Irish Republican Alleged Incitement

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2025 Commons Chamber

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the alleged incitement to murder Members of Parliament by the Irish republican group Kneecap.

[The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his urgent question. Let us never forget that we lost two Members of this House, Jo Cox and Sir David Amess, in tragic circumstances. Both Jo and Sir David were passionate advocates for their constituents, and they cared deeply about a range of issues and embodied the finest democratic qualities, traditions and values of this House. I know that the thoughts of the whole House will be with their families today and every day.

I want to reiterate the Home Secretary’s words and fully condemn the comments that have been made. Such remarks are dangerous and irresponsible, and this Government utterly reject the views expressed by this group. Let me be crystal clear: political intimidation and abuse have no place in our society.

I know that the House will want immediate answers on this issue, but as the Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention said yesterday, in relation to the urgent question on the Headingley case, the desire for immediate answers is often constrained by the obligation that we have, as Ministers and as Members of this House, not to do or say anything that would interfere in what is a live police investigation.

As Members know, the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences are matters for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine, and they are operationally independent of the Government. It is important that the police are allowed to carry out their ongoing investigations free from political interference.

However, for the benefit of the House, let me recap what the Metropolitan police have themselves said about these reports. They said:

“We have been made aware of the video and it has been referred to the counter-terrorism internet referral unit for assessment and to determine whether any further police investigation may be required.”

Although I will not comment further on this specific case, the safety and security of Members of this House, and all those who serve in elected office, is an issue to which I attach the utmost seriousness, as does the Home Secretary and as do you, Mr Speaker.

Elected representatives at all levels and across all parties must be able to perform their duties safely and without fear, and, through the defending democracy taskforce, we are driving a whole-of-government effort to ensure that that is the case. The taskforce has recently agreed a programme of work to tackle the harassment and intimidation of elected Members. The taskforce is also supporting the Speaker’s Conference that is addressing these issues.

Those of us who attend this place are all too aware of the devastating consequences of violence against our colleagues and friends. We may not always agree, but if there is one universal truth to which we would all subscribe it is surely that our politics is better when it is conducted respectfully and safely. I hope and trust that that will have the support of Members right across the House.

The Home Secretary and I condemn the comments that have been made and we will work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of all those who step forward to serve in public office.

[Mr Francois]

Two MPs—Jo Cox and Sir David Amess—have been murdered within the past decade, in the line of duty while meeting their constituents. Frankly, that could have been any of us. I should like to ask the Home Secretary, albeit in absentia, four specific questions.

First, how long is this counter-terrorist police inquiry likely to take? The video plainly speaks for itself. How could the words “Kill your local MP” possibly have been taken out of context?

Secondly, we now know that Kneecap applied for a £14,000 Government grant, during the previous Parliament, which was vetoed, quite rightly, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). Kneecap then appealed against this decision as “discriminatory”. The incoming Labour Government concluded that fighting the appeal would be

“not in the public interest.”

Can the Home Secretary tell the House which Government Minister approved that absurd decision to effectively surrender to Kneecap over this, and why?

Thirdly, Kneecap are still booked to appear at Glastonbury—the organisers of which, incidentally, received some £1.5 million of taxpayer subsidy during the covid pandemic. Does the Home Secretary agree that it would be unconscionable for Kneecap to appear, at least while the police inquiry is under way? Kneecap should surely be barred today. To be crystal clear, do the Government agree with that—yes or no?

Finally, Kneecap have now offered a “crocodile tears” apology to Katie Amess. Have that family not been through enough already? So, as it is within her gift, will the Home Secretary now seriously reconsider their request to examine potential failures by Prevent that may have contributed to David’s death, via the auspices of the Southport inquiry? Is that not the least we can do? Thank you, Mr Speaker.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am genuinely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this matter, because it provides us with an opportunity to discuss these issues, which is something I have been keen to do for some time. Let me gently say to him that he mentioned the name of the band on a number of occasions. I deliberately did not do so, and I will not do so. It is for right hon. and hon. Members to choose what language they use, but my advice is not to give the band or its members any further publicity by naming them. I will not be doing so and I suggest that other Members do not either.

The right hon. Member spoke about the Home Secretary. Let me tell him what she said about this. She said that this is a “total disgrace”. She said:

“It’s dangerous and irresponsible to say these sorts of things, and I hope that everybody involved—not just the band but also those involved surrounding them and those involved in events—also take some responsibility on this and looks very seriously at the consequences of these kinds of remarks, not just what’s been said.”

Let me also say to the right hon. Gentleman that I chair the defending democracy taskforce. Clearly, the Home Secretary has overall responsibility, but the judgment was that I would be here as the person who chairs the taskforce, but we both, of course, take the matter incredibly seriously. He asked about the length of the investigation. As I know he will understand, that is a matter not for Ministers but for the Metropolitan police. He also asked about the funding of the group.

