Queen’s Speech

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Thursday 22nd June 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I see that the House is filling up but I doubt it is because I am speaking. I will speak about defence and then foreign and Commonwealth affairs, but I will preface the whole thing by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, to his new role. I dealt with him extensively in his previous one, when he looked after the regulating of aircraft. He will now be spending his time getting on them so he will be doubly pleased that he put so much work into making sure that they are safe and efficient.

I do not think I have ever quoted the DUP before but I will start with a quote from its manifesto:

“When the public finances improve we believe it will be appropriate to have a new National Security and Strategic Defence Review. The 2015 Review demonstrated a lack of strategic ambition and was too much a product of expenditure limitations”.


I echo that sentiment. In the post-EU world that we are moving into, the security and defence capacity of this country will be our unique selling point on the world stage, and it is absolutely vital that we get it right.

I believe we have become far too obsessed with the 2% target. We are a P5 power. We should not be setting our defence targets alongside those of nations that are, frankly, less prepared to engage in military operations than we are. We need a first-class defence force. We look at the United States and we see defence expenditure at 3.61%, even after substantial reductions, and I would like to feel that our defence review, if we have one, will not be aimed at how little we can spend but at how much we need to spend to play an effective role in the defence of the western world.

I welcome the points made by the Government on legal claims against the Armed Forces. I do not have the length of experience of the noble Lord, Lord West, although I had a few years in the Territorial Army many years ago. If you are in a battle situation, you cannot be wondering whether some firm of lawyers is going to be chasing round after you. I welcome the decision by the Defence Secretary to seek to opt out of the European Convention on Human Rights prior to future military operations. I hope that will be maintained and we will continue to do what we have said we will do, which is to stop vexatious claims against the Armed Forces. This is not helping us to be a decent defence country with a decent defence capacity.

I welcome what is being done for veterans but if you look at the situation of veterans in the United Kingdom compared with the United States, where they are honoured members of society, we still see instances where soldiers are asked not to wear their uniforms in public. In the United States soldiers are encouraged to wear their uniforms and given priority in certain public services, and I would like to see this. We see many examples and last weekend we saw a particularly petty one:

“‘Blinkered’ MoD prunes hoes for heroes”.


This was a gardening project—horticultural therapy for people severely disabled in war. What is the saving? Just £350,000. This is peanuts to the department, and I quote the Ministry of Defence’s words—I am not making this up—in the article:

“There will always be some instances when we’re not able to use public money to support their services”.


Are we living in the real world? “Their services”? These are people who have had their limbs blown off and for whom we are asking for a minor contribution to help them settle into a better life. When I was in Washington not that long ago, Congress ran a golfing tournament where members of Congress and the Senate went out and played golf to raise charitable money for the veterans’ association of the United States, for limbless ex-servicemen. If we could do something more in that way, we would be doing a lot better.

I turn briefly to a couple of matters where we need to sort out what to do on foreign policy and defence. First, what is to be our attitude to continuing to participate in joint EU affairs in a military capacity? For instance, will there continue to be a naval input into Operation Sophia and the Navfor operation against piracy off the Somali coast? There is a precedent: Norway is a participant in the Somali operation. I hope that we will not only continue but make a fairly strong statement as to our policy on future operations of this nature, because when the EU plans its joint efforts we will not be at the table. But those countries will wonder whether we will be there and we need a fairly strong statement of principle about our attitude to future operations of this kind. I would also be interested—this is where we stray on to an FCO point —to know what our planned disengagement is from the European External Action Service. A lot of able Foreign Office personnel are serving with the External Action Service. Will they all be withdrawn by March 2019? Will there be a phased withdrawal? Will we continue to give any support to the External Action Service or not?

Finally, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, about the importance of keeping trade unions involved. We often forget the contribution of our trade union movement through the TUC international committee, through its commitment to human rights and through its solid support for this Government—as well as previous ones—when intervening on the world stage through the ILO and many other bodies, whether it is working to help improve the conditions of workers in Bangladeshi factories, people in prison or the like. I hope the Government will be able to commit to continuing our help for the trade union movement’s operations and fully utilise them in driving forward our foreign policy.

