Single Source Contract (Amendment) Regulations 2024

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 19th March 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument and explaining very clearly the purposes of the regulations being proposed.

Unlike so many of the statutory instruments linked to defence, this is quite a weighty document. Some of the amendments are relatively straightforward, although one wonders why nobody scrutinising the 2014 Act spotted the difference between percentages and percentage points. The Minister and I can be exonerated because I joined your Lordships’ House only in October 2014 so I was not party to any scrutiny at that point. I suspect that the Minister was not in the House at that time either and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, bears no responsibility. However, we clearly always find things that have been omitted. We have already heard that another slight error was found even when these regulations were being laid; that makes it clear how important it is that we scrutinise things properly.

First, what sort of reporting is envisaged for the single source procurements that are being talked about? The Explanatory Memorandum makes reference to

“reports to the Secretary of State”

but is there any scope for parliamentary scrutiny of the procurements that will be in place?

A second major item that I want to ask about is the substitution of Regulation 3, on the meaning of “defence purposes”, with Regulation 4, on the meaning of “defence purposes” and “substantially for defence purposes”. Something that puzzles and worries me somewhat is this statement:

“‘Defence purposes’ means the purposes of defence (whether or not of the United Kingdom), or related purposes”.


Can the Minister explain to the Committee how extensive that can be? Does it relate to the procurement of defence capabilities that we would then export as part of our defence industrial strategy and defence exports? Should we be concerned about aspects of this that could be linked to the export of arms to regimes about which Parliament might have some reservations, for example? Some clarity on that would be most welcome.

The general points that the Minister outlined on flexibility, speed and clarification in the light of the users of single source contracts are sensible, but I wonder whether we could hear more about the extent of the changes; they are to bring in not just “defence purposes” but “substantially for defence purposes”, which can mean 30% or more of a contract. What is that likely to mean for the number of contracts that might be brought within the purview of these regulations and the scale of the value that we would be looking at? Will a significant change arise from the Procurement Act?

On primary contracts and subcontractors, the changes to profitability and moving things to the cost line make a lot of sense, but could we understand a bit more about how the decisions on what should be dealt with at market rate are determined? If we look at market rates and the defence supply chain, where is the competition? Are we looking internationally? Are we looking to comparators—for example, if we buy a widget, are we looking at what it costs in Germany, the United States and South Korea—or are we looking at a wider civilian market? All these things, almost by definition, are not outlined in the regulations but it would be useful for the Grand Committee to have sight of them.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I rise with a heavy burden because I was the party spokesman in 2014 when this document was created. If you think that this document is a problem, you should compare it to the Yellow Book that preceded it. I thank the Minister for presenting this instrument, but I must confess that I am not going to say anything terribly new. He has touched on the issues already; in a sense, all I am going to do is ask for a few comments on the converse of the goodness, where we are raising problems. I am also responsible because I was a founding director of DE&S, which managed this. It is an old friend; it requires old glasses as well.

The Government recently made a Statement in which, at long last, they admitted to a number of problems in defence procurement and set out some rather vague ambitions to fix them. Although these regulations are not relevant to the whole of defence procurement—just those contracts that are awarded to a single supplier without competition—there are, as the Minister said, 575 single sources adding up to a total spend of around £90 billion. These are sizeable chunks, and it is important that they are taken in the wider context. We know that there are times when single source contracts work well, particularly for more traditional procurements such as ships, aircraft carriers and submarines. However, for less traditional contracts, such as in the digital sphere, they are less effective; in this case, I expect that the respective difficulties in establishing precise timeframes, specifications and knock-on effects are a big reason for that, but I would welcome the Minister’s further thoughts.

I will not spend too long reflecting on last week’s Statement but, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said in his response, it is important that we get defence procurement right not just for the sake of being careful with taxpayers’ money—although that is of course important—but because of the message that it sends to the world in terms of our sovereignty, economy and obligations to our allies. This may sound slightly ridiculous in the context of a single statutory instrument but it is an important principle.

