Homelessness: Veterans

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

The way I look at it, we need to help veterans. We have the veterans covenant, to say that those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces, and their families, are treated fairly. It was right that we changed the law in 2012 so that veterans with urgent housing needs are always given high priority for social housing. Of course, local authorities have to make sure that people who say they are veterans are veterans, but we must move forward and not be deterred by the odd difficultly. It is great that so few veterans are homeless; we should celebrate that.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the Minister pointed out, it is right we ensure that veterans are not homeless. One thing that it is important to remember is that the vast majority of veterans transition into civilian life without difficulty. However, for those who come from certain backgrounds, there must be opportunities, all the way through their serving life to talk about transitioning to civilian life and to think about future accommodation. A recent report funded by the Forces in Mind Trust put forward proposals for a road map to end veteran homelessness. Has the Minister had a chance to look at the report? Are the Government thinking about ensuring the opportunity for service personnel, while they are serving, to think about housing post-service?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I have not seen the report but I would be very interested to look at it, and I thank the noble Baroness. In my former life as a private-sector employer in the retail industry, we had many veterans working for us. As their term of duty comes to an end, service personnel must look forward and think about opportunities. The discipline that they learn in the Army, and so many skills, can bring great things to the workforce.

Afghan Resettlement

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 19th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for reading the Statement delivered in the Commons earlier. I encourage noble Lords to go back and read, or perhaps even watch, the full debate. I found it quite moving in places, particularly when Members from across the House talked about some of the cases they had been dealing with. I will refer just to one, where a man who had come here from Afghanistan was trying to allow for his daughters to come. It was so urgent to him: he showed a photograph of one of his daughters who had taken her own life, such was her fear over what would happen to her at the hands of the Taliban. He was trying to get his other four daughters to be able to join him in the UK. The point that was being made was about the slow progress and lack of response from the Home Office and the inability, it would seem, to be able to assist in making this happen. I very much encourage noble Lords to look back at that debate and to understand, perhaps better than we sometimes can do, the very real impact this is having on people’s lives.

Our nation promised those who put their lives at risk to serve alongside our Armed Forces in Afghanistan that we would relocate and settle them, give their families safety and help them to rebuild their lives. Now it seems the Government want a pat on the back for what they have done, at a time when we still have thousands of people stuck in limbo in Pakistan, some of whose documents will expire in the coming months, who will then risk being returned to Afghanistan or making treacherous and illegal journeys to safety.

Here in the UK, there are families with children who have been stuck in hotels for 18 months. This is not helping them rebuild their lives; this is neglect. Can the Minister tell us whether any more new arrivals will continue to be placed in this bridging accommodation? If so, how long will that be allowed to happen for?

Ministers have acknowledged that serving notices to quit in the way that they have has put Afghans at risk of homelessness, so can the Minister tell us how many Afghans in the UK are now accessing homelessness services from local authorities as a result of the Government’s approach? How many of them are children?

I pay tribute to all those involved in Operation Pitting. Can the Minister tell us why, after two years, there are still 600 people who are eligible for ARAP in Afghanistan, waiting for their applications to be processed? What are the Government doing to make sure these people get to safety and out of reach of the Taliban?

It is all too easy to forget the horror of what happened in Afghanistan and what is still happening to those who risked their lives to serve alongside us. The consequences of UK government delays are severe, so will the Minister urge her colleagues at the Cabinet Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to do all they can to resolve the status of all those to whom we owe a debt of gratitude, as she says, and make good on our united national promise to support them? We are all united with the Government in our ambition, but ambition alone will not save lives or protect anyone from torture. It is the detailed, careful execution of a plan that matters now, with humanity and urgency at its heart.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, from these Benches, I agree wholeheartedly with many of the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, about the debt we owe to the Afghans who served with us, which is noted in the Statement that the Minister just repeated. We need to reiterate that, because the Statement in many ways is almost like a Home Office document: “Right, we’ve got this issue, we’ve relocated people. Maybe this is the end”.

In the other place, the Statement was given by the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Johnny Mercer, so there was a very clear link to veterans. That is important, because the people we are talking about and their families are people who served alongside the British Army. We still owe them a debt. Operation Pitting was fantastic, but we left so many people behind.

I pay tribute to the Government for relocating 24,600 people, but that has to be the start. While it is clearly right that we are not using bridging accommodation for anything other than very temporary care, what accommodation will be available for those many people who are in Pakistan awaiting moves to the United Kingdom—a safe and legal route, in the Government’s language? What is being done to support those people who are still in Afghanistan?

The noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, mentioned a case that was talked about in the other place this afternoon. There are still many Afghans living in fear of their lives. They have not become more secure since 2021; they have become less secure. They have been in so-called safe houses and moved from one safe house to another. In the final paragraph of this welcome Statement—well, parts of it are welcome—there is a commitment still to welcome those eligible to come under ARAP. What are His Majesty’s Government doing to help people get out of Afghanistan? Some of those people who are eligible for ARAP—or would have been eligible had the terms not changed—are now being told they can be considered under the ACRS. Here I am talking very much about the British Council teachers and contractors. What is being done to help them?

If they get out—if they find people who will smuggle them out of Afghanistan—will His Majesty’s Government actually give them indefinite leave to remain and all the benefits that entails if they make it to the United Kingdom, or are they going to be told, “Sorry, you would have been eligible if only you had risked your life a little bit longer in Afghanistan, but now you’ve come here illegally and unsafely you’re no longer eligible”? That is what very many people fear.