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, the gracious Speech had just one paragraph on defence—

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)]

My Lords, it is time for the Statement.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2017

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this debate. I would like to interpret in that also his support for its taking place, as it would be a foolish Chief Whip who listed a debate without the Minister saying, “Yes, let’s go for it”.

I would also like to say how pleased I am that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, is back with us, debating defence issues. This House has been blessed in the past 10 years with two Front-Bench Ministers, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, as defence spokespeople whom we have respected and certainly find most helpful in the work that we are trying to do.

I declare an interest. I chair the House of Lords defence study group, an informal grouping of about 60 Members, comprising experienced former military Members, politicians who have worked in defence and the MoD, and also lay Members, such as myself, who, while not working in either of those areas, have had some experience. I was chairman of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. For the rest of my life I will carry with me a recognition of the huge debt that we as a nation owe to our Armed Forces, young men and women, day in and day out, year in and year out, often without being thanked for it.

A member of that group, possibly one of the oldest in it—not in years but in service—was Lord Lyell. I think that this is the first main defence debate that we have had since his passing. On behalf of the group I would just like to pay our respects and thank him for the work that he did over many years.

In their assessment, National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, the Government said that they had concluded that the threat to our nation had not significantly changed. That is a view that many would challenge—and indeed it has been strongly challenged in this debate. A number of noble Lords have dealt with it quite factually, about how actually the threat has increased. The Minister alluded to it, even if he was not blunt about it. I suggest that, were it not for the distraction of the media with Brexit day in and day out, we would be seeing security issues much more on the front pages of the press than they are at the moment.

Introducing the debate, the Minister referred to the 2% contribution to NATO, as a number of other noble Lords have, too. One of our House of Lords study group Members, who is absent—a number have written to me to apologise and express regret for not taking part—was the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards of Herstmonceaux, recently the Chief of the Defence Staff, as we all know. He wrote:

“I am sorry to report I am abroad until 24 March and therefore will not be able to take part. What I would have emphasised is that while hitting the 2% target is a good thing, it has become a veil behind which Her Majesty’s Government is obscuring the true state of the UK’s defence capability. In itself the 2% target means little if a country’s ambitions, or the perceived threat, require more, as would appear to be so in the case of the UK”.


I think that that is view with which many of us would agree. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, who I think is not in his place at the moment, said that he did not agree with the 2%, that we should not have it there and that we should pay what we need to. I agree with the 2% as a base and a minimum entry to NATO. Certainly we need to pay more.

My noble friend Lord Touhig said in his excellent opening address that the most valuable asset was the people. Obviously I agree with that, having chaired the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body. Two days after the strategic defence and security review in 2015, the Government announced in their spending review and Autumn Statement that they had included in that Statement a decision to spend £11 billion on new capabilities, innovation and the defence estate. Good—but where was the money coming from? Well, £7.2 billion of it was from efficiency savings, including military and civilian pay restraint. That restraint continues—the restraint, as I mentioned in our last defence debate, of a 1% maximum—yet other areas of public service, including MPs, were not limited to it. It also included a cut in the civilian headcount in the MoD of some 30%. So how can it be extra expenditure when it just shifts the deckchairs on the deck—and the people paying for it are, in my view, the least able to do so—at a time when as a nation, we face a higher security threat?

It is no wonder that the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body talked in its last report about morale dropping, as has been mentioned in this debate. I am not at all surprised about that. Members of the Armed Forces see the statements that are made and what they themselves experience. The reality is—we have probably been too small-minded to say this out loud as we are now—that we need to spend more on the defence of our nation because of the state of the world today. The chairman of the Defence Select Committee in another place, who was sitting with us until a short while ago, has called for 3% expenditure. He reminded us that when we were last in a period of major terrorism and security threat—the 1980s, as has been referred to in this debate—defence expenditure varied between 4.3% and 5%. I do not think anybody is being so bold as to suggest that. The noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, another member of our group, has called for 2.5%—which, on nearly £40 billion of expenditure, is a not significant amount.

