Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his contribution. I am not terribly well equipped to deal with the specific aspect of his comment and inquiry in relation to Sri Lanka and the apparent lack of evidence that he argues is the case in relation to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. I can certainly undertake to investigate that, and it may be a matter to which my noble friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon might wish to respond.

As for drawing the attention of international bodies to the Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill when enacted, I think—from the responses that we are aware of—that it has already attracted widespread comment from international organisations. I am sure that, as part of their public affairs monitoring, they all take account of legislation coming out of various countries. However, the noble Lord makes an interesting point, and I shall reflect upon it.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, taken together, many of the amendments that we have just discussed certainly seem aimed at emasculating and, indeed, wrecking the Bill. I have no doubt whatever that the Bill is necessary: it lances a long-standing boil and fulfils a promise to our military. The issue has proved too difficult to tackle, time and again, and it is about time that it was tackled. The Bill must go forward.

We need the Bill so much, and I think the amendments we have discussed should go. There are a number of amendments that will resolve the wrinkles, but is it not the case that we will touch on some of the things already discussed in later amendments, when there will be a chance to correct them?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for his very candid assessment of both the situation that we seek to address and how the Bill seeks to do so. In my role as Minister for Defence in this House, I have certainly pledged to engage with your Lordships; it has been my pleasure to engage with a considerable number of you.

In my remarks on Clauses 1 to 7 of the Bill, I indicated that I am aware of the profound concerns of many Members of this House. I say to the noble Lord, Lord West, that it is my desire to continue my engagement. I shall listen very closely to the contributions during the rest of the debate on the groups of amendments that we are scheduled to deal with today. It is not a cosmetic interest; I understand the depth of concern, and, in reflecting on all the contributions, I shall consider whether some avenues are available to me to try to assuage some of these concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]]

My Lords, I understand the stated rationale for this Bill and I state at the outset that I have enormous respect for the noble Baroness the Minister, but I am struggling. I am not a lawyer, but I would like to focus on a couple of specific questions. I understand the difficulty with vexatious and untimely litigation, which is a curse, but legitimate litigation, however inconvenient, is surely the blessing of a free and civilised society that honours international law and a rules-based system in more than words.

The basic reason why I speak in support of Amendment 14 is that I fear the law of predictable or conscious consequences more than the law of unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to explain clearly this anomaly, which I cannot get my head around: this Bill, as currently drafted, will make it possible for an incident of torture or murder not to be prosecuted while a sexual offence committed in the same incident would be subject to prosecution. That suggests to me either that the reference to sexual offences is arbitrary or that torture and crimes against humanity and so on should also be admitted in the same category.

I understand the assertion that the Bill does not prevent prosecution, but we are dealing with law, not just with assertions of what may or may not be possible—it is what is written in the body of the Bill. I have said that I am not a lawyer, but I support the Armed Forces—my first career was at GCHQ in Cheltenham, providing direct support to our forces, not least during the Falklands conflict—and, despite not being a lawyer, I know that torture is absolutely forbidden in both domestic and international law and that no bars to prosecution are possible.

As Field Marshall Lord Guthrie pointed out more than once, these restrictions in the Bill cannot stand unchallenged. He said:

“By introducing a statutory presumption against prosecution and statutes of limitations, this bill undermines the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition of torture and violates human rights law as well as international criminal and humanitarian law.”


Making torture an excluded offence under the Bill would, I think, have the double benefit of first, avoiding what Lord Guthrie rightly called the “de facto criminalisation” of the offence and, secondly, keeping the UK in line with the rules-based international order that we claim to uphold.

Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are similarly forbidden in law. Amending the law as proposed in the triple lock would make the UK the only country in the world to have deliberately legislated to restrict the Geneva conventions. Where does this place us in a world to which we claim to be an example of law and civility? Most oddly to my mind, however, as a signatory to the 1998 Rome statute, which enables the International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when a Government are unable or unwilling to do so, the Bill will make it possible for British soldiers to be prosecuted in the Hague—that is, before a foreign court. Really?

