Armed Forces (Specified Aviation and Marine Functions) Regulations 2018

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 10th October 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the background to this statutory instrument is as follows. At the moment, a commanding officer can require a person to take an alcohol or drug test if the commanding officer has reasonable cause to believe that they are committing a service offence by performing a safety-critical duty while over a set alcohol limit, or impaired by drugs or alcohol. A commanding officer has similar powers if they believe that a civilian subject to service discipline has committed similar offences under legislation relating to safety in shipping and civil aviation. This power and the linked offences help deter or detect the misuse of alcohol or drugs by those performing safety-critical duties, and so help prevent accidents. However, these powers are aimed at gathering evidence for a possible prosecution, hence the need for a commanding officer to have “reasonable cause to believe” that an offence has been committed.

When an accident happens, it may be important to determine whether anyone involved had been misusing alcohol or drugs, even if the commanding officer does not have any immediate cause to believe that an offence has been committed. Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act 2016 amends the Armed Forces Act 2006 to allow a commanding officer to also require a member of the Armed Forces, or a civilian subject to service discipline, to co-operate with a preliminary test for drugs or alcohol after an accident. Importantly, in these circumstances a person may be tested without the need for suspicion that an offence has been committed. This gives commanding officers the power to test those who performed aviation or marine functions relating to an aircraft or ship involved in an accident. They also apply to anyone who performed a safety-critical function connected to any serious accident. “Serious” in this context means an accident which resulted in or created a risk of death or serious injury to any person, serious damage to any property or serious environmental harm. This will improve our investigations of such accidents.

It is important that accidents in the military environment are investigated thoroughly with a view to contributory factors being identified and appropriate punitive or remedial action being taken. The test will be carried out by the service police, and the results of a preliminary test can be used in support of criminal and non-criminal investigations. The tests will mainly support service inquiries, but they may be used in any type of investigation arising from an aviation or marine accident or any other serious accident. The relevant aviation and marine functions must be specified by regulations made under the amendments in the 2006 Act. The safety-critical functions are already set out in the existing offences and powers that I mentioned.

The draft regulations we are considering today specify these aviation and marine functions and are based largely on existing safety-critical duties relating to aviation or shipping. The duties specified in the regulations reflect the wide range of duties undertaken in a military environment that are linked to aircraft or ships: for instance, maintenance; acting as crew on an aircraft or ship; loading and unloading fuel, cargo and weapons; and conducting hazardous operations such as parachuting or diving. The duties specified in regulations include similar functions carried out by civilians subject to service discipline. This would include, for example, any civilian working on an aircraft or ship overseas.

In the event of an accident, a commanding officer may require a person to co-operate with preliminary testing if he or she was carrying out, or had carried out, a specified function at the time of—or in some situations before—the accident. As I said, the testing will be carried out by the service police. It will be an offence for an individual without reasonable excuse to fail to provide a sample when required to do so. Reasonable excuse could include, for example, a medical condition that prevented a person from providing a breath sample.

We hope, of course, that serious accidents will not happen and that there will be no need to apply these regulations. But the very nature of military activity is, by necessity, dangerous, and our people are exposed frequently to risk. It is important that, in the event of a serious accident, we uncover whether alcohol or drugs may have contributed to the cause of an accident to enable appropriate corrective action to be taken. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I was nominated to speak from the Front Bench this evening and have very little to say on this matter. The regulations seem to be admirably sensible and not overly draconian. In civilian life, if there were an accident in a similar situation, one would expect to be breathalysed. Therefore, we on these Benches have nothing to add.

Afghanistan Update

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Wednesday 11th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and join him in paying tribute to those who have served in Afghanistan. We remember in particular the 456 service personnel who died and those who have suffered life-changing injuries.

I too believe that Afghanistan is a better place as a result of our efforts. We have achieved this through co-operation with our NATO allies. Nevertheless, a further commitment of 440 personnel is significant, and it is our duty to probe this. Noble Lords will understand that 440 on the ground will involve many times that number, as personnel are trained, deployed and rested.

It is appropriate to pause at this point. We will be sending people into harm’s way, and we civilians do not really understand what that is like. This place is enriched by the number of people who have done that; we even have one who has been in harm’s way. Afghanistan is a dangerous place, and NATO personnel were killed in the early days of these training missions. I wonder whether the Minister can give us a sense of the risk involved by telling us how many NATO personnel have been killed since the end of NATO ground operations, which I believe was at the end of 2014.

I shall now turn briefly to the Chilcot inquiry, if I may. I am told that it contained 2.4 million words, but I felt that it really had only two key recommendations: first, that the decision to commit military personnel should be taken by due process; and secondly, that before taking the first step one should have a plan for the second and subsequent steps.

On the first step, can the Minister explain the process by which the decision was made? Who was involved? Was the FCO or DfID part of the decision? Was the Prime Minister? What criteria were set to measure success? How were the risks to our troops’ lives assessed? Can the Minister assure us that the risks are indeed minimal, and that there are no scenarios in which our people will be drawn into combat operations?

Secondly, how long will the deployment last? Is there an end date, or at least a set of criteria to measure success and, hence, lead to withdrawal? Have all scenarios been considered?

We all hope and pray that the mission is successful but, sadly, history is littered with limited military interventions turning into full-scale war. Can the Minister assure us that in no circumstances will that be allowed to happen? I have complete faith that our people will be able to help the Afghans fight more effectively, but could the Minister give us more detail on the training that will be provided? Will it be complemented by softer essential skills such as policing, particularly with respect to corruption, and governance? Will the further input to produce those skills come from the FCO and DfID, or will our allies provide the resource?

