Afghan Special Forces Relocation Review

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Government’s Statement. I welcome its content and tone, and it is very much appreciated by former Ministers.

We owe all those who served with distinction and valour in Afghanistan a great debt of gratitude. Their efforts to make Afghanistan a better place for all its citizens, and to ensure the safety and security of the United Kingdom and our interests, are immeasurable. It is very concerning that many of them still experience enormous personal risks from the Taliban. It is right that we do all we can to assist them in any way possible.

In light of this, I am proud that, when in government, the Conservatives established the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme and the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. As of 30 June, indefinite leave to remain had been granted to 12,874 individuals across the two schemes, many of whom are former members of specialist units. However, we acknowledge that some former members of the Triples have faced unfair decisions relating to their applications.

I am pleased that the Government have continued the review into applications from past members of the Triples to the ARAP scheme that was initiated by the Conservative Government in February by the then Minister for the Armed Forces, James Heappey. It was the right decision to attempt to remedy inconsistencies with applications to the ARAP scheme, and I am proud that the Conservatives took such action and that the Government have continued this work.

We on the Conservative Benches fully support this review process, and we want the correct decisions to be made on these very important and time-sensitive applications as speedily and fairly as possible. We hope that His Majesty’s Government will keep your Lordships’ House updated on any further progress with this review.

I also welcome the Government’s acceptance and admission that the ineligible decisions were not taken out of bad faith and that any decision made by the previous Government was arrived at only after careful scrutiny of the information available at that time. As the Minister stated, it is a mammoth task to ensure adequate record-keeping in prolonged military operations involving numerous coalition partners, and it is a positive step that new records establishing employment links with some members of the Triples have surfaced.

Of utmost importance is that the process moves forward as smoothly as possible. Can the Minister confirm that the Ministry of Defence is working in lockstep with the Home Office to ensure that decisions on the Triples are communicated effectively and in a timely way to those affected? Has the Home Office made the necessary arrangements to ensure that those who have their original decisions overturned do not face further hurdles in their recognition and relocation to the UK?

This requires action across government, including Border Force and UK Visas and Immigration, but it also relates to housing and community integration. Does the Minister know whether adequate housing stock is available for those whose decisions are overturned by this review? Furthermore, have His Majesty’s Government liaised with local authorities to ensure that those who arrive are properly supported? I thank the Minister in advance for his answers to these important questions.

I end with a call for continued cross-party co-operation and consultation on this issue, which is not only in the national interest but a moral imperative. Too many of those who served alongside our troops in Afghanistan have been persecuted by the Taliban since the withdrawal, and it is our duty now to deliver on our end of the bargain. We hope that the international community continues to monitor the ongoing human rights abuses perpetrated by the Taliban and will push them to reverse course as a matter of urgency, for the sake of all the citizens of Afghanistan.

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and I welcome it in principle. When I was chair of the International Development Committee, I visited Afghanistan on two occasions—not just Kabul but Balkh and the Panjshir Valley. Other members of the committee went to Helmand. We saw for ourselves the engagement between the occupying forces and Afghan organisations and troops of all kinds—very much committed to the future. I also have experience, as I am sure have other Members of the House, of having to take up a case of an Afghan who was trapped because he could not get the necessary papers out. It was eventually resolved, but it was an awfully long and convoluted process, so I think noble Lords can understand how we got to this position.

The reality is that many of these people—Afghans who were working in Afghanistan—were looking for a free, tolerant and inclusive Afghanistan. They did not expect a sudden and chaotic evacuation, which amounted to a betrayal of their bravery and loyalty. They believed they would be protected for their commitment—what we have just heard about the Triples is dramatic proof of this fact. Let us be clear, the UK did not take the decision to evacuate Afghanistan; we had no choice but to follow the lead, but it was a dreadful decision carried out in an appallingly incompetent way which left many Afghans at continuing risk. In that situation, it is absolutely right that we demonstrate now our commitment to help those who have the right to come to this country.

The Minister has already indicated that the applications are being processed, many have been resolved, and papers have been signed. How quickly does he believe the process can be completed?