I strongly support the amendment not just because of the legal questions, but because there is a strong moral case for it. I recognise that the last time I made a moral argument in this House during the internal market Bill, it was dismissed by another Minister with the words, “We will not be listening to moral strictures,” but there is a moral case here. The church that I represent stands with victims of torture, and I think that our nation has done hitherto and should continue to do so. Our reputation as a country that is committed to the rules-based international order matters more than I think we sometimes realise. This amendment would further incentivise the UK to maintain the highest standards on the battlefield. It is this that differentiates the civilised from the uncivilised in combat.

If the Government will not accept the amendment, I would be grateful if they could explain rationally, legally and consistently, and perhaps even morally, why these anomalies are acceptable.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow a West Country SIGINTer. I will speak to Amendment 14 in support of my noble friend Lord Robertson and the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Campbell of Pittenweem. It is extraordinary that the presumption against prosecution applies to war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture. These crimes have a special place in the rubric of human rights unacceptability. In its current form, this legislation would seem to decriminalise such crimes by members of the Armed Forces if they are reported after five years. This cannot be the intention and serves the interests of no one. Indeed, in their attempt to protect the military, the Government will in fact damage our Armed Forces and cause our international standing serious harm, as has been said by all of the previous speakers.

If the Government say that the threat is more apparent than real because this will not happen, that will not wash, as the very strong perception remains, and that in itself can be damaging. As has been said before, there are a number of things about this Bill where the perception is almost more important than the fact. There should be no doubt in people’s minds about the commitment of the UK Armed Forces to adherence to international law in relation to war crimes. If their enemies believe they are not, they will feel that they have a right to be unconstrained in their behaviour against our people.

The Government initially seemed to understand that it is in the interests of all for allegations of torture to be investigated fully whenever they might arise. I have to say that I do not understand why they have changed their position. If war crimes are excluded from this, as has been said by a number of speakers, there is also an increased likelihood of UK service personnel being brought before the ICC. In debate on the International Criminal Court of 2001, it was made very clear that accusations of crimes mentioned would be tried by British courts, and we put huge effort into making sure that would be the case. It would be a disgrace if inadvertently, by reducing the scope for prosecutions in this country, we were to increase the scope for prosecutions in the Hague and possibly, as has been said, elsewhere in the world. That does not help our servicemen and women. I believe strongly that this amendment would ensure that that will not happen and I will vote for it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Yes. I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness said, and I undertake to look at her contribution in detail.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for a very clear exposition of how one can get around some of these difficulties. I am delighted that she is going take this back and look at it, but I ask her to ask her officials: what are the benefits for the UK of excluding these from the list? What are we gaining by that? I used to find quite often, when I was standing at the Dispatch Box for three years, that when I prodded in that way, I would find that there were no benefits, but that they were defending their position wonderfully. I am not asking for an answer now, but can she prod that to see what benefits we actually get by not having those listed?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

Again, I undertake to look carefully at the noble Lord’s remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster of Kimbolton, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29 in support of my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe and the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Boyce and Lord Stirrup. The de facto six-year time limit for claims being brought against Ministers and the MoD arising from active service abroad seems at first sight far from protecting our people, but rather reducing the rights of individual service personnel. Those injured as a result of negligence during overseas operations, unlike in the UK, will have less protection under the law. Veterans and service charities, as was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, are very worried and have been taking quite a lot of notice of this. The British Legion and other charities are very concerned.

To keep this short, it seems that the Bill seeks to protect the MoD from claims by our servicemen, rather than trying to look after them. Again, I am absolutely sure that that is not the intention, and this amendment tries to rectify that problem.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 29 and I support this important safeguard for service personnel. As has been mentioned, not all disabilities are immediately self-evident. Medical advances and associating clinical problems with mental or slowly developing illnesses are helping to explain and track the trigger to events not just in the recent past, but over periods measured in years, not months. Should a claim be considered, it should not be dismissed on some arbitrary timeline. Justice for service personnel, both serving and veterans, demands that their interests should be protected.