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and I echo the words of the Secretary of State and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, on the commitments that this country has made to Afghanistan and the tributes paid to the service men and women who have given their lives in Afghanistan.

This is clearly a serious decision that is being announced today. As the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, pointed out, 440 service personnel is a significant number. It increases the personnel that we currently have in Afghanistan by two-thirds. It is noticeable that the decision has been made, we are told, in response to a NATO request, at the time of a NATO summit and on the eve of a visit by the President of the United States. What is not clear is when the request was made. When was the United Kingdom asked to make this additional commitment and when was the decision actually taken? Is the confluence of timings just ahead of the NATO summit intentional? Is it intended in any way to send a signal to the President of the United States that the United Kingdom at least is keeping up to its NATO targets?

There is a whole set of other issues associated with the nature of the contribution and some of the key decisions that need to be considered, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has pointed out, have not necessarily been answered in the Statement. How long is this additional deployment intended to be? We have been told that about half the troops are due to be deployed in August 2018 and the rest by February 2019, but we are not told how long this is intended to last. The more deployments that we have, the more questions there are about the sustainability of deployments and the pressures put on Her Majesty’s services. While we pay tribute to the service men and women who are deployed to Afghanistan and everywhere else around the world, there is a question of the impact that this will have on forces morale. Is the Minister content that the resources are there to ensure that this additional deployment can be managed? Can he tell us a little bit more about what the Government’s exit strategy might be?

Finally, the Secretary of State commented that this shows our commitment to NATO, which,

“must remain the cornerstone of our defence”.

Nobody in your Lordships’ House would disagree with that, but does the Minister think that the President of the United States feels similarly? What discussions might the Prime Minister have with the President to try to ensure that, by the end of this week, the United States’s commitment to NATO is strong as that of the United Kingdom?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for their support for this announcement and, indeed, for their well-directed questions. Some of the questions from both noble Lords coincided, and I shall attempt to address them all in turn.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, asked me about the process that led to this decision. He is absolutely right to remind the House of the lessons from Chilcot, and that there needs to be a formal deliberative process across government for a decision as momentous as this—and that is indeed what happened. The UK was initially asked to consider this additional deployment in March of this year—that request came from NATO itself. We subsequently did so; that is to say, the Ministry of Defence considered the feasibility and a decision, following a discussion, was taken formally by the National Security Council on 26 June. It was then endorsed formally by the Treasury and by No. 10.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was again correct to make the point that the decision to do this was based not only on the fact that we thought it was the right thing for Afghanistan, for the UK and for NATO, but that it was intended—as I hope it will—to underline our commitment to NATO and the fact that Britain has particular skills that it can offer in a context such as this. I am sure that that message will not have been lost on any of our NATO partners.

The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, made the perfectly fair point that we will be sending troops into harm’s way. I would, however, just qualify that by making clear, as the Statement does, that the roles that are being and will be performed by our personnel in Afghanistan are non-combat roles. They are therefore quite distinct from the kind of role that we saw being performed under the ISAF banner before 2015, when our troops were very definitely on the front line against the Taliban. Chiefly, our troops will be charged with supplementing the Kabul defence force within Kabul itself. We have to remind ourselves that the NATO mission operates under the banner of “Train, Advise, Assist”. The UK contribution will therefore be to support that NATO mission but—to come back again to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe—the safety and security of our troops remains, as it always will, our key priority. We keep the protection measures for our personnel under constant review and will not hesitate to adapt those measures to the changing threats. They are benefiting from bespoke equipment, such as the Foxhound armoured vehicle, which is suited to the streets of Kabul. Essentially, as far as force protection is concerned, our personnel are equipped and mandated to protect themselves, as well as to protect coalition and diplomatic personnel. It is the Afghan national defence and security forces which are responsible for maintaining security in Kabul.

Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness asked about the timescale. I hope that they will understand that it is not possible to put a timescale on the deployment of our troops within the NATO mission in Afghanistan. All NATO allies are agreed that we will continue to support the Afghan national defence and security forces until the conditions are right for our collective withdrawal, which includes the ability of the Afghan forces to protect the people of Afghanistan without support from international forces, and when progress has been made on a peace process.

The noble Baroness—and, I think, the noble Lord—asked what kind of training we are delivering in Afghanistan. As I have already said, the mission goes under the strapline “Train, Advise, Assist”. The UK is mentoring and advising Afghan personnel, helping to develop capable and independent Afghan government and security structures, and working in the mission headquarters and the Afghan security ministries. An example of this is at the Afghan national army officer academy, where we are working alongside our NATO allies and Afghan partners to produce the next generation of Afghan military leaders.

Finally, the noble Baroness asked about the messages that we wish to deliver this week at the NATO summit. We have a number of objectives for that summit. Essentially, they can be summarised as making NATO more modern and adaptable. NATO continues to adapt to ensure that it is less bureaucratic, better at prioritising its activity and more capable of taking and implementing decisions quickly. The principles for all those things were largely agreed at the NATO summit in Cardiff and endorsed at the subsequent summit in Warsaw. We are confident that allies will agree ways to deliver those objectives, with the aim in view of strengthening deterrence and defence against Russia, increasing our efforts on tackling terrorism and addressing the threats presented by cyber and hybrid warfare. That very much relates to how we can improve readiness so that we can make sure that we have the right forces in the right place so that they can act when needed to protect our people. I believe that the UK already has an important part in that process, supporting the design of a new NATO command structure, and I think that we can be very proud that we will be committing an extra 100 posts to that structure, taking our commitment to over 1,000 UK service personnel.

Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2018

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2018 Lords Chamber

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, a substantial proportion of the MoD’s annual procurement spend, amounting to some £8 billion a year, goes on single-source contracts. Given this level of expenditure, it is critical that the department obtains value for money. It is also critical that we protect the long-term future of the defence industry by ensuring that suppliers get a fair return on single-source work.

When the noble Lord, Lord Currie, produced his independent report on non-competitive defence procurement in 2011, he concluded that the arrangements then in place were simply unfit for purpose. The result was a weak negotiating position for the department and poor value for money for the taxpayer.

Following the noble Lord’s report, in 2014 we introduced a new framework as part of the Defence Reform Act. Our intent was clear: the new framework sets out firm rules on pricing single-source defence contracts and puts the onus on suppliers to demonstrate that their costs are “appropriate, attributable and reasonable”. Where there is a dispute, either party can refer the matter to an impartial adjudicator, the Single Source Regulations Office, for a decision.

Since coming into force in December 2014, the new framework has made considerable progress: more than £19 billion-worth of single-source contracts have been brought under the framework, and the benefits to the MoD have been significant.

However, any new regime of this complexity needs to be refined in the light of experience. The Act therefore requires the Defence Secretary to carry out a thorough review of single-source legislation within three years of the framework coming into force. This review was completed in December 2017 and several proposals were identified as potential improvements to the framework. We have incorporated the first of these into the SI under consideration, but we plan to introduce further amendments later in the year.

The main amendments under consideration here relate to those types of single-source contract, known as “exclusions”, which cannot become qualifying defence contracts. Experience in implementing the framework has shown that there is some confusion about how such exclusions are applied and that some contracts, relating to intelligence and international co-operative programmes, are being unnecessarily excluded. We therefore propose a clearer and more precise definition of these two categories.

We are also adding a further category of exclusion to deal with situations where contracts are transferred from one legal entity to another, such as where an internal restructuring of industry has taken place. In such cases, although the legal identity of the supplier may have changed, the contract itself has not otherwise changed in a material sense.

We have engaged extensively in drafting these amendments and believe that the proposals will be generally welcomed by suppliers. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument and apologise for arriving momentarily after he started. He mentioned that the changes introduced in 2014 were intended to improve value for money and MoD procurement arrangements in general and that, since then, £19 billion had been spent using the single-source procurement mechanism. Will he explain a little more how the changes proposed in the SI will benefit the MoD and the taxpayer? I heard him say that the changes will be of benefit to the supplier. While we do not want to do down the suppliers, it would be helpful to understand how the changes will benefit the taxpayer as well.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting the regulations. Part 2 of the 2014 Act and the subsequent Single Source Contract Regulations 2014 are supported by these Benches. Unfortunately, I have lived through every bit of their creation and evolution. The key thing is: are they effective? The way to judge their effectiveness is, first, to understand the mechanisms, which the Minister has been invited to expand on, and, secondly, to look at how extensive they are. Does the Minister have at hand how much is being spent on equipment and infrastructure in a typical year, say, 2017-18? How much of that is single sourced? I believe the answer is nearly half. What proportion—and this is the key issue—are qualifying defence contracts? I wonder if he has similar figures for contracts with BAE.

The Explanatory Memorandum says that three of the five categories are “working well”, meaning that they describe the exclusions clearly. Two relate to land, I believe, and the third to government-procured equipment. Three are new or modified. The first, Regulation 7(b), is where there is international co-operation. The modification is that there should not be an exclusion if all parties agree. I have great trouble working out why parties would want to agree, because the mechanism is designed to give the Government, the SSRO, the MoD or whoever a better understanding of what is happening in the contract, giving them rights to challenge the suppliers. Why would anybody want to agree to this? Have any firms actually agreed to this?

The second modification relates to “intelligence activities”. This is clearly a case of unintended consequences because all intelligence activities are currently excluded. This turns it on its head to require only those contracts that are a risk to national security to be automatically excluded. Paragraph 7.9, I think, of the Explanatory Memorandum effectively defines “risk to national security”; that is, reports that would normally be required by the SSRO would contain information above a certain security level. Am I right in that understanding? Am I right that the key test will be the security level of the information that the SSRO would naturally demand if they became qualifying contracts? Otherwise, how is national security defined and who defines it?

The final modification relates to what one might loosely describe as novation. That does not give me any pain at all.

The key question about the modifications is: how many more, or what greater proportion of, single-source contracts will be brought into the ambit of the Single Source Regulations Office by these changes? Will the number be trivial or substantial? My final question relating to the order is: when will the MoD respond to the other SSRO recommendations?

Lastly, I have a question that is completely out of order. I point out to the Minister that the NATO summit is, I think, on Wednesday and Thursday. Will he give some indication of when he will give an overview of the defence modernisation programme promised before the NATO summit?

Defence Review

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 18th January 2018 Grand Committee

[The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth]

My Lords, I confide in you. Priests—even bishops, perhaps particularly so—are inclined to repeat themselves. I imagine noble Lords might have noticed. I have heard it said that we have only one sermon in us and just dress the message up differently each Sunday. I will be repeating my message today, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for the opportunity to do so. I am just as grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for listening to my repetition with the grace, care and attention that we all appreciate.

