Defence Reform Bill
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, raises an important point. Despite a lengthy explanation, the point is whether an annual 2020 plan would help. I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. What sort of manpower on an annual basis would be needed to prepare such an annual report and would that have any effect on the use of our fighting manpower? Will he also comment on how much information is already in the public domain? That point was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, who said that the information is available but not in a complete format. Perhaps my noble friend can say whether such an annual report, if it showed deficiencies, would aid our enemies rather than the country. I am all for transparency but we are talking about the defence of the realm.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, I have one very small comment. It would seem to be quite wrong to restrict such an annual report to the Army. It would be necessary, if such an approach were to be adopted, for the report to cover all three services in full.
Defence Reform Bill
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, said, she also raised the issue of interception capabilities in Committee when she referred to concerns over the relevance of existing legislation in the light of rapid advancements in technology, the level of application of that technology by in particular American forces operating from UK soil and the extent to which UK law did or did not apply to them.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness does of course refer to,
“officers of other states resident in the United Kingdom”,
and officers of other states acting within the jurisdiction.
I presume, therefore, that the amendment is nation-neutral and is intended to refer equally to other countries, although I am not sure that it is intended to cover any such activities being undertaken by, for example, embassy officials of such other countries.
As far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the Interception Commissioner, as I understand it, already monitors intercepted data, including of the Ministry of Defence, so I assume that is not the real issue since that individual reports annually to Parliament and to the Prime Minister. The Government have stated that if visiting forces want to undertake interception activities covered by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act a proper authorisation must be obtained, that such authorisations are overseen by the Interception of Communications Commissioner, and that covert surveillance powers are subject to separate oversight arrangements through the Chief Surveillance Commissioner.
In relation to foreign military personnel, the extent to which they are exempt from local jurisdiction is regulated through status of forces agreements negotiated between the sending and the host nation, which allow a sending state’s military forces to operate within, and at the consent of, the host state.
In 1951 NATO agreed a status of forces agreement covering hosting arrangements between the alliance’s member states, and thus from our perspective applies equally to visiting forces in the UK and to British forces based in NATO countries. The 1952 Visiting Forces Act incorporated the NATO status of forces agreement into UK law. The Act and the agreement provide for foreign laws and military discipline to apply to foreign military personnel in the UK, but such personnel are still subject to UK law, and this arrangement applies equally to our forces when they are overseas. The Armed Forces Act 1996 extended the Visiting Forces Act to third countries by Order in Council.
The Government have said that the US visiting forces are thus subject to both US and UK law. At present I believe that around 9,500 US military personnel and supporting civilian staff are permanently based at various locations throughout the United Kingdom. Most UK military bases involved are used by the United States Air Force, but RAF Menwith Hill is used by the US National Security Agency. The United States visiting force is responsible for internal security at the bases that have been made available to them. The parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee has oversight of the intelligence activities undertaken by RAF Menwith Hill, and the Government have stated that the mission at RAF Menwith Hill is conducted in accordance with UK law and with the knowledge and consent of the UK Government. The United States visiting force also declares its inventory of weapons in the UK annually to the MoD, which ensures that all weapons are appropriately licensed and stored, and the storage of US munitions on bases in the UK is governed by a 1997 agreement between the UK and the US.
I listened to the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, just as I listened to the Minister’s response in Committee, when he gave the Government’s assurance that oversight mechanisms were in place and covered any person subject to UK law performing such activities in the UK. Clearly the Government have a responsibility to make sure that appropriate arrangements are in place to ensure that we know what is going on in our own country in the field of military and security activity, including interception of communications and surveillance, and that what is happening conforms to UK law. That means that the Government have to satisfy themselves that both oversight mechanisms and the law continue to keep pace with increasingly sophisticated technological developments. I hope that in responding the Minister will be able to assure us that that is, and indeed will continue to be, the case, not only because a Government must know what is going on within their own borders in these vital areas, but to address some of the questions and concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, in moving her amendment today.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for raising and giving an airing to this subject. I can only hope that this will not be the end of the discussion of this important matter. The point was made as to whether this amendment was within the remit of the Bill. I like to think that this is going to be not one that we will necessarily vote on today, but one that we will come back to in greater detail bearing in mind the reply from my noble friend the Minister.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, went into great detail, and I certainly do not intend to repeat his comments, but I share many of his concerns about the assurances that he seeks. Do my noble friend the Minister and the Ministry of Defence believe that, with our reduced Army, Navy and Air Force, we are more vulnerable without such interception? No one likes the breaking of privacy and no one likes secrecy, but with our Army being reduced by 20,000, our Navy by 5,000 and our RAF by 5,000 personnel, and with the increase in the Reserve Forces, which we will deal with later in the Bill, rising very slowly to reach the 30,000 level, how important is that interception, and how important is it that it is reported and transparent, as my noble friend Lady Miller asked?
That is brought very much to the forefront of our minds with the problems in Ukraine. What help or hindrance does such interception cause in the present climate of hostilities? Overall, how should such transparency be effected on forces such as those of the United States operating on UK soil?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 deals with the issue of interception of communications and follows on from the amendment on the issue that we considered in Grand Committee.
As I am sure that my noble friend appreciates, the issues that she has raised this afternoon, although important and interesting, are not entirely related to the Defence Reform Bill. In fact, the Interception of Communication Commissioner’s Office—the role and powers of which are covered by the amendment—is the responsibility of the Home Office, rather than the Ministry of Defence. I hope that she will therefore understand if I do not respond to all the points that she raised. In particular, as the Prime Minister recently made clear in the House of Commons, intelligence-sharing between the UK and its allies will not be discussed in public. I will, however, try to cover those aspects of the amendment that deal with defence matters and to touch upon the wider points where I am able to do so.
