D-day: 75th Anniversary

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 4th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like other speakers this evening, I am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for bringing this debate and giving your Lordships the opportunity to reflect on D-day, to think about what happened in our past, where we are today and where we may go in the future.

Past, present and future are what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, has just been talking about, and in many ways that is what is so important at a time of an anniversary. We could simply look back and be mawkish about the past; we could reflect simply on the history books; we could say that that was another country, and we did things differently then. There was a touch of that in at least one of the speeches this evening.

One of the key things to remember about this anniversary and the commemorations this week, and the anniversaries and celebrations five years ago on the 70th anniversary of D-day, as well as the four years of anniversaries we had to commemorate the First World War is that they provide us with opportunities to commemorate the acts of sacrifice of so many, so that we can live the lives we have in 2019. People can demonstrate outside the Palace of Westminster. We may not wish them to do that; we may feel that it is inappropriate to demonstrate against the President of the United States, but the sacrifice given by so many has enabled all of us to be free. For that, we can and must be grateful.

This has been an absolutely fascinating debate, and one in which if you are speaking towards the end of it, it is clearly foolish to write a speech in advance because everything could have been said, everything that I might have written would have been said and on this occasion could absolutely have been said far more eloquently by people who have been involved in the military or whose families have been deeply embedded. What we heard this evening were cases of deeply remembered sacrifice of families. We heard the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, telling us about his uncle being involved in a spy ring and reminding us that, even 75 years after D-day, we do not necessarily know the full history. It is not just a 30-year rule but a 100-year rule that applies in some cases. Even in 25 years’ time, when people celebrate 100 years from D-day, we will still be finding out more about the sacrifices made and about the activities undertaken at that time that are so crucial to our history.

What we learned this evening was about so much preparation. It was not just a day—people talk about D-day, and we are having a debate to commemorate it, but we already know that there were 18 months of preparations and three months of a serious battle. It was not simply a day. The sacrifices were made by so many—by hundreds of thousands of people who all came together at a point in time for us to remember.

The noble Lord, Lord Astor, told us of his uncle. The noble Lord, Lord Livermore, told us about his grandfather who had said that he was there on D-day but did not want to talk about it. How many more have felt that they could not reflect on what they had done, but wanted to lock it away? Yet, it is so important that we talk about D-day and about what our service men and women did. If we do not commemorate it or forget it, we are destined to repeat the mistakes of the past.

It is so important that we have such debates to talk about what happened and also to commemorate not just what British service men and women did, but what we did with allied powers. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, pointed out, so many Americans and Canadians were in the United Kingdom and fighting on D-day—helping to liberate this continent. We forget at our peril the importance of working with allies. In 2019, it is crucial to remember the relationship with the United States and with our Commonwealth partners—with the Canadians but also, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, pointed out, with the Indians who were fighting to ensure our freedom. It is absolutely essential to retain alliances and remember that one of the key factors of D-day was not simply the United Kingdom acting but the United Kingdom acting in collaboration and co-ordinating with allied powers.

Several Members have pointed out that, in the 75 years since D-day, we have created a whole set of international institutions that have ensured that the sacrifices of hundreds of thousands of young men—and some women—were not in vain, that we have been able to work in peace, and that those patterns of co-operation have become hugely important. We must not throw that away, and we need to think through not just what people did in the past but recall that their sacrifice was to ensure our future.

The noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, pointed out that it is not just those who gave up their lives on the same side as us who matter. Some of the co-operation and collaboration that we have in the 21st century are alliances with countries that used to be on the opposite side. The European integration process has enabled us to ensure that we work with Italians and Germans now not as foes but as friends. The legacy of the past needs to be overcome.

Perhaps the most important historical aspect of today’s debate, however, came from the noble Lord, Lord Reay, in his excellent and very timely maiden speech. I suspect that we may not have been listening quite so acutely if we had been hearing about rural broadband, but when he talked about his noble forebears and their important role in the Second World War, we all listened and we all pay tribute to them. We welcome him to this Chamber and look forward to his role here.