Many of the people affected are probably in hiding somewhere in Afghanistan. What steps are being taken to help them out safely? The Minister said that when they are in Pakistan they will be supported, but getting to Pakistan might be a high-risk process. What can the British Government do to try to help them get there so that they can be brought to safety?

The Minister mentioned families. It would be good to hear exactly what the status of their families will be, what definition of “family” will apply, and how they too will be given freedom. Although the Statement is specific to the Triples—I accept that, and it is a welcome outcome that a review started by the previous Government, which has probably taken too long, is now coming to fruition—does the Minister nevertheless accept that there are other Afghan nationals who loyally served the UK and may still be at risk and who still have the problem of not being able to entirely prove what their relationship was? I think your Lordships all know that for many of them there was a genuine and deep relationship, and they are entitled to believe that the UK will look after them if it can.

I understand the point that you cannot just have freeloaders—there must be real evidence—but will the Minister acknowledge that the Triples might not be the only people who have fallen foul of this lack of information and data? The case that I was involved in was precisely that—I am sure that other noble Lords had similar cases. He knew for certain and was fortunate enough that there was a British citizen who had worked with him and was ultimately able to provide the evidence that enabled him to leave Afghanistan. Without that evidence, he might still be languishing in hiding with his family—fortunately, that is not the case.

I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Government are doing the right thing; we just ask that they do it as speedily as possible. It would also be good to acknowledge that this might not be entirely the end of the road.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Evans and Lord Bruce, for their contributions. This is a very serious Statement, as we all acknowledge; we can tell that by the tone of the House. I also thank both noble Lords for their acknowledgement of the heroism of those who worked with us and our need to ensure that we do all we can to stand with those who stood with us. For those who read or watch our deliberations, I make the important point that there is no party division on defending our country and standing up for our country. There are questions of any Government that people will sometimes want to ask, and that is quite right, but both noble Lords made the point that this is not a party-political issue. This is about His Majesty’s Government, of whatever party, trying to do the right thing by those who stood with us in conflict. There is no division between us on that, and that is an important starting point for us all.

I reiterate the point that has just been made: there is no suggestion that any Minister in the previous Government did anything other than use the information they had given to them in order to provide information to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Evans, asked me to acknowledge the steps the previous Government took to instigate the review, and I do so. As a consequence of the review, the various things we are discussing today have come to light. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, the MoD is working across government, including, where necessary, with the Home Office. That is how some of these things have come to light, but there will be others.

The noble Lord, Lord Bruce, asked about adequate housing. We are working with the Home Office and local authorities to ensure that those who are resettled here through the Triples process are adequately housed. As part of that, arrangements are being made for permanent accommodation for them. As mentioned in the Statement made by my colleague Luke Pollard MP yesterday, existing transitional arrangements are having to be used which we had hoped would have ended by now. Indeed, the previous Government’s and this Government’s hope and expectation was that they would have ended, but we hope to see them end as soon as possible. Adequate housing, including some military housing, is being made available for some individuals and their families.

I was asked about the figures. We estimate that 2,000 applicants are eligible under this review. Some three-quarters have already been reviewed, and of those, approximately 25% have been found to be eligible because of the direct employment records we have uncovered. Some of the remaining 500 or so are the more complex or difficult cases, so I cannot say to your Lordships exactly when the review will be finished, but we intend to complete it as soon as we can, and we will keep the House updated.

As soon as a decision is made, applicants are informed immediately. They are not informed that their case is under review, but they are informed immediately that their case has been looked at again and they will be subject to that. I think the noble Lord asked how they are got out of Afghanistan. I think everybody will understand why I cannot explain how, but they are moved as quickly as possible out of Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

We are working really closely with the Pakistan Government, who have been very co-operative in this respect. My understanding is that nobody who is eligible under the ARAP scheme has been deported back to Afghanistan. We also know that, subject to certain checks being made, they are moved from Pakistan to this country as quickly as possible.