I can give my noble friend and other noble Lords an unequivocal assurance that the Government are fully aware of the activities at US bases in this country and that interception activity in this country is subject to the full rigour of oversight provided under RIPA. We all know that there is intelligence co-operation between the UK and US Government and that that is a key component of our relationship with them. I will not be drawn into commenting on the specifics of that co-operation, but I can confirm that operations at the base that my noble friend mentioned are carried out in accordance with United Kingdom law.
The amendment is in two parts. The first would require the Interception Commissioner to report on the use or proposed use, subject to the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, of services or systems procured for defence purposes. However, the Interception of Communications Commissioner is already required by Section 57 of RIPA 2000 to keep under review the issue of RIPA 2000 interception warrants. Therefore, the additional legal effect of this part of the amendment would be to impose a requirement on the commissioner potentially to be involved twice for the same interception. He would be required to comment once in reviewing the use and proposed use of equipment to intercept communications, and then again when reviewing the actual issue of any subsequent interception warrant. Therefore, this part of the amendment is unnecessary; it provides no additional scrutiny, and could, in some circumstances, introduce uncertainty and lack of clarity. This would be an unhelpful extension of the commissioner’s remit, which, as it stands, is clear and distinct.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I welcomed the letter from the Minister. It gave a lot of confidence, which is needed not only by Members of your Lordships’ House but by contractors, who I am sure were worried about changes in circumstance and the new organisations that they would have to deal with.
These sections of the Bill talk about how both the Government and the contractor cannot be bullied; the question is whether they have the correct balance. The balance is pretty good. I have great confidence in my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who I am sure would deal with this admirably within his department. However, these contracts are very MoD-based, and there ought to be the ability within the MoD to deal with this probably in a better manner than the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.
Who should deal with defence: the MoD or Business, Innovation and Skills? I would like the Minister to take back to his department the question of whether there should be more co-operation between Business, Innovation and Skills and the MoD. There are skills in that department which the MoD would do well to emulate, such as regarding how contracts under EU regulations are dealt with. BIS deals with that better than does the MoD.
As regards inserting an organisation other than the MoD in the management appointment of SSRO, I understand the fears. There is a fear when the organisation that is appointing you is the one you are criticising—that point was well made. However, someone has to be in that role, and there is no better organisation for it than the Ministry of Defence.
Scottish Independence: Faslane
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, my honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, said in July of last year that,
“the Trident alternatives review shows that there are credible and viable alternatives to the United Kingdom’s current approach to nuclear deterrence”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/7/13; col. 1219.]
Can my noble friend, despite his earlier words, say how much could be saved if these viable alternatives had to be used if there were, sadly, a move from Scotland?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend but I do not have any costs on the alternatives with me. I will check on them and write to my noble friend.
Defence Reform Bill
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for raising a number of questions to which I am sure my noble friend will seek to reply. They were interesting issues. I also liked the noble Lord’s comment that it was an admirable attempt at an intractable problem. Indeed, such an attempt is being made, which is really the point. Let us hope it is an issue that is cross-party and of no party, which could be seen as a good thing.
The other interesting point made by the noble Lord was that the words spoken by the Minister will be followed by the industry. That is the point about this debate: the words that are spoken and reported in Hansard are what the industry can see and take confidence from, as well as the amendments before us. I was also grateful that the amendments are not an attempt to wreck the Bill. The noble Lord’s final comment—that they would enliven the debate—was a pleasant way of looking at this matter.
Clause 13 in Part 2 is an important technical advance that attempts to bring sanity to single-source contracts. Clearly, the clause is necessary, and the Motion to remove the clause is purely a technical effort to debate it. The issue in Amendment 18G relates to how one ratifies appointments, which it suggests should be done by a Select Committee. I ask the Minister whether, if any ratification by a Select Committee takes place, it should have to interview the applicants. That would surely be beyond what was necessary and would end up involving a comprehensive interview process, which would be too much. The point made by the noble Lord was about how much influence and power would go to the Secretary of State, rather than to some other body of people. Although the Secretary of State must be allowed to have influence, he should not be the person taking the real decision as to who is supported.
When the Minister replies, I hope that she will also deal with a question not raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe. Should the Single Source Regulations Office be the sponsoring department? Should the sponsoring department be the MoD? What about the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? I have raised this matter with the Minister on other occasions, not only in this context. Here we have a department, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, whose raison d’être is to sell and encourage business and industry, but the brief of the Ministry of Defence is also to engage in contracts, selling and so on. Indeed, that ministry sells overseas and I often wonder why we do not look holistically at how we deal with selling this country’s products. I wonder why, in the context of this amendment, the sponsor of the SSRO should be only the Secretary of State for Defence. Why should it not also or instead be the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills?
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has raised in a variety of ways the issue of the independence of the SSRO from government. I raised one further point on that at Second Reading. I got a reply, but I was not absolutely confident that it provided the right answer. The point I made was that the SSRO has an interest in value for money, but so has the Treasury throughout government. I asked to what extent the SSRO stands free of, or is supervised by, the Treasury. For the record, it would be helpful to have that point covered once again. If I remember correctly, I got a very full answer from the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, but I was not absolutely happy that it gave a feeling of the pure independence of the SSRO from the Treasury.
Lord Tunnicliffe
My Lords, in moving Amendment 18P I will speak to the rest of the amendments in this group. The points I want to make are simple, but I look forward to the reply I shall receive to these simple ideas.