I turn to the specific details of these regulations. As the Minister explained, they amend the Defence Reform Act 2014 and the Single Source Contract Regulations from the same year, which, in combination, provide the rules for these single source contracts to ensure a fair agreement between the taxpayer and the supplier. This instrument intends to increase the flexibility of these contracts so that more can be done without compromising that fair agreement. So far, so good.

The regulations achieve this in three ways. The first relates to pricing. Currently, there is a bottom-up formula. Reasonably simply, you determine the costs, add a profit margin and there is your price. These regulations allow for a contract to be priced in relation to market rates instead. This is where things get a bit more complicated, with seven new pricing mechanisms. This will certainly bring additional flexibility, but it is hard to see a situation where it does not come by trading off the simplicity of the previous system.

I ask the Minister: how exactly will the Government quantify this trade-off, when there is a loss of simplicity, which is in itself a rather abstract concept? How can the Government be sure that it is beneficial? This was raised during the consultation, to which the Government’s answer was that additional clarity and further explanation of how this will work in practice will follow in guidance. That is not ideal either for the suppliers that are responding to the consultation or for those of us contributing to this debate and attempting to scrutinise this instrument. What is the Government’s plan if, in practice, these new mechanisms do not work as intended? I understand that this dilemma has been shared with the industry and will be published in a few weeks, but perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to set out a bit more detail and even share any feedback received from those with whom it has been shared.

I have fewer concerns about the other two ways in which flexibility is increased. Allowing contracts to be split up into different components so that they can benefit from different profit rates may again reduce simplicity, but it certainly seems to make sense. Have the Government made any assessment of the negative impact of not allowing this in the past 10 years? Would this apply only to bottom-up pricing or to the new mechanisms too? Could different components be priced entirely differently? Can the Minister assure the Committee that the pricing is the full extent of how components are split? I ask these questions on a similar basis to my previous concerns that every layer of additional complexity could undermine the benefits of additional flexibility. To check against this, what steps are the Government taking to ensure that, in practice, the mechanisms work as they hoped?

The third key change is widening the definition to qualify under the 2014 Act. As I see it, this has the potential of making quite substantial differences to the significance of this instrument. Even a reasonably small adjustment in the number of contracts could be worth many millions. Given the variability of how well single sourcing contracts work, which this instrument may improve through additional flexibility, our biggest concern, which the instrument does not necessarily address, is that widening this scope could draw in contracts that have no benefit being processed in this way. Have the Government considered this? Have they made any assessment of the qualitative widening in this way and, if they accept it, are other steps being taken to prevent it, or is it also an accepted trade-off?

Finally, and more generally, it is not long at all until these regulations come into effect on 1 April. When they were considered in the other place just under two weeks ago, the Minister for Defence Procurement said that the guidance will be published in four weeks. I put it to the Minister that that is after the implementation date. Whether that is correct or otherwise, if a movement on the contract needed to be made, nothing has been taken away from the old regime, so I am sure that this would not be a critical issue, but it raises a wider question. Consultations on these changes began in 2019 and a lot has happened since then. After all that time and all that has happened, it is not exactly reassuring for things to be pushed so close to the wire. Will the Minister comment on that and perhaps reassure us that this SI will work as planned?

From what I hear, the regime that we are talking about has been a great success. It is a vast improvement on what happened before 2014, and therefore my comments are not meant to be unsupportive. To be even more supportive, I shall be entirely content with a longish letter.

