Siren Associates Ltd: FCDO Contracts

Richard Tice Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

It is a great pleasure to lead this Adjournment debate; I am most grateful to Mr Speaker for granting it. The Minister at the Dispatch Box and I are both Lincolnshire MPs, and we share the burden of knowing that Lincolnshire’s is the most underfunded police force in the country, and could really do with an extra £10 million to £15 million per year to provide an extra 200-plus police officers, more technology and more cars to prevent crime and secure more convictions. So, imagine my surprise and concern when last October, I read that the Foreign Office had granted a three-year contract for a sum totalling £46 million to help not the Lincolnshire police force, but the Lebanese police force.

I thought, “What’s going on here?” I thought, “This feels to me, in my honest opinion, a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash,” because my constituents in Boston and Skegness believe that it is the Lincolnshire police force that should be properly funded. With all due respect to the police officers within the Lebanese police force, in the nicest possible way, that is their issue; our issue is protecting and keeping our own constituents safe. The idea that the Foreign Office is sending £15 million a year to train the Lebanese police force is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash, and I will come on to how I would deal with it.

Of course, when contracts are placed by the Government, someone has to deliver that contract. Let me now introduce the House to a group of companies under the umbrella banner called Siren. There are a number of these companies, the first of which is Siren Associates Ltd, which is a not-for-profit company, which all sounds very nice and cosy and cuddly. There are other private companies called Siren Consulting Ltd, Siren Advisory Services Ltd and Siren Analytics Ltd. Those are owned and controlled by the four directors in varying different ways of the not-for-profit company Siren Associates Ltd.

This is the company that has pitched for the contracts from the Foreign Office, and not just the three-year contract for £46 million that I referred to that was granted in September 2025. No, it actually transpires that Siren Associates Ltd, this not-for-profit company, had secured two previous contracts in 2021 and 2022 for the sums of £15 million for one year and then £16 million for two and a bit years to provide the same sort of services to the Lebanese police force.

People might think, “That’s all very well.” I was surprised when I read into the accounts of Siren Associates Ltd, which are incredibly brief because they claim the exemption from full accounts, despite huge contracts from the Government, and from small company accounts, which means there is no profit and loss account. There is no explanation of how they are spending this taxpayers’ money overseas, of what an amazing job they might, or might not, be doing. Who knows? They have not explained how many police they are training and supporting in all the various ways. We have no idea whatsoever.

The only interesting thing I spotted was at the end where the related party transactions show that millions of pounds are going out the side door to the directors by way of director fees and management fees to three separate Siren companies. It is quite hard to work it all out, but I have done my best, and it appears to me that within the first two contracts totalling some £31 million during that period, some director fees of £3.2 million were paid over that five-year period, which means that the directors were probably taking out per annum more than the Prime Minister is paid. Then, there is an additional twelve-and-a-bit million pounds by way of management fees to these other companies.

It is probably worth reflecting on the four directors of this company, Siren Associates. One is a British citizen who appears to live in the United Kingdom. Two others are Lebanese citizens who live in Lebanon, and one is a Swedish citizen who lives in Sweden. I would have thought that directors’ fees of more per annum than the Prime Minister is paid is a king’s ransom in Beirut. I think many of our constituents would be pretty outraged, frankly, at the level of money—our cash—that has been going out the side door by way of directors’ fees and management fees.

If this not-for-profit company is doing such a great job, why does it need all these separate companies? Why not be clear and transparent, when this not-for-profit company is clearly giving the impression of a great, charitable, noble endeavour? Maybe that was what helped to persuade the Foreign Office to grant the contracts, but we do not know. There is an anxiety about why it is so complicated, why there is so little transparency and why there is so little information about the performance and the quality of what they have done.

So we have these four Siren companies, and we do not really know how they are performing. What we do know is that the framework contract under which these contracts were granted is the multibillion-pound conflict, stability and security fund. Accountability reports and audits have been done by the House and various others, and its performance has been heavily criticised here in the UK, with all sorts of red and amber alerts, which gives one considerable pause for thought.

Of course, we all know that Lebanon is sadly in a difficult place; it is essentially a warzone. When we drill into it, there are—regrettably but unquestionably—considerable links between the Lebanese police force and the proscribed terror group Hezbollah. Taxpayers might wonder whether it is really a good idea to send our taxpayers’ cash to the Lebanese police force, which clearly has significant links—there is no question about this—to Hezbollah. That is a genuine concern, but in no way am I at all suggesting that that has any involvement with the, I am sure, very lovely and nice four directors of Siren Associates Ltd.