Let me say again, gently and respectfully, that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the case relating to the group’s funding. I did not raise this point proactively; I refer to it now only in response to his specific question. The truth of the matter is that we inherited this situation from the previous Government. We inherited the scheme and we inherited this situation. After approving the grant, the previous Government then U-turned on it being given. They did not take proper legal advice and ended up in a costly legal battle that they lost. This Government have a duty to bring that situation to an end and protect taxpayers’ money. We are deeply concerned about all the things that made up this case. As the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport said yesterday, that is precisely why we are rightly taking the opportunity to review the scheme now.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about Glastonbury. It is for the organisers of the festival to decide who appears.

[Mr Francois]

Cop out!

[Dan Jarvis]

If the right hon. Gentleman can be patient, he will hear the entirety of my response. It is not for Government Ministers to say who is going to appear at Glastonbury; it is for the organisers of the festival. As I have said, there is a live police investigation ongoing, so the Government urge the organisers of Glastonbury to think very carefully about who is invited to perform there later this year.

For reasons that I completely understand and appreciate, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the Amess family. Our thoughts and prayers continue to be with the Amess family, as they are with the family of Jo Cox. The House will be aware, because I have spoken about it previously, that we have published the Prevent learning review to ensure that there is public scrutiny and transparency over the perpetrator’s dealings with Prevent. We will also publish the findings from Lord Anderson’s review.

The Home Secretary and I want to ensure that every avenue has been explored. That is why we will appoint a senior figure to scrutinise all of the previous reviews that have taken place, to see whether any questions still need to be answered or any issues still need to be addressed. We will act as necessary if any such gaps are identified as a result of that process.

Prevent: Learning Review

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his words. Let me reiterate what he and the shadow Home Secretary said about Anna Firth. We are grateful for her support and the contribution that she continues to make.

With your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend has just provided me with an opportunity to offer one further personal recollection of Sir David. He responded to my maiden speech in 2011, which I made from the Opposition Benches. It was, by any metric, a pretty average maiden speech, but the warmth of his response has stayed with me forever. From that point, every time we saw each other we would reminisce about how overly generous he had been about it. For that, and for many other reasons, I will always be incredibly grateful to David Amess.

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

I thank the Minister for his generous tribute to Sir David. Southend is now a city, so we comfort ourselves that on that, at least, he won in the end. We all miss him, not least myself. I welcome what the Minister said about an inquiry into whether Essex police could have done more to protect him. I welcome the Speaker’s Conference on MPs’ security. The Minister knows that I have great regard for him, but I regret to hear that Prevent may have acted sub-optimally—that is an appalling Whitehall euphemism for errors that may have contributed to the death of an MP in the line of duty. In addition to those possible failures, the murderer in Southport had multiple interactions with Prevent, yet still those three innocent children were tragically murdered. We have spent a fortune on Prevent, but it seems that, ultimately, it does not do what it says on the tin.

I understand that the Amess family, rightfully seeking answers, have asked if the errors that may have occurred in Sir David’s case, and that almost certainly occurred in Southport, could be looked into in more detail under the auspices of the Southport inquiry. That seems a reasonable request, given the exceptional circumstances. Will the Minister and the Home Secretary, who rightly is in her place beside him, consider that request very seriously, and hopefully grant it?

[Dan Jarvis]

It may be hard for newer Members to understand how difficult this is for more experienced Members, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who spent so many years on these green Benches, working so closely with a much beloved colleague. I see that the right hon. Gentleman is sitting below another shield. Members across the House understand the pain experienced with the loss of our colleagues, and our shared determination to work together and with others to do everything we can to ensure that those who serve in this House have the support and the protections that they need and deserve.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly took the opportunity to reference one of Sir David’s many achievements: the city status of Southend. That certainly would not have happened without Sir David’s campaigning over many years. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for acknowledging the work that will take place with Essex police. I understand the important concerns that he has raised about Prevent. The terms of reference of the Southport inquiry rightly are still a matter of discussion between the Home Secretary, the Home Office and the families in that particular case, so I am unable to make a judgment about that at this point. What I can do is not only reiterate the point that I have already made, but offer a further commitment from the Home Secretary and me to look very carefully at this, to continue the conversation with the late Sir David’s family and other Members, and to work out the best mechanism to provide them and all Members of this House with the answers that they both want and deserve.

UK-Rwanda Partnership

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 6th December 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Cleverly]

That has been confirmed. I regularly speak to Ministers in the Department but, ultimately, these questions should be about the Bill rather than individual Members.