Today is about looking back to the past and to those who gave their lives, but also about paying tribute to veterans; those who will be at Portsmouth this week or travelling to Normandy thanks to the Royal British Legion and the War Graves Commission. Like my noble friend Lord Stoneham, I think it is important that we pay tribute to those organisations that ensure we remember—that we do not simply look to the history books to remember D-day but have the opportunity to visit museums and go to the beautifully preserved war graves. They are the living testament to what has gone before, the people who have gone before and the sacrifice they have made.

The lessons we heard from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, were of timing, weather and logistics. Much of D-day may now seem inevitable, but, as we heard, the timing was contingent on the weather. Logistics were crucial, as was working effectively with our partners, day by day, from 5 June onwards. It ensured that we in the 21st century have democracy, human rights and the rule of law as of right. Those values we enjoy, we share with the United States, the Commonwealth and our European partners and allies, and we must not lose them. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, said, we must ensure that we are not complacent.

We must pay tribute to not just our former service men and women but, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, to the serving Armed Forces as well. Just as in the 1940s, so in 2019 our armed services are vital to securing the United Kingdom’s peace and security.

Torture Overseas: Ministry of Defence Policy

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 20th May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I align myself completely with the sentiment that she expressed at the beginning of her question. Central government consolidated guidance sets out the principles which govern the interviewing of detainees overseas and the passing and receipt of intelligence relating to detainees. That guidance must be adhered to by officers of the UK’s security and intelligence agencies, members of the UK Armed Forces and employees of the Ministry of Defence. An internal policy document within the Ministry of Defence was prepared to, as it were, make the consolidated guidance more accessible and practical for those implementing it in the field. The MoD concedes that, as currently worded, there is an ambiguity in the internal document. I should stress that this ambiguity has not led to any problem or difficulty in the actions taken by the department, Ministers or members of the Armed Forces. It has been identified that the internal policy document could give the incorrect impression that Ministers could in all circumstances simply choose to accept legal consequences and act illegally. That is absolutely not the case. Ministers may not proceed when it would be unlawful, as opposed to when they would simply be assuming legal risk, which applies to any ministerial decision. I reassure the noble Baroness that, to my knowledge and that of my officials, Ministers have in no circumstances taken a decision which was unlawful in this context.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Urgent Question and for his answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. Today, the Times suggested that the freedom of information request said that the MoD effectively created,

“a provision for ministers to approve passing information to allies even if there is a risk of torture, if they judge that the potential benefits justify it”.

I accept that no torture has been undertaken and that nothing so far has been illegal, but does the Minister not agree that, in line with Kantian imperatives, we should not treat people as means; we should treat them as ends in themselves? Surely a potential benefit cannot outweigh the human rights of individuals.

[Earl Howe]

I entirely take the noble Baroness’s point. The consolidated guidance is clear that, where Ministers or officials know or believe that a particular action will lead to torture being administered, that action may not be proceeded with. The difficulty comes where the state of knowledge may not be sufficiently high to act as a legal prohibition. In that event, were a Minister to be called upon to take a decision whether to release intelligence, that decision would be informed by detailed legal and policy advice. It is not possible to make generalisations in this context on what that advice might comprise because it would be highly fact-specific to the individual case. However, I emphasise that Ministers may never act unlawfully and officials must never advise Ministers to act unlawfully, and I am confident in saying that Ministers have not acted unlawfully.

Defence: British Steel

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 30th April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am afraid I cannot entirely agree with my noble friend. It is undoubtedly true that the Armed Forces benefit from the UK acquiring military capability from an open market. Competitive procurement ensures that we drive innovation and efficiency into our industrial base. UK suppliers’ drive to be competitive in their home market will ultimately secure their prosperity, not only in the UK context but in the global marketplace as well.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in the light of the Financial Times report that the company British Steel is pleading for carbon credit loans to tide it over Brexit, will the Minister explain what efforts are being put into defence procurement contracts to ensure that steel is being decarbonised as far as possible?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the industrial strategy challenge fund, which I mentioned earlier, is there to help industry drive innovation in its manufacturing processes. As I also mentioned, we have supported the industry with the costs associated with carbon reduction, which can in some cases be substantial. In those two ways in particular, we are doing our best to recognise the challenges that industry faces.