Military National Service

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Thursday 7th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, my noble friend makes some very good points, a number of which we can all relate to. The Armed Forces continue to meet all their current commitments, keeping the country and its interests safe. The Government remain committed to ensuring that this country has the world-class Armed Forces that it needs, deserves and has held in high reputation across the globe. We can rightly be very proud of our forces.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I really hope that the Minister’s Answer is not accurate. We know that there is a serious risk—not a probable risk but a serious risk—of a ground war breaking out in Europe, and we may become involved in it. This is being said by serious people such as generals, Mr Shapps and so on. Surely the military would be derelict in its duties if it was not considering that risk. Ukraine has shown that modern warfare, once again, is people-intense. The numbers in our Armed Forces are something like half what they were at the end of the Cold War. Surely the military is developing multiple scenarios, almost certainly short of conscription, to make sure that a rapid increase in resources can be achieved.

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes some very good points but, as I have said before, increasingly it is about capability rather than pure numbers. We are facing some widely known recruitment issues that are not peculiar to the forces or to the country and that are giving us a bit of a challenge, but while we have smaller forces than previously we are applying all sorts of issues to attract and retain forces across all three services.

Conventional Weapon Stocks: Expenditure

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 19th February 2024 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government when they plan to provide an update on the spending of the £2 billion allocated in the 2023 spending review for replenishing conventional weapon stocks over the next two years.

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

My Lords, £1.95 billion was allocated in the 2023 Spring Budget to improve resilience and readiness across a range of defence capabilities. This is not just about new investments and new equipment; it will also be used to address long-standing challenges across the defence programme, which will make us better able to respond to new threats. The Ministry of Defence remains fully engaged with industry, allies and partners to ensure the continuation of supply to Ukraine and that all equipment and munitions granted in kind from UK stocks are replaced as expeditiously as possible.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer; I am not sure that it contained any information, but it met the basic specification. In my view, the moneys are not being spent on their original requirement. That could be for one of two reasons: first, that the money is gone because it has been spent on budget shortfalls and not on the original objective, or, secondly, that the MoD is not good at purchasing things. Let us take, for instance, the 155 mm shells which are very much desired by Ukraine at the moment. The letter of intent was in November 2022, the contract took nine months to negotiate—to July 2023—and none will be delivered until 2025. Which is it: has the money gone, or is the MoD not good at purchasing things?

[The Earl of Minto (Con)]

My Lords, we have just short of £1 billion out for contract, so it is on the way, and we have invested a further £500 million in industrial capacity. Therefore, the money has not been spent elsewhere in the Budget; it is being spent on what it was originally purposed for. This is not the easiest thing to grasp. Resilience and readiness are all about improving capability through, among other things, updating weapon stocks and munitions and investing in manufacturing to ensure that stockpiles are current and ready to meet defence needs. It is not just about replenishing like for like on capability.

King’s Speech

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, for her courtesy and co-operation. Throughout the time when she was representing the Government in this House, I was a member of the Labour Front-Bench defence team, and it was a pleasure to do business with her.

The segments of the King’s Speech on defence were short and vague. It is, of course, never a legislation-heavy area, so this is to be expected, but the Government’s action simply does not match their rhetoric. Since 2010, the British Army has been reduced to its smallest since the time of Napoleon. It was the last Defence Secretary who said that defence has been “hollowed out and underfunded” for years. So when the Government say that they will continue to invest in our gallant Armed Forces, what exactly do they mean?

This extends far beyond simple numbers, whether it is money, numbers of troops or quality or quantity of equipment. The last 13 years have corroded the nation’s moral contract with those who serve. Our brave troops and their families are having to live in housing that is simply inadequate, with damp and mould; it is so inadequate, in fact, that 4,000 forces families are not paying rent as a result. Satisfaction with service life has fallen to almost 40%, so it is no surprise that retention rates are dropping too. That is not sustainable, and so I ask again: how exactly are the Government investing in our gallant Armed Forces?

The Government also say they will continue to support veterans, to whom so much is owed. They are right about the last part—so much is owed. So why are so many veterans having to endure a postcode lottery on the support they receive? Over 1.5 million veterans across the UK do not have the veteran ID card that they were promised, which is supposed to ensure quicker access to important services, such as healthcare. In July, the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme was found to have a

“Lack of fairness and empathy”,


causing distress for many who have kept our country safe and deserve our compassion and support. Throughout the cost of living crisis, veterans have been particularly hard hit, relying on universal credit and charitable support. The reality is that the Government are failing our service community.

