistleblower to raise concerns that Ministers had acted inappropriately—something that would certainly impact their general welfare as well as the reputation of the Government they served? We will see if the Minister has anything to add before we conclude.

In summary—I know others are keen to speak—the Government have offered assurances about anonymity in the commissioner’s work and promised a communications campaign to raise awareness of the commissioner’s role. These are welcome steps, but, as I hope I have argued, they are not enough. A communications campaign is no substitute for a clear, statutory whistleblowing provision that service personnel can rely on with confidence. The other place recognised that, delivering a significant cross-party defeat to the Government last month when Conservative peers, alongside others, successfully amended the Bill to include a robust, anonymous whistleblowing route. Lords amendments 2 and 3 are not just about process; they are about rebuilding trust.

I will listen closely to the Minister’s response, but if the Government cannot move beyond their current position and continue to offer assurances without real statutory weight—I am afraid we find the amendment in lieu unconvincing—we will have no choice but to test the opinion of the House. We owe it to our service personnel to ensure their voices are heard and their concerns are properly investigated.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Defence Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Bailey]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. This Bill marks a culture change in how the Government go about interacting with our armed forces, and provides them with a sense of pride but also the necessary process to ensure that their service is protected and treated with dignity and respect.

Ultimately, whether it is reporting on ongoing cultural issues of bullying and sexual harassment, poor quality housing or equipment safety concerns, every service member should feel empowered to do so and feel assured that they can and should speak up. We have seen how the armed forces ombudsman has consistently been unable to ensure that the service complaints system does not disadvantage or discriminate. Such findings raise serious concerns, highlighting the critical need for the new and empowered Armed Forces Commissioner to regain the trust of service members. Building that trust is more important than simply enacting new legislation; it is essential that service members feel confident that their complaints will be handled anonymously and fairly.

Ultimately, fostering a culture of trust in the armed forces must take precedence over the specific language of the legislation. It is the practical implementation by the chain of command, and commitment to the fair treatment of all, that will truly make a difference. I recognise that this Government are committed to renewing our country’s contract with those who serve, and the introduction of an Armed Forces Commissioner is an important step. The success of the Armed Forces Commissioner largely depends on the effective implementation of this Bill, and on the willingness of the chain of command to work with the commissioner. However, the Government must ensure that the service complaints system tackles the deep-rooted systemic issues that persist in the armed forces, recognising that the establishment of the Armed Forces Commissioner is only one part of much-needed broader reform—not that Reform—

[Mr Francois]

They are not here!

[Mr Bailey]

Indeed they are not.

We need to restore trust and deliver meaningful change for all of those who serve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman. He and I have had many long discussions about issues that the Committee discussed when he chaired it, and I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) may have interest in this as Chair of the Committee today. I will ensure that my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office who are leading on that work have heard those remarks.

[Mr Francois]

Well, 131,000 people do not agree with what the Minister just said, clearly. If he is so confident in the Government’s case, can he say on the record that he would welcome their proposals being debated in Parliament for at least three hours before the summer recess? Presumably he is not frightened of a debate, so could he put that on the record?

[Luke Pollard]

I already had, before the right hon. Gentleman intervened—it was the last line I said before giving way to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis). I think there is a good issue that needs to be debated. This place should debate issues of concern to the British people, and it should also be the forum where we challenge and test those arguments. Indeed, the courts have already tested the legacy Act and found it to be unlawful. That is why any Government would need to look at it again—indeed, our colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are doing so—and I am happy to confirm that any Bill would be brought forward to the House for such a discussion.

I turn to the whistleblowing protections, which were raised by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) and the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford. I agree that the term “whistleblower” exists elsewhere in law. However, as I said, simply using the term in the Bill as proposed by the Opposition’s Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have no practical legal effects and would provide no protections that do not already exist or are not provided for in the Government amendment in lieu. Indeed, the Government amendment goes further than the Opposition amendments. In relation to practical effect, there is no difference between what is proposed and what is already in the Bill.

However, I entirely accept the spirit in which both Members raised that important issue. We know that there are issues in terms of culture in our armed forces. The Defence Secretary and the whole team in the Ministry of Defence have been clear that there is no place for those issues, and we are making culture change. Indeed, the fact that our senior officers have made similar statements show that from the top to the bottom of our armed forces, there is no place for any abuse, and a zero-tolerance policy must take that seriously. I am not certain that Lords amendments 2 and 3 would have much legal effect, and the Government amendment goes further.

However, I welcome this debate and the opportunity we have as a Parliament to put on record our strong cross-party support for a zero-tolerance approach. The right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford is pointing at the empty Reform Benches, which he made a strong argument about earlier. I am not a golf player—as a hockey player, I have only one stick, and I believe a few more are needed in golf.

The strong cross-party position—or the position of all parties represented here today, I should say—is that there is no place for abuse in our armed forces or a culture of intimidation. The powers contained in the Bill provide an opportunity for people to raise concerns outside the chain of command. That is what the Government’s amendment in lieu also seeks to do, recognising that, in addition to the commitments I have given to the House today, we can further strengthen the Bill. With that in mind, I commend the Bill to the House.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to.

Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 2.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 19th May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

A group of Army veterans who feel totally let down by this Government have started a parliamentary petition entitled “Protect Northern Ireland Veterans from Prosecutions”, which has so far amassed nearly 87,000 signatures in just over a week. Assuming that they successfully obtain the further 13,000 that are required, may I ask whether we can then debate, in Parliament, the question of why Labour wants, via its proposed remedial order, to make it easier for Gerry Adams to sue the British Government, while legally abandoning our brave veterans and throwing them to the wolves?

[John Healey]

I hesitate to turn this into a party political debate, but the right hon. Gentleman has just done that. He must accept that the previous Government’s woeful legacy Act did nothing to help veterans. It was found unlawful over and over again, and any incoming Government last summer would have had to deal with that legacy, which is what we are doing. I am working with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am looking to ensure that we minimise the impact of any investigations on this special and unique group of veterans, who served—with great distinction in most cases—to keep the peace, secure long-term peace and protect civilians.

[Mr Francois]

Labour could have appealed those judgments to the Supreme Court but chose not to. Labour MPs and peers have already voted for this barmy process in the Joint Committee on Human Rights on 26 February. Labour will now be expecting all its MPs to vote for it again this autumn. Given that many of the young soldiers who served on Operation Banner in Northern Ireland were recruited from “red wall” seats—from Barnsley to Blackpool, and from Bolton to Burnley—how on earth do this Government expect any Labour MP to do Gerry Adams a favour at the expense of the veterans who opposed him, and then to go back to their own seats and look their constituents, including veterans and their families, in the eye?