NATO

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted from these Liberal Democrat Benches to join the bipartisan support for NATO that has been expressed this afternoon. As other noble Lords have pointed out, NATO has enjoyed cross-party support for decades. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem sends his apologies. He is a member of the bureau of the parliamentary assembly of NATO, and is therefore currently in Washington DC at the celebrations of the 70th anniversary of NATO. He would have spoken in this debate, and begs your Lordships’ understanding of why he is not here.

It is perhaps timely to mention something that I would not normally do. I looked down the list of speakers and noted that not only am I the only Liberal Democrat speaking, I am the only woman Peer. I find it somewhat surprising that, while when NATO was created 70 years ago all the founding fathers were male, there has been so little interest among women Peers in participating today. That is markedly at odds with yesterday’s debate about Yemen, when so much of the discussion was led by women Peers, and people commented on the fact that women and children were the most vulnerable people in Yemen.

Although we have talked about NATO in quite abstract terms, a crucial thing to remember is the importance of the peace that has been secured. It matters not only to policymakers and politicians but to ordinary citizens, who for many generations have not had to think about this country going to war. Certainly, my father and his generation felt the importance of the ending of military service: he did not have to go through it, and peace seemed to have been secured. I suggest that that was secured through the twin tracks of NATO and the European Union.

It is a pleasure to participate in a debate where there is, in many ways, so much agreement. The disagreements have been on points of detail rather than substance, and, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth pointed out, this is an ideal opportunity to celebrate, because peace on our continent is so important: it should be valued and never taken complacently. I will come back to that point at the end.

As several noble Lords have pointed out, NATO is the most successful alliance in history. The noble Lords, Lord West of Spithead, Lord Judd and Lord Touhig, reminded us of the vital role of the United Kingdom in setting up this alliance—again, in marked contrast to the European project, where the United Kingdom always sat somewhat on the sidelines. With NATO we were at the forefront, urging its creation, very much led by a Labour Government, with Clement Attlee and Ernest Bevin playing key roles. It is hugely important that the Labour Benches, as well as the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, take the defence of our realm seriously. It is clear that the Labour Benches in this House take defence seriously, as does the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that the Leader of the Official Opposition also takes defence seriously.

The American dimension has always been crucial to NATO, even if it was the United Kingdom that had to persuade the Americans in the first place. During the Cold War, Josef Joffe referred to NATO as “Europe’s American pacifier”. As several noble Lords have said, Lord Ismay’s point about keeping the Americans in Europe was crucial. However, over decades we have heard that the Europeans do not contribute enough; they do not pay enough or pull their weight. It is very easy in 2019 to think that the criticisms are unusual, and that Donald Trump’s insistence that the Europeans need to stand up and be counted and double their expenditure comes from him because he is a bit of a maverick. But this is not the exception; it is what we have heard from American leaders at least since the late 1960s. In many ways there is a sense of déjà vu; essentially, the Europeans have been seen to be free-riding on American security.

In his article of 1994, Josef Joffe argued that, in the post-Vietnam world, liberals—an odd word in an American context—and the new right had begun to come together and,

“have unintentionally joined hands in a new-found resentment of Western Europe. Both believe that West European countries long ago acquired the resources to defend themselves. Both resent the West Europeans’ security parasitism”.

So Donald Trump is not entirely new in thinking that the Europeans do not step up to the plate.

During the Cold War, the idea of the United States leaving the continent of Europe was, of course, unthinkable. So every time the Americans said, “Please step up to the plate”, the Europeans said, “We will, as long as we can endeavour to have our own European security identity and autonomy”. That always drew the reaction of, “No, no, that’s not what we meant. We want you to pay more but we don’t want you to be autonomous”. On each occasion during the Cold War, it was clear that the American pacifier would remain.