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

If the Immigration Minister, who is a good man, has resigned over this Bill, that is deeply worrying. I want to hear the verdict of the star chamber chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) but, while we await that verdict, the Home Secretary pointedly ducked several questions about individual appeals. Every person we would seek to send to Rwanda is an individual. If they can continue to appeal and appeal in order to delay being put on a flight, what is the point of the Bill?

[James Cleverly]

The point is that all legal and judicial processes have an appeal process. By extension of my right hon. Friend’s argument, the point that there is an appeal process in UK criminal law, for example, would mean that no one ever goes to prison, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Justice has just been discussing prison places.

The point is that an appeal process is an important part of any legal process. It will not preclude people from being sent to Rwanda. This is a robust scheme that strengthens our position and ensures that the decisions we make in this House—that he, I and others make in this House—define the UK’s immigration policy, not decisions made by unelected people elsewhere.

Migration and Economic Development Partnership

Mark Francois Excerpts

Thursday 29th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

It is pretty rich of the hon. Lady to complain about our plans, given that her party has put forward a series of botched policies, flip-flops, U-turns and changes on the economy and energy prices. Moreover, when it comes to stopping the boats and illegal migration, Labour Members have no plan. They do not speak for the British people; they speak for their vested interests. They would rather campaign to stop the deportation of foreign criminals and vote against every measure we have put forward to reform our asylum system than be on the side of the British people and stop the boats.

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

We all know that the Home Secretary’s instincts on this are right. However, the wider Government promised to stop the boats and clearly we have not stopped them yet, so I fully support her decision to seek leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, as I think will most people in this country. Given legal procedural issues and judicial recesses, it could take months for the case to reach the Supreme Court, let alone for a judgment to be handed down. In the meantime, the boats will keep coming, now probably all summer.

May I ask the Home Secretary two questions? First, with her extensive legal experience, can anything be practicably done to expedite the Supreme Court’s decision in this case? Secondly, was my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) right that the only way we will ultimately solve the problem is to achieve a derogation from the ECHR?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before the Home Secretary answers those two questions, I have been very lenient to the right hon. Gentleman but that does not set a precedent. Each Member who asks a question gets one question. On this occasion I will allow the Home Secretary to answer both questions, but I am not creating a precedent. One question, and we do not need an opening preamble either—just a question.

Machetes: Consultation

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 18th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Chris Philp]

I certainly admire the shadow Minister’s sense of humour. Let me pick up some of the points she made. She asked about police numbers. As I have said, the figures that will be released on the 26th will show, I am confident, that we have more police officers than at any time in our country’s history, including more police officers than at any point in the time in office of the last Labour Government.

The shadow Minister asked about crime figures. I will repeat the point I made before: only one dataset is considered reliable by the Office for National Statistics and that is the crime survey of England and Wales. It shows that, since 2010, violent offending has dropped by 38%, criminal damage is down 62%, burglary is down 56%, robbery is down 55% and overall crime, excluding fraud and computer misuse, is down 30%. When will the shadow Home Secretary, who was a Minister in that Government, apologise for the fact that crime was double the level it is now under this Government?

The shadow Minister asked about the changes we are making today. This Government have been progressively tightening the legislation over the years, including the Offensive Weapons Act 2019. We have been continuously reviewing that legislation. Where we find opportunities to make it stronger and more effective in response to Members of the House and the police, we will take those opportunities, and that is what we are now doing. If there are some specific comments on the length of knives, that is exactly what the consultation is designed to capture. I strongly urge the shadow Minister to respond to the consultation. I look forward to receiving the extremely considered and detailed submission that she is no doubt working on already.

Finally, in relation to recent trends in the data, the most reliable source of information on serious violence is hospital admissions where the victim has received a knife wound. Over the past three years, for victims under the age of 25, those have reduced by 24%. There is a lot more to do, but the direction of travel is clearly right and this Government are committed to going even further.

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

If I can make a non-partisan point for a moment, the whole House knows that our late friend and colleague Sir David Amess was murdered with a bladed weapon, so I would like to pay tribute to his proactive successor, my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth), for campaigning on this issue, evidently with some success. Can the Minister assure us that, on so-called zombie knives—many of which are now purchased online and some of which, I understand, we can only ban because of what is written on them, rather than what they can do—this new legislation will materially restrict the ability, and ideally end it, for people to buy those weapons online, either domestically or from abroad?

[Chris Philp]

My right hon. Friend makes a very good point and is right to remind the House of our much-loved former colleague Sir David’s tragic death at the hands of a knife-wielding attacker. He asks two questions. First, yes, I can confirm that zombie knives that do not have any writing on them will be covered by the proposals. Sub-paragraph (iii) in section 47(2) of the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 has a requirement that there are threatening words on the blade, and we have reached the conclusion that that is unduly restrictive. It is not something that anyone, including the Opposition, complained about at the time the Bill passed, but on further reflection and following input from colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, we think that that change needs to be made, and I can confirm that it will be.