This is not just about the pounds and pence; it is about what we need for the security of this nation. How do we properly resource our young men and women and our defence capability in a world which is probably less secure now than it has been for many decades? In fact, between 2010 and 2016 defence spending reduced in real terms by 6.9%. We are still clawing that back. We also face the drop of 15% in the value of the pound since 23 June last year, which is having a negative impact on the MoD budget of around £700 million. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm in his response that that will not come out of the set budget and that the Treasury will find that money. Talking of resources, is the Minister able to inform the House how progress is being made on an issue which was very topical a short while ago but has gone quiet recently? I refer to the recruitment of reserves, up to the total of 35,000 that was talked about.

Many Members of the House have taken part in this debate today and I respect hugely their expertise and experience. I say to the Minister, as gently as I can, that there has not been one demurring voice in this debate on the assertions, first, that we are in a more insecure world and, secondly, that we need to look at our defence budget. That voice has come from across the House, irrespective of party or which Benches we sit on. Can the Minister please pass that message back? I hope that a similar debate will take place in the House of Commons, because only by raising our voices in this joint, across-the-House way will we stand any chance of being listened to. We are not warmongers or people who call for expenditure because it is politically convenient to have a go at the Government. If we had a Labour Minister sat on those Benches now to answer the debate, my contribution would be exactly the same. I hope that that message can be carried back to the Government.

Armed Forces Covenant

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Monday 9th January 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank most sincerely the right reverend Prelate for this evening’s debate. It is a long time since we had one on the covenant and I very much welcome it.

The covenant says:

“The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Our Armed Forces fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the Government, sacrificing some civilian freedoms, facing danger and, sometimes, suffering serious injury or death”.

It is not a bureaucratic document; it is a compact between the Government, on behalf of the nation—supported by local authorities, a lot of agencies and, indeed, companies who sign up—and our Armed Forces personnel. A substantial number of these personnel do not even know that the covenant exists, so this evening’s debate is terribly important. We have a big defence debate on Thursday, and our Armed Forces personnel are absolutely central to our nation’s defence.

I was chairman of the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body for six years and I know that when you talk to our Armed Forces personnel about the covenant a lot of them just laugh. They do not know what you are talking about or, where they do know about it, they feel it is not being met. What they want to know is how their family is being looked after back at home while they are serving in an operation. Are they getting decent housing? That is central to the covenant.

I recognise that there has been a lot of progress, but there is an awful long way to go. It might be a good idea, in considering where we are, to actually ask the serving Armed Forces personnel themselves what they think about the covenant. Is it working? Is it successful? At the same time, we could ask the veterans as well. This might be a worthwhile thing to do, perhaps asking the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body to carry it out in its annual visits.

Brexit: Armed Forces and Diplomatic Service

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Thursday 8th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I join other Members of the House who have thanked the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, and congratulated him on getting this debate this morning. It is very timely and terribly important in this whole area of Brexit. It is good that we in this House examine the issues that face us as we do, because, unfortunately, we appear to be in a period in our country when opinions are polarised. If we talk about needing more funding for defence—and I believe we do—we are warmongering, trying to make people scared and stressing something that is not necessarily a priority. The responsibility of this House is to address these issues, and we owe a debt to the noble Lord.

One wonders sometimes just what we learn from history. Here we are today at the crossroads of a very important and hazardous period for our nation, yet our Armed Forces are stretched to the limit; the country appears not to regard that as important; we have uncertainty because of Brexit; and we have the result of an American election that most people never thought would happen, with a President-elect who, a bit like the song, “First he says he will and then he says he won’t”, as regards NATO.

I shall concentrate on the Armed Forces. A briefing paper from the other place in August this year was entitled Brexit: Impact across Policy Areas. Tucked into it was a section on defence entitled:

“Impact on UK defence budget and future equipment plan”.

It refers in particular to the impact of the decline of sterling on the budget and therefore on procurement, mentioning in particular the Joint Strike Fighter, which is a crucial part of our defence strategy. It raises the issue of whether we can afford it. It also questions whether we can continue to spend 2% of GDP on defence. That is a question I should like the Minister to answer in his winding-up. As the right reverend Prelate asked: what is 2% of GDP? It is a sum we need to ensure we have, and perhaps should be converted to an actual figure, because GDP is now being questioned. Of course, it is also about procurement of personal equipment for our Armed Forces, on which at times we have not had a proud record, although it has improved in recent years.