[John Healey]

The previous Government’s legacy Act has been found to be unlawful time and again. We have to deal with that problem, and any Government would. My concern is for the UK service personnel who served in Northern Ireland over a period of 38 years, who were there to protect the peace, protect civilian lives and prevent civil war. We support anyone who is now caught up in investigations or litigation with welfare and legal support, and I am determined that we will protect them further. I am working with the Northern Ireland Secretary as part of the plans for replacing the legacy Act arrangements, and we will ensure that we discharge our duty to the veterans who have served our country so well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 24th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Veterans who served in Northern Ireland will no doubt welcome the Veterans Minister’s decision—first suggested by the shadow Defence Secretary—that the MOD should judicially review the recent coroner’s verdict regarding the shooting of several IRA terrorists at Clonoe. Well done, I say, but why not go further to protect veterans, and drop the plans to revoke large parts of the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which would only serve to facilitate yet more inquests of this type?

[Al Carns]

The right hon. Member makes an important point. Having visited Northern Ireland just two weeks ago, I share the concerns of many veterans who have served in Northern Ireland, particularly concerns about the misinterpretation of the challenging context in which many of these inquests and inquiries are taking place. I remind Members on both sides of the House that not so long ago, in the ’70s, ’80s and ’90s, there were major explosions in every major city in the United Kingdom and assassinations across the UK. Killings were a regular event in Northern Ireland, and we sent our service personnel there to protect peace, save lives and, indeed, prevent a civil war.

[Mr Francois]

The Minister mentioned both sides of the House. Revoking the legacy Act would encourage a system of two-tier justice—one for our Army veterans and another for alleged IRA terrorists, including those given so-called letters of comfort by the Blair regime. With many of those veterans having served in proud regiments that traditionally recruited from red wall northern constituencies, why should a Labour Government assist Gerry Adams to sue the British taxpayer? How is that supporting those who served their country valiantly on Operation Banner?

[Al Carns]

Let us be absolutely clear: the right hon. Gentleman is looking at an individual who served his country on Operation Banner, so I understand the issues for all our veterans and I have been working very hard with the Northern Ireland Office to make sure that veterans’ welfare and legal services are provided, so that anyone involved in any of the investigations gets the support they require and that we can minimise the impact on what is quite a unique group of elderly veterans.

Military Co-operation with Israel

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. In accordance with parliamentary tradition, may I congratulate the new hon. Member for Leicester South (Shockat Adam) on securing this important debate? As I understand it, he is a graduate of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, so I hope he will appreciate it if I make a few points in my speech about the defence-related events that have taken place recently at some British universities.

Perhaps I can begin by making some general comments about the situation in Gaza, as raised by several hon. Members this afternoon. I was on the Front Bench in the House of Commons on Thursday 16 January 2025 when the Foreign Secretary delivered the statement to Parliament concerning the ceasefire deal. Clearly, the events last night, including the bombing of targets in Gaza, are very concerning, as several hon. Members have already highlighted.

The release of the remaining 59 hostages held by Hamas since the atrocities of 7 October 2023 is key to a sustainable end to the conflict in Gaza and to building a better future. The British Government should be directly involved in efforts to find a way through this very difficult moment. The international community must also reiterate that there can be no role for Hamas in Gaza’s future.

The Foreign Secretary argued back in January that the only viable long-term settlement of this issue is via a two-state solution, which would permit the creation of a credible Palestinian state not under Hamas control, alongside an Israel with secure borders, free from terrorist attack. That has long been my view too. We all want to see an end to the suffering in the middle east, particularly in Gaza, but I believe it is only via a two-state solution that that can ultimately be achieved.

As the hon. Member for Leicester South said, the Opposition believe it is necessary to retain a viable defence manufacturing base in the United Kingdom, both for strategic reasons and because the defence industry plays a vital role in ensuring the nation’s prosperity. In economic terms, the Aerospace, Defence and Space trade body estimates that in 2022-23 defence work contributed approximately £38.2 billion to the United Kingdom economy, with exports reaching £38.7 billion. ADS also estimates that the defence, aerospace, security and space sectors combined supported 427,500 direct jobs in the same year.

In addition, it is worth recording that the UK’s defence industry has been a key supplier of equipment for the defence of Ukraine. For example, the new light anti-tank weapon, NLAW, was used very effectively by Ukrainian troops in the defence of Kyiv in the first days of the full-scale Russian invasion in February 2022. Not only were many of those weapons manufactured in Belfast, but for years, Britain had been training Ukrainian troops, following the first invasion of Ukraine, including Crimea, in 2014.

It was a combination of British military training and British-supplied equipment that helped prevent Russia from overrunning the capital of Ukraine in the first few days of that invasion. It is probably true to say that had we not provided the Ukrainians with those NLAWs and, crucially, trained them to use them in complex anti-tank ambushes, the Russians would probably be having dinner in Kyiv this evening.

There is an inscription on the Korean war memorial in Washington, which says quite simply, “Freedom is not free.” That freedom has to be defended, and in the modern world that requires military technology. While I can understand the passion articulated by the hon. Member for Leicester South in this debate, I say to him most respectfully that he is able to make those arguments in a democratic forum and publicly criticise the Government of the day because he is fortunate to live in a parliamentary democracy. That is not something we can say of all the countries in the middle east.

Moreover, yesterday saw the death, at the age of 105, of the last remaining battle of Britain fighter pilot, Group Captain John “Paddy” Hemingway, DFC. We pay tribute to his brave service in Parliament today. Importantly, had we not had a defence industry in 1940, manufacturing Spitfires and Hurricanes, this debate would not even be taking place. We need a defence industry, and we need people at university to be allowed to freely choose to enter it without fear of intimidation.

War in Ukraine: Third Anniversary

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

The hon. Gentleman is nodding because he and I were recently cooking those pizzas close to the front. That charity has fed more than 2.5 million Ukrainians in that time, using charitable money and support from other countries, which is quite remarkable.

The charity has now turned its attention to the other huge issue of combat stress and the disaster post-war that will haunt Ukrainians, for those who will suffer internally and externally, and I will come to that in a few minutes. I am therefore proud that people from the charity are in the Gallery today to watch the debate— I know that we should not normally refer to the Gallery, but in this instance it is quite relevant. Of its own accord, the charity has launched a rehabilitation programme in Ukraine, where it is trying to set up treatment for those with serious combat stress, and then trying to multiply that out by teaching other veterans to help people through programmes all across Ukraine. We have a lot to learn from Ukraine on the scale of that and from what they are seeing at the moment, and the figures are absolutely staggering. That addresses the psychological and physical needs and the moral injuries, which are huge—on a scale that we have not seen since the second world war.

It is worth looking at a couple of pieces on this subject. Apart from combat stress, the scale of the damage is quite interesting. There are 5 million veterans in Ukraine. Some 50,000 of those veterans and young people now need prosthetics. I will repeat that figure—50,000 Ukrainians are waiting to get prosthetics. They have lost legs and arms through the mines, the shells and the shellfire. Civilians have been treated just like soldiers; they have been attacked by the Russians, who bombard hospitals. I have been to hospitals—the military hospital in Kharkiv, which I visited, was shelled regularly and deliberately. Who shells hospitals deliberately? They did.