The changes made in the past decade, replacing the tried and tested Pensions Appeal Tribunal, which had its origins in 1919, with new arrangements, have been the cause of much anxiety at times. Indeed, I put down an annulment Motion to a major tribunal revamp in 2008 that sought to disband the Pensions Appeal Tribunal of England and Wales and move all its military pension and disability work into a civilian social entitlement chamber. This was widely condemned by those with experience of this type of work, by the Royal British Legion and other charities which help with the preparation and submission of such claims. My Motion was debated and, happily, the Government then agreed that the Pensions Appeal Tribunal work should be given its own separate chamber in the restructured tribunals.

So it is not only that claims by service personnel and veterans should not be arbitrarily time-limited: as important is that the tribunal arrangement in place to deal with claims is respected and trusted, as was the former Pensions Appeal Tribunal, with its long experience and proven track record in this field. I hope the Government will acknowledge the importance of that, as well as Amendment 29.

Integrated Review: New Ships

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 25th January 2021 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the statement on the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy by the Prime Minister on 19 November 2020 (HC Deb, cols 488–9), how many of the new ships have been ordered; and, if none, when the first orders will be placed.

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

My Lords, the department is currently developing plans for a new class of frigate and research vessel to support UK interests. Following the concept phases, yet to be launched, programme and procurement strategies will be determined. However, the Type 32s will be UK-built—a clear demonstration of both this Government’s and the shipbuilding tsar’s commitment to supporting UK industry and to ensuring the Royal Navy continues to have the modern ships it needs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. She will not be surprised that jam tomorrow has been a regular feature of defence reviews. I am concerned that the financial pressures the MoD is under, despite the welcome four-year settlement and additional funding announced last year, will affect build programmes and impact on the already small and ageing frigate force. The recent NAO review of the MoD equipment plan states that it remains “unaffordable”. The MoD estimates a £7.8 billion shortfall, but it could be as high as £17 billion. Leading up to the long-trumpeted integrated review, has there been any discussion about putting the capital costs of the deterrent submarine replacement once again outside of the defence budget, where it was until placed inside by Chancellor Osborne in 2010? It would resolve the MoD funding problem at a stroke.

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

My Lords, all MoD obligations and commitments, including the nuclear deterrent, are budgeted for in the MoD budget. While I understand the noble Lord’s concern about the cost of the equipment plan, I reassure him that the department is taking important steps to address that. I think he is looking through his glass half-empty, rather than his glass half-full. Quite simply, the recent financial settlement for the MoD and the Prime Minister’s commitment to new naval assets mean that not only will our fleet grow for the first time since World War II, but its high-end technological capabilities will allow it to provide a better contribution and to retain a first-class Navy up to 2040 and beyond.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on bringing forward this Bill, which aims to put an end to the egregious injustice of historical allegations and prosecutions made again and again against members of our Armed Forces for past actions overseas in conflict and its aftermath. It is not before time. Successive Governments have failed to take action, not least because it has such complex legal implications. It is so much easier, is it not, for people to say, “It’s much too difficult. Let them continue to suffer”. I am very glad that the Government are moving this forward.

When I entered the Royal Navy in 1965, we assumed that, if we undertook actions in good faith in war and peace, the nation would protect us. That has seemed a false hope in the past few years, with the hounding of personnel for actions that they took in good faith abroad and overseas on operations and afterwards, often decades ago. What has not changed is that our sailors, soldiers and airmen hold themselves to the highest of standards: a force for good, and seen to be so, both at home and abroad.

While I salute the Minister’s wish to support those serving in the military and our veterans, who give so much to this nation of ours, the Bill as it stands has a number of—to put it mildly—wrinkles that need much fuller explanation; indeed, a number of them must be ironed out. In its current form, this legislation would seem to decriminalise acts of torture by members of the Armed Forces if they are reported after five years; a lot of previous speakers have covered this point. This cannot be the intention and serves the interests of no one. Indeed, in their attempt to protect the military the Government may well do individual personnel and our international standing serious harm. We must be wary of creating a perception, and certainly not a reality, that this is the case.

The Government seem to understand that it is in the interests of all for allegations of torture to be investigated fully whenever they might arise. In the initial consultation on this legislation it was suggested that time limits would not be imposed on allegations of sexual offences or torture being investigated. The latter was quietly removed with no explanation. Notwithstanding what the Minister said, it is somewhat bizarre that sexual offences are covered and torture is not—as is also true of genocide and war crimes.