In terms of accommodation, clearly it is right to move families into permanent accommodation. But there are cases of young people who have been out of school. Part of the pledge to our Afghan friends is that there will be education. Can the Minister tell us how many Afghans under the age of 19 are out of school and how far the relocation from temporary accommodation to permanent accommodation in other parts of the country is impacting on the education of young people, particularly young women?

I would also like to know whether those Afghans who have allegedly rejected “suitable” accommodation have really understood that the accommodation is suitable. Is it affordable? Does the Government’s offer really enable them to take up those offers? It goes back to one of the questions that my noble friend Lady Falkner asked in the Statement on the Post Office: does everybody understand the bureaucracy? Are people giving up suitable accommodation because they have not really understood what is available?

It is good that we have rehoused 24,600 people. It would be better if we had a clear road map for others who would be ARAP-eligible. My final question is: can the Minister tell us how many Afghans are homeless in the United Kingdom and how many of those are vulnerable and on the streets today?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses opposite for their comments. We are united in our vision here and a lot of the things we are discussing today have very wide support. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, I watched some of the debate in the other place and I was struck not only by the individual cases but also the support given for the work by local authorities, by the Government for the funding that has been put in and, of course, by the total commitment of the brave Afghans who worked alongside us so well.

I turn to the specific points that have been raised. Perhaps I can first tackle new arrivals, including those in third countries. We have been clear, as I said in the Statement, that we need to solve the problem here, so that those from overseas can go straight into settled accommodation, with all its advantages. We will be making further announcements in due course about this, but I emphasise that our policy is to house Afghans in settled accommodation so they can work—they have the right to work—so they can integrate into communities, so they can send their children to local schools and embed them, and so they can become rooted in their new homes and communities.

In relation to homelessness, our promise was to ensure that no Afghans were sleeping rough, and as a result of our efforts the vast majority are now settled in permanent accommodation, with fewer than 5% of families receiving homelessness support. The noble Baroness asked for a specific figure. It is 188 households; I do not have a breakdown by adults and children. The homelessness system also acts as a safety net and no family will be left without a roof over their heads. There is funding of £9,150 per family available to support councils with homelessness costs, as well as £28 per person per day for up to six months if they are placed in temporary accommodation. Of course, that is on top of the £2 billion towards dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping, which is not the subject of this Statement but is a very important priority as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, made a number of points which I very much agreed with, and she mentioned the education issue, which is incredibly important—and what a horror the contrast is between the attitude to the education of women in Afghanistan and our approach here.

Although I do not have the numbers of underage Afghan children out of school, I can tell the noble Baroness that the system we have initiated had a special focus at a time when children could move into new schools in the new autumn term, which I thought was very good. There is also an educational rule that local area school places have to be found within 20 days. So we are aware of the needs of education. I should also say that in every hotel there has been help from the DWP, the Home Office and so on because we understand the importance of these issues.

Funding is also important. The Statement made clear that we have tried to be generous and to help local authorities. In addition to the £250 million expansion of the local authority housing fund, which I think is a game-changer, we have also found £32.5 million—that is £7,100 per person—for the flexible housing fund. That is both capital and revenue, which is important because it means that there may be money available for families to have a deposit on a rented house or for capital to be used to flex a house—for example, when there is a large family. The work that has been done by DLUHC and others has been innovative. There has been money for voluntary and community sector caseworkers, which I have already mentioned. That is in addition to the resettlement allowances that come from the Home Office: there is £20,520 per person integration tariff funding for resettlement, and other money is available for things like English language training, which—to go back to the point of about education—is incredibly important. We know that these brave people will be able to integrate well if their children are in school and they can move forward.

The point about bureaucracy was close to my heart. I want to make the point that pamphlets have been made in English, Pashto and Dari, so there has been a real effort to explain people’s needs. The availability of officials in hotels has also been good for that. That is something of a model, although there is of course more to do and we need to go further.

I am so grateful for the support from third countries. It has been mentioned that some people under the ARAP and ACRS schemes are still principally in Pakistan, but we are grateful to the third countries concerned for that. By moving through the existing families and getting them into permanent accommodation, it is going to be a great deal easier to get those schemes up and running properly again.

Afghan Resettlement Update

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 30th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Government for their Statement, although serious questions remain around this Afghan resettlement scheme. Let us start by reminding ourselves that our nation promised those who put their lives at risk to serve alongside our Armed Forces in Afghanistan that we would relocate their families and give them help, as well as rebuild their lives.

Our operations depended on courageous Afghan interpreters and guides, and we made commitments which we have a moral duty to accept and honour. Can the Minister explain why, 18 months after the airlifting of Afghan families to the UK, 8,000 people are still in hotels and thousands await processing in a backlog? The Government have announced new money to tackle the 8,000 in temporary accommodation; is this available immediately and how long will it take to relocate those people?

In the other place, the Minister said in the Statement:

“We will honour our commitment to those who remain in Afghanistan.”


Can our Minister say what is our estimate of this number, how they will be brought here and whether the Illegal Migration Bill have any impact on any of this?

Can the Minister tell us why on earth the Ministry of Defence said that applicants to ARAP could come to the UK only if they had Taliban approval? Some 10 days after apologising for that error and committing to changes to its practice, what do we learn? An applicant under the other scheme, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, was told to retrieve documents from the Taliban or risk rejection. Can the Minister confirm that the need to seek Taliban approval under the ARAP or ACRS schemes has been immediately stopped? The Minister in the other place said:

“I will not stand here and defend the system”. —[Official Report, Commons, 28/3/23; col. 843.]


That is fine, but who then is responsible and who is sorting out the mess if the Minister has said he is not going to defend it?