On my last visit, I visited a wonderful children’s hospital in Kyiv. I think the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Tim Roca) may have been with me on that visit. The children’s hospital had received a direct hit from a ballistic missile. We do not get misfires on ballistic missiles; they are targeted to within a yard of their destination point. That was deliberate, and it tried to blow apart the work that the hospital was doing to help children suffering from cancer and all the ailments of war. That is the real horror of how Russia has fought this war. The very fact that it fought the war and invaded Ukraine is bad enough, but it has not stuck to all the usual rules that apply to those who fight. Civilians should be left out of it as far as possible, but Russia targets them.

I went to the prosthetics labs to see this, and we in this country have a lot to learn from the Ukrainians. They are making advances in prosthetics that we simply could not have believed was feasible. I say to the Government that we really need to be sending people over there to look at what they are doing and bring it back, because it could be applied to civilian injuries in this country. All of the work that the charity HopeFull is doing is aimed at helping those people, and I salute it for that.

There are those who say that Ukraine was somehow guilty of causing the war. I have been to Ukraine with other Members, and one need only see the sheer brutality of what has been happening on the ground to recognise how wrong such statements are. Russia’s aggression was not caused by anybody else; it was caused by Russia’s greed, its avarice, and its wrong-headed idea that it can recreate Greater Russia along the old Soviet Union lines. That is what is driving this war. That is what has led to probably over 800,000 dead and injured Russians, whose families will never see them again. Many, of course, will never see their bodies, because Russia systematically cremates them, so that there will not be a series of funerals in Russia, which could cause problems at home—that shows the cynicism of the country. We therefore need to remind everybody—we did not think that we did—that Ukraine is fighting a war of defence, not of aggression. It is Russia that has created the problem.

Because of all the things that have been going on and milling around in the air, and all the rows that have been taking place, I also want to say that we need to take a pace back. This is not about pointing fingers at anybody; it is about trying to correct some of what has been said. I have to say straight off that peace is not just the absence of war—if it is just the absence of war, it becomes a ceasefire; an intolerable ceasefire that will break down. For peace to be durable and long-lasting, we need it to contain freedom and justice. There can be no real peace without justice for those who have been fighting for their country and for peace. That has to apply to us in NATO—in America and in Europe. We need to recognise that there can be no peace unless there is justice in that peace for those who have suffered most.

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

My right hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Factually, the article 5 mutual defence clause of the Washington treaty has only ever been invoked once in its history. That was by the United States after 9/11, when President Bush ruled that America had been attacked and NATO in Europe—particularly Britain—came to its aid. Does my right hon. Friend think it is worth bearing that in mind as these very important discussions take place in Washington?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith]

Of course it is. Article 5 has been the reason that western Europe has been able to grow and settle, and America has also been able to pursue its own ends because of the mutual defence pact that exists between us. I remember that Sir Tony Blair, who was the Prime Minister at that stage, did not waste any time; he came out immediately to support America, so much so that he was able to get into the debate that took place in the Congress and was welcomed as a friend, which was quite right. The reality is that the UK was the first to push for article 5 to be invoked, and George Robertson was the head of NATO at the time and moved it for the first time. That was very much the right thing to do, and that is what underpins this.

Before I continue, I want to come back to some of the after-effects. I went to see those who are looking after, and are responsible for, prisoners of war in Kyiv. What is fascinating is that the abuses that are taking place in Russia trash the Geneva convention on support for prisoners of war. Russia spends its time moving Ukrainian prisoners of war around and does not allow the Red Cross full access at any stage. That is against the convention, and the Red Cross has complained—although I do not think it has said it loudly enough—that some Ukrainian prisoners of war are being used as human shields. Some are being used to clear mines in certain areas, which is also against the rules.

We also know that in a number of cases, after serious interrogation of those prisoners of war, which is also illegal, their families in Ukraine are being bullied and threatened. They are told that unless they start spying or carrying out damaging acts in Ukraine, their loved one—their husband, son or daughter—in the prisoner of war camp, if such a thing exists, will be tortured and dealt with. This is going on quite regularly now and has been discovered by the Ukrainians. It is illegal under the Geneva convention, and I urge the Government to speak seriously to the Red Cross about making a much more public statement about how prisoners of war are being treated, because it really is quite shocking. There is a lack of accountability on this and the Red Cross needs to do much more.

We must not underestimate the fact that there has been a change of regime in the United States, and that President Trump has made it very clear that he wants the war to end and that we have to drive to that. I think all of us in this House would support that position; we want to see an end to war. In fact, the Ukrainians want to see an end to war. Nobody wants to carry on fighting if there is a possibility of a good peace deal that, as I have said, contains justice and freedom for the Ukrainians. However, President Trump sees this as a sideshow; he says that he is more focused on China, Taiwan and other issues, and I think he wants to make savings on the United States’ spending in some of these areas, which is reasonable.

However, the problem is that, for all our support for Ukraine, the reason why this war has gone on for three years is that we, the allies, quite honestly have dragged our feet on supplying the weapons and equipment that Ukraine needed from day one. In fact, there was a period in 2023 when Russia was on the rack and having real problems. It was short of munitions, it had lost territory to the Ukrainians—certainly in the east, around Kharkiv—and that was the moment at which Ukraine might well have been able to deal properly with Russia and push it back.

Strangely enough, at that stage two things seem to have happened. First, I do not believe that the attack on Israel by Hamas was just a stand-alone item; I think that Iran, China and others had realised that Russia needed a distraction. The Americans, of course, immediately moved to support Israel—which is what they will do—and supplied arms to the Israelis. I was in the Congress around that time, looking to see whether America could get the money through. Some of the Republicans did not agree with the Bill and were blocking it. We did manage to persuade a few and they did push it forward, but my point is that they said, “The war in Israel is our war; Ukraine is your war, not ours; and we are keenly concerned about Taiwan.”

The point I made to those Republicans, which I make again now, is that, in reality, we cannot separate Taiwan from Ukraine, or in a way from Israel. My personal view is that China’s hand is in all of this, and that distraction—that moving of equipment—has meant that Russia has been able to regain its strength and reach a rapprochement with North Korea. Interestingly enough, the scale of weapons that North Korea is now supplying is breathtaking—I think that well over 5 million artillery shells have been supplied since it signed the agreement with Russia. It now has thousands of troops in Russia who are defending the Russian position, and it is planning to supply even more weapons and missiles. This is a chain of totalitarian states that is working to support each other, and we are losing on this, because we ourselves do not focus on that linkage between Iran, Russia, China and North Korea.

I give one small warning. It is something the Americans need to face, and I hope that the Government will raise it with them. It is simply this: Russia in reply is giving significant technology to the North Koreans, particularly for submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The security services here know about that, but it is a serious and significant shift. If the North Koreans have that technology, they will be able to take their nuclear weapons out to sea, which will bring all the American continent directly under target from those missiles. That will change the whole nature of the Pacific in terms of how we see geostrategic defence. It is a major change, and Russia has been giving the North Koreans that technology. It would be useful for the Government to say that this matter is not separable. Ukraine is the reason for that move. The road to Taiwan runs right through Ukraine, and we cannot and must not separate them.