My message is that I applaud the Government’s ambition for defence, which is about British power for good in the world—but as things stand, I doubt that we have the capability, or the defence budget to deliver the capability, to meet that ambition. Things could be about to get worse, judging by what we read in the media. So, if we are to meet the Government’s ambition, we must also review our ability to do so.

My second point is that the present state of uncertainty is not helpful, and that is an understatement. The media is not the forum in which to conduct discussions on defence expenditure. We should have discussions in private, followed speedily by clarity in public. That would be fair to those who are affected, so they know where they stand. The current lack of clarity creates uncertainty, particularly among the servicemen and women we value so much.

My final point is also on morale. The noble Earl may have an inkling of the direction in which I am heading. I hope that he will be able to respond to my question on whether he can commit to a debate on the Floor of the House on the Armed Forces covenant—an opportunity to pat the Government on the back for all that has been done and to look forward to all that might be done. When it comes to defence, our greatest riches are the commitment, sacrifice and professionalism of our Armed Forces. We need to provide them with resources and end this ghastly uncertainty.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships’ House, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sterling. Oh, have I jumped ahead? I am so sorry.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Freeman, for jumping the gun. I was so keen to put my stopwatch on and make sure that I did not do more than my two minutes that I will misuse a few of my seconds now in apologising. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Sterling, for making sure that your Lordships’ House keeps coming back to the question of defence and defence expenditure. As he said, in the other place last week there was an excellent debate on defence where all the contributors, from whichever part of the other place, made clear their commitments to the Armed Forces and defence expenditure.

For slight reasons of getting the list wrong—it is not just me today—I do not speak as the Liberal Democrats Front-Bench speaker at the end of the list. However, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I want to reconfirm that we are still committed to 0.7% of GDP going to development aid. My noble friend Lord Lee made very good points about defence expenditure, but he maybe is not putting forward the party line on development aid.

We are deeply concerned about expenditure. I seem to recall that in the aftermath of the referendum the Minister repeatedly told us that defence expenditure was essentially hedged and would rise in real terms, yet that is not the advice that we seem to be given now. What commitment can he give us that defence expenditure will be ring-fenced in real terms? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth rightly mentioned morale in our Armed Forces. What is the Minister doing about the offer in terms of pay and pensions, and to what extent does he think morale is in the right place? Can more be done? In particular, can he reassure us that adequate training will be given, including extreme-weather training for the Royal Marines, and that the Royal Marines’ position in our Armed Forces remains absolutely secure?

National Security Capability Review

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Monday 15th January 2018 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, yes, that is the conclusion that we and previous Governments have reached as the minimum practicable and credible force required to deliver continuous at-sea deterrence.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State makes a commitment to protecting the north Atlantic. Is he also concerned about the south Atlantic, or should the Falklands be concerned?

[Earl Howe]

Yes, my Lords, and nothing I said should be taken as any indication that we will cease to keep a firm eye on the defence of the Falkland Islands, which we will continue to do.

Royal Marines

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Tuesday 28th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like all noble Lords who have spoken this evening I thank my noble friend Lord Burnett for securing this incredibly important debate. Unlike other noble Lords who have spoken, I will also apologise to him for passing a note from the Whips saying, “Time’s up”. If my noble friend had sat on the Back Benches and hidden away, he might have avoided the Whips’ note. I have never been asked to be a Whip and I believe that is because my party has understood that my timekeeping is always a bit off, so I was a little embarrassed to be the person passing the note. I also note that the Whips have come in force to make sure that I do not do more than my five minutes.

[Lord Burnett]

I did not take any notice anyway.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

The Royal Marine Commando mindset is: be the first to understand, the first to adapt and respond and the first to overcome. These are all incredibly important, but the Royal Marines can do those things only if there are Royal Marines in sufficient numbers. It is absolutely clear that across your Lordships’ House and in the other place there is considerable concern about the rumours of further cuts to the Royal Marines. Back in April, the First Sea Lord suggested that the Royal Marines had decided to restructure to better balance skills across the force. Can the Minister tell us whether the Royal Marines indeed decided to restructure, or were they forced to restructure because of financial matters? Are the Royal Marines being adequately resourced? Does the MoD view the Royal Marines as the jewel in the crown of our Armed Forces?

Many Members have mentioned extreme weather training and going to the high north. I had the opportunity to go to northern Norway in February to visit the Royal Marines doing their training. It was illuminating to discover just how important the Royal Marines’ training is, not just for our forces but to our Norwegian and American allies. The idea that training is being reduced is a considerable worry. If we are not able to provide the training that we have been doing, what are the Royal Marines going to provide instead? It is particularly concerning to hear that the Royal Marines Reserve is no longer going to be allowed to go overseas to train. Can the Minister tell us precisely what the Government are expecting to do with the Royal Marines? Can he reassure us that there will not be cuts either to numbers or to the training, which is so important? The Arctic, jungle and desert training are all vital. We have troops who are second to none but every cut weakens our reputation.

As so many Members have said, this is a time of considerable threats. If we take away the training in northern Norway, what message does that send to our NATO allies and to Russia? Presumably not the message Her Majesty’s Government intend to send. The security threats that we face in 2017 are not reducing; if anything, they are getting greater. Leaving the European Union will not reduce any threats. If anything, the need to co-operate with our NATO allies will make it even more important that we work closely together. Our second-to-none Royal Marines should be a fundamental part of that.