In a report of 10 July, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy expressed concern and referred to a report in May, before Brexit, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. It highlighted analysis that GDP may reduce by between 2.1% and 3.5% by 2019. I think we are probably in the honeymoon period over Brexit: we will start to really feel the economic impact over next year and the year after. The result of that would be a decline of between £20 billion and £40 billion in the money available to us. That is more than our defence budget, if it is at the upper end. One has to ask: will that 2% be maintained, and what is it?

In 2004, the European Defence Agency was set up. Its role was to defend member states in Europe—I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton. Will we seek to stay in the European Defence Agency? Will we be seeking to maintain that in our Brexit negotiations? Any security threat to Europe has to be a security threat to the UK. We are not in isolation; we are part of Europe, whether we like it or not and whether we are politically linked or not. At the moment, we are in a very insecure world. Britain holds the leadership of the battle group concept, which was set up at the same time, until the end of December this year.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister: just what are the plans? I know he will not give them line by line, but what is the general approach? In view of the fact that there were some answers in the other place yesterday, perhaps we can get one or two today. Will the Ministry of Defence be reviewing the strategic defence and security review, given that its requirements have changed considerably in view of the changed circumstances we face as a nation?

Defence: Budget

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the debate. We never have a defence debate without reference being made to the importance of our personnel, whom I wish to concentrate on this evening. They are facing a strategic defence and security review but, before that is completed, we will have the 8 July Budget and the spending review. Indeed, one of the first actions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer after the election was to take half a billion pounds out of the MoD budget. That is all very concerning, particularly given the letter in the Telegraph last week, which was signed by a number of former defence chiefs. This is all extremely concerning for those of us who believe that we need to spend more on defence—and we do need Trident as well.

Our Armed Forces personnel are the only members of our workforce who, when they sign up to join the forces, also sign up to being prepared to pay the ultimate price. That puts a huge burden on us as a nation. I will refer later to the Armed Forces covenant. We have the Armed Forces Pay Review Body because members of the Armed Forces are not allowed to join a trade union. I was proud to chair that review body some years ago. The report issued by that body in March stated that people felt demoralised because of “continuing change and uncertainty”, and that many felt demoralised and “undervalued”. It stated that “personnel felt worn down”. I do not think that surprises any of us who have followed defence debates.

It is absolutely essential that this time the strategic defence and security review puts personnel right at the forefront of our considerations when our future policy is decided. I doubt very much that that was the situation last time. When the 2010 review was conducted, we did not have the problems of Syria, Libya, Ukraine and a whole host of other challenges. I make a plea to the Minister please to give a commitment that when we talk about personnel we do not talk just about their equipment and resources but also about their overall well-being and that of their families.

It is no good saying that we have the covenant. This year’s review from the Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body said that half the families had absolutely no idea that there was such a thing as a covenant. That is quite a challenge to the Ministry when it does the review this time.

Armed Forces

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for ensuring that we have this debate, which is not time-limited as we normally are. That is very much appreciated. It also provided the opportunity to hear the maiden speech of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards of Herstmonceux. His speech was a pleasure to listen to for its clarity and its big-picture approach. I also enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, but today is not the time to be drawn or distracted by being one of the two women Peers in this debate on the issue of women in front-line operations. That is for another day and time; I am sure that on that day there will not be only two women taking part in the debate.

I need to declare an interest as a vice-president of the War Widows Association of Great Britain, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. I very much associate myself with the words that she gave us in regard to those 4,000 widows, many of them fragile and very elderly, who feel penalised—in some cases, stigmatised would not be an exaggeration—by the Government’s present costs. If the public out there knew that, if the figure is correct, it would take £70,000 to resolve this problem and that it is highly likely to be not even that much, they would be astonished at the meanness of us as a House and, more importantly, of the Government. What would be needed is not even a drop in the ocean and I hope that the Minister, if he cannot comment positively on this, will come back to it in writing after this debate.