When I learned this last October, I put out a tweet, and I gave my honest opinion that it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash to grant a contract for £46 million to help train the Lebanese police force. I expressed my concern about millions of pounds going out in fees to other companies. That was not well received, I think it is fair to say, by the four directors. They sent me a letter from their lawyers at the end of October, and just recently I have been notified that I will be receiving a writ and they will be suing me.

I believe it is a fundamental duty of a Member of Parliament—all of us, across all parties—to scrutinise the expenditure, value for money and performance of taxpayers’ cash. I do not think it is unreasonable therefore to look at that and, in a democracy where we pride ourselves on the joys of free speech, to be questioning where we can, where we should and where we must. Sometimes, that might involve language that some might find a bit bullish, a bit offensive or a bit too gentle—who knows? But that is our solemn duty. What is the point of us if we are not going to scrutinise that level of expenditure? It causes me real concern when I see this sort of secrecy and complexity, when it could be so simple, and they could be so informative, but they are not. It makes one think, “What have they got to hide?”

The directors could have just rung me up, or sent me a very nice email or letter saying, “Richard, we saw your tweet. Look, dear chap, we think you’ve got it wrong. Could we come and see you and tell you what a lovely job we’re doing and how fantastically we are serving the emerging trainees and police officers in Lebanon?” I would have welcomed that, and if they convinced me I had got it wrong, I could have corrected the record—while bearing in mind that my responsibility and duty is to my constituents in Lincolnshire, which is suffering the burden of colossal underfunding, as I said at the start. But no, they did not do that. They just took the most aggressive route possible, not even writing to me directly from the company, but instead sending me notification from the lawyers.

That makes me wonder, “Hmm, what’s going on here?” Where is the rational, calm, friendly, supportive approach one would expect from a UK company, based in Northern Ireland, that is benefiting from, in total across the three contracts, £77 million of taxpayers’ cash, to be spent with the Lebanese police force, where we know there are problems with links to Hezbollah? I think the company has got their response very badly wrong. To aggressively tell a Member of Parliament, “We’re going to sue you,” is completely the wrong approach.

I was then even more surprised when just yesterday, I was approached by another hon. Member of this House who gave me, essentially, a warning, a veiled threat, on behalf of what he called “a third party”, that I should be very careful. Bear in mind that this is a Northern Irish Member of Parliament, speaking with regard to a Northern Irish company. We all know the horrors and fears that came from Northern Ireland. I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I received that with considerable concern and trepidation. Frankly, I think it is outrageous—absolutely outrageous.

Then, I was surprised to hear that, apparently, Siren Associates wrote a letter to the Speaker expressing concern that this subject might be debated. The purpose of this debate—the very purpose of this place—is to do our job on behalf of our constituents and secure good value and better public services, and make people in this United Kingdom across all of our constituencies better off. I thought, “What’s going on here? Why would they behave like this?” Then, I realised, “If you don’t understand something, follow the money.” There is a lot of money here, and I am deeply concerned.

The questions I pose to the Minister—a fellow Lincolnshire MP—are simple. Does he condemn on behalf of the Government a Member of Parliament being threatened as I have been? Does he condemn a lawsuit brought by a company against a Member of Parliament who is merely seeking to secure good value and to scrutinise the use of taxpayers’ cash? Given this chain of events, I ask him that a full and proper inquiry be conducted. Who granted these contracts? Where is the accountability? Where is the assessment of how well the company is doing? We do not know anything from what is in the public domain, because the company has not told us in their accounts, which I believe they should have done. Given all that I have described, I think the new three-year contract should be suspended, pending the review and the inquiry. This is not right. It is not fair, it is not proper, and it is not how we do things in Britain—it is just not the British way.

To conclude, I revert to where I started: I believe that that £15 million a year would be much better spent on the Lincolnshire police force as opposed to the Lebanese police force, and in my honest opinion, it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers’ cash.

Referral of Prime Minister to Committee of Privileges

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 28th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The motion to refer the Prime Minister to the Privileges Committee revolves around two words. Pressure is the first. The other, which is vital, is process. Of course, the Prime Minister is the master of process. He bangs on about it all the time. He is the king of process here in the Commons. He says that “full due process” was followed, yet we have already heard from other hon. Members that Sir Simon Case, the then Cabinet Secretary, gave the Prime Minister due process in November 2024. Sir Simon said that the vetting and due diligence should be carried out before confirming the choice of ambassador. The Prime Minister chose to avoid that due process.