The group essentially refers to Clauses 19 and 20. Clause 19 addresses the issue of the contract profit rate and, essentially, the amendments would require that the rates must be set by regulation each year. Amendments 23A and 23E turn this into an affirmative-procedure process.
More interesting is Clause 20, “Allowable costs”. As the report of the noble Lord, Lord Currie, points out, we have over the years had a lot of debate, effort and negotiation into the contract profit rate which, typically, is 10%—pedantically, it is 9%—of the total price; and too little, one might argue with the benefit of hindsight, into the issue of allowable costs, which represent 90% to 91% of the total price. Therefore, Clause 20 properly addresses this issue.
Subsection (1) states:
“The SSRO must issue guidance about determining whether costs are allowable costs under qualifying defence contracts”.
Subsection (2) attempts to define allowable costs. It is important to emphasise that these are the big bucks. This is where the big money is in the contract. This is 90% or more of the total price. The guidance we get from the primary legislation is that they must be appropriate, attributable to the contract and reasonable in the circumstances. Much as I praise this part of the Bill—and I do as it is a really good attempt to address this extremely difficult issue—I cannot but be amused by these three descriptors of one of the most important elements. I remember that when I was privileged to be in the noble Baroness’s position, whenever an official used the word “appropriate” in my response, it meant we did not have an argument, so I dismiss subsection (2)(a) as pretty well irrelevant. I do not have a lot of time for paragraph (b) either, because if it is not “attributable to the contract”, who would in all conscience try to argue that it should be there? We are left with “reasonable”. Much as I applaud the concept of being reasonable, it is not a very full description. Therefore, inevitably, and quite properly—I am not unhappy about this—it will have to be left to the SSRO to develop guidance about it. However, surely this is so important that it should not be merely guidance but should be in regulations. Regulations of this importance should be exposed to public gaze and debate and should be accountable to Parliament through the affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I, too, am worried about these words. I shall not repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, has said. It is really a question about what are allowable costs. As anybody in business knows, allowable costs can be described in so many ways. For instance, Starbucks does not pay any tax in this country because it charges its royalties from overseas against its costs in this country. Would that on a contract for a submarine be allowable costs? If the contractor is producing, let us say, one submarine, can it therefore charge all of its chairman’s, managing director’s and executive board’s salaries against the cost of that one submarine? If it is also producing a group of battleships or carriers, those executive costs, for example, would be spread over all the costs of all those items of equipment.
In her previous reply, the Minister spoke about an audit trail. The noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, used the word “reasonable” and all the other adjectives. A contractor who wished to drive a coach and horses through this could do so by manipulating what could be administrative costs. It is very easy to say that if the mythical submarine requires a widget, that widget is applicable to that submarine. You can see that, but when you are dealing with, let us say, the premises for the submarine, if it is one submarine, is the contractor allowed to charge the whole of the premises costs against the cost of that submarine? If it was also building an aircraft carrier, it could charge some of that premises costs against it. I invite the Minister to come back, perhaps on Report, with some better reassurance about how allowable costs will be allocated and particularly about how to spread large costs if only one item of equipment is produced by that contractor.
Defence Reform Bill
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Clause 46 deals with the issue of additional payments to employers of members of the Reserve Forces. This amendment would enable regulations to provide for a variation in the size of the payment made by specifically including provision for larger payments to be provided to small and medium-sized companies.
An Answer to a Parliamentary Question in 2010 revealed that at that time 15% of current TA members came from large organisations employing 500 people or more, 17% came from medium-sized organisations employing between 50 and 499 people, and 17% came from small organisations with between one and 49 employees. Self-employed people made up 5%, with unemployed people, including students, making up 42%, and the mobilised TA making up the remaining 4%.
When the Minister responds, perhaps he could say whether the percentages that I have just quoted are basically the same today, some four years later, in respect of where current TA members come from. If that is the case, are the Government looking to change that breakdown by employment of sources of Reserve Forces recruitment, bearing in mind that one of the key roles of the reserves in future will be to provide key specialist skills needed to support our Regular Forces to a greater extent than today?
I should like to raise a question about reservists who are unemployed—in particular, to ask the Minister how Jobcentre Plus views unemployed potential reservists going off for extended periods, in light of the requirement that they should sign on and apply for jobs on a regular basis. Presumably we should be encouraging the unemployed to consider reservist occupations; so the question of how that fits in with the requirement to sign on for benefits is of some importance.
The figures given in the Parliamentary Answer to which I referred indicate the importance of small and medium-sized firms as a source of reservists. The additional payment proposed over and above the current arrangements is, I believe, £500 a month for each month in which a reservist is mobilised. The question is: will that prove to be a sufficient incentive for smaller firms, bearing in mind that the impact on them of one or more of their employees being reservists, and away from the workplace for periods of time, could be greater than for a large firm that has more resources, both human and financial, at its disposal to cover for employees away on Reserve Forces commitments?
I appreciate that we want to draw the attention of employers to the benefits to them of their employees being reservists and the positive impact that this can have on career development, but that may not necessarily be the first point that will strike a small employer when faced with the potential problem of covering for an employee away on reserve duties; there are many small employers in the IT field, which is a skill that we look to reservists to provide. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses in 2012 suggested that this might be an issue, but I hope the Minister will say whether that is proving to be the case in respect of small and medium-sized firms.