To clarify figures mentioned in the other place in response to questions, how many Afghans brought over on these schemes have been permanently housed and how many remain in temporary accommodation? Johnny Mercer MP, the Minister in the other place, said that, under the ARAP scheme, 4,300 entitled personnel remain in Afghanistan. What is happening to them? On the ACRS, he said that we have promised 20,000 places and so far only 7,637 have arrived. What is happening to ensure that the Government achieve that figure given by the Minister?

These people cannot wait indefinitely in Afghanistan, neither can those who arrive wait indefinitely in hotels. The Minister’s Statement in the other place focused on Afghans who have reached here. Can the noble Baroness the Minister tell us what we are going to do about the 1,000 people accepted by the schemes—that figure is from the Minister’s Statement in the other place—who are waiting to get to the UK but are stuck in hotels in Pakistan?

This all needs to be sorted out, so what is the action plan to do it? If all is well, how on earth is it possible to read in today’s paper that, under existing legislation, an Afghan pilot could be sent to Rwanda? Yes, he arrived on a small boat, but this Afghan pilot flew 30 combat missions against the Taliban on our behalf. Is it correct that somebody like that will face deportation?

There are a number of questions that urgently need to be answered by the Government. We need these schemes to work more efficiently and more effectively. These are people who stood shoulder to shoulder with this country when they were needed. They fought, and in some cases died, alongside our Armed Forces. They supported us and now look to us to support them. Clearly, we must do better—above all, because it is the right thing to do and because our reputation and standing in the world demand that we do so.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said. As so many times on issues to do with defence, and on the ignominious retreat from Afghanistan, we speak with one voice. It is right that we give asylum and a home to those from Afghanistan who fought with us and alongside us, served as interpreters, worked for the British Council and taught English in Afghanistan.

The commitments of His Majesty’s Government’s under the ARAP and the ACRS are laudable but, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just made clear, even on their own admission they are failing. There were many thousands of people left behind in August 2021, and there are few obvious safe and legal routes for them to get from Afghanistan to the United Kingdom. In his Statement in the other place, Johnny Mercer kept stressing the government mantra about being open to those who come via safe and legal routes. If those people who are left behind in Afghanistan could get here via safe and legal routes, does anybody think they would still be in Afghanistan? Of course they would not be; the reason they are not here is because there are no safe and legal routes out of Afghanistan. For those who have been given the right to come through the ARAP or the ACRS, there are very few routes out of Afghanistan.

What are His Majesty’s Government proposing to do to assist those people who are still in Afghanistan, but who do not have the passports and paperwork, to leave the country? It is all well and good to say that we will find accommodation for those who get here via a safe and legal route, but how do they do that?

People have been left for nearly two years in a vulnerable situation; if they were vulnerable in the middle of August 2021, how much more vulnerable are they in March 2023? Many of these people thought they had found safe houses, but a safe house can suddenly become unsafe. They move from place to place, with ever-diminishing resources. Some of them have passports but many of their dependants do not. It costs maybe $10 to get a visa legally, but how does one get one? It is almost impossible, so brokers are used and they might cost $1,100, and it is $3,000 for a passport through a broker.

Could the Minister reassure the House, and anyone with colleagues and networks back in Afghanistan, that those people who have managed to find the resources to pay for passports and other documentation through brokers, and have got to Pakistan, would be deemed to have done so legally? Would they be deemed to have got to Pakistan legally? Will they be reassured, if they have got to Pakistan, that they have a safe and legal route from Pakistan to the UK? That is vital.

It is disappointing that His Majesty’s Government seem to feel a need to focus on the people who are already here by saying that if they are in a hotel, they must move out. Of course nobody wants people to be stuck in hotels and it is wholly right that we should want to rehouse those people who are here as refugees, but Johnny Mercer’s Statement almost seemed to suggest that people were staying in the Ritz—that somehow they are staying in such wonderful hotel accommodation that they decline suitable offers of accommodation. If His Majesty’s Government are giving suitable offers of accommodation to people who are already here and they decline it, could the Minister perhaps look for ways of explaining to people how the accommodation is suitable? Maybe there has been a misunderstanding—or is it perhaps that there is a lack of suitable accommodation? In which case, what are His Majesty’s Government doing to ensure that suitable accommodation is available? Just saying that another £250 million has been made available does not do the job.

We need to understand that the accommodation is available to rehouse people; we need to find a way to get the thousand people out of hotels in Pakistan and over here, and we need to ensure that the other 8,000 people left behind can find a way here. Even if they do not come out of Afghanistan through safe and legal routes, if they come here through other routes, we should still open our doors to them. We owe them that.

Ministers: Government Business

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I agree. Since I came to the Dispatch Box—I am sorry that I have lost my voice—I have been trying to move the debate forward. That is why I was emphasising the role of the UK on cybersecurity, which is an impressive one. I know, because I had to attend three days of a cybersecurity conference in Singapore while Secretaries of State were busy on other matters. I found that the UK’s work was highly respected and took a great deal of comfort from that. It is very important that we invest in the future and support the task force that has been set up and is going to draw on expertise from across the House.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it is good to know that the Minister has had training on security but yesterday’s i suggested that some of the UK’s closest allies are so concerned about the Government’s use of repeated use of personal devices for government business that they are beginning to consider what security briefings they should make available to the United Kingdom. Is that not a reason why her colleagues in government should think again about using personal devices for government business?

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

I am always careful to question individual reports, but I repeat that we take a leading role on the global stage in countering state threats, and we will continue to work closely on this with like-minded allies and partners to defend UK interests, and the international rules-based system, from hostile activity.