In relation to my right hon. Friend’s question, and the shadow Minister’s question, about sales online, people directly selling online prohibited items is obviously just straight-up illegal. In relation to selling on marketplaces, following discussions with colleagues in the new Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, I have been assured that the Online Safety Bill will cover online marketplaces when it comes to selling items like this, so with the passage of the Online Safety Bill, the kind of provisions he is asking for will apply.

Illegal Migration Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Suella Braverman]

It is irresponsible to suggest that someone who wants to control our borders and who says that the numbers are out of control and that we need a firm but compassionate line on migration is racist. That is irresponsible, it is wrong, and it should not be put forward.

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

I warmly welcome the principle of the Bill, not least because the whole House knows that the people traffickers are immoral and utterly heartless, but the elephant in the room, as has already been alluded to, is the ECHR. Unless we can somehow face it down, we will remain tied up in legal knots in our own domestic courts and ultimately in Strasbourg. Can the Home Secretary assure the House that when we see the Bill, it will contain specific measures to do that, so that the Bill will achieve its purpose?

[Suella Braverman]

My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the legal complexity of this issue. There will be measures relating to rule 39 orders, and I refer him to the disapplication of section 3 of the Human Rights Act. That sends a message to the judiciary about how Parliament intends the Bill, when it becomes an Act of Parliament, to be interpreted in the courts.

Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill

Mark Francois Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading - Day 1
Monday 15th March 2021 Commons Chamber

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

I want to concentrate on the provisions of part 4 of the Bill, which deal with the long-standing problem of unauthorised encampments. Part 4 effectively upgrades acts of deliberate trespass from a civil to a criminal offence. The campaign of those of us who have argued for that change for a number of years now was based on a similar change in the law in the Republic of Ireland several years ago; hence it has often been referred to succinctly as the Irish option. The move has become necessary because of persistent illegal incursions by some individuals, including some members of the travelling community, that have become an increasing problem in many parts of the country, including my home county of Essex, in recent years.

For the record, many Travellers are perfectly law-abiding and have good relations with the settled community. Unfortunately, however, some others are not, and there have been repeated examples of antisocial behaviour and even criminal damage resulting from illegal encampments in recent years in places as varied as village greens, sports grounds and industrial estates. As a civil offence, it has often necessitated local authorities having to go to court, at public expense, to have such incursions moved on, as well as sometimes being involved in the further expense of clean-up operations once illegal sites have been vacated.

Under this Bill, which I am proud to say fulfils a 2019 Conservative manifesto commitment, police officers will be given powers to challenge illegal encampments of one vehicle or more. If people wilfully refuse to move on, they can be arrested with a maximum sentence of three months’ imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500, or both. Crucially, offenders can also have their property, including their vehicle or vehicles, impounded by the police.

I can assure the House that this important change in the law has proved very popular with my constituents, and I have received many messages of support since it was confirmed last week. In addition, it has also proved popular with the Essex farming community. The county adviser of the National Farmers Union, Dr Jake Richards, sent me this brief message:

“Dear Mr Francois, I am writing to thank you on behalf of the NFU and the farmers in your constituency for your support and for the Commitment from fellow Essex MP, Rt Hon Priti Patel, on Monday when she announced that changes to the law were being brought forward as part of a new major criminal justice bill to be introduced to Parliament imminently. The changes proposed will be most welcome by our Members.”

Our industrious Essex police, fire and crime commissioner, Mr Roger Hirst, also warmly welcomed adding these powers to the statute book.

In summary, I hope and believe that these tough new powers will act as a genuine deterrent to illegal encampments in future and should thus lead to improved relations between the travelling and settled communities. I congratulate Ministers, and the Home Secretary in particular, on having the courage to introduce them and, in so doing, fulfilling part of the manifesto on which we were elected in the first place.

Death of PC Yvonne Fletcher

Mark Francois Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Commons Chamber

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

On 17 April 1984, Woman Police Constable Yvonne Fletcher of the Metropolitan police was fatally wounded by a gunman. He was hiding in the Libyan People’s Bureau, which was in St James’s Square in London. In this debate, I want to remember her by talking about her life and her tragic death, as well as making a request that she, even now, be considered for a posthumous gallantry award. I do not intend to speculate about who was responsible for pulling the trigger, as I believe there is now very little chance of bringing the murderers to justice, much as I would dearly like to see that happen.