On almost everything, these Benches can agree with the mood of the Chamber. But there is one area where it is important to suggest that the Liberal Democrats cannot quite agree with every view. We are committed to defence and we would like to hear that Her Majesty’s Government remain committed to defence expenditure, but we are also committed to international development. Development and defence go together, as we saw recently in the way that we reacted to the hurricanes. Does the Minister agree, and will he reassure the House that aid and defence will go together and that there will be no cuts to the Royal Marines?

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 11th October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 10 will, if agreed, mean that regulations made necessary by the passing of this Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. It was a point well debated in Committee, and I do not need to rehearse those arguments again at length. It is worth pointing out, however, that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, following its consideration of the Bill, stated:

“The Bill will confer novel and broad powers on the Defence Council to make provision for part-time service … These powers are conferred without any detailed provisions on the face of the Bill limiting or restricting how the powers are exercised. In the circumstances we consider that the affirmative procedure should apply, and that this is so despite the fact regulations under section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 are generally subject to the negative procedure”.


I believe that there is agreement across the House that the Government should heed the committee’s recommendation. I thank the Minister for his willingness to engage in discussions, both in Committee and outside, on this matter and for his undertaking that the Government are listening to the comments that are being made.

This Bill introduces provisions enabling the Defence Council to make regulations regarding part-time working and the new forms of geographically restricted service. The Defence Council will also be able to make regulations setting out the circumstances in which agreements can be varied, suspended or terminated. The provision in the Armed Forces Act 2006 that governs the parliamentary procedure to which regulations are subject is Section 373. At present, any regulations made under Section 329 are subject to the negative procedure. However, our amendments will ensure that any regulations made under the new sections to be inserted by this Bill will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Section 373(3) sets out which regulations made under the 2006 Act are subject to the affirmative procedure, and the amendment inserts reference to regulations under the Bill into that list. The amendments also amend the wording of Clause 3(6) of the Bill to reflect the fact that Clause 1 now amends two sections of the Armed Forces Act 2006 and not just one. I beg to move.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the amendments, particularly to Amendment 8 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jolly. My comments will be very much in line with the words of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. In Committee, the Minister said:

“I am not in a position today to give any undertakings on the substance of this issue, but I undertake to reflect further on the matter in a constructive way ahead of Report”.—[Official Report, 12/9/17; col. GC 85]


If constructive reflection has occurred, it has not been visible in the form of any government amendment. Could the Minister explain to the House why no government amendment has been forthcoming and, in the absence of that, why noble Lords should not accept either the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, or that of my noble friend Lady Jolly?

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, to answer the noble Baroness, I suspect we are going to find out very shortly.

An essential characteristic of any good parliamentarian is curiosity, so I can understand why many noble Lords would like to debate the first relevant new Defence Council Instructions before they are implemented. However, in the future it may become apparent that it would be appropriate to make a slight amendment to the regulations concerning flexible working in order to make them work better, be fairer to service personnel or for some other desirable reason. Unfortunately, no such amendment is likely to be made unless it is absolutely essential. The reason is that, thanks to these amendments, an affirmative order will be needed and the MoD will simply not bother with it—it is just too much trouble, unless it is absolutely essential.

Why, then, is my noble friend likely to acquiesce to these amendments? The answer is that he will have told his officials that they have only one shot and they must get the regulations right first time. In short, my noble friend probably thinks that no amendments to the regulations will be needed for a long time, so it does not really matter. Unfortunately, these amendments would make the parliamentary scrutiny of Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act entirely inconsistent, as recognised by your Lordships’ DPRRC’s first report. The fact that a power is novel—in other words, innovative and broad—does not necessarily mean that it should attract the affirmative procedure; what really matters is if there was likely to be any difficulty with it.

The Bill and the subsequent regulations under Section 329 provide flexibility for service personnel, and that can only be positive for them as it will enable certain of them to continue to serve when otherwise they would have to consider leaving the services. However, any of these regulations under the Bill will attract the affirmative procedure.

Contrast the flexible working provisions that we are talking about with, for instance, Section 329(2)(d), which I suspect enables Defence Council regulations to impose golden handcuffs on a service person in exchange for attending a desirable course. For instance, if a soldier has completed his minimum term of service, he or she might want to be considered for training as a helicopter pilot. Quite understandably, the MoD would want to prevent that new pilot from leaving for civvy street immediately after qualification—hence the need for the golden handcuffs. But what if the MoD is experiencing a shortage of helicopter pilots? As far as I can see, the Defence Council could retrospectively increase the period for the golden handcuffs. However, these regulations, which could be very tough, are made under the negative procedure.

If we accept these amendments—as I expect we will—not only will we make the parliamentary scrutiny of Section 329 of the Armed Forces Act entirely inconsistent but we will be getting ourselves deep into the weeds. Apparently, the MoD is considering whether two landing platform docks should be taken out of service, while your Lordships want to look at the minutiae of flexible working for a few service personnel. If we can trust Ministers and the Defence Council to make really difficult strategic or operational decisions, sometimes on a very short timescale, I think that we can safely allow them to amend the original flexible working regulations on their own.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

9: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Accommodation
After section 329 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 insert—“329A Accommodation(1) A person to whom section 329(2)(ha) applies is entitled to service family accommodation or single living accommodation.(2) Six months after section 329(2)(ha) comes into effect, and every three years thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a report before both Houses evaluating the impact of that section on family accommodation and single living accommodation, and providing information on future accommodation needs in the light of trends of serving on a part-time basis.””