With the end of the Cold War, the future of NATO and America’s ongoing presence in Europe looked to change. There was an expectation that there needed to be a fundamental reappraisal of the alliance. Yet that never fundamentally happened, so in 2019 we have a NATO that is still dominated by European member states, most of which do not yet pay their 2% of GDP towards defence expenditure.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I think we need to be a little bit careful about using percentages when thinking about defence expenditure. The Liberal Democrats, like the other parties, have committed to the NATO commitment of 2%. Yet we need to think about what is being spent. The House has already heard that some of the 2% goes on pensions, not just for military veterans but for retired civil servants as well. Should that really be part of the 2%? There is a question about what the 2% is formally allowed to be spent on, under the NATO rules, but we also need to think about what goes into it and look at procurement. We need to think about whether the 2% should be focused more on current commitments and less on pensions and about what our procurement procedures look like. Are they fit for purpose? Is Her Majesty’s Government getting value for money? I have asked the Minister this on various occasions, but I might just ask him again. Is our 2% well spent? We are delighted that it is being spent, but is it being spent correctly? As the noble Lord, Lord Judd, asked, what are we procuring for; what provisions are we making?

As other noble Lords asked, how far are we looking towards cyber as part of our NATO commitment? We clearly already have offensive cyber, but how far is that in our thinking? If, as the Prime Minister has suggested, the United Kingdom wants to play a leading role in NATO, how far are we going to lead on cyber? Do the Government already have an agenda for the leaders’ meeting that will take place in this country in December? It is all very well to say that the UK wants to play a leading role, but for decades we said the same about the European Union, and that never happened. Our record on NATO is much stronger, but there is nevertheless always the danger that rhetoric will not be met by reality.

NATO has clearly been a success. It is a community of values—democracy, human rights and the rule of law—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, made clear. And yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, pointed out, there are question marks over some of its members. He identified Turkey, but there are also EU member states whose approach to human rights, press freedom, the rule of law and the role of judges might come into question. If we are, as Jens Stoltenberg put it, an “alliance of friends”, are we critical friends? Can we be critical friends? Are we doing enough to make sure that our alliance of 29 is working in the same direction? Can we persuade Turkey to look elsewhere when procuring equipment?

Finally, I fully concur with the Minister’s comment that it is vital to educate those who do not even remember the Cold War, far less the Second World War, who do not appreciate that peace cannot be taken for granted and who might be tempted to think that NATO does not matter. It is a source of great regret to me that those of us who are passionate advocates of European integration failed over the years to make people understand the importance of the integration process as a peace project. It would be catastrophic if, as a country, we became complacent about the peace that has been brought about by NATO. It is vital that we keep talking about NATO, that we keep contributing to it and that we make sure that future generations benefit from it as we all have done.

Aircraft Carrier Task Force

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We do not comment in detail on operational matters.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has on several occasions talked about working with our allies, as he has in the past in the context of the escort ships alongside the Queen Elizabeth class. What additional work are the Secretary of State and the Ministry of Defence doing to ensure that we have stronger bilateral co-operation, particularly in the context of Brexit, to strengthen our resilience?

[Earl Howe]

There is a great deal of interest on the part of our European allies, in particular, in working more closely with the Royal Navy once the carriers come into service. The carriers will enable the UK to make an unparalleled contribution to NATO, not only through the carriers’ own capability but also as a means of coalescing European naval effort alongside that of our close partners the United States.

Royal Navy: Type 31e Frigates

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 6th March 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My noble friend draws attention to something very encouraging. The UK shipbuilding sector has been able to compete in the world market for very high-end specification frigates—it is the Type 26 frigates which he was referring to. This aids the issue of interoperability between allies, which he also highlighted. We welcome the fact that Australia and Canada have entered the fold of nations which will operate this vessel.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, in light of the National Audit Office’s November 2018 report, which suggested that the MoD’s equipment plan remained unaffordable, falling about £10 billion short over the next 10 years, will the Minister explain to the House what plans the MoD has to ensure that the Type 31e frigates are delivered on time and, crucially, on budget? Are the new procurement arrangements intended to deliver that?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Baroness is quite right: in April, the forecast cost of the equipment plan exceeded the allocated budget of £7 billion over 10 years, which is the central estimate. Indeed, if we took no action, the plan would not be affordable. However, based on past experience as well as what we are doing, we are confident that we will successfully deliver the plan within budget, both this year and next year, through effective management, by monitoring and controlling costs as we go, and with the benefit of the additional money secured in the Budget.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2019