I make the simple point that when we speak about the money, it is a huge amount. I know that the Chair of the Select Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North (Liam Byrne) will want to speak on this, but the reality is that we have had debates before on the huge amounts of money we have sitting here. Those are assets belonging to Russians—not just the oligarchs, but also the state. Some $300 billion of Russian assets are frozen within the G7 and the EU. Some $25 billion of Central Bank of Russia reserves are frozen in the UK alone. That is managed by Euroclear, and there is Euroclear money in Canada and other countries.

The Government said the other day that they are prepared to use the money earned from that capital for Ukraine. I argue that if they are to use the money earned from the capital, they also have a right to use the capital. We should not just freeze the capital sitting in the banks, but seize it and use it for reparations, damage repair and the work that is necessary. I think we would see a major change immediately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Wendy Morton]

He would be, actually.

[Mr Francois]

He is ever present.

[Wendy Morton]

Always present, isn’t he?

The UK’s Homes for Ukraine scheme has provided sanctuary to thousands of Ukrainians fleeing war. I pay tribute to the British families who have opened their homes, including those in my constituency, and the communities that have welcomed them with open arms. Their kindness reflects the very best of our country. I ask the Minister whether the Government would consider some sort of recognition scheme or way of thanking those families at the appropriate time for their kindness and generosity.

This week, as we mark this grim anniversary, we must ensure that those displaced by war continue to receive the support they need, both here and in Ukraine. We must remain resolute in holding Russia accountable, and our response must be unwavering, ensuring that we tackle all aspects of Russian aggression. Let’s be clear: Ukraine’s fight is our fight. If we stand by Ukraine today, we strengthen our own security for the future. If we falter, we embolden aggressors everywhere.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for initiating this timely debate, which it is an honour to close, and I am grateful for all the superb contributions from Members on both sides of the House. I am especially grateful for the powerful advocacy of Members who have just returned from Ukraine; they shared their experiences of what is going on there, and told the story of the brutality of the Russian onslaught. I have been in a bomb shelter in Kyiv as the air raid sirens sound, which is a sobering experience. It stays with you, and it must. It is a reminder of the daily courage of our Ukrainian friends as they resist Putin’s illegal invasion.

Today we have had the opportunity to reflect on the most unhappy of anniversaries. It is three years this week since Putin’s illegal full-scale invasion of Ukraine—three years in which thousands of people have lost their lives. Millions of Ukrainian families have seen their homes and communities destroyed, and Ukrainian children have been stolen by Russia. Although Russian troops continue to make small territorial gains, both nations have become deadlocked in a war of attrition. But this is a war that Putin believed he could win in three days. Thanks to the extraordinary resistance and courage of Ukraine, Russia has been humbled on the battlefield. Three days have turned into three years, and today marks 1,099 days.

[Mr Francois]

The whole House will recall that when Russian tanks were bearing down on Kyiv, President Zelensky was offered a ride out for his own personal safety. He famously replied,

“I don’t need a ride. I need ammunition.”

That was Churchillian heroism, wasn’t it?

[Luke Pollard]

All parties in this House have rightfully praised President Zelensky, the democratically elected leader of Ukraine. It is right that we continue to stand with him and his people for as long as it takes; I will come on to that in my remarks.

Putin’s resources have been drastically worn down, with over 860,000 Russian soldiers killed or wounded. The UK Government expect the grim milestone of 1 million Russian casualties to be achieved in the coming months. Nearly 4,000 main battle tanks and 8,400 armoured vehicles have been lost, and the damage and destruction of the once formidable Black sea fleet is testament to what a nation without a navy can now do with the right equipment and approach.

Let us not forget that over these three years, the UK has often been the first to step up to help Ukraine. This year, we will spend £4.5 billion on military assistance—more than ever before. To date, the UK has provided £12.8 billion of support and trained over 51,000 Ukrainian personnel with our allies as part of Operation Interflex, and we have committed to £3 billion a year in military support for as long as it takes.

We have continued to strengthen Ukraine in recent weeks. Earlier this month, we announced a new £150 million firepower package, including drones, tanks and air defence systems. On Monday, the Defence Secretary announced that we are doubling our support for Ukraine’s lifesaving defence medical services, with a £20 million uplift in funding for Project Renovator. The UK has been repairing and upgrading a military rehabilitation hospital in Ukraine, and providing training to Ukrainian surgeons, doctors and nurses, and the funding will provide a major boost for this project. It will help Ukrainian soldiers to recover from frontline service, and help those who have suffered life-changing injuries while defending Ukraine’s sovereignty.

We also heard on Monday from the Home Secretary that we are turning the tables on Putin by blocking Russian elites and oligarchs from entering the UK, and the Foreign Secretary announced the largest package of sanctions since the early days of the conflict, which aim to hit Russia’s revenue and hamper Vladimir Putin’s military machine. Standing alongside our allies, we will do what is necessary to support Ukraine, and keep Europe and Britain safe. The UK is solidifying our historic 100-year partnership with Ukraine, signed by the Prime Minister and President Zelensky in Kyiv in January; bolstering co-operation on defence and security, and more; and, importantly, signalling our confidence that in 100 years’ time there will still be a free and sovereign Ukraine.

I turn to some of the important questions that have been raised in today’s debate. On negotiations, while Russia is weakened, it remains a significant military threat, not just to Ukraine, but to the whole of Europe, and the United Kingdom. Ukraine is the frontline of freedom, and our defence and security begin on that frontline in eastern Ukraine. That is why the decisions made in negotiations over the coming weeks and months will define not only the outcome of this conflict, but the shape of European and global security for decades to come.

Everyone wants this war to end, none more than the Ukrainian people, who need a chance to rebuild their shattered nation, so the efforts by President Trump’s administration to find a solution to the crisis are welcome, but the resulting peace cannot be achieved at any price. That would be an insult to Ukraine, the armed forces of which continue to fight with enormous courage and skill, and the population of which continues to ensure unimaginable hardships. When the fighting stops, it must be followed by a strong, stable, durable, lasting peace. That means a deal that safeguards Ukraine’s sovereignty and ends Russian aggression—not a temporary ceasefire before Putin finds an excuse to return to violence, but a lasting and durable peace. An insecure peace risks more war, and a US backstop is the only way to achieve a durable and lasting peace.

The Government’s position is clear: negotiations about Ukraine cannot happen without Ukraine. At the same time, it is right that the UK and Europe play our part in securing the peace. It is our security that is being negotiated, as well as Ukraine’s. We have to work together with the US to achieve a sustained peace and protect the democracy that both the US and Europe hold so dear. That is why the Prime Minister has said that a US security guarantee in Ukraine is critical to stop Putin attacking again. It is welcome that we are now talking about negotiations, but as a Defence Minister, let me remind the House that we must not jeopardise the peace by forgetting about the war.