Yvonne Fletcher was born on 15 June 1958. Her parents, Michael and Queenie Fletcher, lived in Semley, Wiltshire. Yvonne was the oldest of four daughters, and from the age of three, she told her parents that she wanted to join the police. It was her primary ambition in life. By the time she was 18 and a half, she tried, but she was 1½ inches too short to reach the height required; she needed to be 5 feet 4 inches, and she was 5 feet 2½ inches. Disappointedly, she applied for any police service that she could get into, which included the Royal Hong Kong police. Yvonne’s persistence paid off, and the Metropolitan police waived the height requirement in her case. She must have been very special for them to do that.

After training and a two-year probationary period, she was confirmed as a regular woman police constable. After being given her warrant, she spent most of her police service working from Bow Street police station. It was there that she became engaged to another police officer, Police Constable Michael Liddle. For some six years, Yvonne was based at Bow Street, where she was hugely respected and liked by her fellow officers. I gather she was called “Super Fletch”, and that was because, first, they liked her, and secondly, she was very good at her job.

On 17 April 1984, Yvonne was asked to reinforce a police operation monitoring a demonstration of mainly Libyan students who were protesting about the regime of Colonel Gaddafi. The main part of that demonstration was occurring in St James’s Square. A detachment of about 30 police officers was sent to St James’s Square, including Yvonne Fletcher, her fiancé Michael Liddle, and members of the police diplomatic protection group. The anti-Gaddafi protesters consisted of about 75 people, and their demonstration started at about 10 am. Many of the demonstrators were wearing masks to make sure that they could not be identified by photographers standing at the windows of the Libyan People’s Bureau. Gaddafi’s regime had a habit of murdering opponents, wherever they were in the world, so this precaution was very sensible.

The police had erected barriers. The demonstrators were behind them, and Yvonne and her colleagues were in front. The demonstrators carried anti-Gaddafi banners and chanted slogans against the dictator. I think that there was actually a pro-Gaddafi protest there as well. Suddenly, at 18 minutes past 10, automatic gunfire was discharged from two windows of the People’s Bureau. It was presumably directed at the anti-Gaddafi demonstration, but a round hit Yvonne Fletcher. I suspect that the gunman simply sprayed the area and did so without really looking out of the window, with their hands up so that they could not be identified. The bullet entered Yvonne’s back and tore through her body. She collapsed on the road. Several other people were wounded, although none was as badly hurt as Yvonne.

The police shepherded the demonstrators into Charles II Street, while several of Yvonne’s police colleagues tried to save her. I quote from an email that I received from PC John Murray, who was with her at the time. Forgive me for quoting directly, but he did email me last week. He said:

“Yvonne was shot from the bureau, and fell to the ground. I went over to her. I was only feet from her and cradled her head. The square quickly emptied, leaving three of us with Yvonne. We carried her into a nearby street and I went with her in the ambulance to hospital. In the ambulance there were other Libyan students who were bleeding from their wounds, but she seemed more concerned about them. ‘Keep safe. Be calm,’ she said.”

What incredible courage and conduct for a young woman of 24 or 25. What an example—to the Metropolitan police themselves and to every one of us. I am in awe of that, and I suspect that anyone listening is too.

At 10.40 am, Yvonne had been taken to Westminster Hospital. For some of the time going there, she was conscious but in huge pain. As she was being transferred from the ambulance on to the trolley in the hospital, the spent bullet that had travelled through her body fell out of her uniform. Yvonne was taken straight into the operating theatre, but it was too late; she died on the operating table at about midday.

Yvonne’s hat and four other officers’ helmets were left lying in the square during the ensuing siege of the bureau. At the time, I was a staff officer in the Ministry of Defence. In the days that followed, I remember—I suspect others do too—the images of the hats and helmets in St James’s Square being shown repeatedly in the media, on the television and in newspapers.

Ten days later, on 27 April, a police officer called Clive Mabry, acting against specific orders, ran in and retrieved Yvonne’s hat from in front of the bureau. Getting that hat back was hugely symbolic and doing that meant one heck of a lot to the policemen and policewomen. Typically for any uniformed organisation—I have been in one myself—Mabry was admonished, but praised too. He was fined seven days’ pay by the police for his indiscipline, as well as being given the freedom of the City of London for doing the right thing. The hat was placed on Yvonne’s coffin for her funeral, which took place later the same day in Salisbury Cathedral. Six hundred policemen attended that funeral.

Yvonne’s conduct exemplified the very highest standards of the Metropolitan police service. When she was mortally wounded, she seemed to care more about others who were with her in the ambulance than herself. What courage she displayed by saying to those trying to look after her that they should keep safe and stay calm. That was within minutes of her death. She did that when she must have been in the gravest of agony.