The Government also pledged to strengthen NATO and address the most pressing security challenges. This is no doubt the Government’s intention, as they have shown with the support for Ukraine. There must be no change in this resolve, which we fully support, but the wider reality does not match up. There are growing concerns about the UK’s NATO obligations under this Government, as delays and mismanagement in vital defence contracts undermine our capability to fulfil our full NATO obligations and, by doing so, properly support our allies.

Ajax vehicles are still not ready; they are currently apparently in recovery and due to be eight years late. The E-7 Wedgetail planes have been delayed by at least a year. The British Army will not have a fully modernised war-fighting division until 2030. The MoD has acknowledged the risk that this amounts to: that the UK could not provide NATO with an operational Army division. When will the Government get a grip, so that the UK can be NATO’s leading European nation, leading the focus on future Russian aggression and the Arctic opening up due to climate change, and on developing a strategy to challenge and compete with China? Ultimately, when will the Government’s actions match up to their warm words?

Armed Forces: Remuneration, Housing and Family Support

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Tunnicliffe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of reductions in Ministry of Defence day-to-day spending on remuneration, housing and family support for members of the armed forces.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, we do not accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question. Defence offers substantial support to our Armed Forces, which includes freezes to daily food charges, free wraparound childcare, an effective pay rise of between 9.7% for the most junior ranks and 5.8% for officers of one-star rank, and a doubling of investment into UK service family accommodation since the middle of the last decade.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

That Answer illustrates the lack of understanding about the brave people who defend us. However, to get back to my question, the March Spring Budget confirmed that day-to-day spending in defence is set to decline by £2.1 billion. That is over 6% in real terms between 2021-22 and 2024-25, which means £2 billion less for forces’ pay, recruitment and training, despite the growing security threats. Do the Government not believe that this imbalance will have serious consequences, as revealed by the 2023 attitude survey, or are they happy to ignore them?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

It depends upon which glass we look through; clearly, the noble Lord is looking through a rather half-empty glass, and the facts rather refute his gloomy assessment. In fact, the recent pay award was the biggest percentage uplift in 20 years for service personnel, and this year’s pay award goes way beyond that level—rightly recognising the vital contribution to which the noble Lord refers. As he will be aware, spend for the MoD is likely to be above £50 billion this year, and it is interesting just to look at the detail of where that money is going. It includes significant improvements to accommodation and, as I have already described, to the conditions that surround our service personnel. Interestingly, there is anecdotal evidence from across the department that the 2023 pay award has been well received by service personnel.

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 18th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton (Con)]

My Lords, I start, of course, by thanking all those who have been involved in ensuring the passage of this Bill. In particular, I thank my friend Robin Millar, who ensured its successful navigation through the House of Commons, my noble friend the Minister for her support, and my noble friend Lord Jackson of Peterborough for his support on Report. Equally, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this Bill during its passage and for ensuring that it has had cross-party consent throughout. I also thank the Minister’s Bill team in the Ministry of Defence, in particular, Gail Wilson and Smita Mehta, who have been so wonderful in supporting me. I of course also thank the Public Bill Office and the Lords Clerk.

I say a couple of words in tribute to the volunteers of the Veterans Advisory Pension Committees, because it is they who have campaigned long and hard for these changes to be made. Indeed, it is nearly seven years since I was first approached by committee members during my time as an MoD Minister; they were frustrated that their terms of reference and mandate limited what they could do to support our veterans on those committees. When they were originally set up, they were allowed only to advise veterans on pensions and the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme. As noble Lords know, this Bill extends that mandate effectively to mirror all aspects of the Armed Forces Covenant, not only to veterans but to veterans’ families. This is a modest Bill, but another small step in trying to ensure that the United Kingdom is the best place to be a veteran.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the committees have exceeded their formal brief for a number of years, which has turned out to be a good thing. That has been partly regularised by terms of reference, but the Bill makes the whole thing formal. Since a good thing is being made formal, we are in full support.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Baroness Goldie) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for supporting this important piece of legislation. It will enhance the statutory footing of the Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees. It has been a great pleasure to support the Bill through this House. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Lancaster for bringing the Bill to this stage with his trademark knowledge, expertise and passion.

