Pensions Appeal Tribunals (Late Appeal) (Amendment) Regulations 2022
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jones (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her incisive and always-informed remarks.
At paragraph 7.3 of the Explanatory Memorandum, the word “consistent” is used. A consistent approach is to be welcomed. However, can the Minister tell us about the ASG—that is, the advisory steering group? Who heads it? It looks very formal. It is advisory but shall its members be paid? Do we know what amount the group’s members receive? Are there any names of which the Committee might be informed? We need information regarding the names concerning the representative ex-service and service communities. One does not want the high and mighty of law and government ministries leaning heavily on the humbler members of the ASG. If the MoD is involved, rank will be a consideration. The judiciary also carries weight. On membership, does everyone have an equal voice?
At paragraph 7.2, we learn of appeals. Might the Minister flesh this point out by instancing an appeal case? What might it entail?
On paragraph 7.4, how many appeals were heard in 2021 and, if it is possible for the Minister to say, 2022? Again, I thank the Minister for her remarks.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, often in your Lordships’ House—and I mean your Lordships’ House, not Grand Committee, as I have not forgotten where I am—we spend a lot of time looking at primary legislation and saying that we need better scrutiny, that we should not have Henry VIII clauses, that we do not want framework legislation and that we need to be able to scrutinise statutory instruments very closely. The assumption is that the Government, on occasion, are perhaps trying to pull the wool over our eyes.
We do not get framework legislation with lots of Henry VIII clauses from the MoD, but we do from other ministries, so we will perhaps exonerate the MoD from this. Here we have a statutory instrument that looks so straightforward that one almost wonders why it needs to be here, other than that we had agreed in the Armed Forces Act 2021 that we should scrutinise such a statutory instrument. In asking whether this should be considered debated and approved, it is a straightforward statutory instrument, as it is only right that service personnel and veterans who are seeking to appeal, whether they are from Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, are treated in the same way. The basic principle seems straightforward: everyone in the four nations of the United Kingdom should be treated the same.
I have a similar question to one from the noble Lord, Lord Jones, about the number of appeals we are thinking about—not necessarily in 2021 or 2022. Are we talking about very large numbers or is this seem primarily as a tidying-up exercise? It would be useful to know that and have a sense, looking back 15 years from 2008 to 2023, of whether many people have been done a disservice because they were in Scotland and Northern Ireland and were not able to appeal between months 13 and 24, whereas they would have been able to in England or Wales.
I like the idea of the Lord Chancellor’s steering group but agree that it would be interesting to know more about its basis and whether it is intended as a long-term body.
I have a final question. We have occasionally had other tidying-up amendments. Is the Minister sanguine about the fact that other tidying-up legislation might need to be brought forward if there are other disparities that could be doing a disservice to service personnel or veterans from one part of the United Kingdom compared to those from other parts?
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. It seems simply to bring appeals in Scotland and Northern Ireland into line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is a good thing. I am curious, because this anomaly presumably sprang up in 2008, which was 15 years ago, about why it has taken so long to alight upon it and address it. That is the first of my two questions.
Secondly, the hierarchy for whether an appeal is allowed involves a step at which the Secretary of State may choose not to allow it. Does the Secretary of State have to respect any criteria in making this decision or is it absolutely at his discretion? I cannot see any guidance on the criteria in the instrument, but there may be a general criterion. I recall some discussion of this in the past and the requirement of Secretaries of State to behave reasonably, but I cannot see any criteria. Clearly, the stopgap—the thing that makes this reasonable —is that the tribunal may override the Secretary of State in the interests of justice, so it is not that important a point, but I am curious.
Just to make sure I have not got this completely wrong, would the Minister confirm that this measure is favourable for appellants in Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Service Family Accommodation
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I echo the words of my honourable friend in the other place. Yesterday, he said—quite correctly—that
“it is unacceptable that some of our personnel and their families are not receiving the level of accommodation services—in the form of maintenance standards—from our suppliers that they deserve and, in particular, are suffering from a lack of heating and hot water.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/12/22; col. 143.]
As the noble Lord will be aware, there has been a chronicle of dissatisfaction with the way in which contractors have been discharging their duties. We are very disappointed by contractors’ poor performance.
I can assure the noble Lord that some important improvements have been made. Our rectification plan started back in mid-September. First, my honourable friend the DPV Minister and the Secretary of State have met the contractors Pinnacle, Vivo and Amey to discuss these problems and express our deep concern. I assure the Chamber that we are holding them in a vice-like grip; there are penalties in the contract. My senior MoD colleagues are also meeting contractors fortnightly at the executive level—that is, chief executive and above. Every day, people in the MoD are engaging with their counterparts in the contracting companies who are carrying out the improvements on the ground.
Improvements have been made steadily, and the systems have been improved. However, I agree entirely with the noble Lord that anything less than habitable accommodation kept in good order is not acceptable. The MoD is conscious of that and conscious of the debt we owe our Armed Forces personnel. We are doing everything in our power to improve the situation, and evidence of improvement is there.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, this issue is not new. Before the Minister took her place as the Minister of State for Defence, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, listened to my complaints about service accommodation so many times that he said he would meet me. In the end, he sent the then Minister, Tobias Ellwood, to meet me. At the time, I pointed out a Facebook page called “Victims of CarillionAmey”, which still exists. Carillion is no longer with us but the point was about the response on service accommodation to service personnel, particularly their spouses. Often, a wife at home is unable to work because she has to spend so much time waiting at home for maintenance people who do not come. The answers so far have been good, but can the Minister assure the House that there will be not just changes to the number of meetings but some proper key performance indicators that are to be met?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness’s entreaties of my predecessor and noble friend Earl Howe were to very good effect because it was part of a systematic approach to the MoD about quality of accommodation for our service personnel. I can reassure the noble Baroness by saying that Pinnacle has increased the number of call handlers from 14 to 56, VIVO has boosted the number of contractors by 27%, Amey has boosted the number of contractors by 60%, and 15,000 heaters have been bought and are being distributed.