On the subject of war crimes, referring back to what the noble Lord, Lord Robathan, said about lawyers, when I was at a debate on the subject a senior citizen told us about tying a German officer to the front of his scout car before fighting back through enemy lines in Normandy. I asked him what unit he was in. He said, “Oh, the Inns of Court & City Yeomanry”. I found out that he was a highly decorated judge. So I do not want to judge lawyers too harshly.

An added concern is that the legislation seems to make our service men and women more likely to be hauled before the International Criminal Court. Surely this cannot be what the Government want. It is something that we work very hard to avoid. There must some error there; something must be changed.

Another issue that needs clarification is claims against the MoD; a number of noble Lords touched on this. The de facto six-year time limit for claims being brought against Ministers and the MoD arising from active service abroad seems at first sight far from protecting our people, but rather reducing the rights of individual service personnel. Again, I am sure that that cannot be the intention. Something must be changed.

I firmly believe that th0065 Bill is needed, but if I had to mark it out of 10 I would give it a five. If the Government truly want to get a 10 and do their best to support our brave service men and women, they must accept a number of amendments to the Bill, which are really necessary.

Trident Nuclear Programme

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 7th December 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether a new United Kingdom warhead is required to extend the Trident nuclear programme to 2049; and if so, by when it will be required.

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

My Lords, in order to ensure that the Government maintain an effective deterrent throughout the commission of the Dreadnought class submarines and into the future, the Secretary of State for Defence formally announced to Parliament on 25 February 2020 that the UK will replace its nuclear warhead. The replacement warhead programme will be delivered to a schedule that ensures that our deterrence posture under Operation Relentless endures uninterrupted. I am withholding specific information about the in-service date to safeguard national security.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. I am delighted that we are pressing ahead with this. It is a part of our armoury that is used every single day in deterring, so I am pleased about it. However, I have great concerns about AWE. Repeated ministerial deferrals post 2010 have resulted in decay of nuclear expertise and cost escalation within AWE, as has been noted by the NAO. Could the Minister confirm, after the failures of the MENSA, Hydrus and Pegasus projects to deliver on time and within budget, and the scathing assessment by the NAO earlier this year, that AWE as currently structured is able to deliver such a complex programme on time and at cost?

HMS “Queen Elizabeth”

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 4th November 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to change the level of support that will accompany HMS Queen Elizabeth’s deployment to the South China Sea in 2021.

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

My Lords, HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will sail on her first operational deployment during 2021. Detailed planning continues, but we have yet to announce our programme or destination. A Statement will be made to Parliament in due course, once planning is complete. All Royal Navy deployments and decisions on support are planned carefully, in line with operating environment, and constantly reviewed over time. The first operational deployment programme of HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will be no exception.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her Answer. We are in a dangerous world; no one can predict what will happen tomorrow, let alone a few months hence. There are real concerns about Chinese behaviour, and I believe it is right we should show solidarity with our friends in the region. This year, Australia has increased defence spending by a massive 70% and Japan by 8%—a seventh consecutive annual increase. Both countries have cited concerns over China’s aggressive actions. There is a need for strong alliances in the region. Sending a carrier task group is a good way of showing support, but we must not deal in half measures. Since 2010, our military has been grievously damaged. Can the Minister confirm that the “Queen Elizabeth” carrier battle group, deploying to the Indo-Pac region, will have its complete array of ships and aircraft and its air wing, weapons, weapons stocks and support to be able to conduct, if necessary, operations at every level of intensity? Only then can we be sure it will not be called upon to do so.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As I indicated to the noble Lord, I cannot comment on where the “Queen Elizabeth” is going, how she is going to get there or what route she will take. All of that will be unfolded to Parliament in due course. But the noble Lord makes an important point about the purpose of our military and naval capability. Certainly, I want to reassure him that HMS “Queen Elizabeth” will operate as part of a maritime task group, which will include allies and will be tailored to meet the required task. The destinations and precise number and mix of vessels deployed will depend on the operational circumstances in 2021.