From my own experience of writing citations, may I suggest that a posthumous award of the George Medal could be considered, despite the passage of years, and because of Yvonne’s calm, courageous demeanour while she was grievously wounded, and dying? As so many of us remember, Police Constable Keith Palmer was murdered near here, in New Palace Yard, on 22 March 2017. He was awarded the George Medal posthumously. I believe there should be such an award for Yvonne Fletcher, who showed valour of a similar nature to that of Keith. Keith tried to stop the madman, although he was unarmed; it cost him his life. Yvonne was saying things and showing, in the way she behaved, how courageous she was.

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

In view of my right hon. Friend’s elevation to the Privy Council, on which I congratulate him, I believe his recommendation carries even more weight. Some years ago, I was Veterans Minister at the Ministry of Defence. I was never a Minister in the Home Office; nevertheless, I pay tribute to Keith Palmer, and also to Yvonne Fletcher. For what it is worth, may I wholeheartedly endorse my right hon. Friend’s recommendation that her valour and conduct is wholly worthy of the award of the George Medal?

[Bob Stewart]

Thank you, on behalf of everyone who is campaigning. The more of us who say it, the better.

Points of Order

Mark Francois Excerpts

Wednesday 30th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Everybody should be responsible in his or her use of language. I can say only, however, that although I am not unmindful of the Minister’s point, no breach of order has taken place. We will leave it there. He has made his point with some force, and I do not think there is any need for me to add to it.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I have got a feeling that the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) thinks that the House needs to hear him. Therefore, we will have a point of order from Mr Mark Francois.

[Mr Francois]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you notice of this, but it is a very straightforward matter. I had a meeting earlier this month with Mr Andrew Haines, the chief executive of Network Rail, to discuss the delay in completing engineering works on the Southend Victoria to Liverpool Street line, which is vexing my constituents greatly. Network Rail representatives briefed me on a new plan to shorten the works, which was welcome. I then went on the media and explained what would happen in good faith. The following Monday, Network Rail contacted me and said, “I’m terribly sorry. We got that slightly wrong,” and then changed what they had offered. I think that was a genuine mistake, but they promised to write to me by the end of the month to clarify the matter. There are two days to go, and no letter has been received. Do you agree that if they give a guarantee like that, Mr Speaker, it would be a good idea to keep it?

[Mr Speaker]

It would be a very good idea to keep it as a matter of principle. Moreover, as the right hon. Gentleman has aired the issue in the Chamber, that seems to me to constitute an additional reason why it would be politic or prudent for that letter of response to be provided.

The right hon. Gentleman probably recalls that the late Sir Gerald Kaufman was much given to tabling questions about when he would receive a reply to a letter he had sent or a question he had posed. He was wont to observe that, shortly after tabling said question, the reply—to a letter or question from some considerable period earlier—seemed miraculously and speedily to arrive.

If that chief executive were here, I would say to him—he is not, so I cannot, but I will say it indirectly—that I remember what a persistent fellow the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford was in 1986, when he stood against me in a student election. He was a very dedicated campaigner, although he was unsuccessful on that occasion. It would be altogether wiser for the chief executive to recognise that of one thing he can be certain: the right hon. Gentleman will not go away. He will just become ever more demanding, and so that letter should arrive sooner rather than later.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Mark Francois Excerpts

Friday 11th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

By focusing on high-skilled migration and not low-skilled migration, this package is perfectly capable of reducing immigration. Indeed, I believe it will reduce it to much lower, much more sustainable levels.

Another very important aspect of our future immigration system is that it is designed to meet the needs of the entire United Kingdom. Immigration is a reserved matter, but it is important that we take into account the particular circumstances of different parts of the UK. That is why we will continue with our shortage occupation list policy to meet the needs of Scotland, and we will also consider similar measures for Wales. In recognition of Northern Ireland’s position as the only part of the UK that will have a land border with the EU, we are asking the MAC to compile a separate shortage occupation list for Northern Ireland.

I want to take this opportunity to reaffirm the importance of our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. We are long-standing friends, allies and partners, and we will preserve the common travel area, as well as the rights that Irish citizens enjoy. There is an unbreakable bond between the people of the UK and the Republic of Ireland, and that will never change.

Together, these changes will deliver a system that backs employers, giving them access to highly skilled workers, while also ensuring that they can drive up productivity and wages. It will also support the public services we all rely on, giving them access to the skilled workers they need.

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

The Home Secretary has said he could never contemplate anything that put Northern Ireland in a different position. Why then does the withdrawal agreement, in the backstop proposals, specifically do that and create a border down the Irish sea? The Government have pledged repeatedly that they would not even contemplate such a thing, but it is now in the agreement—in black and white—in the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol.