I asked officials this morning that if I were in that accommodation with two vulnerable young children and the heating went off, what could I do and how quickly could I do it? I was reassured that there is now, through Pinnacle, a 24/7 365 helpdesk where calls are triaged so that the urgent ones are dealt with and get a response. The caller is given a reference and there is a response within 48 hours, although the majority of calls are being responded to quicker than that. As I said earlier, we are holding the contractors in a vice-like grip: we are holding their feet to the fire. What has happened has been profoundly unsatisfactory, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her efforts in drawing attention to it.
Ukraine
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I start, at the end of this year, by thanking the Minister for her very helpful and co-operative approach in keeping me and this Chamber up to date with respect to Ukraine over the last 300 days. It has been very welcome. I also make the usual but nonetheless extremely important restatement of our support for the Government’s actions with respect to Ukraine. As we have stated many times, the fight for freedom, democracy and the rule of law remain as important now, 300 days after Russia’s illegal invasion, as they were on day one. President Putin has strengthened the resolve of NATO and been surprised by the co-operation that is so evident, again demonstrated by today’s visit to the White House of President Zelensky. The Ukrainian Government and their people should know that our resolve in this country remains strong.
I would like to ask the Minister a number of questions which arise from the Statement and the Government’s actions. First, can we expect the full 2023 action plan for Ukraine that the Defence Secretary promised four months ago, and which is not yet published? When will it be published?
It is reported again that Russia is seeking to boost and extend its military links with Iran: the Defence Secretary says that Russia intends to supply military technology to Iran in return for it supplying drones to Russia. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government are taking on this with respect to Iran? The Defence Secretary says that the West must hold Russia’s enablers to account. How do the Government actually intend to hold Russia’s enablers to account—in this respect, Iran? Does it not also cause worries for that region around Iran as well, and show that the Ukrainian conflict has far-reaching consequences not only for Europe but beyond it?
In the face of the increasing support of drones being provided to Russia by Iran, what additional support are we providing to Ukraine to defend itself? Can the Minister update us on the latest situation with respect to the provision of military equipment to Ukraine by us and our allies? Are there any shortages, and are we maintaining our own stockpiles in the face of this additional demand?
Alongside the discussion around Ukraine, we read that the Prime Minister has ordered a review of UK spending in Ukraine, and of our support. Can the Minister explain what this actually means, given that Downing Street also said that it involved an audit of progress? Did the Ministry of Defence know that that statement was coming? Was there proper consultation about it and was it fully agreed?
The Ukrainian Government have also said that they require support, such as with energy, to help them through the winter in the face of the Russian attacks on their energy supply. How are we supporting civil society through such shortages, as the maintenance of the health and security of the civilian population in Ukraine is crucial to their own war effort? Given the reports in the media that Royal Marines have also been deployed in Ukraine—reports based on briefings from senior Royal Marine commanders—and particularly given that the missions carried
“a high level of political and military risk”
is there anything further the Minister can say on that?
As London is to join other cities in darkening Christmas lights for Ukraine, in a show of solidarity with the millions of Ukrainians without power this winter, will the Minister join me in praising the British public for their support for the people of Ukraine? There is not only Homes for Ukraine, but the many fundraisers and expressions of support. This support is also essential; it shows the understanding that this has been a long struggle and is likely to continue for some time yet. The British public, in the face of their own difficulties, deserve much praise for understanding that some face even more difficulty. Was not the Defence Secretary right to say in his Statement that 300 days
“is not the maximum attention span of the international community”?
It has to be the case that our dedication to help Ukraine is enduring. It will not, and must not, let up through 2023 and beyond.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as so often, I am very happy to associate myself with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. However, unlike yesterday in the questions on the Statement on the Afghanistan inquiry, I have a whole series of additional questions to put to the Minister. These are intended not to undermine anything that the noble Lord said but simply to press a little further.
Clearly, we must all salute the resilience of Ukraine, President Zelensky, First Lady Zelenska and the Ukrainian people, who have done so much to stand up not just for their own liberty and freedom but for freedom more widely, as the Secretary of State said yesterday in another place. It is indeed right that the United Kingdom and our NATO allies have been supporting Ukraine. I thought the words of the Secretary of State yesterday were very well measured, that
“our support is calibrated to avoid escalation”,
because that is absolutely vital. There is a very real danger, as I thought the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, touched on, that this conflict could become much wider. Clearly NATO countries want to support Ukraine, but it is Ukraine’s war. It is right that we support by training Ukrainian service personnel and providing equipment, but we need to avoid escalation.
To press a little further, I wonder whether the Minister could clarify what work is being done to ensure that we have adequate contacts with the supply chains and those supplying military hardware to ensure that, down the line, there will be sufficient capabilities for His Majesty’s Armed Forces. We have raised these issues many times over the last 300 days, but the longer the conflict goes on the more important it is to ensure that there will be no difficulties with capabilities, not just in supporting Ukraine but for the United Kingdom Armed Forces themselves.
In addition to the question of capabilities, there is another. It is welcome to know, as everyone is aware, that the Royal Navy has been in the Black Sea and that the Army has been in various parts supporting the Joint Expeditionary Force in Eastern Europe. Can the Minister tell us what assessment has been made of the impact on our Armed Forces of all the requirements that are being put on them? Yesterday, we talked about the need for our Armed Forces personnel to stand in to replace key workers during the strikes. Again and again, we are calling on our Armed Forces. Does the Minister think we are giving them sufficient support? Should we be thinking about reversing the cuts to the Army?
Beyond that, there are clearly questions about what Russia has been doing and the activities that it has perpetrated—war crimes, alleged atrocities of rape, and many other atrocities that have been put forward. In particular, there appear to be many Ukrainians whose bodies cannot be identified. Last month I was in the Falkland Islands, visiting on the 40th anniversary of the liberation. There, of course, we have attempted to put graves for Argentinian soldiers, who were not easy to identify. That was by way of reconciliation, in some ways.
Last year, I was in Bosnia where there are mothers still weeping because the dismembered bodies of their dead children are scattered. In the light of what we are seeing in Russia, will the Minister say whether the Government are ready to consider supporting the idea of some sort of tribunal on war crimes perpetrated by Russia in Ukraine?