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, this amendment, too, replicates an amendment that was brought in Committee and refers to an issue that is fundamental to recruitment, retention and forces’ welfare, as well as the welfare of forces families: accommodation. In his response in Committee the Minister suggested that the numbers of people who might avail themselves of the opportunity to work part-time under the arrangements of the Bill would perhaps be sufficiently limited that they would not impact on forces accommodation. The idea was welcomed that all members of Her Majesty’s forces, whether full-time or part-time, if they are regulars, would be entitled to the same accommodation provisions.

However, if more people are acquired because some people work part-time, so that you might have three people instead of two people doing the job, each of those individuals would be entitled to accommodation, and at some point this might have an impact on the requirement for accommodation as a whole. Clearly, as the Minister stated in the discussion on Amendment 7, there may be cases where this will be overcome by Help to Buy and through the new employment model. However, to the extent that this is not the case, it is hugely important for service men and women and their families to believe that Her Majesty’s Government will provide adequate accommodation for them.

For that reason, we have again tabled an amendment on accommodation, both to restate that service men and women who avail themselves of this flexible model are entitled to appropriate family accommodation or single-living accommodation, and, perhaps more importantly in the longer term, to have certainty that the Government are reviewing what forces accommodation is available and whether it will be suitable for the number of service men and women we have.

One of the key things is what is available and habitable and the extent to which the accommodation, and the maintenance contracts which deal with it, are fit for purpose. We have been told on various occasions that CarillionAmey now meets its key performance indicators, yet there are still many complaints. If it meets its key performance indicators, does that mean that they are not the right ones? While this might not be the appropriate amendment to bring that forward, it would be welcome if the Minister could at least explain when we might be able to discuss such things.

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith and Lady Jolly, for tabling a further amendment on service accommodation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, noted in Committee, there are already significant pressures on service accommodation, and that is before we even begin to consider the move to the future accommodation model from 2019.

I will not go into the detail about our concerns on the future accommodation model, but clearly there are urgent questions for the Government to answer on how the Bill will affect personnel who rely on service accommodation, particularly when the system is shaken up. There will also be more questions for the Government to answer in the future as the new system is rolled out. I am therefore glad to see the addition of the second part of Amendment 9, which would require the Secretary of State not only to provide a periodic snapshot but to be proactive in anticipating future accommodation needs. I hope that the Minister will provide us with some answers—perhaps in a further round of letters before Third Reading—and offer a firm commitment; it is important that these things are reported back to Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

I am very willing to have a meeting with the noble Baroness to discuss repairs and maintenance of the defence estate, which falls slightly outside the scope of her amendment, but I hope that, for the purposes of the amendment, she has been reassured by what I have been able to say today and that she will agree to withdraw it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

I thank the Minister for his very full reply. It would be nice to think that Her Majesty’s Government as a whole and, in particular, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will ensure that the money put aside for defence will enable all those words to be brought about in practice and that we do not need to worry about the money that will be put aside for accommodation. In the light of the discussion about the future accommodation model, the idea that proposals will come forward later in the year and the suggestion of putting questions into the Armed Forces covenant report, I am content to withdraw the amendment. However, I should very much like to take the Minister up on his suggestion of a meeting.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 12th September 2017 Grand Committee

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord’s forbearance with my amendment. I have some slightly difficult personal circumstances which mean that I have not been able to prepare quite as well as I would like, and therefore I shall not speak to my Amendment 18.

If these two proposed new subsections to affect the main clauses in the Bill were part of the wider quinquennial Armed Forces Bill, would we look at them in such great detail? I think that if we are honest, we would say probably not. I can understand the thinking of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in recommending the affirmative procedure. The committee rightly recognises that your Lordships will want to look closely at the detail. However, as drafted I believe that even the most minor amendment in the future would have to be debated by both Houses, and I am not convinced that that would be a good use of parliamentary time. Worse still, a situation may arise where some minor change is desirable but the change is delayed, or even worse not made at all, because of the effort required. Noble Lords should be aware that putting an affirmative order through Parliament is not an exercise in rubber stamping; it is a complicated process. Would it not be better to use the affirmative procedure for the first set of regulations and then revert to the negative procedure for subsequent amendments? I wonder whether the noble Lord would like to consider that.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 18 tabled in my name and to Amendment 6 which is tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. The amendments are similar. In contrast to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, we believe that it is important that Parliament should play its full role in legislation. If the Defence Council is to have new powers conferred on it, it would be appropriate to make an affirmative decision rather than use a negative instrument. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, took the words out of my mouth. I was in this Room last week taking part in a debate about reporting on the process of Brexit. The issues being discussed included questions about the role that Parliament plays in that. The Henry VIII clauses which are in the EU withdrawal Bill cover a bigger set of issues, but the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, has asked, “If these clauses were part of a bigger Bill, would we be bothered about them?”. Perhaps not, but that is not the point. At the moment there seems to be a tendency on the part of Her Majesty’s Government to say, “If the Government have an idea, it should be accepted without any amendment or scrutiny”. It is important that your Lordships’ House and Parliament as a whole play their part in scrutinising legislation, and it is right that this should be done through the affirmative procedure.