Economy: The Growth Plan 2022

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 10th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I have not been watching British politics and economics for quite the 60 years that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, referred to. My first memory of the British economy was during the three-day week in the early 1970s and its periodic blackouts. My father and I visited my great-uncle, who had a corner shop; I would have been about three or four, but even then I can remember him talking about the difficulties of getting in produce, as supermarkets found it so much easier to undercut. There were changes in the economy then that were not necessarily attractive; they were not necessarily times we would want to go back to. The 1970s were probably the worst time for the British economy that I and many others remember.

When we voted for Brexit, despite the Project Fear perhaps put out by some, I did not expect that we would indeed end up in a period where there would be threats of blackouts and growth would be slipping back as much as it is.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

It has nothing to do with Brexit.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

The noble Lord says from a sedentary position that it has nothing to do with Brexit—

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

Of course it does.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I thank the noble Baroness. There was a suggestion by those who were arguing against Brexit that it would have catastrophic economic consequences. We will never know fully what the implications of Brexit would have been had it not been for the Covid pandemic and a whole range of other issues, but it is absolutely clear that we are in an economic situation that was unforeseen five years ago and which very clearly started at the time of Covid and was exacerbated by the war in Ukraine.

Had I not been heckled from a sedentary position, I was going to say that today a miracle has happened—I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley. Before the Whips in my party get too worried, I say that it is over something with which I hope perhaps all Members in your Lordships’ House can agree: that we should not want a Government to fail. It must be of considerable interest to us all, as citizens of the United Kingdom and Members of your Lordships’ House, that our country should be respected globally and that our economy should be as strong as possible. I therefore do not seek to talk down the Government, however much I might like to see them defeated at the next election.

The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, raised the question of whether the Prime Minister had too many Ps in her PPE. I was more concerned that she had missed Politics 101: as Prime Minister, there are certain people you want to have in your Cabinet, so do not kick to the Back Benches those people who do not agree with you. The Prime Minister might like to rethink that a little bit. But did she really learn the lessons in Oxford PPE that some of the rest of us did? There seem to have been so many decisions in the last four weeks that are not about strengthening the economy; some of them stand to weaken the economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is right that cheap money is no longer available, but those decisions that the Chancellor put forward two and a half weeks ago led to a set of consequences that is going to increase borrowing. Can the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in his response tell the House what calculations the Government have made around the impact on the economy and our borrowing of the Government’s mini-Budget; the amount of borrowing the Government are having to do; the intervention of the Bank of England; and the long-term consequences this will have on young people and their mortgages, and on those who are repaying their student loans? The youngest are among those who are going to suffer most from many of these changes.

Cutting energy prices is right. Borrowing for tax cuts most certainly was not.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 18th July 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 105 in the names of my noble friends Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Fox. I will come on to some of the points the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, made, but before I start, I apologise for not being here at the start of the Committee. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, I was on a train for four hours. Actually, you can hear my croakiness: I am the healthiest one on our Front Bench today, so I am here—

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

That is not quite true.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

Well, the healthiest on the Procurement Bill and constitutional affairs Front-Bench team. I thank the Minister, I think, for passing on his cold of last week to me.

My noble friends’ Amendment 105 is also a probing amendment. Clause 19 uses the word “appropriate”, and this amendment is to see

“under what circumstances it may be considered ‘appropriate’ not to undergo an open tendering procedure.”

There are no criteria or guidelines about what may be appropriate. This is just a probing amendment to see if the Minister can explain why such a wide-ranging word as “appropriate” is in the clause. Who will decide whether it is appropriate, and what guidelines or criteria would the Government expect the authority to seek in determining whether the open tendering procedure should not go ahead?

With Amendment 96, yet again, the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, raises some important points in Committee by changing just one word. I particularly point to what she described as the “Alice in Wonderland world”, in which you can be debarred from one part of tendering but not have been given a contract—or the other way round. The noble Baroness’s suggestion to include exclusion from the tendering process in the Bill makes eminent sense or we will be in the position in which people could, by law, tender but would be debarred from getting the contract, even if theirs was potentially the best tender around.

With those comments, I feel that, particularly on Amendment 105 in the name of my noble friends, some clear guidance from the Dispatch Box would be welcome.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has made a telling and persuasive case. I hope it will convince the Committee to support the tenor of Amendment 485 in particular; I added my name to it on Friday last. I strongly agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, are arguing for in that amendment, specifically on the role of the National Audit Office; it is long overdue.

I want to develop the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, a little further for the Committee. Here are some headline points: £4.8 billion has been wasted on cancelled contracts since 2010. Some £5.6 billion has been overspent on MoD projects since 2010, and £71 million spent on unplanned life extensions. Some £2.6 billion has been wasted on write-offs: there are 20 cases of wastage by write-off in the report that was referred to, contributing to some £2.6 billion—or 20% of total wastage—since 2010. Some £64 million has been wasted on admin errors, including £32.6 million in HM Treasury fines almost uniquely imposed on the Ministry of Defence for poor accountancy practices.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the ongoing International Relations and Defence Select Committee inquiry into future defence policies, not least on procurement; indeed, I mentioned at Second Reading on this Bill. Last week, we heard from Professor John Louth, who was the director of RUSI’s defence, industries and society research programme from 2011 to 2019. Today, he is a private sector consultant. He shared several important insights into the peculiarities and particularities of defence procurement, not least the need to work with significant uncertainty, because of the speed with which technology moves, and how to strike a reasonable balance between insisting on value for money and having appropriate flexibility. The committee also explored associated issues, such as whether there is an optimal balance between indigenous development and off-the-shelf purchases in defence procurement; what considerations would have to be made; how the Government would intervene to prioritise them; how much of our defence capability needs to be supplied by the state itself, and what can and should be sourced from private suppliers; and who the legitimate partners are in the UK’s defence enterprise—manifestly not companies owned or controlled by countries such as Russia or China.