As the Minister said in opening this debate, this has been a year of commemorations. It reminds us, day by day, of the work of our service men and women, putting their lives on the line in our name and for our protection. We have a huge debt to pay to them, both those who have gone and those who remain. I would like to address those who remain in my short contribution because it is not just about them but also about their families. Unlike any other career that I can think of, they go where they are directed, stay as long as they are directed to be there and are separated from their families, as directed. They give up many privileges that the rest of us in our community take for granted. They do that with a commitment and courage, and a lack of self, which impresses anyone who comes into contact with them. Many acts of bravery are not even heard of; we were reminded of this by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond, in his address.

All that brings a great responsibility for us, as a nation, when we look at the role of our Armed Forces on behalf of our nation. We have a military covenant, which is a commitment to go some way towards meeting that responsibility. We have the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, which is charged with looking after the overall remuneration and allowances package. We have a Service Complaints Commissioner—soon to be an ombudsman—and, indeed, we have a Defence Select Committee in another place, which constantly looks at issues affecting our Armed Forces. One would think that we are carrying out our responsibility to the Armed Forces of this nation. Yet one has only to look at social media, where individual Armed Forces personnel say what they really think. It is quite discouraging.

The Armed Forces Pay Review Body report for this year says, in paragraph 2.11, that:

“There had been notable drops in reported morale from Army personnel for the third consecutive year”.

The next paragraph refers to its visits,

“amidst continuing high tempo, with much operational commitment at the same time as the impact of the redundancy programme”.

Many questions have been asked in this House about that. The following paragraph, paragraph 2.13, says that:

“The continued erosion of the overall package, together with the impact of the redundancy process were felt to be adversely affecting morale, which was already considered to be fragile”,

Does that mean we are meeting our responsibility to our Armed Forces? I suggest that it brings that strongly into question.

The audit office report, issued a short while ago, expresses many criticisms of Army 2020. The Government cannot easily dismiss the comments in that report, although little has been made of it today. They raise serious concerns for our personnel about how the process was carried out and the impact on them. For instance, there have been a number of questions in this House over the months about the redundancies in the full-time services and their replacement by reserve personnel. We need to recruit 11,000 reserves in the next few years. The National Audit Office report says that on the model with which it was presented it will be 2025 before that 30,000 reserve personnel number is met. The NAO also says that the MoD was looking at an alternative model, but the NAO could not get a copy of it so could not revise or revisit that view. It is clear that there is a £10.6 billion cut from the Army budget between 2011-12 and 2021-22. We all know that many questions have been asked over months on this whole issue, and the Minister has gallantly tried to assure us in answering them. However, I suggest that not many of us are convinced.

The world is a dangerous place, as we see day by day and indeed increasingly over the past few weeks. Our Armed Forces are a major part of our protection and, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Richards, said in his maiden speech, there will be a time when we need them. I certainly subscribe to that view. That gives us a national responsibility regarding both their role and how we view and look after our Armed Forces.

That brings me to my closing remark. The noble and gallant Lords, Lord Stirrup and Lord Richards, are right that a commitment was given by the Prime Minister, publicly and on the record, that there would be a real increase in the budget for the MoD from 2015 onwards. I have been at briefing meetings where it has been made clear that that was an integral part of the arrangement of the cutbacks that were agreed. If that commitment is not carried out, it will mean that we, on behalf of our nation, will not have played our part in that very painful process that the Armed Forces will have gone through. Can the Minister please confirm today whether the Prime Minister not only meant what he said but will deliver on it in 2015, before the general election?

Armed Forces (Service Complaints and Financial Assistance) Bill [HL]

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Monday 23rd June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the wide-ranging and very balanced way that he introduced the debate this afternoon. I commend the Government for listening to the wide range of voices, whether representative of the Armed Forces, the Defence Select Committee in another place or—perhaps most importantly—the commissioner in the annual reports she has given the Government since the 2006 Act was introduced. Her continual message has been that, although it is important to have complaints, the system was not and is not working satisfactorily. We owe a debt to Dr Atkins and her very small team for their work over the last years and the support they gave in drafting this Bill.