President Trump has long expressed his wish for Europe to step up and take more responsibility for its own security, and he is right. Indeed, we are responding to that challenge, and we are stepping up. Earlier this week, the Prime Minister announced the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the end of the cold war. We are bringing forward our Labour manifesto commitment to spending 2.5% of GDP on defence to 2027—back to a level that has not been achieved since 2010, when Labour was last in government. Ahead of his visit to Washington today, the Prime Minister also announced that, subject to our economic and fiscal conditions and aligned with our strategic and operational needs, we will set a clear ambition for defence spending to rise to 3% in the next Parliament.

Through our strategic defence review, which will be published in the spring, we are assessing the threats that Britain faces and building the defence capabilities we need to meet them. We are also cutting waste in the Ministry of Defence, and reforming procurement and recruitment, including by addressing some of the outdated medical standards that have been raised in this debate. We are prioritising investment in UK defence industries. As a result, our armed forces will once again become fit to fight a modern war, learning the lessons from Ukraine and adapting to the evolving threats we face, because we know that strengthening defence is the only way to win peace—by deterring conflict, but also by preventing defeat in it, if necessary. We are also stepping up in NATO, and encouraging all our NATO allies to spend at least 2% on defence. With Britain spending 2.5% on defence from 2027, we are also setting a new benchmark for others to follow.

Two weeks ago, I was leading a UK trade delegation in Ukraine with our Dutch and Norwegian colleagues. We talked about more joint ventures, more investment, more tech transfers of knowledge and data sharing in both directions. This week, I visited Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Denmark and the Netherlands to discuss with our close allies how we step up our collective support for Ukraine.

The United Kingdom will stand with Ukraine for as long as it takes. Slava Ukraini.

Ukraine

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Maria Eagle]

I agree—we all agree—with the hon. Gentleman that defence spending needs to increase. That must be done in the context of us setting out in the SDR precisely where we see the threats. It is important to spend money correctly and in the best possible way, and I do not think that there is any real disagreement across the Chamber about that. We will see in due course whether those challenges are met when the strategic defence review is published and we set out the path to 2.5%—

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

When?

[Maria Eagle]

In the spring.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Francois Excerpts

Monday 10th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

The Forces Pension Society has already stated that levying inheritance tax on death-in-service benefits would be wholly counter to the armed forces covenant, and we Conservatives wholly agree. The consultation by His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on that proposal closed on 22 January. On what day did the MOD submit its response to that key consultation—presumably in defence of service families’ interests—and will the Minister place a copy of that response in the Library?

[Al Carns]

May I remind the right hon. Member of my service, and of the fact that I will in no way, shape or form take this for granted? I am putting all my effort into those discussions at the moment. My officials have discussed that with the Treasury, I have discussed it with the Treasury, and we will continue to discuss such issues with the Treasury to ensure that our armed forces personnel get the deal that they deserve.

[Mr Francois]

I commend the Minister on his Distinguished Service Order—we all do—but in answer to a parliamentary question, we were told:

“The Ministry of Defence has not made a formal response to HM Revenue and Customs’ technical consultation.”

It really should have done. Who in their right mind would soldier for a Government who do not have their back, whether on school fees, lawfare or inheritance tax, or worse, do not have the back of their family if they die unmarried and in service?

Draft Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment No. 2) Rules 2024

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 General Committees

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

Good morning, Mr Efford; it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as we debate the court martial rules 2024. Incidentally, when I served as the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about a decade or so ago, I attended part of a court martial during a ministerial visit to 16 Air Assault Brigade at Merville barracks in Colchester. There is a court martial centre there, and I witnessed part of a case and had the opportunity to observe the system in action at first hand.

This SI seems to be relatively straightforward, but I have three specific questions for the Minister. First, I note that in the accompanying explanatory notes at point 2.1, it says that “Dr Andrew Murrison, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence People, and Service Families…confirms that this Explanatory Memorandum meets the required standard.” I raise that point because it suggests that the SI was approved by my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), when he served as a Minister in that capacity under the previous Government. If that is correct, perhaps this Minister can explain to the Committee how long the SI has been in gestation, as the implications are that it appears to date back quite some time.

Secondly, if I read the SI correctly, it seems to relate partly to sentencing provisions as well as the conduct of court martials. The Minister did not really say much about that in his remarks, so I wonder whether he could confirm that my understanding of that is correct.

Thirdly, if this SI is passed this morning—I rather suspect it will be—as we are debating the 2024 court martial rules, and unless I am mistaken, it is now 2025, perhaps the Minister could give us some idea of when the rules will actually come into practical effect.

Armed Forces Commissioner Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jim Allister]

I absolutely agree. It is one of the strengths of the Bill that it purports to give independence to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but that means there is all the more need for the veterans commissioner to have the same independence. All the veterans commissioner has is two staff, whom he does not choose—not that there is anything wrong with those staff; they are very good. However, they are not appointed by his office; they are hand-picked by the NIO and seconded to him. If all he has is two staff he has not chosen, it creates the wrong perception, and very often that is enough to do damage to an office.

I therefore take the opportunity of this debate to say that what we are doing for the Armed Forces Commissioner is good, but let us mirror it in what we do for our veterans.

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

The relationship between the Armed Forces Commissioner and veterans cropped up several times in Committee, and I commend new clause 2, on this subject, to the hon. and learned Gentleman. He will know that the former Northern Ireland veterans commissioner recently resigned in part because he had concerns about the constraints on his independence to carry out his role, which concerns Members on the Conservative Benches. Does that concern the hon. and learned Gentleman as well?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Allister]

If there is a failing on the Opposition Benches, then all the greater opportunity and need for the Government to make good on that. I trust that they will do that. I am not here to mediate between the two sides of this House!

[Mr Francois]

For the record, I am the shadow Veterans Minister. I am the shadow Armed Forces Minister and I do a bit of procurement on the side as well. We do take veterans very seriously on the Conservative Benches, but, as I will say later on, if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not sure the Government do.

[Jim Allister]

I will leave the two sides of the House to sort out their differences. All I am interested in is that the veterans in my community have the best opportunity and the best service. With the best will in the world, yes, we have, and have had, good veterans commissioners, but they cannot do the job so long as their hands are tied behind their backs. Let us unleash them and see a basis on which they can properly perform their functions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

A substantial contribution there. I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

On Second Reading, we began by announcing that, with regard to the Bill, our aim was to be a critical friend, and that remains our aim today, although I feel that, at one point, we may become very critical. May I begin, however, in a bipartisan spirit by pointing out that, even though we are here today to debate the extremely important matter of the welfare of our armed forces, so far at least, as pointed out by the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie), the SNP has not made a single contribution to this discussion—and neither for the record has Reform. And in both cases, that is a shame.

We debated this Bill in Committee in December, and following that I should like to speak to amendments 8 to 11, plus new clause 2, in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), who is in his place. First, though, let me commend the Chair of the Defence Committee for his speech. For the record, he is having a good run at the moment. He has had three Select Committee reports, on which he has been allowed to make statements, and the Committee has only been up and running for a few weeks, so that is a very fast start.