It was clear that there were other factors which distort procurement in the case of defence contracts. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, enjoys the sympathy and understanding of this Committee that it is not an easy world in which to operate. Professor Louth suggested to our Select Committee last week that there had been some successes, mainly around innovation. However, when asked about this Bill, specifically the measures before us now, he said:

“I tried to read as much into the Bill as possible. But it proved hard to identify the end state which the Government was looking for”—


the very point the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just made. Professor Louth continued:

“Seeing the approach as an attempt to streamline is sensible but we need an Act that identifies the sharing of risk. There are lines and lines of rhetoric; lines and lines of legal reform—some of it incomprehensible even for those of us who are academics.”


He saw the Bill and its provisions as a missed opportunity, saying that

“quite often the private sector does things best and mixing it directly with what the state does would help enormously.”

He pointed to a high degree of private wealth that is funding our defence research and emerging capabilities but said we would get more value for money if a combined commitment was identifiable.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to Ajax. During last week’s Select Committee proceedings, I asked Professor Louth about this, to which he replied,

“Ajax has been a disaster.”


As we heard from the noble Lord, in June the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee warned about the delays to Ajax, a programme which has already been running for 12 years, a point picked up in this admirable amendment about projects that overrun and the costs to the public purse. It said, and I am sure we all agree, that this risks national security and compromises the position of our defences.

Ajax was intended to produce a state-of-the-art reconnaissance vehicle for the Army. It has cost a staggering £3.2 billion to date and yet it has failed so far to deliver a single deployable vehicle—not one. The vehicles were supposed to enter service in 2017, but Ajax has been subject to what the Commons committee describes as “a litany of failures.” The failures included noise and vibration problems that injured soldiers who were testing the vehicles. As the MoD has been unable to say, even now, when Ajax will enter service, perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether she has any further information on that, whether the safety issues have been resolved and if it is likely that they will ever be resolved.

Last week, I reminded our Select Committee that the Public Accounts Committee says the programme has been “flawed from the outset”, but also said it was illustrative of a deeper failing, commenting that the MoD had

“once again made fundamental mistakes”

in the planning and management of a major defence programme. Pulling no punches, it accused the Ministry of Defence of “failing to deliver” vehicles which the Armed Forces need to

“better protect the nation and meet … NATO commitments.”

In the current situation, with one eye eastwards on Ukraine, this is a very serious statement by a senior committee of this Parliament.

Meg Hillier, who chairs the Public Accounts Committee, spelled it out in these terms:

“Enough is enough—the MoD must fix or fail this programme, before more risk to our national security and more billions of taxpayers’ money wasted. These repeated failures … are putting strain on older capabilities which are overdue for replacement and are directly threatening the safety of our service people and their ability to protect the nation and meet NATO commitments.”


Some 324 hulls for Ajax-family vehicles have been built, along with 74 turrets, and 26 vehicles have been handed over to the Army for training purposes. The PAC report points to “operational compromises” which the Army has been forced to make, which include the prolonging of the use of ageing Warrior armoured vehicles which came into service back in 1987 and are expensive to maintain.

In total, the contract with General Dynamics is worth £5.5 billion, and the PAC says that it doubts whether the programme can be delivered within existing arrangements. We have a duty to make a forensic examination of what Professor Louth told us in the International Relations and Defence Committee last week has been a “disaster” and what lessons might be applied via this Bill, especially lessons about poor project management and inadequate contract performance, soaring costs and lengthy delays even before contacts were signed.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the same issues have been raised again and again in various attempts to reform procurement. This has all been at great cost to the public purse and, as I have argued, at a risk to our national security. This Bill should be much clearer about how it intends to put flesh on the bones of a strategic relationship with industry, focusing on delivery within the budget and on time. What a pity it is that this Bill is not in draft before both Houses, being examined by parliamentarians during pre-legislative scrutiny, rather than being placed in the context of the many other diverse issues that we have been considering.

In conclusion, Ajax was a heroic figure from Homer’s Iliad. Apart from Agamemnon, he was the only principal character who received no substantial assistance from any of the gods—perhaps they will come to the aid of the Minister today. She can at least be heartened that Poseidon struck Ajax with his staff, renewed his strength and joined in Ajax’s prayer to Zeus to remove the fog of battle to see more clearly the light of day. I have no doubt that the amendments in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, will do precisely that. I hope we will lift the fog and support these amendments.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 485. I will also speak to Amendment 101, which was not signed by noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, although there is clearly some interest in the issue of whether we use British suppliers for defence. There were some reservations from the trade team, the international team and the business team about whether we should be focusing solely on looking at British suppliers for defence contracts.

One particular question I would like the Minister to consider, which may be something on which the Labour Front Bench also has view, links to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about whether it is more appropriate to have bespoke defence contracts or whether sometimes it is better to have off-the-shelf procurement. In that context, I would very much like to hear the Minister’s response to Amendment 101.