There is a second key element of due process that has not been properly teased out so far this afternoon, and it relates to the timing of the decision on vetting through January 2025. If full due process was being followed, the security authorities and the vetting authorities should have been allowed to take whatever time they deemed necessary to make their judgment. With Mandelson—goodness me—there was a lot to go through to check that clearance. We have heard from a number of senior civil servants that they were not allowed to carry out full due process and to take as long as they determined was necessary, even if that took them beyond the inauguration of the President of the United States—no, no.

I shall move on to the second work, which is whether any pressure whatsoever was applied. We have heard from not one, not two, but three separate senior civil servants that the pressure was not on the decision itself, but on the speed of the decision, because the decision had already been taken by due process not being followed. We have heard Sir Olly Robbins confirm that pressure was felt to get on with the decision; we heard yesterday from Ian Collard that pressure was applied for that decision to be made; and we have, of course, heard from Sir Philip Barton that—again—the pressure was to “get on with it.” There was “no space” in the decision. In other words, due process was not followed.

[Dr Arthur]

Did we not hear last week, in the Foreign Affairs Committee, that while there was pressure, it had no impact on the decision? It was a marginal decision, and it was felt that that the risks could be managed. I feel that the hon. Gentleman is missing that part out in his story.

[Richard Tice]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, but let me remind him what the Prime Minister said during Prime Minister’s questions just last week: “No pressure existed whatsoever”. “Whatsoever” is the critical word, and that is the flaw in the hon. Gentleman’s argument.

We now know that not only did the Prime Minister inadvertently mislead the House with regard to “full due process”, but he has misled the House a second time with regard to whether or not any pressure existed “whatsoever”. The evidence is in; while this is a Prime Minister who prides himself on process, anecdotally it seems that that is a culture that does not exist around him or perhaps within him. For example, we now know that those in the Cabinet Office questioned whether there should be any vetting at all. In other words, they did not want full due process. We now know, too, that in respect of the decision on whether to retain Sir Olly Robbins or fire him, full due process was not followed. As for the issue of whether or not a decision to refer any Member of the House to the Privileges Committee should be whipped, precedent clearly shows that it should not. I would argue that precedent is a process, and that in this instance, the process of not whipping a vote of this kind is not being followed. I therefore urge all Members to ignore the whipping, to follow their conscience, and to follow the evidence. The evidence is in: the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House of Commons.

British Indian Ocean Territory

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

Let me make a few remarks before I give way.

The motion proposes a wildly exaggerated cost, in contrast to the actual costings published by this Government at the time of the treaty’s introduction, which has been verified by the independent Government Actuary’s Department. The motion invokes an exchange of notes, which the Government have publicly confirmed is being updated with our US partners. It also attempts to bind parliamentary procedure on that exchange despite that exchange not having been finalised. That is not patriotic. That is political point scoring at the expense of our national security. It is a sad indictment of what the Official Opposition have become.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister refers to the cost, but does she agree that the Government have confirmed that it is over £34 billion?

[Seema Malhotra]

No. Furthermore, I will have no truck with Reform, which has no record on supporting the security of our country, especially given what has happened in Wales.

The Opposition may not want to hear this, but they backed negotiations over Chagos every step of the way. Some 85% of the Chagos negotiations took place under the Conservatives, and were led by the former Foreign Secretary. [Interruption.] They may not want to hear this, but it is important to share that, in November 2022, the former Foreign Secretary said that through negotiations—[Interruption.] I think a lot of people are interested in the past.

Diego Garcia Military Base and British Indian Ocean Territory Bill

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Doughty]

Again, I think the tone of Opposition Members tells everybody—it tells the public—exactly what is going on here, which is political game playing. There were hundreds of votes the other day for ensuring that the Bill went through, because it has the consent of this House, and it is deeply irresponsible for Opposition Lords to be playing reckless games with our national security in the other place.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

I will tell the Minister what is deeply irresponsible, and that is to give away our national sovereignty and damage our national security interests. That is what is deeply irresponsible, and thank heavens the US Administration have now realised that they were deliberately misled by our National Security Adviser and the Foreign Office—[Interruption.] Mr Speaker is listening intently. The National Security Adviser deliberately misled the American Administration, and they are angry. They are furious at what has gone on, and that is why they have changed their tune. Will the Minister confirm that if the Americans will not sign the update to this agreement, it is dead and buried? And who will resign?

[Stephen Doughty]

I am not going to take any lessons in national security from the fake patriots over there on the Opposition Benches and a party whose leader in Wales took bribes from Russia to promote narratives from the Kremlin. I think Conservative Members ought to be very careful about who they associate with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

Grow up, man!

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Tice, thank you.