The noble Lord asked about family members. There is a difference between immediate family members and eligible family members: the usual terminology applies to “immediate family”—for example, dependent children, spouse—“eligible family” means the wider family. People are obviously free to make applications in respect of eligible family members and others, and they will be adjudicated in the appropriate way.

The noble Lord asked about other asylum routes. Of course, there are other asylum routes that people from Afghanistan can apply for—I see the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in his place. The noble Lord mentioned the figure; I think it is nearly 13,000 people now. There are those routes, but they are asylum claims; here, we are dealing with the Triples.

In answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, other special units may be in scope, but we have not looked at those yet. We will have to do so. As I say, other routes are available, but they concern asylum claims. Other special units, if that is what the noble Lord was referring to, may well be in scope of the review, but we have not looked at them. We will do so in due course.

Before I take questions from Back-Benchers, I reiterate that we will of course keep the House fully updated on progress on all of this. I hope the House appreciates why we thought it important to come forward with this as soon as we were able to. There is new information, which the Government are now working on. Above all, we are now taking decisions, changing some of the decisions that were made based on past available information. I think it highly appropriate in those circumstances that we come to the House to explain that.

The noble Lord mentioned individual cases. If noble Lords let me know of any individual cases, I will take them to Minister Pollard to see whether they are eligible and can be taken forward. Clearly, the case the noble Lord mentioned needed to be looked at.

With that, I welcome the Statement. It is an important step forward and I thank both the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and His Majesty’s Opposition’s Front Bench for their support for the Statement, and for their questions.

Relations with Europe

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I am very glad to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley; it is a very strong theme. I welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. I look forward to hearing more from her. However, I disagree with the contribution before last. In my view, Brexit has been a reputational, political and economic disaster for the UK. It was ill thought out—perhaps they never expected to win—and characterised by fantasy, rudeness and arrogance, and there was no consideration for the impact on our friends and allies. The UK is now seen as a disrupter and there is no immediate prospect of a return to any of the old relationships.

Nevertheless, there is a need and a desire both in the UK and in the EU for a reset—a new relationship. We need to do this bilaterally and collectively, with member states and with the EU itself, but it cannot be a pick and mix solution or cherry picking.

I was shocked when Keir Starmer said that the UK would never rejoin any part of the EU in his lifetime. That is not his decision to make. Then Yvette Cooper said that the UK voted for Brexit, that there was no going back and that the Government would not entertain the EU’s proposed youth mobility scheme. That is alienating great swathes of aspirational young people and, I suggest, is not actually a vote winner for the Labour Party.

It is difficult to see how we can secure a closer relationship with the EU without some accommodation—on both sides, I agree—but ruling out ever rejoining the single market or the customs union rather limits the room for progress. Improving bilateral relationships is absolutely right and desirable, but we should recognise the limit. The EU will not look kindly on attempts to detach members from community-wide agreements.

It is all very well to claim we have the freedom to diverge from EU single market rules because of Brexit, but it is quite hard to see where that takes us. For small and medium-sized enterprises, participation in the single market gave free access to the EU market. Now, the cost and bureaucracy of proving conformity often makes the exercise unprofitable, so exporting is often abandoned or the business is relocated inside the EU.

I live in Scotland and represented a Scottish constituency for 32 years. The EU referendum, following the Scottish independence referendum, divided SNP supporters. SNP voters provided the largest number of Brexit supporters because they did not want Scotland to be in any form of union, yet the SNP argues that the only way for Scotland to rejoin the EU is to leave the UK and then apply. But the European Commission has made it absolutely clear many times that there is no quick and easy route for Scotland back into Europe. Scotland is not a sovereign state and has unsustainable debt, no central bank with a serious track record and no sovereign currency. Scotland would be at the back of the queue and would face the need to secure a unanimous vote—no easy task for a disruptive spin-off of a disruptive former member. The country would spend years in no man’s land outside the UK and the EU, with no timescale for any resolution.