The reason for not signing this amendment was not that we do not support British industry; clearly there are a huge number of opportunities in particular where we might be looking for small and medium-sized enterprises to be very closely involved in the delivery of defence contracts. Most of the high-level contracts we have talking about—the catastrophe of Ajax, the major extensions, the cost and time overruns and the failures of defence procurement—are about the high-level programmes, but there will be many subcontracts within them. Trying to support our small and medium-sized enterprises is clearly desirable. If there is a way of doing that, alongside ensuring best value for money, there could be some interest in this amendment. However, it needs a lot more exploration and perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, it would have been better having pre-legislative scrutiny to explore how we look at procurement.

The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, stole many of my lines, including many of the notes I made during, and the points I raised at, Second Reading, to which the Minister did not have the opportunity to reply, because her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord True, was responding instead. In line with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I am very much looking forward to hearing a series of answers from the Minister which will enable us to understand in what way this Bill is intended to help defence procurement. In many ways, the idea of having a single Bill that deals with all types of procurement is superficially very attractive, yet, as the Grand Committee has already heard, it is not clear in any way, shape or form how this Bill is going to improve defence procurement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

What I think is important is that we accord the National Audit Office the absolutely critical character of independence, which is necessary for it to do the job it does. I think that part of that independence is that it is quite separate from government departments, and, with the greatest respect, I think that is what the MoD should not be doing. The National Audit Office should be saying, “If we think you’ve got dirt lying under the carpet, we’re going to rip the carpet up and have a look at the dirt”, and I think that is the freedom we expect the National Audit Office to have and that is the freedom it has got. As I say, everyone, I think, will understand that the Ministry of Defence knows well the feeling of being on the receiving end of a National Audit Office report which makes uncomfortable reading.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has spoken about the legislation giving the MoD greater flexibility, but following up from her response to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to what extent does it enhance accountability, which is at the crux of what we have all been asking about?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Baroness will be aware, the National Audit Office reports not to the MoD; it reports to Parliament. It is a very powerful line of accountability that introduces the legitimacy in any democratic society for elected parliamentarians—or Members of this House—to ask on the basis of a report what the department has been doing. It has never inhibited Members of the other place or Members of this House from doing just that, as your Lordships are very well aware.

The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Coaker, raised particularly the very legitimate question of what we are doing within the MoD to try to improve our procurement performance. I think your Lordships will understand that, probably more than any other department, the Ministry of Defence carries out massive procurement contracts. Then again, that is a very justifiable reason for asking us to demonstrate that we are doing that effectively and efficiently, being fair to the taxpayer and to our industry partners.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, when the noble Baroness is writing to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, could she undertake to clarify which point of this Bill deals with the issue, so that Members can look and assess whether we believe it is adequate, or whether a further set of amendments might need to be brought forward on Report?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

There is a part of the Bill that allows the Secretary of State to exclude a supplier; that is a specific provision in the Bill. Where defence and security contracts are concerned, I think these are powerful provisions. I am very happy to take the advice of my officials and see if I can clarify the position further for your Lordships’ Committee.

Moving on, government Amendments 520 to 526, to which I referred earlier, are what I would describe roughly as Schedule 10 amendments. Schedule 10 amends the Defence Reform Act 2014 principally to enable reforms to the Single Source Contract Regulations 2014. The regulations are working well to deliver their objectives of ensuring value for money for the taxpayer and a fair price for industry. That is the balance against which we always have to work. Delivering the Defence and Security Industrial Strategy and building on experience since 2014 means that some reforms are needed. This will ensure that the regulations continue to deliver in traditional defence contracts and can be applied across the breadth of single-source defence work in the future, providing value for money for the taxpayer while ensuring that the UK defence sector remains an attractive place in which to invest.

We are making two government amendments to Schedule 10 which will clarify the wording and deliver the full policy intent. The first relates to paragraphs 3(2) and 3(8) of Schedule 10, where we are increasing the flexibility of the regime by taking a power to enable contracts to be considered in distinct components—this is an important development—allowing different profit rates to be applied to different parts of a contract where that makes sense. Secondly, we are simplifying the contract negotiation process by an amendment to paragraph 8(3)(a) of Schedule 10, which ensures that the contract better reflects the financial risks involved, and in paragraph 8(3)(c) of Schedule 10, taking a power that will clarify how the incentive adjustments should be applied. We are clarifying the wording currently in paragraph 8(3)(c), which will become paragraph 8(3)(ea)—I am sorry that is a little complicated; it is just to achieve accuracy of reference—by government amendment in Committee to ensure that the schedule fully delivers the policy intent.

In short, these government amendments provide improved clarity and greater flexibility in the defence procurement process, and I hope your Lordships will be minded to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Noakes (Con)]

My Lords, I have two small amendments in this group, Amendments 330 and 332. I must say that this group contains far too many issues to be debated effectively. My own are minor, so I did not degroup them, but I hope that in future other noble Lords will exercise their right to degroup so that we have sensible groupings to enable a proper Committee debate. I will probably get into trouble with my Chief Whip for encouraging noble Lords in this direction, because I think there is a view that large groupings are more efficient. However, I do not believe that; I believe in effective scrutiny in your Lordships’ House.

Amendment 330 probes the relationship between the mandatory exclusion of suppliers for improper behaviour in Clause 30 and the discretionary exclusion found in paragraph 14 of Schedule 7. I do not understand why the Bill has to have improper behaviour as an exclusion ground dealt with in two places. The definition of “improper behaviour” is virtually identical in each case, and they certainly seem to be aimed at the same behaviour. The processes are very similar, with rights given to suppliers in both cases, and they are both aimed at exclusion decisions. There are wording differences between the two parts of the Bill, but I cannot see anything of substance involved. It just looks as if two parliamentary draftsmen have been involved in different bits of the Bill and they have not known what was going on in the other bit.