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 20th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Association of Military Court Advocates, having been involved in a number of courts martial over a considerable period. Things have changed very much for the better since the 1950s and 1960s. At the first court martial I went to, the officers on the panel marched in and put their swords on the table, sheathed, until the verdict. The sword was then moved and you understood the way the verdict had gone from the direction in which it pointed. That practice was abolished. I also claim some credit for raising in this House the practice of the Navy to march the defendant in at the point of a cutlass. I tabled a Question asking why this procedure still went on; it was abolished in the weeks that followed, before the Minister rose to give an Answer. That is my one tiny claim to military justice.

I have spoken on each of the Armed Forces Bills since that of 2000-01; over the years, we have moved to a much better system, very much influenced by the European Court of Human Rights and its decisions, which pointed out deficiencies in the practice and procedure of courts martial. These decisions were led by Judge Advocate General Blackett—to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, referred—who has been influential in many ways.

It was as a result of long-term advocacy for reform that eventually the inquiry to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, referred was instituted by the Ministry of Defence. I had the pleasure of meeting the retired judge who was in charge of that inquiry. I would like to know from the Minister when his report will be available and, in particular, whether it will be available with plenty of time for full consultation throughout the profession, and among other professionals, before we come to deal with the Bill in a year or two’s time. It is very important that we should have the opportunity to consider and, perhaps, contribute to the Bill that will subsequently come before this House.

There has been much progress under all Governments; I hope that progress will be maintained.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, unlike my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I have not been involved in any of the Armed Forces Bills going back to 2006 or before, nor indeed to the equivalent statutory instrument last year. However, last year the equivalent debate was in Grand Committee in the Moses Room, where I listened to my noble friend Lord Campbell speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.

When I went yesterday to get the draft statutory instrument, the Printed Paper Office was a little overtasked. In the end, I was given six copies of a draft that said “2018”. I thought that did not seem quite right, but I read the draft. I went in this morning to see whether that was really what I was meant to be reading, and got the draft defence statutory instrument for 2019. The phrasing of the two statutory instruments is almost equivalent, but two paragraphs have been added to the Explanatory Memorandum. There is paragraph 8, to which the noble Lord, Foulkes, has already referred, and paragraph 9, which says, under the heading “Consolidation”:

“This instrument does not amend any other legislation so no consolidation is needed”.


However, paragraph 8 on the EU, headed “(Withdrawal) Act/Withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union”, says that it does not relate to this—and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said “Hallelujah”. If one looks very closely at the Explanatory Memorandum, the footer indicates that it is from DExEU. I assume that this is simply because the Civil Service is so overwhelmed by statutory instruments at the moment that the assumption is that nothing can come as a statutory instrument that does not relate to Brexit. It says “DExEU/EM/8-2018.2”. I assume that DExEU is not really involved with this statutory instrument, and that it is the normal MoD statutory instrument and Explanatory Memorandum.

We have already heard that whether the Armed Forces, starting with the Army, can go forward requires the consent of Parliament. This year, of all years, it is essential that Parliament gives its consent to ensuring that the Armed Forces can move forward. If we are to believe some of the preparations for Brexit and a no-deal Brexit, we are led to understand that Her Majesty’s Armed Forces might be brought into some sort of action to ensure stability, not just of the realm externally, but within the United Kingdom.

Since this order appears to be being used a bit like a Christmas tree Bill, to enable noble Lords to talk about various defence issues, clearly it is important to stress, alongside the noble Lord, Lord Judd, our support for and gratitude to the Armed Forces for everything they do in the service of our country. On this occasion, however, I should also like to ask the Minister whether the Armed Forces are being prepared for action in the event of a no-deal Brexit, and what work Her Majesty’s Government are doing to ensure that the Armed Forces have the resources that they require.