I can well understand the reservations that noble and gallant Lords might have about elements within the Bill and—perhaps—the conflict within the chain of command. However, having read the Bill, I do not think that that problem is there. Certainly, the Defence Council assures me on that. It is actually quite a narrowly drawn Bill. Had the complaints systems worked well, as we all hoped, we would not be discussing this Bill today but we are where we are. The system has not worked. As the Minister rightly said, we have to consider the welfare of our Armed Forces personnel and how they see the complaints system working for them. All the surveys confirm that it has not worked. Therefore we have the Bill today. I welcome it very much indeed. It simplifies the decision-making.

This House has a reputation for improving Bills when they come to us. I look forward to discussing a number of areas within this Bill. One or two changes may be necessary. For instance, the Bill permits those who may have left the services and are no longer covered by services law to bring a complaint within a specific time period. Is the intention within that to permit, perhaps in a situation where an individual former member of the services has died, that his or her family can bring a complaint? Would that be within the remit of the Bill? If a member of the Armed Forces makes a complaint and subsequently passes on, will it be possible for that complaint to be fulfilled to the end and a decision made on it?

Much in the Bill is left to regulation. The Secretary of State can draw up various aspects of what will and will not take place. As we all know, regulation is normally decided after the Bill becomes an Act of Parliament. It leaves an awful lot to confidence that the regulations will meet what was intended under the Bill, and we need to probe that during the Bill’s stages in the House.

Independence of an ombudsman covering whatever field—whether the people covered by the complaints system see the ombudsman as independent—is very important. During the Bill’s passage, I want to probe how independent the ombudsman will be. For example, in the course of her work, she will accumulate a lot of data, a lot of information. Will the ombudsman have the authority and remit to be able to conduct research, which might be most helpful in some cases, bullying being one that comes to my mind?

The Bill provides for the method by which an individual applies to have a claim of maladministration dealt with. We would hope that it is not so complicated as to put people off—in other words that they are not required to cite this or that particular clause or article in their written submission.

The Minister dealt with financial support at the end of his presentation. I was very pleased to see that in the Bill, although one could argue that it is an entirely separate issue. It is a very good innovation to add it to the Bill, and I welcome it very much. Apart from the money that the charities raise and spend so well in supporting our Armed Forces veterans and their families, it helps to spread the message in our communities about the good work that our Armed Forces do in a way that is not “official speak”, but showing the lives that our service personnel give to their country. I very much welcome that aspect of the Bill.

I close where I started, and underline my view that the Bill will not interfere with the chain of command. That would be damaging to the Armed Forces. We must maintain that while ensuring that our Armed Forces personnel feel that any complaints they have can be dealt with fairly, in a balanced way and, perhaps most of all, expeditiously. That will enable us to discharge our responsibility to our Armed Forces, together with the annual report that will go to the Secretary of State, who will then lay it before Parliament to judge whether this method is succeeding.

I wish the Bill well and look forward to the discussions that we will have on it.

Armed Forces Front-line Combat Roles: Women

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Tuesday 6th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, I am very grateful for my noble friend’s kind words, very much in memory of her late husband, who was a very distinguished helicopter pilot. She asked what front-line roles women already serve in. They already serve in a variety of front-line roles, including as medics, fire support team commanders, military intelligence operators and dog handlers, with at least two having won the Military Cross. Looking round the House, I know that a number of noble Lords have been to Afghanistan, and I am sure they have met many of the women who play a very distinguished part in supporting our troops out there, particularly the medics, who do an incredible job.

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

When the Minister is able to inform us when the review will take place, will he also inform us of the factors that will be taken into account? A number of us have heard “force cohesiveness” over the years, but it is a bit like Heinz 57 varieties; it can mean a lot to different people. If we are not clear what factors are to be taken into account, the outcome may in fact be a different decision than many of us would want to see.