I shall be relatively brief in my remarks on amendment 8, because we covered this issue in some detail in Committee. Moreover, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Lincoln Jopp), as a former commanding officer of the Scots Guards, made some incisive points about the amendment, not least in relation to the interaction between the proposed Armed Forces Commissioner and the chain of command. That point was also touched on by the hon. and gallant Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey), before he was inexplicably distracted.

Suffice it to say for now, it was mentioned numerous times across all parts of the Committee that, in addition to demonstrating their independence, the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to work hard in this new role to win the trust of armed forces personnel and their families. Indeed, during the public evidence session, General Sir Andrew Gregory, the controller of SSAFA, made the very constructive suggestion that the commissioner would need to undertake a lot of visits to armed forces locations to meet both personnel and their families as part of that trust-building process. When I was an MOD Minister, I tried to make a lot of visits, too, so I can well understand the merits of the general’s suggestion. According to the Government’s timetable, the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be up and running sometime in 2026. I hope that whoever takes up the post will be minded to listen to General Gregory’s sage advice.

Turning to amendment 9, we raised pensions and death-in-service benefits in Committee. As I shall go on to explain, we were determined to raise this issue on Report, not least because it is both important and unresolved. I would like to look at one aspect of military pensions and then at death-in-service benefits specifically. It is interesting that we lack some important statistics about military veterans who have left the armed forces and then draw their service pension. For instance, we have an armed forces continuous attitude survey, or AFCAS, which is an annual exercise to tell us the attitudes of armed forces personnel on everything from housing repairs to overseas deployments. Similarly, we have a reserves continuous attitude survey, or RESCAS, to ask questions about the opinions of our much-valued reserves, and we also have a families continuous attitude survey, or FAMCAS, to seek the views of service families. However, there is no official veterans continuous attitude survey—no VETCAS, as it were—to tell us the opinions of veterans. However, a number of veterans charities gather data in this area outside the direct responsibility of the Ministry of Defence.

I recently tabled a written parliamentary question to MOD Ministers about their estimate of the number of veterans who would be affected by the recent decision to seriously restrict winter fuel allowance availability. The response that came back from the Department around a fortnight ago was, in essence, that it did not have the data. I humbly suggest that someone needs to try to collate that data as soon as possible, because I am not sure the public would be pleased to learn that many veterans—although we cannot say precisely how many—could lose their winter fuel allowance as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget.

Indeed, the Royal British Legion, which knows a thing or two about veterans, has expressed concern that the Government have

“not identified how this policy change will impact older veterans”.

A RBL spokesman recently said:

“A large number of older people have served in the UK Armed Forces, many of whom face additional heating costs due to caring responsibilities or disability”—

[Graeme Downie]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment—please do not interrupt the Royal British Legion. It says:

“The Government needs to understand the impact of their policy on veterans in order to better support those affected.”

[Graeme Downie]

I am very much enjoying the right hon. Member’s remarks from the Dispatch Box, as I always do, but he is discussing an issue that is definitely not within the scope of the Bill. Perhaps it would be better to move on to the areas where—hopefully—we have cross-party consensus.

[Mr Francois]

First, that is a matter for the Chair. Secondly, I presume that, if the amendment were not in order, it would not have been selected.

This is not Treasury questions, so I do not propose to reprise the whole debate about the winter fuel allowance; I will save hon. Members from that agony. Nevertheless, I hope the Minister has taken the point on board. Perhaps when he winds up, he could say something—anything—about how many veterans the Government think are likely to be affected by the restriction of winter fuel allowance and whether he thinks that that is the right thing to do, not least in the spirit of the armed forces covenant.

I turn to the specific matter of death-in-service benefits—a topic that, as the hon. Member for Dunfermline and Dollar will remember, we raised in Committee last month. As ably pointed out by the Forces Pension Society, which I hope the House will accept is very much the gold-standard organisation on any matter relating to armed forces pensions—the clue is in the name—a problem has arisen because of the Government’s proposed changes to inheritance tax as announced by the Chancellor in her Budget of 30 October. In essence, if a member of the armed forces who is in a long-term relationship—and perhaps even has children—but is not married dies while in service, which does not necessarily mean in active operations, the death-in-service benefit that they would normally be entitled to might, under the Government’s proposed changes, become liable for inheritance tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

When I have finished this point, yes.

The Forces Pension Society points out that the system is recoverable because the changes are subject to a consultation and are not currently due to come in until April 2027. Nevertheless, this is still a potentially worrying situation, especially for armed forces families in which parents are in a committed relationship with multiple children but have not, for whatever reason, decided to marry.

We were prepared to give the Minister the benefit of the doubt about that in Committee. Indeed, without wishing to be uncharitable, when I raised it he seemed slightly taken aback by the problem. I say that because my suspicion is that when the Treasury came up with this, the Ministry of Defence was blissfully unaware of it. I therefore suggest that MOD Ministers may not be directly at fault, but it is nevertheless their personnel and families who may be affected. Towards the conclusion of the Committee, I strongly suggested to the Armed Forces Minister that he should take this away for discussions with the Treasury, as there will be a consultation exercise on the changes before they come into force in the 2026-27 financial year, with the opportunity to change the policy and avert the problem.

[Mr Calvin Bailey]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Mr Francois]

In a moment.

Indeed, the Forces Pension Society response to the consultation, which I have here, calls on the Government to do just that. However, having given the Minister what I believe was fair notice in Committee, I raised the topic again with him at the last Defence questions on 6 January—although, in fairness, that was the day the Commons returned from Christmas recess. When I asked him what the Government had done about it, unfortunately he did not deliver a particularly convincing reply.

I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Bailey]

I thank the right hon. Member for giving way. He is citing a specific example that the Armed Forces Commissioner would have to oversee. That is not relevant to the discussion about the Bill or the amendments. Will he bring up any of the other myriad exceptional circumstances of pain and suffering for our service personnel that your leadership, under 14 years of the previous Government—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Francois]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

[Luke Akehurst]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Francois]

Just a second—I am just going to reply to this one. Forgive me, but if my remarks were not in order, we would have been told so by now. Maybe one day, after many years of distinguished service, the hon. Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey) will become a Deputy Speaker of this House, but not today.

I will continue, and then I will take the other intervention. We really need to do something about this issue. As the Forces Pension Society has pointed out, it would be totally contrary to the principles of the armed forces covenant—including the principle that armed forces personnel and their families should suffer no disadvantage as a result of their service to the Crown—if this were to go unanswered, and unmarried service widows and their families were to be punished in this way.

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst) for being patient.

[Luke Akehurst]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has raised some interesting specific policy issues that are clearly of concern to large numbers of people receiving armed forces pensions, but the Bill makes it clear—and Ministers have been very clear throughout its consideration—that the independent commissioner will decide for themselves what is a general service welfare matter, and therefore whether they want to look into the issues raised by amendments 9 and 10. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain the apparent contradiction between Opposition Members insisting in amendment 8 that they want reassurance about the independence of the commissioner, and their wanting to predetermine the very specific topics that the commissioner would investigate through amendments 9 and 10?