[Sajid Javid]

My right hon. Friend makes an observation about the withdrawal agreement. It does of course include the backstop, but the Government’s intention is to avoid the backstop altogether. Even if there was such a need—if we had not reached a final agreement within the two-year period, which I believe we absolutely can—there is an option for the Government to extend the implementation period, which would avoid the issue that my right hon. Friend has highlighted.

So far, I have outlined some significant changes to our immigration system, which will be implemented in a phased approach from 2021. However, in some other areas there will be continuity rather than change. EU citizens already living here will continue to be able to live their lives here much as they do now. We value their significant contribution to the UK, and whatever happens, as we have said many times before, we want them to stay. We know how important our EU friends are to our economy, our society, our families, our history and also our future.

We have launched a series of trials of the EU settlement scheme, and I am pleased to say that they have all gone well so far. The scheme will be open to all EU citizens living in the UK by 30 March, and it will be run in the event of deal or no deal. The scheme is designed to be short, simple and user-friendly, and we need everyone to participate.

Some right hon. and hon. Members have questioned why we need such a scheme in the first place. One of the reasons is to have a clear picture of who is in the country. I saw at first hand with Windrush the problems of not having a comprehensive registration scheme, and we cannot allow something like that ever to happen again. The decision made many decades ago not to have a suitable registration scheme for Commonwealth citizens in the UK was in hindsight a huge mistake, and I will not repeat it on my watch. There will be a proper, easy-to-use scheme in place for our EU friends so that their rights are protected. We will have to communicate it clearly to ensure the scheme is fully used, but our message to EU citizens throughout is absolutely clear: “Deal or no deal, we want you to stay”.

Although we have made it very clear that, after Brexit, EU citizens will be able to continue their lives much as before, not all EU member states have made a similar commitment to British citizens living in their countries. In fact, a number of countries have given no public assurances about the status of British nationals in the event of no deal. I think that is unacceptable, and I urge them to do so without any further delay.

I have outlined today what this deal means for immigration. For the first time in a generation, we will be able to build an immigration system that is designed in Britain, is made in Britain and serves only our national interest. The deal protects not only EU citizens living in the UK, but UK nationals living in the EU. It also goes much further. It is about protecting our economy and our security, and creating an immigration system over which we have full control.

Yes, the deal is a compromise—no one is claiming that it is perfect—but it is the only deal on offer that provides an orderly exit from the EU. The fact is that the clock is ticking. Now is the time for everyone to get behind this deal. It is in our hands to decide if we want this deal, no deal or, indeed, no Brexit at all. I know which option I prefer, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to join me in supporting this deal.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for calling me to speak in this historically important debate. While there are many varying and strongly held views on both sides of the House about the Prime Minister’s proposed deal, all right hon. and hon. Members can agree that the votes we will cast next Tuesday will in all probability be the most important votes that any of us will ever cast in our political lifetime.

On a personal note, I have known my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Sir Nicholas Soames) for some 20 years. He and I come at this issue from utterly different perspectives. I was an infantryman and he was a cavalryman, and anyone who would call him a traitor has clearly never met him. In fact, the idea that Churchill’s grandson could be such a thing is clearly ludicrous. I say to anyone who would be foolish enough to repeat that ridiculous assertion that, in the immortal words of our Defence Secretary, they should go away and shut up.

I entered this House some 18 years ago. I made my maiden speech on 4 July 2001, and I spoke against the treaty of Nice on the principle that I might as well start as I mean to go on. While I cannot claim anything like the 40-year record of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I can at least say that I have been fairly consistent on European matters stretching back nearly two decades. In 2008, I served as shadow Europe Minister, reporting to the shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, when we debated the Lisbon treaty. As his number two, it was my duty to debate much of the hard detail of that 300-page treaty. I remember it well as we spent 40 nights doing it. Despite that extensive debate, night after night, it soon became apparent that the House of Commons could not change so much as a single punctuation mark in the treaty. The Commons had effectively been completely neutered, and it is that experience that finally convinced me that we would one day have to leave the European Union.

Next Tuesday, we will be voting on two documents. The first is the political declaration. It is full of warm words but, as we are all aware, it is completely meaningless legally and has no force whatsoever in international law. It is the equivalent of, “I promise I will respect you in the morning,” but it is in no way enforceable. In stark contrast, the withdrawal agreement is a 585-page draft international treaty which, if this House were to approve it, would become binding on this country in international law. I read the Lisbon treaty cover to cover, and I can assure the House that I have read the withdrawal agreement, too. Having done so, and knowing what is in it, I am utterly determined to vote against it, so I will briefly explain why.