Fleet Solid Support Ships

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 7th October 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the value for money to the taxpayer of building the new Fleet Solid Support Ships in (1) the United Kingdom or (2) overseas; and whether any such assessment includes (a) the level of tax paid onshore, (b) any requirement to maintain skilled jobs, and (c) any strategic requirement for a minimal shipbuilding capability in the United Kingdom.

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

My Lords, it is too early in the procurement process to assess the value for money of building fleet solid support ships in the UK compared to overseas, and it would be inappropriate to comment in advance of a new competition. The Secretary of State has already said that he will make an announcement about the progress of the programme during the autumn, and the criteria for assessing the FSS bids will be produced in accordance with Her Majesty’s Treasury guidelines on seeking best value for money.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer. I am delighted that the Secretary of State has classed Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels as military. These three ships should have been ordered more than three years ago. I hope that the integrated review is concluding that our outward-facing island nation needs a maritime strategy as a basis for its national security. Will the Minister confirm that a maritime strategy needs ships, that the UK’s shipbuilding strategy needs ship orders and that building of military ships will be onshore?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I reassure the noble Lord that it would be a very curious defence capability that did not have a maritime capacity. As we look to the challenges of the global world in the years to come, it seems that a maritime capacity will be an essential part of our capability. The Government are aware of the importance of the UK’s maritime industries. As the noble Lord will be aware, the Prime Minister appointed the Secretary of State for Defence to be the shipbuilding tsar for this very reason. The challenges which the noble Lord articulated are recognised.

British Overseas Troops: Civil Liability Claims

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie [V]]

Clause 3, to which my noble and learned friend refers, requires that a prosecutor must take into account the “exceptional demands and stresses” of overseas operations and the adverse impact that they can have on service personnel. While this requirement applies only after five years have elapsed, prosecutors may already take account of these circumstances in their decision-making at any stage. It is precisely to provide some form of protection for our service personnel and veterans and give them greater certainty that we believe it is important that the Bill makes consideration of these matters a statutory requirement once five years or more have elapsed.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, there are pressing reasons for this Bill, as military personnel have felt let down by successive Governments and the nation they serve. Historically, there was an understanding when one went into action that if any sense of doubt about actions arose, as long as one had acted with good intent, any balance of doubt would be in the service man or woman’s interest. That seems to have ceased to be the case. Even if that is not so, the perception was that our people are vulnerable to repeated litigation; perceptions are important. However, I am concerned about some of the wording in the Bill. Does it open up service men and women to greater risk of investigation and prosecution by international courts?

[Baroness Goldie [V]]

First, I thank the noble Lord for his helpful comments; he speaks from singular experience in the field. The risk that he alludes to is not likely to materialise. As I said earlier, the whole point is that the Bill is framed not as abolishing rights but as placing these rights for exercise within the context of time limits. It is not a statute of limitations; it is not a pardon; and it is not an amnesty. I hope that, with a strong framework in our domestic legislation, such a manifestation will be unlikely.

Armed Forces: Racism and Diversity

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie [V]]

I reassure the noble and gallant Lord that various initiatives and programmes have been deployed within the Armed Forces to cover these very areas of concern. If we want to prevent this unacceptable behaviour, we must create a culture within our civilian and military workforce that represents, includes and celebrates all elements of the society that we defend. Within the MoD, we need to institutionalise anti-racism.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Royal Navy is very conscious of the need to tackle racism and improve diversity, not only because it is right to do so but because it enhances its effectiveness—and, at the end of the day, the Navy’s job in extremis is to fight and win. For the last seven years, the Royal Navy has been listed by Stonewall in the top 100 employers. It was recorded in the Times’s top 50 employers for women 2019 and in the top 50 employers for social mobility. Sadly, only 4.2% of the total regular service are BAME; a target of 10% intake into the forces has been set for 2020. Where do we stand on the Wigston report on inappropriate behaviours, dated 15 July 2019, what are the timings of the implementation of its recommendations and who is ensuring that they are implemented?