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their introductory remarks. Not for the first time, I express my appreciation in this Chamber for the unanimity of support for how we are responding to this illegal war being waged by President Putin. I have said before, and I repeat, that that political unanimity has a real impact, and I think it has made Russians realise that something very bad is happening in their name. I was interested in looking at my right honourable friend the Secretary of State’s Statement in the other place. He mentioned how public opinion in Russia seems to be changing. That is to be welcomed. Now there is evidence that a majority of the population is actually unhappy about this war and far from convinced that it is either justified or worth while. I think that the role that we play in this country through our political and democratic processes by demonstrating that unanimity—or as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, phrased it in word that does not often escape my lips—solidarity of approach is extremely important. It is part of the powerful response which this country is giving and, of course, that response has been supported and shared by our allies and partners.
On the noble Lord’s specific question about the action plan, it has not been forgotten about; it is a fairly dynamic piece of work, as the noble Lord will appreciate. There is a fluid situation in Ukraine. We regularly have to assess from our discourse with the Ukrainian Government, the intelligence we get from the Ukrainian armed forces and our own intelligence assessment how we should be approaching next year. To put this beyond any shadow of doubt, since the noble Lord raised my right honourable friend the Prime Minister using the word “review”, our resolve to support Ukraine in defending itself is absolutely unwavering. The Prime Minister is completely shoulder to shoulder with that resolve. When there is any endeavour in which the United Kingdom Government are engaged, the Prime Minister naturally wants to know how it is all going. That is a very natural inquiry, but that is not in some way to diminish or begin to weaken our support. We are very clear about what we are doing and why we are doing it.
That leads me on to the next point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which is this troubling intelligence that Russia is supplying technology to Iran. That is a profoundly undesirable development, and the noble Lord is quite correct that that of course has potential consequences for the broader region in the Middle East. As to how we deal with that, we consult allies and use whatever forum we have available, whether that is NATO or the UN, to highlight the concerns, to make them as public as possible and to consider collectively whether there is anything more we can do whether by the application of sanctions or other forms of restriction. The noble Lord will be aware that sanctions are beginning to bite hard and there is now evidence that the Russian military action is being degraded and that some of the weapons manufacturers in Russia have had to cease activity, all of which is evidence that the sanctions tourniquet is beginning to tighten around the Russian economy.
On our general support for Ukraine, as the noble Lord is aware, we have provided a variety of forms of equipment, both lethal and non-lethal. We have provided short and long-range air defence systems and missiles to help Ukraine protect its critical national infrastructure. These include Stormer vehicles fitted with Starstreak missiles, advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles—AMRAAM—and multiple-launch rocket systems which can strike targets up to 80 kilometres away. We have augmented that with armoured vehicles, anti-tank missiles, Brimstone missiles, anti-structure munitions and 4.5 million tonnes of plastic explosives—I will check that figure, because I think something is missing from the briefing pack—so we have been doing a great deal. I think noble Lords get the picture. We are doing a lot, and propose to continue doing a lot, to support the Ukrainians. We make these judgments by assessing what we hear from them, and then through the international donation co-ordination centre, which is led by the UK, we work out who is giving what and how quickly we can get it to them, and try to avoid any conflicting issues of duplication or replication.
The noble Lord raised the issue of replenishments; I can reassure him that we keep a close eye on this. We remain fully engaged with industry, allies and partners to ensure both the continuation of supply to Ukraine and that all equipment and munitions granted in kind from UK stocks are replaced as expeditiously as possible. We are working with NATO partners to strengthen industrial capacity within the alliance, both for now and for the future. We have been able to place contracts in respect of replenishing Starstreak lightweight multirole missiles and the next-generation light anti-tank weapons, NLAWs. They are currently being built. We anticipate further contracts being placed in the course of next year. The overriding consideration is that we always have to balance what we give with having enough ourselves to address issues of national security.
On the noble Lord’s reference to the Royal Marines, as my right honourable friend made clear in the other place, there has been a small cohort of Royal Marines but they have been there to protect the embassy. They are there not in any pugilistic, offensive capacity but simply to protect our diplomatic presence, which is a natural and understandable thing to want to do.
On humanitarian aid, yes, we have been paying close attention to what we can do to support Ukraine in the bombardment it is being subjected to. We have released £5 million of funding for repairs and replacement equipment in response to the Ukrainian Energy Minister’s list of needs. In October, the UK signed a €97.3 million European Bank for Reconstruction and Development guarantee for the Ukrainian electricity distributor. We will continue to look at what we can do to support Ukraine in energy. As previously indicated, we have also sent portable generators to support access to power for essential services, including hospitals and shelters. In November, the Foreign Secretary signed a memorandum of understanding with the energy community to release £10 million to repair Ukraine’s energy grid. That is on top of the generators already supplied.
The final point that the noble Lord made very eloquently was in relation to the UK response to all this. I absolutely agree with him that that response has been magnificent; it manifests in so many ways. No doubt he, like me, hears uplifting descriptions of how families have been taken in and made to feel welcome and are making a contribution to life in the UK. He is absolutely correct that the attention span is not transient or finite; it is there for as long as we need it to be there to see off this threat.
The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, is quite right: we ensure that we calibrate support to avoid escalation. I have explained about replenishment and capability; that is being addressed. She raised the impact on our Armed Forces and, yes, we ask a lot of them. Taking regulars and reserves, we have a current cohort somewhere well over the 100,000 mark. Of those, as I described I think yesterday—I am losing track of the days—a relatively small proportion are deployed to MACA tests, but obviously we have presences in the Baltic and Cyprus and a reducing presence in Africa. We are very clear about the need to be vigilant as to what we ask our Armed Forces to do and to ensure we are attentive to their welfare and well-being.