The Minister has told us that the statutory instrument and these rules allow for command, disciple and justice, all of which are important, but it is also important to think about the well-being of our Armed Forces, and ensure that they are able to do their job as effectively and efficiently as possible. If we are thinking ahead to the need in due course for another Armed Forces Bill in 2021, what work is the MoD doing to think about the future, and is there some way in which your Lordships’ House can assist the Minister and the MoD to ensure that the Armed Forces have all the resources they require?

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing this instrument. The Labour Party supports Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, and I am sure that support goes across the whole House. My boss in the other place, Nia Griffith, used this order to comprehensively review the present position of the Armed Forces. I will restrict myself to quoting two paragraphs of her speech, the first on,

“forces numbers and the alarming downward trend across each of the services. When Labour left office in 2010, we had an Army of 102,000 … an RAF of 40,000 and a Royal Navy of 35,000. Now they are all substantially smaller. The Army and RAF have been cut by 25% each and the Navy is down by nearly 20%”.

The second paragraph states:

“The steady decline in service morale is a significant worry. The proportion of Army personnel reporting high morale in 2010 was 58% for both officers and … other ranks, but that fell to 46% for officers and … 36% for other ranks in 2018”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/2/19; cols. 1229-30.]


I have never had the privilege to serve full-time in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, but I have been involved with them over the years. I was taught that effective armed forces come from good equipment, good training and good morale, and the drop in morale since 2010 is sapping away the capability of our Armed Forces. I hope the Minister will agree and give some indication of how this will be addressed in the future.

I have just two specific questions about the law.

Defence and Security Public Contracts (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this is the first statutory instrument related to Brexit that I have had the joy, or misfortune, to be involved with. In that sense I am quite glad that it has two purposes, one of which is valid regardless of whether there is a no-deal Brexit. However, one does wonder, given that the relevant legislation was repealed in 2011, why it has taken Her Majesty’s Government quite so long to bring this to our attention in the SI.

On the other aspect of the SI, many of the questions I have noted are very similar to the questions raised by noble Lords on the previous SI. According to the statutory instrument, Regulations 3 and 4 come into effect on exit day. Will the Minister explain what would happen in a transition period? Exit day would still presumably be 29 March, but at that point we would stop using the Official Journal to advertise things. Will we be in a situation where, somehow, the statutory instrument does not come into effect? Is it like the previous SI and will come into effect not on exit day, but only after some transitional period? Otherwise there would seem to be a bit of a gap. The UK would not quite be at a cliff edge, but the situation would be somewhat unclear because we would not have the situation I envisaged would be the case during the transition period.

I will ask various questions that go beyond the nitty-gritty of the regulations. Will the Minister explain what Her Majesty’s Government envisage by the statutory instrument in terms of access to UK markets? There is already a whole set of questions about overspends and the Public Accounts Committee has asked questions about defence procurement. If we are in a new world where EU defence contractors are treated like third-country defence contractors, have the Government modelled the impact this is likely to have on defence procurement? Will it mean that the UK will spend more on defence procurement than was the case when it was a member of the European Union? Similarly, what work have Her Majesty’s Government done on evaluating the impact on our arms export industry of not being part of the single market? If we are treating the EU 27 as third countries, presumably they will not exercise the reciprocity of access to their defence industry and defence exports that we have enjoyed. There are some wider questions on the impact the Government think we will see from Brexit if we are not part of the single market for defence exports.

I have various technical questions. Like other noble Lords, I have spent quite a long time reading the Explanatory Memorandum. I am intrigued to note that the Minister can confirm that it meets the required standard. What counts as the required standard, and what can we expect to see in an EM? Are there things that we might find even more useful for understanding what is going on? The memorandum is certainly rather easier to follow than the SI as it is drafted.