Iran: Protests

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I do. We have spoken in some detail about current events in relation to the protesters, but I can confirm to the House that we oppose any and all executions in Iran, and across the world.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

As thousands of brave Iranian protesters are slaughtered on the streets of Iran, I was humbled yesterday to speak in front of thousands of wonderful Iranians here in Whitehall. They asked me to ask the Government a simple question: how much more will it take for this Government to do the right thing and proscribe that terror group, the IRGC—and, while they are at it, the Muslim Brotherhood?

[Mr Falconer]

I am grateful to my Lincolnshire colleague for the question. I do not have a great deal more to add to the discussions that we have already had this afternoon on the IRGC. “Muslim Brotherhood” is a term that covers a whole range of groups, including, depending on how we consider it, Hamas. Where there is a violent threat to the UK, we will of course take proscription action as necessary.

Venezuela

Richard Tice Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

We obviously have to keep in mind that this was an authoritarian dictator who is being investigated by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, which is why the Prime Minister said that we would shed no tears over the removal of Maduro, but we also believe in the international rules-based order and the importance of countries respecting that. We have raised that with the US.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Maduro was an enemy of the west, and while there is disagreement in this House about the means, I think there is much agreement that the Venezuelan people are better off without him. Can I ask the Foreign Secretary to comment more about the constructive influence that the UK and other western allies can have to ensure an early return to democracy for the Venezuelan people?

[Yvette Cooper]

The most important issue now is to ensure that Venezuela is on that track to democracy, and that means there has to be stability. Right now we need to prevent further instability and criminality, starting with the end to political repression and the release of political prisoners who are held across Venezuela. Those are some of the things that opposition parties are calling for as urgent first steps, and those are the things that the UK will press for, directly in Venezuela and in our relationship with the US as part of this process.

Chagossians: Trust Fund and Resettlement

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 16th December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I am confused whether I am or am not to follow the example of those on the Opposition Benches. My understanding was that Boris Johnson offered large quantities of money to Mauritius, absent negotiations, to try to make this all go away. That did not work. Negotiations were then opened with sovereignty at their heart. I am not sure which elements the hon. Gentleman would say I should or should not demur from. We are taking the action required to ensure the safety of the base and the security of the British people, and we are doing so closely with our partners, including the United States and Mauritius.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

The Minister talks warmly of the relationship with the Chagossians. They have, of course, just formed a Government in exile. Do the British Government recognise the Chagossian Government in exile?

[Mr Falconer]

As colleagues across the House will know, there is a range of views across the Chagossian community. I am not familiar with the Government in exile in any great detail, but I suspect that there is a whole range of views among Chagossians here in the UK, in Mauritius and elsewhere. The relevant Minister has been closely engaged with a wide range of Chagossian voices.

Oral Answers to Questions

Richard Tice Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The whole of the 20-point plan needs to be implemented. That includes the disarming of Hamas, the introduction of the ISF and the withdrawal of the Israel Defence Forces as part of an overarching plan. As I say, humanitarian aid has increased—there are more trucks going in. However, it is not enough, and the aid is not going to all areas of Gaza. That is why it is crucial that all the crossings be opened. The Jordanian crossing is still closed, as are too many of the other crossings. It is immensely important that those crossings be opened and the restrictions be lifted.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

6. What steps her Department is taking to help secure a ceasefire in Sudan.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Yvette Cooper)]

Last week, I met incredibly brave Sudanese volunteers who run community-based emergency response rooms that the UK is supporting, and the stories they told me were horrific. Despite pressures from all sides for a ceasefire, the conflict and atrocities are continuing. Alongside the Development Minister, the UK special envoy to Sudan, and our ambassadors and officials, I am in continual contact with the US, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt and the Saudis—the members of the Quad—who are supporting action for a ceasefire, but we need urgent action.

[Richard Tice]

I thank the Foreign Secretary. This is an appalling civil war, with all its atrocities. How concerned is the Foreign Secretary that the growing influence of Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood is leading to the deliberate fomenting of extremism, and the rejection of ceasefire efforts by the Sudanese regime?

[Yvette Cooper]

I am deeply concerned about the escalation on both sides, from both the Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese armed forces. Despite the talks about ceasefires, we have seen continued action, including in the Kordofans. I am deeply worried about the risk of further atrocities and the impact that has on security, on extremism and on migration issues, but most importantly of all on this horrendous humanitarian crisis, in which rape is being used as a weapon of war. That is why it is essential that we have the same co-ordinated international energy behind getting peace in Sudan as we saw for getting a ceasefire in Gaza.