First, we will not take back control of our money. Under the proposed agreement, the UK has agreed to pay the EU approximately £39 billion. The methodology for this is laid out in part 5 of the agreement, on financial provisions, specifically articles 133 to 157. In short, we will pay that £39 billion without any guarantees in return. With this country having just been through a period of considerable austerity I cannot justify to my constituents paying such a huge sum of money without at least some binding guarantees about the nature of the future relationship we would get in return. This is all in stark contrast to Margaret Thatcher at Fontainebleau in 1984, when rather than give up £39 billion for nothing, she famously said, “I want my money back”. And she got it when she won the so-called British rebate, which has saved this country tens of billions of pounds ever since. Would that we had negotiated with equal resolve in this instance!

Secondly, we are not taking back control of our laws. Under the draft agreement, the UK would remain bound by EU laws in several critical areas, such as social policy, employment policy, environmental policy and customs. We would effectively become a rule taker, which means we would have to continue to obey EU laws in these areas, having surrendered any influence over how they are drafted.

Thirdly, we could be locked into a customs union without the ability to leave. This is the so-called Irish backstop, contained in the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol on pages 301 to 475 of the agreement. In short, if we enter the backstop, we enter a customs union, despite having clearly pledged in our manifesto not to do so, and that would materially constrain our ability to sign international trade deals with other countries, including the United States, our single largest trading partner in the world.

Moreover, as the Attorney General’s legal advice has made crystal clear, having entered the backstop, we could leave only with the consent of the EU. This has often been referred to in the House as the “Hotel California” dilemma—in other words, you can check out, but you can never leave.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Check in.

[Mr Francois]

No, check out.

I have seen the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir Hugo Swire), but unfortunately it in no way affects the wording of the withdrawal agreement, which, as a treaty, would override it, so the provisions in his well-intentioned amendment are unfortunately, in practice, legally naive.

Fourthly, we risk undermining the integrity of the UK. The Government have told us repeatedly that they would never even contemplate creating a border down the Irish sea. Despite this, not only have they contemplated it; they have legislated for it in writing, because the agreement in the protocol creates internal borders within the UK, whereby Northern Ireland would become a rule taker in further areas, such as goods, agricultural products and VAT. This is one of the most compelling reasons why the DUP have said repeatedly that they will vote against this toxic withdrawal agreement, and I am 100% with them.

We should also remember that treating Northern Ireland differently threatens to break up the integrity of the UK. We know, from the excellent article written recently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), that the secretary-general of the European Commission, Martin Selmayr, has said that losing Northern Ireland is “the price of Brexit”. I cannot possibly pay that price or contemplate the break-up of the UK or anything that would encourage further separatism in Scotland. For that reason, too, I will vote against the deal.

Lastly, the agreement would ultimately be overseen by the European Court of Justice. Article 174 of the agreement, on page 286, envisages a situation in which both sides cannot agree on aspects of its implementation. In this case, they would create an arbitration panel to resolve the dispute, and the article clearly states that the European Court of Justice, where the matter affects Union law, which is very wide-ranging, would be the ultimate arbiter. It would decide the question and its rulings

“shall be binding on the arbitration panel.”

That would override this Parliament and our Supreme Court.

It has often been argued that my colleagues and I on the European Research Group do not want a deal. That is not true. We want a deal, but not this deal. What we want is often referred to as the super-Canada option, because it takes an existing EU-Canada free trade agreement, signed by the EU in 2016, and amends it into a more comprehensive free trade agreement by which we could trade equitably with the EU but outside the single market, the customs union and the ECJ. Under such an arrangement, we would really have left the EU. I want to make it absolutely clear that that, and not no deal, is our desired end state.

In summary, I hope that everyone who votes on this agreement on Tuesday night will be able to look their constituents firmly in the eye and say they have read it. It seems to me that as professional legislators that is the least we can do. The British people voted in a referendum to leave the EU by a majority of more than 1 million votes, and I believe that we as parliamentarians have a moral obligation to follow their instruction, but this agreement does not do that. It would leave us in effect hanging half in, half out of the EU, which is something that the Prime Minister specifically warned against in her excellent speech at Lancaster House in 2017.

Moreover, the agreement, if we were to approve it, would involve us giving up £39 billion for nothing, leave us as a rule taker, potentially lead us into a backstop from which there is no escape, threaten the break-up of the UK, and still leave us under the suzerainty of the ECJ. We would be a vassal state. This country has never bowed the knee to anyone in almost 1,000 years and I do not believe we should start now. I have read this. This is the best deal since Munich. This House of Commons has been told by The Telegraph and The Sun that this is a surrender document. It is. We in this House have never surrendered to anyone, and we never ever will, including next Tuesday night.

[Several hon. Members rose—]