Modernising Defence Programme

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, if it is possible for the Ministry of Defence to share that document, I will certainly do as the noble Lord asks. In answer to his first question, there are two things to say about the MDP. First, this has been a major and very thorough piece of work. Secondly, the document is essentially strategic in its nature; it focuses on key defence capabilities and has affirmed the central elements of our strategy as articulated in SDSR 15, from which, as the noble Lord is aware, it emerged. It has also guided our investment decisions on capabilities, announced at the Budget, and updated our key policies. It is designed to keep us on track to deliver the right defence for the UK, and does so in what we see as a challenging decade ahead. As noble Lords read and reread the report, I am sure that it will make clear a lot of detail underlying the general proposition that I have just articulated.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Earl has just said, the present document is very detailed, yet in many ways it appears to be a glossy brochure with a lot of aspirations. These remind me rather of the vagueness that we get on what Brexit might look like. There do not appear to be clear strategies for where the Government want to go. Can the noble Earl explain what £160 million might actually be able to deliver? I think it is about the equivalent of two F35s, and I am not quite sure how will keep this one step ahead of our adversaries. I also come back to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell about the exchange rate because hedging is one thing, but we are moving towards a one-for-one rate in the pound to the dollar. Is it really credible to say that the Government have hedged all of our defence budget in that way?

[Earl Howe]

We have not hedged all our defence budget, but we have hedged a substantial proportion of it, particularly that which is payable in dollars. I was speaking to our finance director last week about this. Although she could never be sanguine about the way the pound is moving, she is much clearer now that we have an affordable equipment budget over the next couple of years, which is the period over which she aims to hedge. I have already made it clear to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, that it is, unfortunately, impossible for me to enumerate at this point those projects which will come under the umbrella of the transformation fund. It was said that £160 million is not a great deal of money—it sounds like a great deal of money to me, I must say—but one should not think of transformation simply in terms of platforms and assets. One has to think of it in terms of different ways of working and of modernising practices within defence. That is where this fund will score most heavily.

Armed Forces (Terms of Service) (Amendments Relating to Flexible Working) Regulations 2018

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I welcome the detail with which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has gone into this, particularly the assurance that no individual will be required to undertake part-time service. That is a most important assurance, and I was glad to hear it from the noble Earl’s lips. He mentioned pensions and the abatement of pay. This seems but one part of a story, and each individual who will contemplate it must have the whole picture before he or she is able to make any decision about whether it is worth applying for. I therefore hope that in mentioning the pensions as coming forward, the noble Earl will be able to explain exactly when that is to be available; presumably it must be in the near future.

My only other point may be going into the detail, but perhaps I need a bit of education on the difference between the territorial extent of an application and the territorial application of it. It seems that, for example, in this and in the next regulation there are differences in how this is handled. Perhaps, in replying either to this or to the later debate the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will be able to explain the difference between those two things, because I for one do not quite follow it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, it seems a long time ago that we debated the Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Act, partly because it was introduced into your Lordships’ House before it went to the House of Commons. I went back to my files and noted that I had talked about the devils in the detail, although I did not come up with that idea first; several Members of your Lordships’ House had talked about that. In particular, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Walker of Aldringham, said that,

“the devil is going to be in the detail of the regulations drawn up to operate the system”.—[Official Report, 11/7/17; col. 1187.]

It would be fair to say that while on balance your Lordships’ House was supportive of the ambitions of flexible working, some concerns were articulated across the House—I suspect even by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. In particular, the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt, raised one of the concerns that has just been raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, about whether flexible working would be imposed rather than chosen voluntarily. While it may appear this evening to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, that somehow this is a simple Act and that these regulations look straightforward, the reason for wanting them to come through the affirmative procedure was precisely because there were concerns that the devil could be in the detail. There were slight suspicions that the regulations would lead to a situation where flexible working could be required of people in circumstances where perhaps the Regular Forces seem overmanned—that might seem unlikely, but that was the sort of concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Dannatt—which was why we thought this needed to come through the affirmative procedure.