We believe that there is a case for flexibility over the size of the additional payment in relation to small and medium-sized businesses, but we want to hear what the Government’s intentions are on the points I have raised, including how specific or otherwise the regulations relating to these payments are likely to be. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I am not happy with this amendment. Having listened to the explanation by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I shall explain why. Small and medium-sized enterprises—I was the director of one for many years—are concerned not so much with the money but with replacing the person. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, touched upon that. I do not think that money is the problem. Giving SMEs a bit more money does not solve the problem that a key person in a very small organisation is not there. The argument for larger payments to smaller companies will only annoy larger companies which are the source of reservists—or territorials, at the moment.
The amendment in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Tunnicliffe, also mentions the self-employed. The idea of the self-employed going into the reserves under the new arrangements is that they will receive £500 a month, or whatever it is, to substitute for their self-employed earnings. That is a decision that they would need to make, and I hope they will make it positively; but the self-employed person is not so much worried about the £500 per month substitute for earnings from their customers or their clients as about keeping their customers and their clients while they are away, and money does not solve that.
I was interested in the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the unemployed. It was a point that I had not thought about, and I, too, would welcome the Minister’s reply on that point.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, the Bill proposes granting the Secretary of State a power, by regulations, to make payments to the employers of reservists over and above those which may currently be made. The current scheme allows employers to recover costs incurred in covering the work of employees who are mobilised. Those costs may include the hiring of temporary staff or the payment of overtime.
The new power is intended to allow the Secretary of State some flexibility as to the provision to be made in regulations made under it—for example, as to which employers may receive a payment and which Reserve Forces activities trigger entitlement to a payment. However, the current intention is that the regulations will authorise the making of payments only to employers in small and medium-sized enterprises whose reservist employees are mobilised. The Secretary of State will be required to consult various bodies before making the regulations, including the Reserve Forces and cadet associations and a body representing the interests of employers.
I welcome the noble Lord’s desire to recognise that while all employers may feel some impact from the medium or long-term absence of staff, it is small and medium-sized enterprises that are likely to feel the greatest effects. We listened to employers during the Green Paper consultation and seek to reflect this concern in the regulations.
Amendment 17A would allow the regulations to make provision in such a way that the sums payable could vary depending on the size of the employer’s business. In particular, it would allow larger payments to be made to small and medium-sized businesses and to employers who are self-employed. The effect that this amendment seeks to achieve is already achieved by new Section 84A, taken together with the amendments made to Section 85(1) of the Reserve Forces Act 1996. Sections 84A and 85(1) already give the Secretary of State the flexibility to provide in the regulations so that the sums payable vary depending on the size of the employer’s business. The current intention is that the regulations will authorise the making of payments to employers in SMEs only. This is because larger companies are more likely to be able to absorb the costs and disruptions associated with absences from work to undertake Reserve Forces activities.
We have not made provision for the making of payments to the self-employed in respect of their own Reserve Forces activities, as such payments are made in recognition of the impact placed on employers. The self-employed reservist has elected to become a reservist and so accepted the risk of being mobilised themselves. Were we to pay them, we would, in effect, be handing the self-employed reservist a pay rise of up to £500 per month when mobilised. I do not believe that that would be a good use of taxpayers’ money, or would be well received by those reservists who are not self-employed, or by regulars.
I would like briefly to highlight what current payments we make to both the reservist and their employer when we mobilise a reservist. Reservists are entitled to claim for a “reservist award” and to make an allowable expenses claim. The reservist award consists of a salary top-up—a payment made to reservists whose military salary, when called out for operations, is less than their civilian earnings. Reservists can also claim for benefits in kind—benefits that have been suspended or withdrawn by their employers while the reservist is mobilised. The benefits covered include, but are not limited to, health or medical insurance, life insurance, accommodation, education fees for dependent children and the loss of a company car used by the reservist’s dependants. The resulting payment for all these elements of the reservist’s award, taken together, is subject to an upper limit or cap—less their service pay—of £548 per day, or £822 per day for certain medical officers. When, in connection with their mobilised service, a reservist chooses to remain in his occupational pension scheme and continues to make his employee pension payments, any contributions withdrawn by his employer will be paid by the MoD.
The allowable expenses claim consists of additional payments for the care of a dependent child or relative, additional expenses for the care of a pet, additional home insurance premiums and payments for the essential maintenance of the reservist’s main residence and garden for security purposes to ensure that the property looks lived-in. The resulting allowable expenses claim is without limit, but is subject to providing clear documentation of claims.
Employers are entitled to claim certain costs related to the mobilisation of an employee. The “employer’s award” consists of up to £110 per day—in other words, approximately £40,000 per year—which is the amount by which the following “replacement costs” incurred by the employer exceed the reservist’s earnings. These replacement costs are limited to pay for, if appropriate, the replacement of the reservist, and, if relevant, any overtime payments to existing employees and an increase in salary for an existing employee, as well as certain non-recurring or one-off agency fees and advertising costs—VAT exclusive only, where the employer’s business is registered for VAT purposes. An employer may claim the cost of retraining a reservist on return to work, where needed, for the reservist’s re-employment. There is no provision for additional administration costs and the extra costs of training an external replacement for the reservist or, indeed, one of his colleagues now doing his work. The capped amount—that is, £110 per day—is intended to represent the quantifiable extra costs, above the reservist’s normal pay, of employing a temporary replacement. The employer is not, of course, paying the reservist during their mobilisation.
Depending on their personal circumstances, a self-employed reservist may claim under SI 2005/859 as a reservist, as an employer, or both. However, such a reservist cannot make a claim for an award to recover the same cost as a part of the reservist’s or employer’s award.