On reports, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded us that there now is information; I am grateful to the Minister for ensuring over the summer that further information was provided regarding the sort of questions we were looking for. As my noble friend Lady Jolly said, Amendment 4 was a probing amendment, but obviously, the more information that can be given and made available to people and the more detail we have, the greater the opportunity for this to be successful.

[Lord Touhig]

Perhaps I may comment on the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. His suggestion would not be the right way. He discussed it with me last week. The Bill substantially depends on regulations to bring in its measures, and how would one decide what we would bring in the first tranche and the second tranche, and so on? Therefore everything that relates to this matter should be subject to the affirmative procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, in those halcyon days when I was an Opposition Front Bench spokesman, I would have been proud to have tabled any of these amendments, something I did many times. I leave it to the Minister to say whether they are a good idea, but I draw the Committee’s attention to Amendment 15, which has not yet been spoken to, although it is in the grouping.

We need to know how many servicemen are taking advantage of these provisions, because otherwise the stats on the strength of the Armed Forces are to an extent meaningless. Perhaps the frequency of the report is too great but I would like some reassurance from the Minister that we will know, from time to time, how many members of the Armed Forces take up flexible working.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I will also speak briefly to Amendment 15. Picking up on the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, it is hugely important that we have clarity on what percentage of our Armed Forces are working full-time and what percentage part-time. At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, frequently asked whether this was a cost-saving measure. While we listened respectfully to the Minister and understand that it is not a cost-saving exercise, the question is whether, if a significant number of our Armed Forces are working on a part-time basis, there may be a cost saving, but equally a loss in capability. Having this basic information will be important in giving us a sense of whether we are up to full strength. If there were significant numbers of people working part-time, would there be a necessity to create new part-time or full-time posts equivalent to the time that they are not working—up to 40%?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13 on accommodation. As the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, mentioned, this is an important issue. We have had some indications that those service men and women who avail themselves of flexible working will not be adversely affected, but there is already pressure on service accommodation, in particular a lack of single living accommodation. Moreover, we are looking at new accommodation through the future accommodation model. The question I have for the Minister is this: to what extent has planning been made to ensure that there will be sufficient accommodation for part-time service men and women? If the overall number of personnel remains unchanged, clearly the pressures will not change from what they are now. However, if there is a need for more personnel because some people are working part-time, has consideration been given to providing additional accommodation to ensure that those who work part-time will have the access to service accommodation that they have been promised?

If it is the case that there are more personnel in total because some people are working part-time, that would suggest the need for additional service accommodation. Not only would this not be a saving, there could potentially be a cost in this. Is the Ministry of Defence willing to consider additional accommodation being made available and meeting the costs that that might entail? If not, how does it envisage squaring the circle?

[Baroness Burt of Solihull]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 16 tabled in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Jolly. Before doing so, however, I want to make a comment about Amendment 9 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig. It seeks to protect the full-time equivalent level of remuneration for regulars. As the noble Lord has pointed out, there are components to this such as universal payments, basic pay and the x-factor, which until recently I thought was something else entirely, but I shall not go into that. The idea is to protect against any reduction in pay being slipped in for individuals who will be affected by this Bill. But since we are not changing the classification of a regular, these components will not change, including the 14% which is the current x-factor payment. It will remain throughout the term of an individual’s employment. My view is that this should be a matter for concern and we would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that that indeed will be the case.

I turn to Amendment 16, which ensures that a person can be promoted regardless of whether they work part-time. We would welcome a reassurance from the Minister that the new arrangements will not affect someone’s career progression. The situation is complicated and not necessarily what people outside the Armed Forces might imagine. As I understand it, the current performance appraisal, postings and promotion system is not based primarily on competence. It relies heavily on direct comparisons being made with immediate peers in a unit. A tick-box system is used whereby someone has to have done certain jobs in order to get the next job. In that way, an individual can score enough to go before a promotion board. Under the current system, anyone working part-time will inevitably be penalised, particularly if they are on geographical restriction as one. They are unlikely to do all the posts they need to do to remain in the promotion thread, and they may not score as well in direct comparison with peers. If the Government accept the premise that promotion should not be affected by using the flexible employment scheme, does the Minister also accept that the appraisals-posting promotion structure really could do with a massive overhaul?

Armed Forces (Flexible Working) Bill [HL]

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th July 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, like most noble and noble and gallant Lords who have spoken this afternoon, I welcome the Bill, but with a degree of caution. I have a few more questions to add to the myriad that the Minister already faces. I, and the Liberal Democrat Benches as a whole, are less sceptical about the proposals than the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, but we have some concerns, and we might even agree with him on at least one point.

The Bill is intended to assist with recruitment and retention, and may help in particular with the recruitment and retention of women. As several noble and gallant Lords have pointed out, the devil is in the detail—or, at least, the devil would be in the detail if we could find any detail. At the moment, we are still waiting. The issues in the Bill are potentially profound. They may be extremely beneficial to those people who are able to use flexible working, but they raise concerns for all the services, and for those members of the Armed Forces who are not making use of flexible working. That is something that I want to come back to with regard to the impact on morale of those still doing their normal hours. Will they face further constraints and difficulties?