[Mr Francois]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. As we are on Report, we are trying to amend the Bill where we think it could be improved. Just because we have the Bill as originally produced on First Reading does not mean that it cannot be improved. If I may humbly say so, that is what Report is about.

This subject is pressing—I say this particularly to the hon. Member for North Durham—as the consultation on it closes tomorrow. The Veterans Minister replied to me on this subject—hey presto!—just this morning. I quote from his letter:

“I would seek to reassure the Right Honourable Gentleman that an existing exemption in Inheritance Tax legislation means that active members who die as a result of their service, are exempt from Inheritance Tax provisions.”

However, that only applies to those killed while on active service. It does not apply to those who are still in the service of the Crown but die of natural causes, so I am afraid that the Veterans Minister’s reply is smoke and mirrors, as it deliberately ducks the issue of those who die of natural causes while still in service with living dependants. The Government have already upset farmers and business owners through their proposed inheritance tax changes; they surely do not want to upset service families as well.

I say to the Minister that if, at what is now the third time of asking, we do not receive a satisfactory reply this afternoon, we will be strongly minded to press amendment 9 to a Division in order to hold Ministers to account and try to achieve positive change. With the consultation closing tomorrow, I will listen very carefully to what the Minister says about this issue in his response, but having given him two previous bites at the cherry, I am afraid that we may be likely to divide the House if we do not receive a satisfactory reply on behalf of those service families who may be affected.

As you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, amendment 10 covers three topics: the

“operation of the Continuity of Education Allowance”,

or CEA as it is known;

“the provision of Special Educational Needs tuition”

for the children of armed forces personnel; and

“the maintenance of service families’ accommodation.”

I will take those topics in reverse order.

On service families’ accommodation, I welcomed in Committee the recent announcement that the Government intend to, in effect, buy back service family accommodation from Annington Homes. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) also welcomes these proposals because—as Ministers, to be fair to them, have already acknowledged on the Floor of the House—while in government, he spent a great deal of time working on the scheme. He is understandably very pleased to see those efforts come to fruition, albeit under a Government of a different colour, as indeed am I. We should give credit where it is due.

Service housing was mentioned multiple times in Committee, and there seems to be little doubt but that it qualifies as a general service welfare matter. However, I have included the topic in this amendment to facilitate a brief discussion on the management and maintenance of service housing post Annington, as it were, and in the timeframe during which the new Armed Forces Commissioner is likely to be in operation. The fact that the MOD will in effect recover the freehold of its properties and be the landlord opens up exciting opportunities to change the maintenance of service family accommodation and, indeed, of single living accommodation as well.

The Minister will be aware that, when I was a Minister, I was commissioned by a former Prime Minister to write two reports: one was on armed forces recruitment, subsequently entitled “Filling the Ranks” and delivered in 2017; and as a result of the first report, a second one was on retention, entitled “Stick or Twist?” and delivered in February 2020—barely a month before the nation went into lockdown because of covid. I know that some Defence Ministers have kindly taken the time and trouble to look at those reports, so I shall not attempt to repeat their contents here, except to make one specific point on the management of SFA.

Having looked at the matter in detail, my team concluded very strongly that there must be a better way of managing service housing than the current Future Defence Infrastructure Services contract. Our alternative, which I believe now has new resonance as the homes are transferred from Annington back to the MOD, would be to form a dedicated forces housing association, the fundamental purpose of which would be

“to provide high quality, well maintained accommodation for service personnel and their families at an affordable cost.”

I think the Minister has kindly read this report, as has the Veterans Minister, who has responsibility for it, and I hope he will take that on board.

We debated special educational needs in some detail in Committee, so I do not propose to repeat all of that again, but I refer the Minister to a recent Public Accounts Committee report that was published last week on the topic.

The continuity of education allowance is a very important issue, particularly as it affects retention. The VAT increase of 20% will affect around 4,200 children of service personnel, but the MOD is increasing the CEA cap only by 12.5% for senior school students and 16.6% for junior school students, leaving their parents to make up the difference from their post-tax income. This has already come into effect from 1 January, or about three weeks ago. A joint briefing note from the Independent Schools Council and the Boarding Schools’ Association points out that the VAT will cover both tuition fees and boarding accommodation at independent boarding schools. In the worst cases, the VAT will have an adverse impact on military families using CEA, who could see their contributions increase by over 50% for senior school pupils. The Treasury’s VAT consultation said that it would

“monitor closely the impact of these policy changes on affected military and diplomatic families, with the upcoming Spending Review being the right time to consider any changes to this scheme.”

The spending review—[Interruption.] Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe we have until 6 o’clock. The spending review will not report until this summer, but military families are having to pay the increased costs now, and I have a whole range of quotes that I could read into the record.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Francois, please do not read out all the quotes, but come to your conclusion.

[Mr Francois]

I will not read them out, but the point, in terms of retention, is that this is not just an officer’s benefit. It is a very important benefit for senior non-commissioned officers. If the costs become unsustainable, there is a risk that they will leave the armed forces, and that someone whom it may have cost the Crown over £1 million to train will leave, which would very much be a false economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Northern Ireland has possibly more veterans per head of population than any other constituent part of the United Kingdom. Thousands served in the Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment alongside the British Army regiments during their tours in Northern Ireland. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in commending the new veterans commissioner, Mr David Johnstone, who has also served with distinction, and does he agree with the call of the hon. and learned Member for North Antrim (Jim Allister) today that this should be a fully funded and full-time post in Northern Ireland, given the needs of veterans in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Francois]

I wish the new veterans commissioner in Northern Ireland all the best, but suffice it to say that he has a hard act to follow.

In conclusion, we hope that we have been a critical friend to the Bill. We have pressed the Government on death-in-service benefits, and on the continuity of education allowance and its implications for retention, and if we do not receive what I yet hope may be satisfactory answers from the Minister, we might be minded to press the amendments on those issues to a Division.

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (Luke Pollard)]

I thank all Members who have spoken in this debate, and all who served on the Public Bill Committee. The Bill is a landmark step towards fulfilling this Government’s commitment to renewing the nation’s contract with those who serve by strengthening support for our armed forces, and their families, who stand behind them. Our forces face a crisis in recruitment, retention and morale that this Government inherited after 14 years of a Conservative Government; only four in 10 of our service personnel report being satisfied with service life. We need this Bill to establish a champion who can shine a light on the general service welfare matters most affecting our people, so that we in this House can understand those issues and hold this Government and future Governments to account.