We recognise the importance of reserve service and have sought to address the financial issues for both reservists and employers that mobilisation brings. In relation to the power to make further payments that we are bringing in with Clause 46, I can assure noble Lords that we will keep the payments under review and, if we need to make alterations and adjustments in future, we will have the flexibility to do so.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Palmer for his support, and I very much agree with the points that he made. I will try to answer his question along with the answer I will give to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
The noble Lord asked whether percentages were still the same, and broadly the answer is yes. He asked about the Jobcentre view of reservist training; it is provided for and is counted as being available for work. He asked whether financial assistance at £500 would be enough for small businesses. The Federation of Small Businesses said that it was more than it expected. It is always a judgment and if we need to be flexible, we can be.
Lord Rosser
Amendment 18E seeks to amend the Criminal Justice Act 2003 so that physical or verbal assault upon a member of the Reserve Forces or a member of their family would be classed as an aggravating feature of the crime and should be reflected in the sentence handed down where the prosecution could establish that service in the Reserve Forces was the motive for the assault. We know from surveys of Armed Forces personnel that physical and verbal assaults on them motivated simply by the fact that they are service personnel run at a surprisingly high rate. On a much more severe scale, we have had a recent example of a member of our Armed Forces being murdered on our streets simply because he was a member of our Armed Forces.
Attacks on service personnel, whether physical or verbal, are totally unacceptable, do nothing to assist recruitment and retention, and run contrary to the esteem in which members of our Armed Forces are held by the overwhelming majority of the population, who recognise that they are willing to put their lives on the line in defence of our country’s people and interests. We need to do as much as we can to reduce the incidence of assaults, particularly at a time when we are seeking to recruit substantial additional numbers into our reserves. I say once again that if the Government do not believe that this amendment is the best way to achieve that objective, I hope that the Minister will indicate in his reply whether they regard the issue that I have raised as a real problem and, if so, what courses of action they are taking or intend to take to address it. I beg to move.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I hope that the Minister will include in his reply what instances there have been of confusion about what a “service person” should be. I would have thought that under existing legislation “service person” would include all the things that are included in proposed new subsection (7) in the amendment. Has there been any experience that “service person” has not been taken to include the people mentioned here? It seems a rather worthy thing to protect people even more and make sure that they are included in the criminal justice legislation, but I wonder whether there is reason to believe that any of this has been necessary in the past.
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, when in 2007 I chaired the national inquiry into the national recognition of the Armed Forces, this was one of the recommendations that we made. We made 40 recommendations, 38 of which, including Armed Forces Day, automatic parades for units returning from combat missions and so forth, were accepted. Two were not, and this was one of them. The other one was having an officer of the Armed Forces permanently available in the House of Commons, probably in the Library, to inform people about any military matters that they might have questions about. In that report, to which I refer the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, we cited a number of cases of grievous assaults perpetrated on members of the Armed Forces, and I am afraid that the problem has not gone away. Over the past six years or so, there have been other incidents which the Committee will know about. I retain my support for this amendment.
It has one curious feature but I think I know the explanation. It is that the protection seems to be designed merely for members of the Reserve Forces but does not currently exist for members of the Regular Forces. I imagine that it is because including all members of the Armed Forces could have been outside the scope of the Bill. I therefore imagine that my noble friend, with whom I have not discussed this matter, had this in mind as a probing amendment to try to push the way forward to achieve what we really need, which is the kind of legal protection for all members of the Armed Forces—all those who wear the Queen’s uniform—who are prepared to lay down their lives for the rest of us. The least we can do is to make sure that they do not suffer discrimination or, in this case, violence, potentially, when they are in their home country.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, perhaps I may ask for some elucidation. I accept all the points that the noble Lord has made about his time in the MoD and his knowledge of this subject. Obviously these incidents have happened, but do we need legislation such as this to identify it or were the perpetrators of these actions against the service people he mentioned dealt with by the law at the time?
Lord Davies of Stamford
My Lords, I do not know that I should get into the habit of answering questions across the Floor. I would love to be a Minister again but that has not happened to me so far. I shall have to wait a bit longer. However, I shall of course respond to the noble Lord. There are the normal legal protections against assault from which he and I and every other citizen benefit. Clearly, it is a criminal offence. However, the purpose of this amendment, as I understand my noble friend, is to make it an exacerbating factor if the reason for the assault is that the victim is a member of the Armed Forces. That provides a special protection for those who might otherwise be especially vulnerable to this kind of attack. It is similar to the exacerbating factor that we already have of the motive, or part of the motive, for an assault being racial. We introduced that for a section of the community whose members might be innocent victims of gratuitous attacks which otherwise would not occur. Therefore, there is a complete analogy there and I think it was the analogy which, rightly, inspired my noble friend—if I may be so bold as to presume to answer for him—to conceive this amendment.
Defence Reform Bill
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Judd (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of these amendments. The point that has already been made cannot be stressed too strongly—namely, that rules, regulations and definitions that have been adequate to date need to be reviewed in view of the immense and unforeseen scale of development in modern warfare. It would be irresponsible to assume that the current rules and definitions, which were drawn up in the past, respond adequately to the new realities.
I have absolutely no doubt that the service in which I was privileged to serve, the RAF, is fully committed at the most senior levels to implementing not just what the law says but the spirit of the law. I am sure that that is the case. If it is the case, I cannot see how reviewing the sufficiency and adequacy of existing legislation can do anything but strengthen its position. It is good that these points have been brought forward.
It is very difficult to share my next point with the Committee, as it is not clear whether the issue should be raised now or on later amendments. Reference has been made to the overlap in this regard. I am deeply concerned about whether we as legislators are taking the psychological implications of the new developments seriously enough. I am sure some of those involved in the operations are taking them very seriously. If I put it crudely, it is not out of any hostility to the people concerned; it is just to try to bring home the starkness of the reality with which we are dealing.
