Points of Order
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle
Mr Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady has raised a point of order with me, but she cannot go into a full speech. I have got the message and I am very clear on the message. I have no responsibility for the quality of answers to written parliamentary questions, but I know—this is key—that the Procedure Committee takes a close interest in the matter. She might therefore like to raise it with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Cat Smith), who Chairs the Committee.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
Let me finish with this one, please. Raising the matter with the Procedure Committee would be a good way to take this forward.
Mr Francois
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. We now know undoubtedly that The Sunday Times was given access to the White Paper, because people could read most of it in The Sunday Times the day before Parliament saw it, although crucially the article did not mention up to 12 new SSNs—nuclear-powered attack submarines. I will explain in a quick second why that is important, Mr Speaker.
At 10.30 on the Monday morning, journalists were invited to a reading room in Horse Guards Parade, where they were given access to the White Paper. Section 8.11 of the “Ministerial Code” clearly states:
“where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.”
Thus, that was clearly a breach of the code.
However, there was an earlier sitting in the reading room, at 8 am, when we know the White Paper was also seen by members of defence companies, trade associations, academics, think-tanks and trade unionists, at the same time that the markets were opening. Mr Speaker, there is a possibility of insider trading. The share price of Babcock, which would benefit from maintaining SSNs, leapt very early on after 8 am—
Mr Speaker
No, no, no. Please do not take advantage of the Chair. Points of order are meant to be a little bit more punchy—they are not full-blown statements. I take very seriously the points that have been made, and that is why I raised them myself at the time. I am very grateful to the right hon. Member for reiterating my words.
I have no responsibility for the ministerial code. If the House so wishes, that needs to change, because unfortunately it makes a nonsense. There is a ministerial code, but it is not being kept to as we would expect. It is for this House to change the ministerial code if it wishes to do so, or I would be more than happy for the Government to change it if they cannot accept it, because we cannot have this continual breaking of the ministerial code. It is appalling and it is unacceptable.
This is not a political point. In the end, I am here to uphold the rights of Back Benchers. Back Benchers should hear things first—if documents are to be given out, they should be given to MPs. I am here to support MPs, but unfortunately in this particular area I do not have the power to do so. I wish I had, because things would be different.
Business of the House
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May we have a debate in Government time on the three flagrant breaches of the ministerial code committed by the Defence Secretary on Monday? For the record, the Opposition received their copy of the strategic defence review mid-afternoon, the media received it at 10.30 am, and defence companies received it at 8 o’clock in the morning. Within minutes, there were share price spikes in a number of defence stocks.
Section 8.11 of the “Ministerial Code” clearly states:
“where commercially sensitive material is involved, no copies should be made available to the media before publication.”
Mr Speaker
I gently say to the right hon. Gentleman that I understand he wants clarification, but a business question from a Front-Bench spokesperson on his own subject is not normally accepted.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle(1 month, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle(3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle(4 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle(5 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
During debates on the Bill in Committee I raised the worrying issue that under the Treasury’s proposed inheritance tax changes, service personnel who are unmarried but in a long-term relationship could have their partner’s service benefit taxed should they die while in service. The Forces Pension Society has rightly highlighted that that would be totally contrary to the spirit of the armed forces covenant. Has the Minister yet raised this with the Treasury, as we strongly suggested last month he should, and if so what progress has been made?
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On defence industrial strategy, the new amphibious multi-role support ships are several years away—a point the Armed Forces Minister obviously appreciated when, in opposition last January, he wrote to his local paper to say that scrapping HMS Albion and Bulwark would be bad for our national security, for the Royal Navy and for Devonport. When the Defence Committee looked at this issue a few years ago, it firmly concluded that the decision would be “militarily illiterate”, yet today the Ministry of Defence is all for it. Even if the Minister for Defence Procurement and Industry does not agree with the Defence Committee, does she at least agree with the Armed Forces Minister that these vital ships should be retained?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle(7 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—it is nice to be back. On recruitment, many who join the armed forces began their military journey as cadets. The previous Conservative Government’s cadet expansion programme successfully established hundreds of new cadet units in state schools. However, this Labour Government have recently withdrawn a critical £1 million-plus grant that supports cadet instructors in many of the very same state schools. Will the Government as a whole urgently review that very unwelcome decision?
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Prime Minister, you mentioned veterans a few minutes ago. As we approach remembrance time, one group of veterans we all owe a great debt to are those who served during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Hundreds were killed and thousands were maimed, by both republican and so-called loyalist bombs. Many of those veterans are now in the autumn of their lives, yet you are proposing to repeal the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which was designed in part to protect them from endless investigation and reinvestigation. Why, sir, are you throwing those veterans to the wolves to pander to Sinn Féin?
Mr Speaker
Order. The right hon. Member has been here for a long time—“you” is not me, and I do not want it to be me.
Points of Order
Debate between Mark Francois and Lindsay Hoyle(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Speaker
Order. We both know that that is not a point of order. You have put on the record the point you were—[Interruption.] No, it is a continuation of questions that finished quite a long time ago. You have made the point that you were not able to get the question in, and we will leave it at that. I am not opening up that debate at this stage.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister paid tribute to Sir David Amess at questions—we all still miss him—and to General Sir Mike Jackson, who served a number of tours in Northern Ireland, as did hundreds of thousands of British servicemen upholding the rule of law. Hundreds were killed and thousands were maimed by bombs. We brought in the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023 to stop them being endlessly investigated and reinvestigated at the hands of Sinn Féin. Labour said that it would repeal it, so the whole cycle will begin again. Mr Speaker, have you been given any indication of when the Government will come to the House, make a statement and explain their reasoning for putting all those vulnerable servicemen at risk yet again?
Mr Speaker
The right hon. Member has put his point on the record. I have had no indication of a statement.