This Bill delivers on the MoD commitment to strengthen the legislation around the VAPCs, putting them on a more stable basis for the 21st century. The Bill will ensure that the VAPCs can continue to support veterans and their families in a way that aligns with the wider veterans’ welfare support system and enhances the quality of the services that they are offered. The inclusion of the VAPCs in the recently published Independent Review of UK Government Welfare Services for Veterans will ensure clarity on how these committees can evolve to support veterans’ welfare services, underlining the work that these volunteers undertake for veterans all across the UK. The Government’s response to this report will be published later this year.

I echo my noble friend Lord Lancaster in paying tribute to these dedicated volunteers for their commitment to and support for our veterans. I thank your Lordships for the strong cross-party support for the Bill in this place, and to Members of the other place for their similar support. I also place on record my thanks to my honourable friend Robin Millar for expertly steering the Bill through the other place and to my right honourable friend and colleague Andrew Murrison, the Minister for Defence People, Veterans and Service Families, who has done so much of the heavy lifting on this Bill.

This Bill sends an important message about the UK Government’s commitment to our Armed Forces and veterans. We are united in our admiration and our desire to support our Armed Forces community, from our current serving personnel to the veterans, whose days of active service may have passed, but whose contribution remains treasured, and to the families, whose unstinting support is the foundation of their success. I pay tribute to all of our Armed Forces and their families. Ultimately, this Bill is for them. I commend this Bill to the House.

Veterans Advisory and Pensions Committees Bill

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for bringing forward this Bill and indicate unambiguous support for it from the Labour Party. To equip myself to say a few words, I read the Library briefing which, as ever, was excellent, and I think I understand the Bill. In my own words, I would precis it as being that the VAPCs have exceeded their formal brief for a number of years now, which has turned out to be a good thing. That has been partly regularised by terms of reference. The Bill makes the whole thing formal. Since a good thing is being made formal, that is a good thing—in fact, there are a lot of good things in the Bill. It is also a good thing to extend the terms to all veterans and their families. There has, in the other place, been an effort to make the Bill a little more perfect. I have found over many years that, as in this case, the perfect can be the enemy of the good, so we support the Bill as presented.

I want to make a couple of points on why I personally am increasingly concerned about veterans and their families. It is not because things have got worse, but because I appreciate some of the problems more fully. First, from time to time, I have contact with veterans. At first, one is surprised by the difficulties they face in their transition from service life to the civil world. One sort of thinks, “Well, that’s the sort of thing you overcome in a few months”, but they explain to me that it is a much bigger task than that. I think that is because we who have not served full-time in His Majesty’s Regular Forces just do not understand that service in the Armed Forces is not just another job; it is a way of life. When you move from active service to the civil world it is a very significant change in lifestyle, and it takes time. For that reason, anything we can reasonably do to help veterans I look upon as worth while.

Secondly, I have recently looked through the UK Regular Armed Forces Continuous Attitude Survey Results 2023, published on 1 June 2023. As I do every time I quote this document, I commend the Ministry of Defence for its production and publication. However, I am afraid to say that is where my commendations must end, because many of the trends in the document are adverse and disturbing. While the document formally has nothing to do with veterans, clearly, as people come towards the end of their career—frequently the point at which they are adding the most value—they look forward at what is happening to their friends who have gone into retirement. A consideration in how they feel must be the extent that they feel confidence that the services we provide to veterans will be adequate. I believe that the Bill takes an important step forward to securing that. For all those reasons, we fully support the Bill and wish it godspeed through the rest of its processes.