I was talking the other day with a good friend whose son has just got a very good engineering degree. What does he want to do with his engineering degree? His ambition is to work in computer games and eventually perhaps have his own firm, I think. There has been terrific change in the nature of this kind of activity and what it can involve. I hope I will not be accused of being irresponsibly sensational, because it does not seem to me that it is irresponsibly sensational at all. It is taking into account the realities of life. When did we begin to drift into a situation where the mental and psychological processes about playing very advanced computer games and the processes of sitting in the Nevada desert, or wherever it is, operating a machine became blurred? How do we continue to take, as we have always tried to take, the responsibility of recognising that war is a last resort and a very grave step to take? How do we now undertake warfare in the context of all sorts of humanitarian obligations and the rest? The Geneva conventions are just one example. I think that for all these reasons there has been a certain degree of complacency among legislators about what is happening and its significance, and I am sure that it is time that this was reviewed. I cannot stress strongly enough my appreciation of those who have brought this amendment forward.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for bringing this amendment forward because it is clear in my mind that your Lordships’ House needs to have a debate on this subject, not just in the APPG but elsewhere. What I am not so happy with is the amendment to Clause 5. The real problem seems to be that we do not debate defence Bills very often in your Lordships’ House and there are very few places one can table an amendment such as this and the other amendment in this group. I therefore appreciate why it is here. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said drones are treated as aircraft. Clause 5, which relates to the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence Police, refers to aircraft and hovercraft, so if a drone is an aircraft, it is in. At the moment, it is not, so perhaps we need some clarification on that, because definitions are important.
A good point was made about unmanned aerial systems, because it is almost giving them a respectable name. The public know the name “drones”, and we now seem to have tried to find a longer, more convoluted phrase. I think a spade should be called a spade. If it is a drone, it is drone. I wonder whether there is a problem.
The real problem as far as the public and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, are concerned is the collateral damage when drones are used. Oversight is essential, but the worry in international legislation at the moment is that if someone in Texas, or maybe Nevada, is operating them, will they be harassed if an error happens? I suppose errors should not happen. President Obama announced changes in the drone programme in May 2013, which has been welcome because it has reduced the number of deaths caused by drone strikes.
Defence Reform Bill
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I should like to talk first about the amendment before progressing to brief comments on Amendments 2, 3, 4 and 5. Clause 1(1) provides for the company providing defence procurement services or,
“another company … to acquire from the Secretary of State rights in or over premises and property used for the purposes of”,
defence equipment and support. Under what circumstances might that involve a company other than a company providing defence procurement services? The Bill makes no reference to conditions on maintenance and upkeep. It would be helpful if the Minister were to indicate the key conditions that would apply to the company concerned, bearing in mind that the premises will continue to be owned by the Government and that the defence procurement service operation could, in certain circumstances, be transferred back under complete government control.
Will the Secretary of State be continuing to oversee the upkeep of the premises, and would it be the Secretary of State or the company concerned that would renegotiate any rental or leasing of goods, equipment or property transferred under this clause? Will it be open to the company concerned to rent or lease out property acquired under subsection (1)(b)(i) that is not being rented or leased out at the time of acquisition? Will the new government trading entity responsible for DE&S from April this year be operating under arrangements in respect of property and premises similar to those intended under subsection (1)(b)(i), and, if not, what will be the arrangements in respect of property and premises that will apply to the new DE&S organisation?
Amendments 2 to 5 stipulate action that has to have been undertaken or requirements that have to be met before the arrangements for providing defence procurement services can be brought into force. The Bill appears to be largely silent on these matters. Amendment 2 requires the Secretary of State to publish guidance on the operation of the GOCO contract, which has to include,
“the system by which available defence contracts will be advertised”,
an issue of some importance, not least to small and medium-sized enterprises. Amendment 2 also puts a responsibility for operating the GOCO contract,
“to produce and report annually against progress on an export strategy”.
At the moment, we do not know—and neither do potential bidders—how available defence contracts will be advertised. This is an area in which transparency and openness is essential if we are to provide a level playing field for those interested in bidding. Perhaps the Minister can also say if the move to a bespoke, central government trading entity from April this year will or could lead to a change in how contracts are let or advertised, bearing in mind that we are to see the introduction of a significant element of private sector support.
Likewise, the extent to which equipment to be used by our Armed Forces can also be sold to other countries is an important aspect of our export strategy, and makes a valuable contribution to our export earnings. Such exports also provide us with important links, influence and contacts with other countries and their armed forces. If there were to be a change in our defence procurement arrangements, we need to ensure that an outside company operating a GOCO contract is mindful of the importance of defence exports and continues to give this area of activity the priority it needs. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the setting up of a DE&S as a bespoke central government trading entity from April, with new freedoms, flexibilities and private sector support, will or could lead to any change in approach as far as the potential for defence exports is concerned.
Amendments 3 and 4 provide for contractual obligations to be placed on the company operating the GOCO contract under subsection (2), specifically including provision to prohibit the sale of financial securities in any publicly listed company appointed under subsection (2) where such sale would result in a change of majority ownership; a provision to require non-UK companies to establish special security arrangements for the operation of the contract; and provisions to disqualify certain categories of individuals, as stated in the amendment, from a directorship of the company operating the GOCO. Amendment 5 defines special security arrangements, as referred to in proposed subsection (7A)(a) in Amendment 4.