I will turn to each of the amendments proposed. New clause 1 in the name of the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), seeks to bring those going through the recruitment process into the commissioner’s remit. We inherited a retention and recruitment crisis. That is why the Secretary of State laid out a number of policies to improve our recruitment policy early doors. One of them is the 10-30 policy, so ably explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr Bailey): the policy that a provisional offer will be made within 10 days of an application to the armed forces, and a provisional start date will be given within 30 days. That is a substantial step forward for those joining our armed forces. Some 84% of those who seek to join the armed forces drop out of the process because it takes too long. That is an utter scandal that this Government are determined to address. That is why the 10-30 policy was put in place, and why the Defence Secretary, the Minister for Veterans and People and I have focused on improving our retention and recruitment policies. It is also why I have to resist the hon. Lady’s amendments—because the focus of this Bill is on those who serve and their families. They have been neglected for far too long. That is why this Bill is relentlessly and unapologetically focused on providing an independent champion for them.

I understand why the hon. Lady seeks to include recruits in the scope of the Bill. That would mean 150,000 candidates every single year being added to the workforce on which the commissioner is focused. Our job as a Government is to make it easier to convert more of those applicants into military personnel, and the new lateral entry into cyber work announced by the Defence Secretary is a good example of that, but the commissioner’s focus should remain on those who serve and their families.

New clause 2, on veterans, tabled by the shadow Defence Secretary, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), is about ensuring decent engagement with veterans commissioners across the country, and with the chief commissioner of the Independent Commission for Reconciliation and Information Recovery. The manifesto commitment on which the Bill delivers is clear: it is a commitment to addressing the gap in support for military personnel. The commissioner is to highlight the issues affecting personnel today, not matters from the past.

I understand why the hon. Member tabled the new clause, and with the Government’s new role of Minister for Veterans and People, we have made clear our intention of improving the support that we offer veterans, but the commissioner’s role is to support service personnel and their families. It is also the role of the commissioner to decide independently which general service welfare matters they should investigate. That freedom and independence are vital to the role, so it is important to keep the commissioner’s freedom to decide whom to engage with. However, I reassure the hon. Member that I would expect that once the commissioner was established, their terms of reference would be established for engagement with a variety of organisations from the charitable and military charity sectors, including bodies that represent veterans, and veterans commissioners across the UK. I therefore think that the effect of what he seeks will be provided in our implementation of the Bill, so the new clause is unnecessary.

Amendment 7, on the covenant, is also well intentioned. It is important to realise that this is not a stand-alone Bill; it amends the Armed Forces Act 2006, part 16A of which deals with the covenant. The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell has sought to make the covenant apply to the Armed Forces Commissioner, but I reassure her that as this Bill will insert provisions relating to the Armed Forces Commissioner into the Armed Forces Act, they will already grip in that way. I further reassure her that later this Parliament, the Government will bring forward proposals in the Armed Forces Bill to deliver on our manifesto commitment of putting the armed forces covenant fully into law. I therefore feel that the amendment is unnecessary, but I understand and entirely appreciate why she wanted to bring it forward. I hope that all of us can lend our support to the further implementation of the armed forces covenant, so that it grips not just local but central Government.

On amendment 8, which is on independence, I hope that there is no doubt that the intention that the commissioner will act as an independent champion for our armed forces and hold this and future Governments to account is clear in the legislation, and from commitments that the Defence Secretary and I have made at the Dispatch Box. I therefore generally welcome the principle of the amendment, which we discussed in detail in Committee. The Bill already has a number of provisions to ensure that the commissioner can work and conduct their inquiries separately from Government. Those provisions include measures giving them discretion over the matters they investigate, their reporting powers, their power of entry to defence sites to carry out their functions—without notice, in some circumstances—and an obligation on the Secretary of State to co-operate with the commissioner. Many of those functions will be transferred from the Service Complaints Ombudsman. The ombudsman has highlighted in her evidence that she already feels a strong degree of independence from the Ministry of Defence on decision making. That matters, and I have echoed that in the Bill.

There are important circumstances where it is critical that the commissioner cannot act purely on their own initiative—I refer to the Secretary of State restricting access to sites when there is a valid national security or safety reason to do so. A legal power for the commissioner to act without influence or interference would make that impossible. Certainly in previous conversations, the Opposition have been keen to ensure a suitable qualification to the power to access secret and very sensitive sites, and the amendment would actually go against the argument that they have made elsewhere, so I hope that they will not press the amendment.

I thank the House for its views on amendments 5 and 6 from the Liberal Democrats on the appointment of the commissioner. It is our intention that the commissioner will be in place in 2026. The reason why we have had not only Second Reading and a full Committee stage but Report so soon into this new Government is that we want the commissioner put in place as soon as possible. Our intention to have the operation up and running in 2026 remains in place.

Let me briefly refer to the questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) on the work of the House of Commons Defence Committee. We expect robust scrutiny of any candidate that the Secretary of State puts forward for this role. We expect the relationship that the commissioner has with the Defence Committee to be above and beyond other relationships, because when the commissioner publishes a report, under the Bill, it will not be sent to the Ministry of Defence to decide what to do with it—except in the case of a national security scrub, and I am certain that every Member in this House will understand why that is. It will be sent to Parliament, including to the Defence Committee. In that respect, the relationship between the commissioner and the Defence Committee will be more enhanced than perhaps the relationship between the Service Complaints Ombudsman and the Committee.

On the robust decisions that the commissioner will make, my hon. Friend may be aware that on page 9 of the Bill, paragraph 7 of schedule 1 includes a power for the Secretary of State to appoint people to interim roles if the full appointment process has not been completed. Given the powers afforded to the Service Complaints Ombudsman, the ability of that organisation to function is greatly restricted if there is a vacancy in that office. We have learned from that, and provided a power to ensure that the work of the Armed Forces Commissioner could continue in the absence of a permanent post holder. I hope that will satisfy my hon. Friend. I am eager for the commissioner to be established, and for their office to be operational as soon as practically possible.

On amendment 3 on funding, the Bill has been designed to ensure that the commissioner has the tools, funding and support that they need, now and in future. The Secretary of State has an obligation in the Bill to give the commissioner any reasonable assistance that they request to conduct their work effectively. Should the commissioner feel that their funding—estimated to be in the region of £5 million a year—is insufficient, they can raise this in their annual report, which is one of the mechanisms for providing additional scrutiny to Parliament.

On the family definition mentioned by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, she will be aware that we have committed to setting out the definition of family members in secondary legislation, so that it can be updated if necessary. Families come in all shapes and sizes, and when trying to define “family”, it is important that we consult and get views from a wide range of people. We want to make sure that the definition in the legislation is as accurate as possible, and includes bereaved family members of service personnel, so that they can still access the commissioner. I hope that gives her reassurance.

On the inclusion of minority groups, speaking as someone who represents one of the minority communities that the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell mentioned, let me be clear that we want the commissioner to engage with a whole range of different communities in our armed forces family. It is important that they do. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Luke Akehurst), a non-exhaustive list that left out people with disabilities would be a concern, because I think the hon. Lady’s intention is to focus on minorities. We would expect the commissioner to be able to make a decision themselves in order to deliver that engagement.