Schedule 7 requires only that the decision-maker—which is usually the contracting authority, as in Clause 30—“considers” that there is improper behaviour, while Clause 30 requires a determination. However, in this context, I cannot believe that that is a distinction with any real difference attached to it. The main difference of substance is that Clause 30 results in mandatory exclusion, while paragraph 14 of Schedule 7 does not necessarily lead to exclusion. I hope that my noble friend the Minister can explain the subtleties of why improper behaviour has been dealt with in this way. My own view is that it would be easier to understand if Clause 30 were placed in the Schedules 6 and 7 structure of the Bill, since it deals with exclusion, and could have options of mandatory or discretionary exclusion. I certainly look forward to hearing what my noble friend the Minister has to say on that.

Amendment 332 is slightly different; it concerns paragraph 16 of Schedule 7, which itself sets out exclusions from the discretionary exclusions in Schedule 7. Under paragraph 16(4), there are four exclusions from some of the Schedule 7 things which have happened before the schedule came into force. It is my understanding that the existing procurement rules already contain three of the grounds for exclusion. So it does not seem logical that, when we shift to this new Procurement Bill, we disregard things that happened in the past that were exclusion grounds because they happened before the Act came into force—it seems to be an unnecessary discontinuity.

I believe that the new ground is “national security”, under paragraph 16(4)(d). For that, it is probably reasonable to disregard behaviour that occurred prior to the Act coming into force. I invite my noble friend the Minister to explain the logic behind paragraph 16(4).

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I will speak to Amendment 353, to which I am a co-signatory, and in passing to Amendment 331. Perhaps surprisingly, my first comment will be to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. As we were listening to the various interventions and the introduction of various amendments, my sense was that we were trying to debate too many things in one group. In particular, when I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I thought that hers were very interesting amendments but that they were not really related to some of the issues associated with modern slavery, genocide and human rights that we were thinking about. I would also like to the irritate the Whips by suggesting that a little more degrouping might be beneficial in future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, introduced Amendment 353 in considerable detail, and my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, then elaborated on it further. At this point, I do not want to go into further detail but to press the Minister on whether the Government would not see that it is appropriate to extend what the Department of Health and Social Care has done with the Health and Social Care Act to ensure that there is transparency in supply chains and that we do everything possible to ensure that genocide and modern slavery are excluded. Other noble Lords have provided the reasons why that is so important. I would hope to give the Minister plenty of time in which to respond.

Procurement Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 25th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, speaking on defence matters, I am not used to having detailed legislative scrutiny. We rarely have legislation, and when it comes forward it is often like the Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order, which is on half a side of A4, and the Explanatory Notes are equally short and, in most cases, rather unnecessary. The message is essentially: “We need this legislation in order to carry on having the Armed Forces”.

On this occasion, I rise to speak with some trepidation on the Procurement Bill, because as the noble Lord, Lord True, pointed out in his opening remarks, it is a very detailed Bill and not one to which I would normally put my name. On this occasion, therefore, I am extremely grateful for the Explanatory Notes. I will speak to the core part of the Bill that I welcome: the fact that if we are to have a single procurement regime, it should include defence. However much we might endorse Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and welcome what they do, it is very rare for anybody to stand up and say that the defence procurement regime works incredibly well and cannot be improved. So in that sense, this is a welcome Bill.

By way of preamble, I would very much like to welcome the comments of the noble Lord, Lord True, in introducing the Bill and in his response to a previous question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sugg—that this Bill could have relevance to genocide and modern slavery. I assume that my noble friend Lord Alton will raise this issue in his contribution. The opportunity for us to raise questions about values in procurement is hugely welcome. That the Government were willing to make some amendments to the then Health and Care Bill was also very welcome in this regard. If a single procurement regime were to lead to best practice, ensuring that contracts which could be seen as corrupt were not let, or that people’s What’s App groups were not relevant to procurement, this would all be very welcome.

The noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, has just pointed out that procurement is sometimes about trying to change the spec—maybe mending or meddling. In defence procurement, contracts regularly run over length and over budget. Many civilians, many of whom are not interested in defence, may not have noticed, for example, questions about the A400M or Ajax armoured vehicles. It is a bit similar to Crossrail, now welcomed as the Elizabeth line, being four years over time and over budget. In a whole series of reports, most recently in November 2021, the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee has pointed out some of the problems with defence procurement. Cumulatively, various pieces of defence equipment are running 21 years behind schedule—although one assumes that no single item is 21 years overdue.

The noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead—he is not in his place today, although he may appear at some later point in proceedings on the Bill—has on many occasions asked questions of the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, about the number of ships and the procurement process, including when a certain class of ship will come on stream. We keep being told that this may be in the mid or late-2020s. Delay is a perennial problem in defence procurement. If this legislation is to offer a single approach to procurement, of which defence is part, that sounds very welcome.

As my noble friend Lord Fox pointed out, there are a number of exemptions in the legislation. A whole clause lists various exemptions, chief among them being those relating to defence. I would be grateful if the Minister, either today or in writing, or the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, when preparing for the Bill Committee, could indicate to your Lordships the Government’s thinking on exemptions, particularly those linked to defence. Some would appear straightforward. If a tank or armoured vehicle is in another country, it would not necessarily be brought back to the United Kingdom to be repaired. If there are larger procurement issues to do with repairs, maybe we need to think about not exempting these provisions. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s thinking on exemptions?