The final point the noble Baroness raised was on Russia’s activity and war crimes. I reassure her that we have been very active on that issue, working with the International Criminal Court and doing our best to provide expertise to the court to assist it in the work it needs to do. This is a very important area and Russia, and the agents and operators acting on its behalf, must understand that the tap on the shoulder will arrive one day. Our role is to ensure that the International Criminal Court, with the help of Ukrainian law enforcement agencies, is gathering and preserving the evidence it needs to consider legal charges and, subsequently, successful prosecutions and convictions.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
It is an important enlargement, and we support it. Turkey is an important ally to the United Kingdom; we are on good terms with Turkey. We will certainly use whatever influences we have, whether through MoD or diplomatic channels, to advance the case for the benefit to NATO and the broader Baltic region of Sweden and Finland becoming NATO members. We are committed to that, and we will use our best efforts to try to influence that debate.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, for the avoidance of doubt, I should have made it clear earlier that my trip to the Falkland Islands was at the invitation and expense of the Falkland Islands Government, as declared in the register of interests.
Afghanistan: Independent Inquiry
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, His Majesty’s Opposition welcome this special inquiry under Lord Justice Haddon-Cave into alleged unlawful activity by His Majesty’s Armed Forces, and the fact that it will start in early 2023. We also welcome the fact that this work will provide full legal and pastoral support.
Can the Minister confirm at the outset that the inquiry will be given access to all the records, documents and other evidence that it needs, as well as personnel? The reputation of our Armed Forces and our Special Forces is second to none and we are rightly proud of them. However, we are also proud of the high standards of military ethics, professionalism and respect for international law that we abide by and uphold. Therefore, does the Minister agree that an inquiry such as this is essential to protect the reputation that we rightly have, and that it must not only succeed but be seen to succeed?
There are currently two ongoing judicial review cases which have informed this decision to have the independent inquiry. Can the Minister outline the relationship between these judicial reviews and the inquiry? The Minister’s Statement says that the MoD accepts that Operation Northmoor should have started earlier and that there may be further lessons to learn from the incidents, despite there being insufficient evidence for any prosecution.
The terms of reference allow the investigation to look at whether there is any credible information that any of those who died in the DDOs carried out between mid-2010 and mid-2013 were killed unlawfully. What happens if they find such information? Are prosecutions then possible concerning Operation Northmoor, despite what was said in the Statement? What has changed in the MoD since July, when the BBC’s “Panorama” reports on these allegations were immediately dismissed by the MoD as irresponsible, incorrect and jumping to unjustified conclusions? Now, just a few weeks later, we have an independent inquiry. What changed?
Can the Minister confirm that the terms of reference allow the inquiry to substantiate any allegations, as well as how the allegations were handled? Can she clarify that the inquiry’s independence is fully assured, given that it is to take place in the MoD? And can she confirm that, as this inquiry was established under the Inquiries Act 2005, it is statutory and, therefore, that Lord Justice Haddon-Cave can summon whichever witnesses he sees fit and, if necessary, compel them to attend and give evidence under oath? Can he also ask any serving military personnel to attend the inquiry, whatever their rank? Does that also apply to civil servants, and political and other personnel? In the same period that is the subject of this inquiry, Australian Special Forces were also being investigated. Have we spoken to them to see if we can learn any lessons from them?
Then there are the implications, or potential implications, of this inquiry for Acts that have been passed and Bills currently before Parliament. I will give two specific examples. Can the Minister assure us that nothing in the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act will prevent or hinder the investigations of this inquiry? Of course, we are all opposed to repetitive, vexatious, historic claims, but some clarification and reassurance is needed here.
Furthermore, can the Minister tell us whether the inclusion of Clause 28 in the National Security Bill has anything to do with this inquiry? In other words, is the proposed legislative change in this Bill a consequence of what has or has not happened? Clause 28 of the National Security Bill amends Schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act 2007 to provide that extraterritorial application of certain offences of assisting or encouraging the commission of an offence overseas does not apply if the behaviour was necessary for the proper exercise of any function of the intelligence services or Armed Forces.
Section 50 of the Serious Crime Act already provides a defence of acting reasonably where the defendant believed certain circumstances to exist and the belief was reasonable. The House of Commons Library states:
“The provision … appears to be intended to extend immunity from criminal prosecution to actions which could not be proved to have been reasonable.”
What, if any, discussions have the MoD had with the Home Office about Clause 28, and is it relevant or not?
I finish by quoting Minister Murrison, who said:
“I hope that the whole House shares my pride in our armed forces. They are renowned throughout the world”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/12/22; col. 1259.]
Well, we all do, and we are very grateful for their professionalism and loyal service. It is because of that that we need to make sure that we get this inquiry right and that everyone is committed to seeing it succeed.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I start exactly where the noble Lord just left off: by acknowledging the debt we owe our Armed Forces and the high standards to which we hold them and to which the vast majority always adhere. But it is vital for the reputation of His Majesty’s Armed Forces and of our country that, if there has been illegal, inappropriate and unlawful action, it is investigated.
These Benches endorse all the questions that the noble Lord has just asked from the Labour Benches. They are all pertinent to the questions that the House should be asking, but I will add just a few points for further clarification.
One of the first questions that came to my mind was indeed about the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Act 2021. I note that Minister Murrison had almost second-guessed what noble Lords might ask by saying that the 2021 Act was always designed to enable the investigation and follow-up of any serious allegations, irrespective of time passed. So I ask the noble Baroness whether it is possible to reassure the House that none of the issues that will now be subject to the inquiry could be deemed out of scope under the purview of this Act. One of the serious concerns expressed by all sides of your Lordships’ House was that, precisely by having a time limit, certain crimes and unlawful actions would not be investigated. The House really needs reassurance about that. It is notable that the actions we are talking about date back over a decade, from mid-2010 to mid-2013. The timeframe is therefore very significant.
As the noble Lord pointed out, there are two cases of judicial review at present. It would clearly not be appropriate to ask questions or expect an answer on those at the moment, but might the Minister be able to tell us whether His Majesty’s Government believes that these are the only cases that need to be investigated, or whether the Ministry of Defence is anticipating that there could be further significant cases coming forward? At the moment, we are looking at potentially quite a limited inquiry. However, it could be very significant indeed. Some reassurance would be welcome.