Defence: Support Ships and Type 32 Frigates

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 20th June 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I have no information on my noble friend’s latter point. I can seek specific information about the crew numbers to which he refers and will write to him.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Type 32 frigate was announced on 19 November 2020. I understand that, to make the national shipbuilding strategy work, the first ship needs to be laid down by mid-2027. After two years and seven months, the project is still in the pre-concept stage. I think that means, in plain English, that we do not even know what these ships are for. Can the Minister enlighten the House, or will the project slip, so plunging the British shipbuilding industry into chaos once again?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I have already indicated to the House that this ship is in the concept phase; there is no more that I can add to that. The programme and procurement strategy will be decided following the current concept phase, once that has concluded. However, I would observe that this is part of a shipbuilding programme for the Royal Navy that is substantial, significant and very important for the Navy’s future operational effectiveness.

Armed Forces Act 2006 (Continuation) Order 2023

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Thursday 15th June 2023 Grand Committee

Obviously, we have a formality to do. This statutory instrument is essential, and I am very happy to say that we support the continuation of the Armed Forces Act 2006. We look forward to rubber-stamping it in the main Chamber when it is agreed that the Grand Committee has indeed considered this statutory instrument, even if I think that there will not be too many questions detaining the Minister.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

I wish I had taken the trouble to count the number of times I have done this order.

I welcome the opportunity today to speak for the Opposition on this instrument. It is important not because it has any significant policy or legislative impact but because it provides this House with an opportunity to further demonstrate its support for our Armed Forces by providing a continuance to the system of command, discipline and justice to which they operate.

However, it is of course important, because without the continuation of the 2006 Act, in January we would have a military with no legal requirement to follow orders and implement other disciplinary and criminal procedures. This is something that we have repeated annually since the 1689 Bill of Rights, one of the foundational pieces of our constitutional jigsaw. Given the formality of repeating something for hundreds of years, it is important to re-emphasise, as we have rightly done many times recently, the pride we share in our military, which embodies the very best of Britain. This has been demonstrated particularly in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, throughout Covid, and continually for a long time before. Those who serve in our Armed Forces spread and share the finest of our values across the globe, putting themselves in harm’s way to guarantee the safety of us, our friends and our families, and they are an essential part of our national defence, resilience, and obligations under NATO to our allies.

That is why it is disappointing that, in the Defence Secretary’s own words, our forces, for which we have so much responsibility, have been “hollowed out and underfunded”. The fact that this instrument is focused on the disciplinary system of the Armed Forces and that it is that which must be renewed annually implicitly makes the point that it is people, whether those in uniform or the civilians who support their work, and not just equipment, weapons, vehicles and ammunition, who make up the bedrock of our Armed Forces.

Yet just a few weeks ago, the very same Defence Secretary who said that the Armed Forces had been hollowed out confirmed that the Government were continuing with their plans to shrink troop numbers to an all-time low, in his words to “shield them from further reductions”. I cannot say that I understand the logic there, but I have heard the views of wise and vastly experienced military leaders who fear the impact of these cuts.