In any case, independence is off the agenda for the foreseeable future. If you ask whether Scotland should remain in the UK or leave, the answer is overwhelmingly in favour of remain. A different question gets a different answer, but the fantasy that separation offers a quick way back into the EU does not fly. The best prospect for Scotland re-entering the EU rests with the UK, where the Liberal Democrats are leading the way for a step-by-step re-engagement, recognising that we need to move towards the single market by negotiated steps, by agreeing with many of the things that people are asking for, and really pleading with the Government to deliver.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and look forward to hearing her contributions to debates on Northern Ireland at a crucial time for the Province’s future. She is a welcome addition to this House’s debates, which have been unbalanced in recent times. I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Interests, because I will talk specifically and exclusively about the future of international development and the Government’s priorities for it.

I welcome the Government’s commitment to 0.7%. It is an important signal, especially at a time when many people see the UK turning in on itself. However, it does require that official development assistance conforms to both OECD rules and UK law. It is worth recording that we have four Acts of Parliament: the Labour Government’s International Development Act; Tom Clarke’s International Development (Reporting and Transparency) Act, about development across departments; Bill Cash’s International Development (Gender Equality) Act; and Michael Moore’s ODA target Act.

This proves just how cross-party the support is for international development and for the continuing autonomy of DfID. I share concerns at the suggestion—not in the manifesto, but being mooted—that DfID and the Foreign Office should merge. I completely agree with other contributions that aid and foreign policy must go hand in hand and co-ordinate and work together, and that there is a political dimension to the delivery of aid and development. All that is true, but it does not in itself logically lead to deciding that we have to merge these two departments.

I suggest that while diplomacy is one thing, development is something quite different. It requires a completely different set of skills and a completely different approach. Where the embassies and DfID have been co-located in countries, it has worked well and been constructive, but if we have a commitment to untied, poverty-focused aid, we also have 20 years of expertise within DfID of managing aid and development programmes. There is a real danger that, if the lead went to the Foreign Office, this could compromise that integrity and actually lead to misspending that I suggest might cause the Government in the end very considerable political embarrassment.

I also want to get some clarification from the Government about how, as we leave the EU, we intend to manage our relationship on development with the EU, which has consistently been voted by the Government as one of their best development partners. Will we continue to have a relationship with the EU? Will we be practically involved in it, and how will we do this in a way that does not also mean that our withdrawal damages the EU’s own development projects? Will UK agencies continue to work with the EU and have government support and encouragement to do so?

Also, will the Government clarify the role of spending in middle-income countries, which actually seems to have grown in recent years? We still have operations in Indonesia, the Philippines, China, Brazil and other countries. Since the Syrian conflict, we have an operation in the Middle East, and considerable resource is going there. What will our priorities be for humanitarian support, for climate change and for development and capacity building? They compete with each other for resources and sometimes, as I have mentioned before in this House, I believe that development and capacity building have been undermined by the commitment to the other two. I am not against them, but I think the balance is important.

In the context of building capacity, I contest—and I declare my interests in this—that parliamentary strengthening and working with policy development in developing countries is relatively low-cost but can be extremely effective and should be encouraged. I have had first-hand experience of that. Funding for CDC has increased substantially in recent years. Again, I am not against that, but what are the Government doing to ensure that that development is actually building capacity and skills in developing countries that is sustainable in the long term? What are they doing to involve British businesses in the process of building those skills and that development in those countries? Will the Government continue to focus on building programmes to support people with disabilities? I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord King, that population is a crucial issue that needs to be addressed. In reality, the issues of population growth and family planning are essential. DfID has a particularly good record on this—in partnership, interestingly enough, with Canada—and I hope that that will continue and grow. I think the noble Lord, Lord King, is absolutely right.

We are far from being late in the debate—there is a lot more to come—but having heard the noble Lords, Lord King and Lord Jay, speak on those issues, I really welcome their contributions, because they speak with real experience and authority. As far as I am concerned, we need to ensure that, while they are co-ordinated, our development objectives can continue to be separate from our foreign policy objectives. We must recognise that population and family planning are crucial to the future of development, and indeed the rights and development of women and families in particular.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, a very distinguished former First Minister of Scotland. I agreed with much of what he said.