We have a set of issues about morale, particularly those raised by the regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey results from 2017. While family life and work/life balance may be important, other factors are also important—most notably, accommodation. As several other noble Lords have sought the indulgence of the House to raise other issues, such as mental health, families and counselling services, I crave the House’s indulgence for a moment to ask the Minister what work the Government are doing to deal with one of the biggest issues that affects service families—the nature of accommodation and, in particular, the maintenance of service accommodation. There are still regular complaints and a very serious sense that CarillionAmey does not deliver. One issue is that its contract is not sufficiently well specified. But if you have cold water instead of hot water or a cooker that does not function, there are real questions about how quickly it will respond. What scope is there through this Bill—although it will probably not be through this Bill—or through the course of this Parliament to look at ways in which to enhance service accommodation? That is one issue that affects family life in the services and, by extension therefore, morale, and potential questions of retention.

Accommodation is one issue, but pensions is another and pay is another. There is a range of issues that need to be dealt with. This Bill deals with a very small aspect of morale—the issue of flexible working. One question that I would like the Minister to address, which has come up and on which, although I hate to suggest it, there is a degree of confusion on some Benches, is about the elision there seems to be between part-time and flexible working. My understanding is that those two things are distinct and that flexible working would not necessarily entail a reduction in pay. Part-time work would, as it would in any walk of life, but engaging in a degree of flexible working, which could entail home working or flexible hours, would not in and of itself necessarily entail a pay cut. If the Minister could clarify that, it might be helpful to the progress of the Bill.

There are clearly questions of recruitment and retention. These proposals—assuming that the detail is appropriate—may assist with retention. Serving men and women may at the margins think that the ability to undertake flexible hours or to take leave to deal with caring responsibilities would help them to make the decision to remain rather than leave the services. That clearly could be beneficial to the individuals and the services, as well as to the UK as a whole, if we are not losing skilled people.

My noble friend Lady Jolly raised the question of information. How do serving men and women find out about this? The Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey suggests that only about one-quarter of servicemen and women actually think that leading officers give them adequate information. That has been one of the problems with the new employment model: there is a feeling among service men and women that they do not necessarily understand the detail. What is going to be different about this flexible working Bill? How are service men and women going to find out about the provisions? Are they going to have some general information? How far are we going to get into the details with them of whether there is going to be a cap on the number of service men and women who will be allowed flexible working at any one time?

The positive side is retention of people who may be looking for flexible working, but what about full-time regulars who may have to take on an additional burden if some of their colleagues are no longer available for deployment outside a particular geographical area or for a certain amount of time? That could give opportunities for reservists to be called up, as the Minister suggested, but it also raises questions about people who are still doing full-time work. I have had feedback which suggests that full-timers may then feel under additional pressure. If that is the case, what impact will it have on their retention rates? Have the Government undertaken any work into the impact on retention for full-timers?

I will look next at recruitment. Some work done by PricewaterhouseCoopers on public opinion suggests that there are very high levels of trust in the Armed Forces, right across the spectrum, but younger people are slightly less prone to trust them. About 80% of respondents thought that the Armed Forces are important for jobs, skills and training. Once again, as with trust in the Armed Forces, fewer young people are aware of the skills and training available. What are the Government doing to make recruitment more attractive; to enable young people—particularly young women—to understand the potential opportunities? I will correct something that the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, touched on. He seemed to imply that my noble friend Lady Burt had suggested that we could let in women or other people who did not meet the appropriate physical standards. What my noble friend actually said was that, as the nature of warfare changes, so the variety of skills and talent may change. For example, for cyberwarfare you do not need the physical attributes of a Royal Marine. There may be people from all sorts of backgrounds who would never have dreamed of joining the Armed Forces. They are not necessarily opposed to the Armed Forces or disagree with them—they are not pacifists—but they would never want to do some of the physical things. They are so computer savvy that they would be brilliant recruits, but they are not about to go along to the local recruitment office. What are the Government doing about a wider approach to recruitment?

Many questions have already been raised and I do not want to reiterate them. We clearly need to think about manning levels generally and ensuring that flexible working does not damage operational capabilities. I assume that Her Majesty’s Government have looked into this and believe that the proposals being put forward will not create any problems for operational capabilities. The Minister certainly suggested that they are evidence-based, yet they have raised several concerns. Can the Minister reassure the House that they are not aimed at cost saving; that manning and deployment proposals have been thought through; and that the high-level support for flexible working will be there through the ranks? Like the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, the Liberal Democrat Benches would like to see regulations subject to affirmative rather than negative procedures. It is important that this House and the other place can actually see what is being proposed. We would also like to know how the military regulations are promulgated and scrutinised, as was touched on earlier.

In conclusion, these Benches give the proposals a cautious welcome. My noble friend Lady Burt said, in effect: “What’s not to like”. There is very little in here to disagree with, but we clearly need to be very careful to ensure that the proposals are fit for purpose. We therefore look forward to the clarifications that the Minister will give this evening. We look forward even more to elaboration in Committee on the many questions that have come up this evening.

HMS “Queen Elizabeth”

Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I am sure that the First Sea Lord will be very interested in that suggestion.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

I had the privilege of seeing the Queen Elizabeth class carriers at Rosyth last week, and the “Queen Elizabeth” was doing her harbour trials. My question relates to the aircraft that are meant to go on the carrier. Will the F-35s be available when the “Queen Elizabeth” is set to sail, or are the delays to the carrier simply to enable the F-35s to be delayed as well?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the 2015 strategic defence and security review set out our intent to have two front-line operational F-35B squadrons by the end of 2023, and we plan to buy 138 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme. To date we have taken delivery of eight F-35B aircraft, with a further six, currently in production, to follow very shortly. The next annual production contract is scheduled to be let next month, and we intend to order a further three under that part of the contract.