[Baroness Goldie [V]]

First, I commend the Royal Navy for the fine example that it has been giving. I say to the noble Lord that, in pursuance of the diversity and inclusion strategy, to which I referred, numerous procedures are now afoot to advance awareness, to educate, to audit and to monitor performance. As the Minister with responsibility for this issue, I am certainly very clear that I shall be driving forward these checks, tests and examinations, and progress.

Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy: Integrated Review

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Wednesday 4th March 2020 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord West of Spithead]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the timescale for the Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy; who will lead that review; and whether the members of the Chiefs of Staff Committee will be part of the team delivering the review.

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

My Lords, the integrated review will align with the comprehensive spending review reporting later this year. Implementation of its recommendations is expected to be a multi-year project. Further announcements and timings will be made in due course. The review will be led by the Prime Minister. It will involve numerous stakeholders, including the Chief of the Defence Staff and service chiefs.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. I am amazed that this highly complex review, which ought to be called the Johnson review, is going to have to provide answers about money, effectively, for this summer. It is also sad that its aim is not something as straightforward as ensuring the defence and security of our nation and people, rather three pages of waffle.

My Question relates to spad involvement. When I was a Minister for three years, I am afraid I came to the conclusion that most spads—not all—were a complete waste of rations. Very recently, a spad has actually said that this country does not need an agriculture and fisheries sector, which, in strategic terms, is totally bonkers. Can the Minister reassure me that this study will be done by people who actually understand geopolitical and geostrategic issues, rather than by weird—I use the word advisedly, as it has been used by other people—spads?

[Baroness Goldie]

My Lords, let me try to tease out a few questions from the rhetoric. First, we have to be realistic: circumstances for the United Kingdom have changed dramatically, not least because we have left the EU, but particularly since the last strategic defence and security review in 2015. What we are contending with globally is unrecognisable from what we knew then. If this review was called the Johnson review, it would be a very appropriate title because it is an absolutely essential response to a geopolitical situation that is fluid globally. It is an essential response to the need to knit together government policy for defence, for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, of course, for DfID. That is a very far-reaching prospect.

I do not share the noble Lord’s pessimism about the timescale for this review. He will be aware that, in fact, as far as defence is concerned, a lot of the preparatory work has been done: it is there and ready to be pulled down and presented by way of evidence to the review.

On the matter of spads, it is a little unfair to refer to people who are unable to be here to defend themselves. My experience of spads is limited but essentially positive—they can be an enormous help in the discharge of ministerial responsibility. It is very easy to get cheap headlines by knocking somebody because of the way they dress—no doubt, I could be knocked because of the way I dress—but I think what matters is the cerebral capacity that can be brought to the role, and I am absolutely satisfied about that.

Afghan Interpreters: Security Clearance

Lord West of Spithead Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie]

As I indicated to the noble Baroness, in determining security vetting the Government will take account of previous loyal service alongside UK Armed Forces overseas. A variety of criteria are applied for UK clearance. It is for other groupings such as NATO to determine what satisfies them. On the point about thebigword and monitoring, I reassure her that the Ministry of Defence holds regular governance and assurance meetings with the contractor and has performance metrics in place to ensure that standards are met. On the intimidation angle, she will be aware that the UK Government have been at the forefront of providing support—and to considerable effect. In addition to the checks that the Government expect the contractor to carry out, there is an intimidation unit in Afghanistan, manned 24/7, to deal with any situations of concern. She asked for some specific figures; I will check Hansard and undertake to write to her.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, these people effectively fought the Queen’s enemies alongside us. Does the Minister not agree that the foot-dragging, delays and confusion over this is a terrible message to give, because our forces will again, without a doubt, fight elsewhere and people will not be willing to help them if they see that we do not look after them?

[Baroness Goldie]

I respect the noble Lord’s experience on such matters, but I disagree. The United Kingdom Government have effectively demonstrated that they stand by the people they ask to work alongside them in situations of hostility and conflict. Help has been forthcoming, particularly for those who feared intimidation: 570 locally employed staff have received support throughout the scheme, ranging from bespoke security advice to 40 locally employed staff being supported to relocate within Afghanistan. The two systems, intimidation and redundancy, indicate that a great deal of help has been available from the United Kingdom Government, which is something of which we should be very proud.