Budget Resolutions

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

This Budget has been a car crash—the third car crash over which this Chancellor has presided. The first was last year’s Budget, which was so damaging to business confidence, to jobs, and to the farmers who provide the food for this great nation. The second was the run-up to this Budget, with so many leaks. It was the hokey-cokey Budget—in, out, shake it all about—which, again, was damaging to business confidence. The third car crash has, I fear, written off the engine of the British economy, because once again all the data, all the incentives, are bad.

Let us just look at the simple data, shall we? Growth is down. It has been flatlining over the last quarter, and the OBR numbers show that the growth forecasts for the next four years have all been reduced. Jobs are down by nearly 200,000 people since the last Budget. Earlier this week I spoke to recruitment agents from up and down the country who told me that, essentially, businesses had stopped hiring particularly, and most damagingly, young workers. I fear this Budget will make that even worse.

Let us now look at the other data. Taxes will go up, over the next few years, to the highest level since the second world war. This Chancellor has achieved the extraordinary, unbelievable feat, after just two Budgets, of being the second highest tax raising Chancellor ever, raising taxes by some £70 billion.

[Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

On putting up taxes, a household living in a band A property in Sunderland that is worth £50,000 currently pays more council tax than one living in a £50 million property in Westminster. Do the hon. Gentleman and his Reform UK colleagues agree that reforming the system to increase council tax for those in higher bands is a good tax change to make in order to reduce people’s energy bills and to take 2,000 kids in Sunderland Central out of poverty?

[Richard Tice]

The good news is that when Reform wins more and more elections next May, we will be able to get better value for council tax across the whole country.

I will keep going. Over the next five years, welfare spending will increase by £70 billion per annum. That shows that this is not a Budget for workers; it is a Budget for those on welfare. It reduces the incentive to work, and it reduces the incentive to be an entrepreneur or a small business owner.

[Tom Tugendhat]

I am interested to hear the hon. Gentleman using the figure of £70 billion, and I agree with him. He knows that £30 billion of that results from the rise in the triple lock, so does he agree that the triple lock is simply not affordable?

[Richard Tice]

The truth is that if we carry on going this way, nothing will be affordable, because this Chancellor is heading us towards bankruptcy as a nation. The reality is that nothing becomes affordable if we go bust under the Minister’s and the Chancellor’s mismanagement of this economy, so we need to change course, because all the data is bad.

I cannot believe the borrowing numbers, Madam Deputy Speaker! The OBR is forecasting that borrowing in this year alone will be some £21 billion higher—

[Torsten Bell]

It will fall every year!

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Tice]

The Minister clearly does not know the facts of the Budget that he is presiding over. The numbers in the Blue Book show that borrowing will be £21 billion more than the OBR forecast back in March. Over the next four years, borrowing will increase by over £60 billion. To help the Minister: mathematically, that is up.

All the data and the numbers are going in the wrong direction, but it did not need to be this way. The Government could have followed Reform’s fine recommendations. The Chancellor could have said to the Governor of the Bank of England, “Stop paying voluntary interest on the quantitative easing reserves.” She could have also said that we should stop quantitative tightening, which is why we have the highest QE programme in the western world. She could have said that we should reduce the foreign aid budget. She could have said that we should stop paying welfare to overseas nationals in order to protect British citizens. She failed to make those choices, and that is why we have had to increase taxes to the highest levels ever.

[Ms Billington]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Tice]

I have been very generous with my time, but many others wish to speak.

It is time for change, because this Budget disincentives work and it disincentivises risk-taking, and some of the finest and brightest of our nation are seriously considering leaving the country.

There is, however, some good news: this is the last Budget that this Chancellor has given. Why? Because she has proven herself to be a learner driver with her multiple car crashes. Based on the parliamentary Labour party’s antics, it is probably also the last Budget that the Prime Minister will preside over. The final good news is that after the next general election, Reform will redesign and re-engineer the economy to make work pay, to make risk-taking pay and to get our economy growing again.

Gaza and Hamas

Richard Tice Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Falconer]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The scenes we have seen, which the shadow Foreign Secretary referred to, are chilling. Hamas are terrorists and they can have no role. The work to remove and disarm them will not be easy, but it is the vital and necessary next step.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Yesterday it emerged that Hamas do know where the bodies of the remaining hostages are, as video evidence emerged of them playing games with one body, removing it from a building, burying it, then bringing along the International Red Cross and pretending that they had found it and dug it up. Do the Minister and the Government condemn that, and what more can they do with our international allies and the Gulf nations to put pressure and leverage on Hamas to return all the remaining bodies immediately?

[Mr Falconer]

The hon. Member is right: Hamas must return all the bodies immediately. We have made that point to our regional partners with force, and we will continue to do so.