Over the past year and a half especially, our Armed Forces have done a tremendous job. I will even acknowledge the defence leadership shown by the Government since Russia invaded Ukraine. However, I also hope that the Government go away and reflect on these decisions so that, alongside the provisions maintained by this instrument, their capacity to continue operating at such a high level also remains year after year.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, and the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for the brevity of their remarks, as I think the prevailing temperature in the Moses Room is not designed to afford maximum comfort to its occupants. I am very grateful to both noble Lords for their thoughtfulness. I also very much appreciate their tributes to our Armed Forces. As I have said before in the Chamber, a lot of what we say and do in this Parliament resonates far beyond it, including to an audience of our Armed Forces. It is very important for them to know that there is absolute unanimity in Parliament on our regard and respect for them, our desire to do our best for them and our undoubted gratitude to them for the tremendous contribution they make to our country—not just in keeping us safe and the wider obligations we require of them, but in the incredible contribution they have made to civilian life in MACA, which has been prominent in recent times, as your Lordships will be aware.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the important issue of recruitment and retention and asked the pertinent question of whether we serve our Armed Forces well. The answer is that we try; we certainly hope that we do, but that is where parliamentary scrutiny and the call for accountability of the Government by opposition parliamentarians is so important. I refer again to the Haythornthwaite review, which was designed to look at the current offer to our people. The offer has many positive financial and non-financial elements—there is no doubt about it—and our Armed Forces acknowledge that, but it needs to be modernised to reflect how we will ask them to operate in future against the changing threats we face, as set out in the integrated review and the integrated operating concept.

We need a modernised offer to allow our Armed Forces to better harness valuable skills, whether that is regular or reserve. We need to improve recruitment and retention and to be consistent with family life and people’s changing expectations of work in the 21st century. The Haythornthwaite review will be a very important contributor to that thought and decision-making process; it will be a signpost as to how we take things forward. As I said earlier, the review has concluded and the report is with the Secretary of State. He will determine the Government’s response in due course, but there will be a desire to place it in the public domain.

Both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord asked, “Do we have enough of them?” The noble Lord referred to the acceptance of having hollowed out, over decades, our land capability in particular. I say in response that, in the combination of the Integrated Review Refresh 2023 and the defence Command Paper refresh—which is very much a live and vibrant document, requiring constant ministerial involvement, and expected to become public in early course—we have the whole question of what we are trying to plan for. What is the threat? Where is it? What is its character and how do we formulate our Armed Forces to be in a position to respond to it? In this challenging day and age, with a maelstrom of activity, the hybrid character of threat and the opportunity for new technology, we will need to make some important decisions about how we marry all that in an intelligible fashion to ensure that we have the capability we need to deal with the hybrid character of the threat as it now exists.

I cannot be drawn much further on the detail of that; suffice it to say that I give your Lordships my assurance that the MoD is very cognisant of the need to be able to demonstrate—not just for the satisfaction of opposition politicians but, very importantly, to potential adversaries—that we have a serious, workable, effective capability.

The noble Baroness asked whether I could give a little more information on the covenant. She is absolutely correct: this arose when we were looking at the Armed Forces Bill in 2021. Helpfully, that Act extended the reach of the covenant to providers of housing, education and health services across the United Kingdom. The question arose of whether it should extend to central government and the devolved Administrations. I say to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that we provided an update in The Armed Forces Covenant and Veterans Annual Report 2022 in December last year, outlining the scope and methodology for conducting the review. The Government will report on the results of this review in the 2023 covenant and veterans annual report, when we will provide more information.

I think I have dealt with the specific points raised. I thank noble Lords for their contributions and I commend this instrument to the Committee.

UK Undersea Infrastructure: Hostile Activity

Lord Tunnicliffe Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

There are two elements to the right reverend Prelate’s question. The first is about the operational resilience of the installations, which is a matter for the owners and operators of the systems. On the second and important point about the vulnerability of such systems to malign attack, we are certainly committed to prepare for, deter and defend against the coercive use of energy and other hybrid tactics by state and non-state actors. The UK was explicit about this at the United Nations Security Council on 30 September last year, where we made it clear, in relation to NATO, that any deliberate attack against allies’ critical national infrastructure would be met with a united and determined response.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, we recognise that this is a credible threat, and I congratulate the Ministry of Defence on having a ship with the capability to help, since it has already been built—well done. I understand that the second ship is in the concept stage. Is that concept not defined by that of the first ship, or are the Government contemplating a more offensive capability for the future?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I am not sure that I have the technical detail to respond to the noble Lord, but I will undertake to inquire. If I can disclose further information to him, I shall respond in future.