As is so often the case, there are some weasel words in the schedules about national security, which is mentioned twice as an exclusion and as an exemption. Procurement might be exempted from this regime if there are national security reasons to do so. Who determines whether something is a matter of national security? Is it the National Security Council? Is it the Home Office if it is a domestic matter? Will it be the organisation seeking to procure—whether that be the MoD, the Home Office or some other body—who say: “This is a matter of national security, and therefore it should be exempt”? Is the legislation sufficiently clear on that? If not, then that is an area where perhaps we need to bring some amendments to tighten the legislation. Those who advocated Brexit would say that this new approach to procurement legislation gives us more control over procurement and allows this House and the other place to scrutinise legislation so we should be doing it properly. Exemptions in terms of national security are a concern.

There will also be exclusions on the basis of national security. That clearly sounds very sensible on the face of it. You would not seek to procure equipment—particularly defence equipment—from a provider which might jeopardise British security. That seems a no-brainer. But again, who is making that decision about providers potentially jeopardising national security? Will there be a register? Will companies be on a list of providers that cannot be used because they jeopardise national security? That might be an area where there could be some probing amendments.

In terms of defence, having some improved procurement mechanisms might be very welcome. In its November report, the Public Accounts Committee argued that:

“To meet the aspirations of the Integrated Review, the Department’s—


that is, the MoD’s—

“broken system for acquiring military equipment needs an urgent rethink, led by HM Treasury and the Cabinet Office.”

Is this Bill the Cabinet Office’s response to the need for the MoD to improve its behaviour and its procurement provisions? Personally, I think it would be quite good to keep Her Majesty’s Treasury out of these things because, while we might want value for money in defence procurement, we also need to ensure that we are procuring the right things, and the Treasury’s approach to the bottom line might not be the right way forward.

In defence procurement in particular, having the right legislation will matter, but so will scrutiny of the actual contracts that are being let. It will be vital not just to get this legislation right but to ensure that, in major complex procurements in the future, we do not allow the politicisation of procurement to allow Ministers and officials to keep going back asking, “Could we just amend this contract? Could we add a few more bells and whistles?” Every time that happens, the cost of a contract goes up and the overruns go on longer.

This legislation offers some opportunities, but it will still be incumbent on your Lordships’ House and the other place to ensure that, in defence procurement, we really scrutinise everything that the MoD is doing.

Global Positioning System

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, we have always been clear that the possible provisioning of PNT services was not actually the rationale for our investment in OneWeb. The spaced-based positioning, navigation and timing programme analysed a number of ideas for concepts in low-earth orbit, and OneWeb was one of the many companies contributing to that. It is primarily a telecoms operation and that is where its primary focus is. However, we are not ruling out that low orbit and so on may play a role in future services.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the United States’ space-based PNT policy suggests that:

“GPS users must plan for potential signal loss and take reasonable steps to verify or authenticate the integrity of the received GPS data and ranging signal, especially in applications where even small degradations can result in loss of life.”


What advice do Her Majesty’s Government give to GPS users in this country?

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, users in this country certainly need to be aware of the potential difficulties, including space weather. The year 2025 is expected to have quite a high level of solar activity. Overall responsibility for providing facilities and back-up falls on the Government, which is why we conducted the review and are taking some of the measures that I have intimated to the House.

Retained EU Law

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, I indeed met a wide range of people in Northern Ireland yesterday, as I always try to. It is fair to say that I heard a lot of concerns about the way the protocol is being implemented. I heard some concerns about the democratic legitimacy of laws being imposed without consent and a great wish to do something about the current situation, which is what we are trying to do.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in answering my noble friend Lady Ludford, I am not sure that the Minister actually dealt with the question of whether any changes to retained law would be dealt with through primary legislation. Could he possibly try again? He suggested that the retained law had not necessarily been scrutinised by Parliament before and that any changes needed to reflect that reality. But surely, if we are taking back control, this House and the other place should be able to decide any changes to retained law. If so, how are the Government Whips going to find parliamentary time to do so?

[Lord Frost (Con)]

My Lords, the best way I can answer the question is to refer back to what I said on 16 September, when I referred to the democratic deficit issue of such law, and note that

“we will look at developing a tailored mechanism for accelerating the repeal or amendment of this retained EU law in a way which reflects the fact that, as I have made clear, laws agreed elsewhere have intrinsically less democratic legitimacy than laws initiated by the Government of this country.”—[Official Report, 16/9/21; col. 1533.]

There are various ways of achieving that end, and that is what we are working on.

House of Lords: Appointments Process

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, from a sedentary position, say, “Follow that”. I shall do my best.

We have already heard from the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, that he won the raffle for a debate which Her Majesty’s Government may choose to ignore. As he pointed out, if we are a self-governing House, we ought to be able to set up a committee for ourselves. We also ought to be able to have debates on Questions worded as we choose. I decided that the wording today debate probably allowed us to be a bit flexible.

The Question is about the process for appointing Members of the House of Lords, but the size of this House is a prior question—and one where we did have a committee. When the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, was Lord Speaker, he commissioned a committee, run by the noble Lord, Lord Burns, and there was a commitment to a cap of 600. Now it may be that, if we take away the 200 Peers who, according to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, do not really do very much, and we take away those on permanent leave of absence, we are below 600.

But there is a real difference between the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, and the current one— she responded to your Lordships’ committee and said that she would exercise restraint. The Conservative Government under her did so, but the current Government have not. In recent months and the last two years, we have had many new appointments. Will the Minister take back to the Prime Minister this House’s objection to the way that patronage is being used? The role of the House of Lords in the 21st century is not and should not be about patronage; it should be about a working legislature.