The final point is on the question that we have already heard about the National Security Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House. How does Clause 28 fit with the investigation and the overseas operations Act? Can we, as a Parliament and a country, actually expect there to be proper scrutiny? Clause 28 seems to pave the way for some lacunae in the law. Can the Minister reassure us? If not, she should expect a number of amendments to the National Security Bill from all parts of your Lordships’ House.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their welcome of the announcement of the statutory inquiry into events in Afghanistan. I also thank them for and endorse their comments about the pride that we all have in our Armed Forces. The Secretary of State has been at pains to say that our Armed Forces operate to the highest standards and are hugely respected, as was echoed by my right honourable friend Dr Murrison in the other place. That is why, to be honest, the United Kingdom is one of the very popular choices to provide training: because of the very high standards that we observe.
I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was saying: where we think that things may not have gone satisfactorily, or where there is doubt or uncertainty about what happened, then yes, for the broader reputation of the Armed Forces, we are equally anxious to have that investigated, and in a thorough and robust fashion.
I will take my remarks to be inclusive of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. On the question about access to documents, this is a statutory inquiry. That means that it can call witnesses and has the power to compel them to attend, and they give evidence under oath. It will be for the inquiry and chairman to determine what evidence they seek and which witnesses they want to call. I want to make it clear that, given the gravity of the allegations that have been the genesis of announcing this inquiry, it is certainly the Secretary of State’s intention that the inquiry will address any remaining concerns that there was a failure to adequately investigate alleged systemic issues in order to comply with the investigative duties which arise under Articles 2 and 3 of the ECHR.
A further question was asked about how the judicial reviews, of which there are two at the moment, in respect of Saifullah and Noorzai, engage with the inquiry. The Secretary of State for Defence has applied for stays in the Saifullah and Noorzai judicial reviews while the inquiry takes place. The claimant has agreed to stays in both on the basis of the establishment of the inquiry, so the claimants have been party to this. A hearing on that application for a stay is scheduled for January.
A point was raised on the legal scope of the inquiry—what it can and cannot do. It can do a very great deal to try to find out what has happened. Noble Lords will have seen the wide-ranging terms of reference, which I looked at again today. They are very thorough indeed. I might describe them as an attempt to lift up every stone and to try to ensure that every possible angle is investigated. Again, I assure your Lordships that Saifullah and Noorzai were party to and consulted on the terms of reference.
The inquiry does not have the power to determine civil or legal liability, but it does have the power, on the basis of evidence, to draw conclusions and make recommendations. Potential criminal or civil liability might very well be inferred from or arise out of that. The specific question was about what would happen if the inquiry considered that anyone was killed unlawfully. It would be a matter for the independent prosecution to determine how to proceed in such a scenario.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to the “Panorama” programme. The Royal Military Police has asked for whatever further evidence there is. We have not received any fresh evidence, but, again, we are handing this over to the inquiry and to Lord Justice Haddon-Cave. It will be for him to pursue these matters.
On the timing of this, the Secretary of State proposed the inquiry, and work began on it, in May 2022.
My understanding is that the Brereton inquiry, which was the Australian inquiry, was slightly different in nature from this inquiry. A key difference is that the Brereton report started the investigation, whereas we have already done extensive criminal investigations of allegations, so we are starting from a slightly different point. Interestingly, the Australian Department of Defence and the Chief of the Defence Force said in letters to counterparts that
“there are no British service personnel who are persons of interest or affected persons as a result of this Inquiry”.
I merely inform the Chamber of what was said at the time.
Questions were asked about the overseas operations Act. That Act was an important attempt to try to reduce the prospect of unlimited clouds hanging over personnel of not knowing whether they would be prosecuted or become the subject of civil proceedings. The new protections for service personnel introduced by that Act apply to any proceedings commenced after 30 June 2021. That Act is not an amnesty, as your Lordships will recall. It raises the bar for prosecutions for alleged historical incidents, and it certainly provides greater certainty to our service personnel.
Your Lordships will recall from when we debated the then Bill in this House that there is now a presumption against prosecution, but it is a rebuttable presumption. The prosecutor has to have regard to various things, not least whether any new evidence has been produced. Finally, before any new proceedings could be brought, the consent of the Attorney-General would be required. Your Lordships will also recall that the Act does not extend protection to specific crimes: sexual offences, genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture and grave breaches of the Geneva conventions. The restrictions on prosecutions in the overseas operations Act do not apply to any of these offences.
On Clause 28, I must thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for giving me notice of this because it is a technical issue which I was not sighted on. As I think the noble Lord gleaned from my expression in the Corridor, my understanding of the point was limited, but I have made inquiries, and I am advised that Clause 28 of the National Security Bill, if enacted, would not affect the ability of the Secretary of State to establish a statutory inquiry. A Government Minister can establish an inquiry where they consider that particular events have caused or are capable of causing public concern, so it is a broad power that is used in a wide range of circumstances.
However, in law, Clause 28 has a narrow and specific purpose. It amends Schedule 4 to the Serious Crime Act 2007, which, together with Section 52 of that Act, provides for various inchoate offences. I appreciate that we are not sitting in a Chamber crammed full of lawyers, but “inchoate” is an offence anticipating or preparatory to a further criminal act, just to help your Lordships understand that. The Act that is being amended provides for various inchoate offences of encouraging or assisting crime to apply when the Act relates to the commission of an offence overseas. That clause will disapply extraterritorial application when the activity is deemed necessary for the proper exercise of any function of the Armed Forces. This ensures that those working for or on behalf of the Armed Forces in support of activities overseas would not be liable for those offences, but I emphasise the use of the word “proper”. Again, this is not some “get out of jail free” card. If people have behaved improperly, they can expect to be accountable in law. I have no doubt that the noble Lord will want to digest that. If he or the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, have any further questions, I shall be very happy to engage with both of them to see whether I can assist further in clarifying that matter.