The regulations as we see them look straightforward, although I am delighted to see that the Explanatory Memorandum is rather clearer and in ordinary English, for those of us who are not used to reading legislation regularly. I hope that the advice that will be given to service men and women will be even clearer than what we see in the Explanatory Memorandum. The rules look slightly opaque, and to put them into some sort of citizen’s English—even if it includes lots of three-letter acronyms that are much more familiar to the RAF or the Royal Navy than perhaps to the rest of us—would ensure that the information given to service men and women will make them want to look at using these provisions, and would be welcome.

The regulations look straightforward and very much in line with what the Minister outlined to us at various stages during the passage of the flexible working Act. That is perhaps not surprising, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, said, essentially we expect the Minister to listen and to respond. But we do not always know whether Secretaries of State or Chancellors of the Exchequer will manage to do likewise. While it is important that these regulations are discussed this evening, I do not see a reason to do anything other than affirm their progress.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we will, of course, support these regulations. I fear the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has in many ways the wrong challenge. The requirement that these be subject to an affirmative order has an effect that one comes across again and again in complex organisations: the knowledge that something will be scrutinised at the highest level produces very high-quality work. One of the key factors noticeable in these regulations—I take them together with the notes for the service personnel who will use them—is that virtually every question left unanswered in the primary legislation has been answered in them. Therefore, I welcome and support them. I have only one question related directly to the regulations, which is about the reporting procedure: will the frequency of their use be reported in the public domain, and if so, where?

The problem of being a Minister in your Lordships’ House is that nobody is here to enforce the rules. Accordingly, I looked at the Explanatory Memorandum to see if I could find something to say. I noted that one reason for these rules was to improve recruitment and retention in the Armed Forces. Essentially, it was an important piece of morale-boosting, which this Government certainly need. Total outflow from the Armed Forces has exceeded intake every year since 2011. I looked into this a little bit further; the way to find out what morale is like in the Armed Forces is to go to the regular Armed Forces continuous attitude survey. It is a brilliant document in terms of information—and a deeply depressing one for anybody who reads it. I will quote one or two statistics from it: satisfaction with pay has gone from 52% in 2010 to 31% now; satisfaction with service life in general has decreased—among both officers and other ranks—from its peak of 61% in 2009 to 41% now.

Dissatisfaction has been particularly acute in the Royal Marines. Members of this House have fought a little battle to keep ships retained for the use of the Royal Marines, yet we find that service morale among officers—that is, ratings for high morale—has gone from 64% two years ago to 23%; for other ranks, it has gone from 32% two years ago to a staggeringly low 9% now. I would defend the right of the Minister not to respond to this, but I hope he will rise to the occasion and give us some indication of how this crisis is being addressed. I put it to him that one of the reasons is leadership—I am not talking about people in uniform; I am talking about the politicians. SDSR 2015, which was published on 23 November 2015, promised annual reviews. That was a good thing, as I think it has emerged that the SDSR was underfunded.

The Government met their commitment and, roughly a year after that publication, they produced an annual review—the first annual report. The second annual report should have been published on 23 November 2017 but it was overtaken by, of all things, a review by the Cabinet Office. There must have been some squabbling because that metamorphosed into something called the Modernising Defence Programme. We were told that its main points would be published by the time of the NATO summit of 2018, and indeed we got a letter from the noble Earl. As ever, it read brilliantly the first time—these letters are always well drafted—but the second time you read it through you realised that it said absolutely nothing. There was not a single concrete piece of action in it.

If the noble Earl wants to rise to the occasion, I hope he will say when we will see real progress on the review and when the Armed Forces will recognise that they have a serious morale problem, with a programme to address it directly. Although I have served in the VR, I am not a military man in the sense that I have not served full time or been presented with any hostile forces, but I have talked to a lot of people who have. My summary of what they have said to me is: if you want effective forces, you have to have leadership, equipment, training and morale. These are not additives; they are multiplicities, and if any of them is at a low level, that affects all of them and you have wasted your money. We are not at all happy with the equipment area or the training area, and now we are not at all happy with the morale area, and I hope that the Minister will be generous enough to provide some answers.