When I stood in the October 1974 election, came fourth and lost my deposit, I never dreamed that I would rise today as a Member of your Lordships’ House. I want to thank everyone who has made my arrival here in the last few weeks such an enjoyable experience. I am genuinely grateful for all the guidance and help I have received at all levels and from my sponsors, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope. The doorkeepers, attendants and catering staff are incessantly cheerful, helpful and friendly—not just to me but to my friends and family, my demanding children and grandchildren.

I had the honour to represent the constituency of Gordon for 32 years. Gordon is not a place; it is the heartland of the Gordon family, historically headed by the Dukes of Gordon, including General Gordon of Khartoum and the 18th-century Duchess who recruited soldiers into the Gordon Highlanders with a kiss. It also produced a Prime Minister, Lord Aberdeen, who appointed Gladstone to his Cabinet. Lord Aberdeen’s family seat was Haddo House where, until fairly recently, June, the late Dowager Marchioness of Aberdeen, presided over many musical and cultural activities. She endeared herself to me when, after one election, she said: “Malcolm, I am so pleased you got back. I worried you might lose. I was so worried, in fact, I very nearly voted for you”.

A colleague said to me that if you are going to be a long-serving MP you need to reinvent yourself from time to time. I certainly have carried out many different roles, including leading my party in Scotland and working with Donald Dewar and others in the constitutional convention to lay the foundations for the restoration of the Scottish Parliament. I am more committed than ever to the case for a federal United Kingdom that can secure the wishes of the majority of the people of Scotland to be self-governing within the UK, rather than leaving it.

I am particularly proud of the role with which I was entrusted by the House of Commons for 10 years, as chair of the International Development Committee. That gave me a privileged and unique insight into the work of the UK’s aid and development activities— by government, by world-class development and humanitarian NGOs and by charities and international and global players. It is on the basis of this experience that I choose to make my short intervention in this debate.

I understand the Government’s aim of demonstrating how our official development assistance directly serves the national interest but it has to be done while conforming to the OECD Development Advisory Committee guidelines. I am pleased that the aid review continues to highlight the focus on poverty reduction as a key objective, as it must be if the post-MDG objective of eliminating absolute poverty by 2030 is to be realised. I also note the interesting report of this House’s Committee on Soft Power and reassert my own view that tackling the challenges of poverty, humanitarian disasters, migration and conflict requires the whole of Government’s engagement. I can only echo the committee when it said,

“soft power can only deliver tangible and measurable results over time, and with patience and dedication”.

I would express caution that, while we retain flexibility, we do not chop and change priorities too quickly and too often. In particular, in our desire to address the current refugee crisis—and I have visited refugees in Lebanon and Jordan—we should not divert funding from vulnerable communities in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia.

I welcome the fact that the Government’s national security strategy and strategic defence review maintain the commitment to tackling conflict and building stability overseas. I will watch with interest how the increase in the fund from £1 billion to £1.3 billion will be prioritised and in what ways the Government will deliver annually 50% of DfID’s budget in fragile states and regions.

I hope I shall have further opportunities to address this House on these matters and that, from my past experience and continuing engagement, I shall be able to contribute usefully to the deliberations of your Lordships’ House.

Mull of Kintyre Review

Lord Bruce of Bennachie Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and his unqualified apology to the House. Having been a member of the team, I also thank Lord Philip for the way in which he conducted the inquiry, for the advice that he gave, and for the fact that we had a collective but unanimous decision. The standard of proof was designed for a layman and is clear beyond any doubt whatsoever, and yet the legal advice given to the air marshals was that it meant whatever the RAF wished it to mean, which is not a standard of legal advice that anyone in this House would recognise. Will the Secretary of State conclude that we will never know what happened on the Chinook, but the families should now have comfort that the matter can be put to rest?

[Dr Fox]

I reiterate my great thanks to my right hon. Friend for the work that he has done. The conclusions that he has stated are correct. All I would say is that in producing this report we seem to have created a crack team, and I am sure that Governments with inquiries in future will take note of that.