The final question the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked me, I think, was whether the two judicial reviews are the only cases to be investigated. According to my briefing notes, these are the only two active judicial review applications of which I am aware. I disagree with the noble Baroness—it rarely happens, but on this occasion I do—as she described the inquiry as “limited”. Having looked at the terms of reference, I would describe it as anything but limited. To me, it is one of the most far-reaching and analytical—
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I did not mean that the inquiry was limited; I meant that if we are looking at two cases, that seems to be a relatively small number of allegations that are being looked at, but not that the inquiry itself was limited.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for the clarification; I apologise if I misrepresented her position. I think we all understand from looking at the terms of reference that the inquiry is going to have a broad scope, immense powers and a real capacity to try to find out what was happening in the periods covered by the terms of reference. I would not want to pre-empt that. It will be for Lord Justice Haddon-Cave, once he has constituted his panel with the inquiry, to proceed and go wherever the evidence takes him. As your Lordships will be aware, in the terms of reference it is hoped that he may be able to report back, albeit on an interim basis, within the next 12 to 18 months, his work starting in January of next year.
Military Personnel: Strike Action Cover
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I have detected frequently in this Chamber—I do not think it necessary to seek that reassurance again—that there is huge respect and affection for our Armed Forces, a respect and affection which I personally try to embody and observe. While we are committed as a Government to protecting people from strike disruption during a challenging winter, we are sensible to the fact that repeated employment of our Armed Forces in routine domestic tasks, for which civil authorities are responsible, is not a viable long-term solution. There, I agree with the noble Lord. We are also very conscious of our public obligation to keep core services running. That is why I applaud the Armed Forces who are responding to the MACA request and will do their level best to mitigate the suffering that is currently so widespread.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches as well, we support our Armed Forces. What assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the size of the Army? As the Chief of the Defence Staff said, our Armed Forces cannot be “spare capacity” in times of strikes. Are our Armed Forces really large enough for everything that the Government expect them to do?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I reassure the noble Baroness and the House that I and my ministerial colleagues are clear about the primary task of the Armed Forces: defence of the realm. We would not approve a request for military aid if it put our ability to undertake that task at inappropriate risk or if we felt it compromised our operational effectiveness. We would not allow that to happen.
Armed Forces (Tri-Service Serious Crime Unit) (Consequential Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 2022
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, this statutory instrument has a very narrow purpose, but I am content with the detail. As the Minister indicated, it follows from the review put in hand as preliminary work for the Armed Forces Act 2021. I do not recall what assessment was made of the average number of serious crime cases for investigation in the Armed Forces that might arise in, say, a 12-month period. If the Minister has a figure, it would be helpful to have it on record.
There would appear to be some flexibility available to the new provost marshal in how much to draw on additional help within the single-service establishments to match the level and complexity of any investigation he has embarked upon. Am I right in assuming that he would be able to insist on the level of single-service effort he requires always being made available? In other words, is he senior in rank and status to his single-service equivalent? Indeed, is it ever contemplated that he might be a civilian on contract? In the service environment, the importance of the chain of command needs to be upheld, and in that context I was pleased to note that the new provost marshal is required to inform the accused’s commanding officer. I raise these points to allow the Minister to expand a bit more on these details relating to this important new post and unit.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, just said, this is a very narrow statutory instrument. It is perhaps surprising that its debate has such a wide audience. On the defence side of things, we are quite used to either having Statements right at the end of business or discussing SIs in Grand Committee, where there are usually about four of us. It is important that your Lordships contribute to, listen to and are part of discussions about defence, because they are so important—but the two SIs today are both narrowly focused on service justice.
Normally I would delegate all this to my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, who unfortunately is not here today. In his absence I welcome the statutory instrument and note that it very much fits with the reviews we talked about on various occasions when looking at the overseas operations Bill, when the Minister repeatedly said that the Henriques report will say or do whatever. That is obviously part of this decision, as is the Lyons review.
Paragraph 7.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum notes that the defence serious crime unit should
“bring together the Special Investigations Branches of the Royal Navy Police, Royal Military Police and Royal Air Force Police”.
It then adds,
“along with specialist investigative support.”
Building on the noble and gallant Lord’s questions about availability of support, can the Minister indicate what sort of additional support might be available? Beyond that, we on these Benches are content with the SI.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I intervene out of order, encouraged by what the noble Baroness just said. One point that attracted my attention is that the regulations apply to all parts of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
“and the British overseas territories (except Gibraltar).”
Is there something particular about Gibraltar that means they do not apply there? It would be interesting to know why Gibraltar should be excluded. I am sure it is not an oversight, but the Explanatory Memorandum does not explain and it would be interesting to know the reason.
Armed Forces (Court Martial) (Amendment) Rules 2022
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
My Lords, this statutory instrument consists of changes to the rules applying to the court martial contained in Schedule 1 to the Armed Forces Act 2021. Three of the four changes implement recommendations from the review of the service justice system by His Honour Shaun Lyons.
The rule changes state that six-member boards are required if the offence is a Schedule 2 offence—serious offences, such as grievous bodily harm, which must always be referred to service police for investigation—or if the offence carries a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment. They introduce Rule 30 to determine when an additional member can be appointed to a three-member board. This is to address the concern that three-member boards hearing cases lasting several days may be vulnerable to an unexpected loss of a member, which would result in the board not being quorate or validly constituted. The changes also introduce Rule 30A to allow a direction to be made to allow proceedings to continue if a board is reduced from four to three or six to five members. They also extend those ranks applicable to sit on a court martial board to include OR-7 personnel; these are senior NCOs such as chief petty officers or staff sergeants. The rules introduce other minor amendments to the court martial rules in consequence of these changes.
To explain further, the first rule change implements His Honour Shaun Lyons’s recommendation that a six-member board should be required if the offence is a Schedule 2 offence or carries a maximum penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment. He found widespread agreement that the current five-member boards, which try Schedule 2 offences and offences carrying a maximum term of over seven years’ imprisonment, should increase in size to six and reach qualified majority verdicts, rather than simple majority verdicts, in which at least five of the six members have agreed. He also recommended that they try Schedule 2 offences and offences carrying a maximum term of over two rather than seven years’ imprisonment. He recommended that smaller boards, which will continue to consist of three or four members, should try all other cases and deal with sentencing in all cases where the defendants have pleaded guilty, as they do now.