[Lord Astor of Hever]

My Lords, in 2002 there was a review that took approximately two years. There was another review in 2010. The conclusions of both were mixed. As a result, Ministers concluded that a precautionary approach was still necessary and the exclusion of women was retained. It might be helpful to the House if I were to write to the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who are interested, giving a link to the Written Statements made in November 2010 and setting out the full report of the review and the information and research that was carried out.

Armed Forces

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Monday 7th April 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, I join other Members of the House in congratulating and thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, for this short debate this evening. Questions for Short Debate are one of a number of ways of probing and questioning the Government’s policy; others include Questions for Written Answer, Oral Questions and debates. The fact is that the Government have not convinced people that their approach and policy on this area are right. They do not appear to have convinced either the House of Commons Select Committee or experienced spokespeople in this area.

For this debate I turned to the recent report by the Armed Forces Pay Review Body, an organisation which meets several thousand Armed Forces personnel face to face every year. Paragraph 2.11 of its report states:

“There had been notable drops in reported morale from Army personnel for the third consecutive year”.

According to the surveys, morale has dropped in our Armed Forces every year of this coalition Government. Paragraph 2.12 states:

“Our visits took place amidst continuing high tempo, with much operational commitment at the same time as the impact of the redundancy programme was being felt”.

Paragraph 2.13 refers to:

“The continued erosion of the overall package, together with the impact of the redundancy process were felt to be adversely affecting morale, which was already considered to be fragile”.

The facts linked with that are that last year, mainly before these redundancies were complete, the working hours of our Armed Forces personnel were up to 47.9 hours per week. That is the average, week in, week out. The average weekly duty hours increased in one year by three hours to 70.7 hours a week. That is something that we need to take into account when we consider the wording of this Question and the assessment of whether we have sufficient manpower in the Armed Forces.

In my experience, any commercial organisation would make such fundamental changes incrementally: as you made one change, you would increase another. The Government have gone forward with these redundancies but have no idea whether they will ultimately be able to recruit 30,000 reserve personnel. I hope they are able to, but the transitional period between now and then is a great danger for us as a nation, as we have seen in the latest developments in Europe.

In a letter accompanying this report, the Minister said that the Government accepted all the recommendations of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body. Will he therefore tell us what the Government are going to do about the morale issue—some but not all of which is a direct result of these changes—and what they are going to do about the overall working hours of our Armed Forces personnel?

Paragraph 31 on page 11 of the House of Commons Defence Select Committee report, which was published on 29 January, states:

“It is essential that the MoD budget settlement allows for the delivery of Army 2020”.

I cannot find any overall commitment from the Treasury that has confirmed categorically that the money will be available for this. Can the Minister give us that assurance?

The first responsibility of any Government is the defence of the realm. Does the Minister believe that with the state of morale and the numbers of our Armed Forces, they have the manpower to deliver that?

Defence Reform Bill

Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde Excerpts

Tuesday 10th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, in preparing for this debate, I was reminded that it was the first substantial defence debate that we will be having since the passing of the late Lord Gilbert. I have sure that had he been here today, he would have had some pretty direct remarks to make about the Defence Reform Bill.

The Bill received substantial cross-party support in the other place, certainly from the party of which I am a member, which substantially helped its process through Parliament. Yet we had today, just minutes before we started our debate, the Statement from the Secretary of State on what many regard as the key part of this Bill, the switch of our acquisitions to GOCO. In January 2011, Bernard Gray was appointed Chief of Defence Matériel. The following year, in July, the Secretary of State said in a Written Statement:

“I have decided that MoD should focus its effort on developing and testing the GOCO option further”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/7/12; col. 124WS.]

A year later, in June this year, the White Paper, Better Defence Acquisition, said:

“The MoD intends to contract for the GOCO to act as its agent”—

with very little reference to the Defence Equipment and Support agency.

Therefore, it would appear from that time that GOCO was really the only show in town; there was no equal addressing of the alternative by the Government. Yet the impact assessment for Part 1 of the Bill says that there remains,

“substantial uncertainties over the level of costs and benefits”.

So, lots of questions are still to be answered.

The Acquisition Focus Group of the Royal United Services Institute questioned the GOCO, too, and concluded that it,

“suffers from an inherent weakness”.