The purpose of Amendments 3 to 5 is to draw attention to the possibility of unacceptable foreign influence over British defence interests as a result of the GOCO operation, with the private sector involvement and the consequential issue of the ownership or possible change in ownership of one or more of the companies concerned. There is also the issue of possible conflicts of interest at director level and how that will be addressed or avoided, and that is the subject of Amendment 4.
I am sure that the Government are more than aware of the significance of these issues, and I hope the Minister can say something about how they would have been addressed had the GOCO option been pursued. It would also be helpful if the Minister can say how these issues will be addressed in DE&S organisation from April, with its newly significant element of private sector support and its separate governance and oversight structure.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord raises some interesting points, which the Government should take cognisance of. However, I ask those who tabled the amendment and the Minister whether these issues should be included in primary legislation. I jotted down the noble Lord’s points as he spoke. He spoke about the premises, and he raises important points, but those are points you deal with in contracts, when you have a lease—whether it is a repairing lease or not. It is not something one would expect to see in primary legislation.
The noble Lord talks about export strategy and the importance of defence exports. I could take this even further: the Ministry of Defence, which is very much involved in defence exports, should also be working closely with the Business Secretary to promote exports. Very often they operate in their own silos rather than together. However, that is not something which would appear in primary legislation.
The noble Lord also talks about foreign influence over defence interests, and I hope the Minister will respond to that point; however, again, it is not a matter which needs to be addressed in primary legislation. I await my noble friend’s answers to these questions but I think they are matters for regulation and secondary legislation rather than being in the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Astor of Hever) (Con)
My Lords, these amendments have enabled the Committee to have a debate on Clause 1. As has been identified, Clause 1 is the key clause in Part 1 of the Bill, and it is important that we consider it in detail, because it will enable the Secretary of State to contract with the company for the provision of defence procurement services, should that be the way forward that is eventually agreed. It is also the clause on which most of the rest of Part 1 hangs. The amendments we will be discussing today have highlighted some very important issues and the reasons behind them have been clearly and comprehensively covered by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Amendment 1 relates to the GOCO acquiring rights over the premises and property used by today’s Defence Equipment and Support organisation and ensuring that assets are properly maintained and managed. I agree with the intent behind this latter point as it recognises the importance of ensuring that effective arrangements are in place to ensure that any such assets continue to be properly managed. Clause 1(1) specifically makes it clear that the provisions within Part 1 of the Bill will apply only when three clear conditions have been met. The first condition is that the Secretary of State makes arrangements with a company—in other words, the GOCO—for the delivery of the defence procurement services currently undertaken by DE&S within the Ministry of Defence. The second condition is that the GOCO acquires from the Secretary of State rights in or over premises and property used by DE&S. The third condition is that the GOCO becomes the employer of some or all of the civil servants employed by DE&S immediately before the company becomes their employer.
It is our intention that, although the GOCO will be given the right to use existing DE&S property, the ownership of the assets themselves will not change. In the vast majority of cases this means that ownership will continue to lie with the Ministry of Defence and the management of the assets will be the responsibility of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation. Amendment 1 seeks to make the acquisition of rights over existing DE&S premises and property by the GOCO,
“subject to conditions on maintenance and upkeep set by the Secretary of State”.
However, although I fully support the intent behind the amendment it is simply not required as the issue will be more effectively and better addressed in the contract between the GOCO and the MoD and on a case-by-case basis in the individual leases or agreements.
The premises and property occupied by the GOCO will remain the property of their existing owners, which in the majority of cases will be the Ministry of Defence. The GOCO’s rights and obligations in respect to using these assets will be agreed with the MoD and set out in the GOCO contract and the relevant lease or agreement. This will include conditions on maintenance and upkeep, as normal in a commercial contract or lease. The Defence Infrastructure Organisation within the Ministry of Defence will continue to be accountable for the delivery of infrastructure services, maintenance and upkeep. However, in some cases it is possible that responsibility may be contracted to the GOCO in due course. In conclusion, although the amendment raises some excellent issues, I must resist it for the reasons I have just set out.
I turn now to Amendment 2. Its purpose is to prevent the Secretary of State commencing the establishment and operation of a GOCO under Part 1 of the Bill until he has published guidance on the operation of the contract. In particular, the amendment proposes that this guidance should include the system by which available defence contracts will be advertised to potential bidders and how any follow-on GOCO shall produce and report annually against progress on an export strategy. The amendment seeks to address concerns raised during the oral evidence sessions in the other place about a possible lack of visibility on how the contract will work, particularly in relation to how defence contracts will be placed, and about ensuring that the new GOCO pays sufficient regard to wider defence industrial policy issues, such as the exportability of equipment. The concern was that the GOCO would be focused solely on delivering equipment more cheaply and would not have to take into account other aspects of our industrial policy.
It is our intention that the GOCO will act as the Secretary of State’s agent when contracting for defence equipment and support. This means that the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 and the Defence and Security Public Contracts Regulations 2011 will apply in the same manner as they do today. This includes advertising in the Official Journal of the European Union where required. MoD commercial policy on advertising defence contracts will also continue to apply. In addition, it is to be remembered that any contract entered into by the GOCO to deliver defence equipment, support, logistics and services will be entered into by the GOCO as agent on behalf of the MoD, which will remain a counterparty to defence contracts.