We accepted this recommendation, which will allow the three-member boards to focus on the great majority of service disciplinary offences contained in Sections 1 to 41 of the Armed Forces Act 2006, and the less serious criminal offences which would normally be heard in the magistrates’ court in the civilian criminal justice system. Six-member boards will deal with the relatively small number of disciplinary offences carrying a sentence of over two years’ imprisonment, such as assisting the enemy or mutiny, as well as criminal conduct that would normally be tried in the Crown Court. We do not anticipate that lowering the threshold for when a six-member board is required—when the offence attracts a punishment of more than two years—will place an additional resourcing burden on the single services, with the existing pools of personnel provided for court martial services sufficient to meet the new requirement. However, we will monitor the situation for the first 12 months after introduction, in the same way as the other changes we are introducing to how the court martial operates, and consider whether any adjustment to this approach might be required.
The second rule change, to introduce a new Rule 30, has its background in the “pingdemic”—fondly remembered by many of us—which occurred during the Covid pandemic and which highlighted the concern that three-member boards hearing cases lasting several days can be vulnerable to the unexpected loss of one member. To deal with this, the Armed Forces Act 2021 gave judge advocates the power to add a fourth member to a three-member board to make it more viable and anticipate the board being affected by the loss of a member. The new Rule 30 details when this power can be used. Judge advocates have a wide discretion to appoint an additional member whenever they feel it to be necessary in view of the expected length or location of the proceedings. This approach is closely based on the existing Rule 30, which currently allows up to two additional members to be appointed in cases expected to last more than 10 days, or five in the case of trials being heard outside the United Kingdom and Germany.
The third rule change, new Rule 30A, follows on from the second and implements another of His Honour Shaun Lyons’s recommendations: that there must be a mechanism to cope with the death, sickness or other absence of a member occurring during a trial, which would reduce a six-member board to five members. This would reflect Section 16 of the Juries Act 1974, under which the default position is that a Crown Court trial continues despite the loss of up to three jurors, but the judge can instead choose to discharge the jury. New Rule 30A gives judge advocates the power to direct that the proceedings with a four or six-member board should continue
“in the interests of justice”,
despite the loss of a member, and that this direction may be made at any point after all the members have been sworn in.
The final rule change relates to changes made to the Armed Forces Act 2006 by the Armed Forces Act 2021 allowing personnel at other ranks—OR7—to sit as members of the court martial. These are senior non-commissioned officers, such as chief petty officers, staff or colour sergeants, flight sergeants and chief technicians. This was another recommendation made by His Honour Shaun Lyons. Currently, only officers and warrant officers may be members of a court martial and, unlike a jury in the Crown Court, the members assist the judge advocate in sentencing. Sentencing within the service justice system has a number of purposes: not least punishment, deterrence and the maintenance of discipline. OR7 ranks have the experience and an understanding of command and rank, and are well placed to be involved in the sentencing exercise, something that civilian juries do not participate in.
Extending eligibility for board membership to OR7s will also mean that the single services have a wider pool of experienced personnel to draw on. Your Lordships will recall from our debate on 18 October that this measure will also help with the new rule to increase the representation of women on court martial boards. It may also reduce the burden on officers required on boards where the defendant is of another rank. The existing rule about all members being senior to the defendant is unchanged, meaning that OR7 personnel will be able to serve on boards hearing cases only where the defendant is of the same or a lower rank.
The new rule will allow for one OR7 on a six-member board. This means that on any six-member board, there can be no more than two warrant officers, or one warrant officer and one OR7. For three-member boards, there can be either one warrant officer or one OR7. We believe that this balance of rank will ensure that the board has a broad range of experience and perspective on which to draw during their duties.
As I said, three of these four rule changes were recommended to the department by His Honour Shaun Lyons, a highly respected retired senior Crown Court judge, and the other rule change reflects a sensible business continuity measure for three-member boards. As such, I trust that noble Lords will feel able to support the approach we have taken with this statutory instrument. I beg to move.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, again, from these Benches, this statutory instrument seems wholly appropriate. In particular, bringing service justice closer to the civilian system and the parallels with the Crown Court seem wholly welcome. Obviously, there are reasons why courts martial can be necessary, and some degrees of detail will inevitably be different from civilian courts. However, the more we can have something that looks very much as though it brings parity and a clear sense of justice is hugely important.
I wanted to ask about bringing in senior NCOs. The Minister mentioned the statutory instrument of a couple of weeks ago, when she talked about bringing women in as lay members. To what extent is there a danger that women NCOs could find themselves brought into more courts martial than others? Could that be an undue pressure?
Other than that, there is nothing to do other than to look forward to the review of this measure in a year and, if we remember, to look at it again in 2026, when we have the quinquennial review.
Royal Navy: Conduct towards Women
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord. As indicated, when these very serious allegations surfaced, the First Sea Lord acted immediately to express his profound concern and order an investigation. My understanding is that the investigation commenced on 24 October. There is a scheduled date of completion of 18 November, with the caveat that there is complicated work to be done. Helpfully, the complainant is, I think, prepared to appear before the inquiry. To reassure your Lordships, the investigation will include an individual from outside Defence, who is currently being selected for his or her independence, probity and integrity, who will be alongside that investigation.
On the House of Commons Select Committee report, I have regarded that as a pivotal influence in the MoD as to how we respond to behaviours within the Armed Forces. To reassure your Lordships, the committee made in total 53 recommendations and conclusions, and I am delighted to say that the MoD has accepted 50 of these. There were three that it did not accept on a matter of policy. We are busy implementing and have already substantially implemented these recommendations. We made an update report to the committee in July, and I will appear before the committee next Tuesday afternoon to further confirm the MoD’s position. Great progress has been made, but that does not in any way diminish the sense of horror when we read of allegations such as those which have surfaced.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, the Atherton report suggested that 62% of women in the Armed Forces who replied had experienced bullying, sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape or some form of harassment or discrimination during their military careers. It is good to hear that the MoD has responded to many of the recommendations of the Atherton report, and the Minister’s response in the House of Commons to Tobias Ellwood on the Question about the Navy does say that this is an historic allegation. Could the Minister reassure the House, and any women currently serving in the Armed Forces, that they are not at risk of rape or other serious crimes—because the legacy is not good?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I think it is important to remember that nearly 90% of the respondents to the committee would recommend the Armed Forces to other women. I found that reassuring, but that is no reason for complacency on the part of the MoD. I can say to the noble Baroness that over the past year, since we responded to the Select Committee report, enormous changes have been introduced: we have zero-tolerance policies on sexual offending—people will be discharged if they are convicted; we have a zero-tolerance policy on behaviour below the criminal threshold—if they are found guilty of unacceptable sexual behaviour, there is a presumption of discharge; we have also dealt with the issue of instructors and trainees—any sexual abuse in that relationship leads to mandatory discharge; we have also vastly improved the service complaints system.