As late as 28 November this year, in evidence to the House of Commons Defence Select Committee, Bernard Gray himself said:

“Initial estimates suggest a GOCO could deliver a net benefit of several hundred million pounds over 10 years”.

The House of Commons Defence Select Committee also raised issues on which it had concerns. The right honourable Member for North East Hampshire, the chairman of the committee, criticised the lack of detail on the DE&S-plus option. The letter of the noble Lord, Lord Levene, dated 13 November this year, on his second annual review, in section 5, referring to GOCO and DE&S-plus, said that this,

“needs to be brought quickly to a conclusion”.

I do not believe that we are at a conclusion, because today the Secretary of State issued a Statement saying that the Government are not proceeding at this stage with GOCO but that they wish to keep it in the Bill and see it go through the process in this House to become an Act, thereby creating a lot of confusion and insecurity as regards the alternative.

In another place, the shadow Defence Secretary at the time called for a “genuine comparison” between GOCO and DE&S-plus. I do not believe that that genuine comparison took place. Yet the Government seem to have suffered in the past three years from myopia in their full concentration on GOCO as the answer. Even when the number of bidders dropped from three to two and then to one, the Government did not change their mind. Yet in the Statement today the Secretary of State announced that they will change the DE&S to a new,

“bespoke central government trading entity”,

with effect from April next year. So there are lots of questions to be asked on that. I strongly question why the Bill has come to this place with Part 1 intact and with noble Lords being asked to agree, probably with amendments, that it should remain part of the Bill when the Government have announced that they are taking a different route at this stage.

I also question what the Statement in the other place claims—this has already been raised—about the transparency of governance of this new organisation. The Government announced, on the day when it was set up, the CEO who had been appointed. Where is the transparency there?

In the Statement, the Government also stated that,

“crucially, we will permit the new organisation significant freedoms and flexibilities, agreed with the Treasury and Cabinet Office”.

This may seem a facile question, but is that agreement in place, is it as broad as the Government could wish, or is it yet to be agreed? It does not say that it has been agreed; it could imply that it has yet to be agreed.

I move on to Part 2. It is generally agreed that the single-source contracts are a good and right way to go. Anyone who has been involved in a public procurement process, as I have, can regard it as a nightmare, and this certainly will improve matters. It establishes the Single Source Regulations Office as a non-departmental public body with effect from October 2014. Schedule 4 provides for the appointment of the membership of the SSRO by the Secretary of State. Some would question whether that guarantees the underlying independence. Will the Minister confirm that the process will be an open one, that we will not have another press release saying that the CEO has been appointed, and that the process of recruitment will be open and fair, and in accordance with public appointment requirements?

The schedule refers to the,

“‘non-executive members’ of the SSRO”.

However, it then goes on to say that the arrangements for those non-executive members can cover such things as pension and gratuity provision. My interpretation of practice in a normal plc is that non-executive directors do not get either of those benefits; they get a fee as a non-executive director and that is it. Therefore, the measure is most unusual and we will need to probe it in Committee.

Part 3 of the Bill concerns the Reserve Forces, and this issue has been covered substantially in discussion. However, will the Minister say how the recruitment drive is going? I am aware that the Government have twice promised dates on which they would report on the numbers recruited, but have now said that they will do so during 2014. What proportion of the personnel already recruited are recent members of the Armed Forces—perhaps some of those who are being made redundant? Who is carrying out the recruitment drive now that half the recruitment offices have been closed? Have the necessary resources been made available?

For the Government to say that they are satisfied is insufficient; we need to be confident that the switch from using full-time personnel to creating an expanded role for the reserves, which I think we are all generally in favour of, is not only going well but will fulfil the function that we intend it to fulfil, given that the redundancies among the full-time personnel in the Armed Forces will take place. Will the next set of redundancies that I believe the Army faces be held over until the Government are assured that the recruitment drive for the Reserve Forces is working well and will meet the targets that have been set for it?

The Bill raises many questions, and I hope that between now and Committee the Government will review their wish to retain Part 1 of the Bill. I think that it is defunct and no longer needed, and that the other parts of the Bill could become an effective Act without it.