It is also our intention that the strategy for wider defence industrial policy and exports remains with government, but supported by the GOCO providing defence procurement services under contract, including providing support to government marketing of defence materiel at defence exhibitions and shows; managing the provision of defence assets and resources to support defence export opportunities, including assistance with export licence applications; and providing recommendations to government on export strategy and policy, a point that the noble Lord raised. The GOCO will therefore not be required to have its own exports strategy and the amendment is therefore not required.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
My Lords, I will add a few points. At Second Reading, I said that I understood the weaknesses in Part 1 but wanted it to remain part of this legislation. I have not changed my mind on that. I thought the words of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, about the scandal of defence procurement summed that up. Coming into this much more recently, it was clear to me with my experience of procurement that it was not fit for purpose. I am not blaming anyone for that: many people tried to change it, including some noble Lords in this Room, but were not able to.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, made the point about this being a stalking horse. In fact, the word used was “baseline”. The question raised by many noble Lords in previous debates was why two of the three bidders for the GOCO came out of the bidding. In my view, they must have realised that they could not work out the baseline—that is, the actual cost of running the department. Numerous sorts of contracts—even contracts with the same companies and contractors—are done under different agreements and bases. Therefore, two of the bidders left probably because they did not feel they could see where the profit was with any degree of certainty. Left with only one bidder, the Secretary of State was clearly right to say that one could not go forward with a GOCO at that stage. However, as my noble friend Lord Roper said, a great achievement was reached by some of us who spoke with my noble friend the Minister and the Secretary of State about having a sunrise clause—that is, Clause 24. That means that it has to come back to both Houses before you proceed with a GOCO. Whichever Government are in power when that happens, that will give them a big control.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, spoke very warmly about Mr Gray, the Chief of Defence Materiel. I have only come to this more recently and probably never saw all the good things that the gentleman did. We are in a new ball game now. DE&S+ will come into force only in April and will probably get going properly only by the autumn. Mr Gray’s contract ends on 31 December 2014. He might well apply for the new chief executive post thereafter—that is of course everybody’s right, and the employer has every right to decide who it should be. However, this is purely a run in, using Mr Gray’s experience in the coming months to help set up DE&S+, and it is obviously in the future as to who that person or persons will be.
A very good question was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, about the freedoms agreed with the Treasury. I hope my noble friend the Minister when he replies can give some assurances on what levels of payment the Treasury will allow to be made to senior employees of the MoD. Also, why does he believe that the super-affirmative Motion is not needed with Amendment 24—in other words, why should we go with Amendment 24 and not Amendment 25? I look forward to my noble friend’s reply.
Lord Levene of Portsoken (CB)
My Lords, I can claim to have spent quite a lot of time working on this particular issue, having held the post of Chief of Defence Procurement for six years. The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, was kind enough to pay tribute to some of the work I did but said that I did not stay around long enough to finish it off. I was actually there for six years. If anybody could look through the results of the Procurement Executive, as it was called at the time, they would see that at the end of those six years as compared with the beginning we had actually resolved most of the problems. I say that without fear of contradiction because if anyone consulted the report prepared by the National Audit Office at that point they would find that for the first time the outturn of the budget matched what we expected it to be and that contracts were being delivered on time.
Armed Forces: Widows’ Pensions
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that it is a fundamental principle, which has been applied by successive Governments, including that of the noble Lord, that public service occupational pension terms should not be improved retrospectively for those who are no longer active members of these pension schemes or for their dependants.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, may I associate us with the condolences expressed by the Minister?
I agree with the Minister that this is a most complicated area of legislation. When you research it, you realise how mixed up, complicated and confused it is, particularly for those people trying to work their way through it. What is the cost in terms of staffing an administration to police the relationship status of service widows? Given this, and given the fact that the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme does not depend on widows remaining single, is it not time to look again at extending the service widows pension to cover all service widows, whatever their subsequent relationships?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this really is a very complicated issue, which is why I am placing a letter in the Library, a copy of which I will send to some noble and gallant Lords. The Service Personnel and Veterans Agency checks the relationship status of war widows. This is conducted every two years, looking at a random sample of about 5% of recipients. In 2010, this exercise cost some £50,000. It is a complicated matter for the Government to consider whether to look again at extending the terms of various schemes to cover all bereaved spouses for life regardless of subsequent relationships. Nevertheless, Ministers will continue to work closely with the Forces Pension Society and the War Widows Association of Great Britain.
Ministry of Defence: IT Systems
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that offer, which I am happy to accept. When the decision was made to recruit online, was it not premature to cease to use the well tried manual systems, which have been used successfully over the years? I understand the need to move into the next century, but in business you do not introduce a new IT system and throw away the old system until you have proved that the new system is working. Can we be reassured that that will be looked at in the future?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, obviously, we will look at that very closely. It is very easy to be wise with the benefit of hindsight.
I failed to answer various questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. He asked me how many Armed Forces personnel will return. I think that I answered that—the Army will be sending in 1,000 regulars to help on the ground with recruiting both the regulars and the reserves. He asked what the effect would be on recruitment, which is a question that I myself asked; the answer is that it is too early to say. How late will the project be? There will be a two-year delay before the full operating capability of the new programme is reached. The IT is due to be up and running in February 2015.
Afghanistan: Interpreters
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, the Times reported an MoD report showing that UK translators had died and evidence that one US translator had been killed. Given this, will the Minister assess the threats? Is he aware of any death threats to UK translators who have served British forces?
Lord Astor of Hever
My Lords, since June 2013, 116 cases of intimidation have been reported to the intimidation investigation unit. The IIU investigates claims of intimidation, and an in-theatre decision panel assesses the claim and appropriate response level, depending on the risk to the LEC. The MoD’s labour support unit can confirm that, so far as it is aware, in Afghanistan there have been no deaths of serving LE staff that can be directly linked to intimidation.