While it is discomforting for the MoD to see these negative reports appearing, it does mean—and I have first-hand information about this—that women with increased confidence in the complaints system are now reporting behaviour. I welcome that. It may not be pleasant for the MoD to hear about these things, but I would much rather that women had the confidence to bring these incidents out into the open, so we can address them.
Ukraine
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, as so often on these occasions, I rise in many ways to endorse all the questions and comments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and to echo the support for His Majesty’s Government’s commitment to Ukraine. It is very welcome that the Secretary of State for Defence, reiterated by the Minister, noted the commitment to continue to support the Ukrainian people, which is absolutely right. They are defending their homeland against an illegal invasion, and it is absolutely right that we should continue to support them.
In light of that—in many ways, I might sound a bit like an echo of the Labour Front Bench—what assessment have the Government made of the relationship with Iran? That is a slightly different question, but if the kamikaze drones are coming from Iran, and there is a fairly strong sense that they are, have the Government made any further assessment of how dependent Russia is or might be on Iranian weapons? There is surely a danger of escalation into a wider region. Given that the United Kingdom, along with many of our allies, has supported the reintroduction of the JCPOA, where are we in negotiations with Iran, and is that an area where the Government could hold to account the Government of Iran?
Turning to the question of escalation over the Black Sea, to what extent are His Majesty’s Government satisfied that the incident with the Russian fighter jet was a one-off? Was it just an accident? Is there not a danger of escalation if we now feel that we need to send our unmanned flights with armed support? To what extent is there a danger of unintended consequences as the United Kingdom responds to unintentional attacks—if we are being generous in our analysis of what Russia may or may not have done?
Beyond that, it is very welcome that we are continuing to train Ukrainian soldiers. The numbers we are training sound very positive, and similarly, sending cold-weather kit is highly desirable. What other activities are His Majesty’s Government undertaking to support Ukraine in a non-military sense? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, pointed out, Russia has been attacking critical infrastructure, particularly energy sources. To what extent is the United Kingdom seeking to support Ukraine to make sure it can keep the lights on? On the diplomatic approach, to what extent is His Majesty’s Government having conversations with China, perhaps in margins of the United Nations and elsewhere? Whatever our difficulties with China might be on some issues, it is perhaps best placed to persuade Putin that further perpetration of this illegal war is not in Russia’s interests, and that deconflicting the situation is possibly best promoted by China. Are the Government discussing this informally, behind the scenes?
Finally, obviously, I have to ask about defence expenditure. Liz Truss committed to 3% by 2030. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—the Jeremy Hunt version—did not rule that in. Does the Minister believe that there is a firm commitment to 3% of GDP for defence? Will she and the Secretary of State please fight to ensure that we keep our defence expenditure where it needs to be to keep this country secure and to support all our commitments to NATO and other allies?
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I thank the noble Lord for his questions. In relation to what has been supplied and how we pay when we come to replenish it, the MoD has proceeded on the basis that it will be paid for by the Treasury. That has been a negotiated position and it is one I would expect to be obtempered and to continue.
On Ukraine’s infrastructure, I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, some of what the UK was trying to do. As I observed earlier this week, the EU has shown commendable willingness to group together to support the endeavour, discussing with friends and allies how we best make an impact on supporting Ukraine. I reassure the noble Lord that the UK is working closely with the EU on providing Ukraine with military equipment, cyber resilience and humanitarian and economic support—not least with sanctions, energy resilience and countering Russian disinformation. There is work going on. It is perhaps a broader issue than for the MoD, and I am sure it is one that my noble friend Lord Ahmad would be very pleased to take up with the noble Lord.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
If there are no other Back-Bench speakers, I would like to ask a question on behalf of my noble friend Lord Campbell, who is absent from the Chamber. I think he perhaps misunderstood the timing of a Statement repeat rather than an Urgent Question repeat. I believe he was going to ask the Minister whether it would be possible to answer a question that both he and I have raised on a couple of occasions recently about the ability of the United Kingdom to continue to supply weapons to Ukraine and about the supply-chain issues. Clearly, it is something on which reassurance would be important.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
I find it difficult to see in the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, the demeanour of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, but as a proxy she is very capable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, is concerned and there is legitimate interest in how we replenish, how we fund and how we keep supplying. I can say that we continually manage and analyse our stock of weapons and munitions, so when the Secretary of State makes an announcement, it has been carefully considered before it is made public. We make these decisions against commitments and threats, because we have our own national security to think of.
We also have to review industrial capacity and supply chains, both domestically and internationally, so that informs not just the numbers of munitions we have granted in kind to the armed forces of Ukraine but the avenues of supply. I can say that industry has been extremely supportive in all of this, and, of course, the noble Baroness will understand that the UK does not work in isolation. We of course have discussions with our partners and allies and then we have discussions with the industry suppliers because it is quite a complicated jigsaw, as the noble Baroness will know. It is a complicated jigsaw because there are a lot of pieces that we keep having to make sure are fitting together. I want to put on record that industry has been very supportive. We work bilaterally with industry, but we also work closely with our international partners, as we are trying to make a coherent presentation and to avoid duplicating what one another is trying to do.
Ukraine: NATO
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Goldie (Con)
As the noble and learned Lord is aware, the United Kingdom is sympathetic to Ukraine’s desire to join NATO. We are supportive of that aspiration, in line with the 2008 Bucharest summit declaration. However, at the end of the day, any decision on membership is for NATO allies and for aspirant countries to take.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
The right reverend Prelate mentioned the drone attacks yesterday. What assessment have the Government made of the impact on Ukraine of the loss of power—about 30% of power has been lost—and is the West able to support Ukraine to keep the lights on?