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.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) for securing the debate and for providing me with an opportunity to talk about the Lincolnshire police, which is where he started and so where I shall start as well. The hon. Member will be pleased to know that after years and years of underfunding for Lincolnshire police, we have secured a further £12 million a year in the first multi-year Lincolnshire police funding arrangement starting in January. I know that he will share my gladness in that arrangement.
The hon. Member referred to a range of issues about which I will not pass comment, unless Madam Deputy Speaker wishes to instruct me otherwise, including the conduct of other hon. Members in this House and what sounds like a private law dispute with the company in question. Let me turn to some of the substantive questions he raised in relation to the contract. I was pleased to see the hon. Member briefly earlier today and I am happy to discuss some of his questions in person, which may be easier.
I agree with the hon. Member that of course the Government must spend money diligently in support of UK interests and in a way that delivers value for taxpayers. I disagree with his assertion that the award of the contract under discussion does not align with those principles, so I will say a little about the contract and about Lebanon, and then I will seek to wind up.
House adjourned.
5:22 pm
House adjourned.
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.
The Foreign Office currently has one contract with Siren Associates and it is subject to formal commercial oversight. As the hon. Member says, it is part of the overall ISF programme. As he knows, it is to deliver the internal security assistance programme in Lebanon to support Lebanon’s internal security forces, and to help them become more trusted, professional and better able to address Lebanon’s internal security challenges. I have seen some of our work in Lebanon. It is precisely aimed at the issues he alluded to. We must see in Lebanon the security forces of Lebanon in control of the whole country, not Lebanese Hezbollah, a group that he rightly identifies as a terrorist group proscribed in this country.
The programme supports better planning, stronger police operations, improved co-ordination with the Lebanese armed forces, including in the South Litani Sector, which the hon. Member will know is the area that has been the subject of so much discussion in recent months. It is part of Britain’s wider efforts to promote stability in a highly volatile region, something that is firmly in the UK’s interests. I have seen for myself in the South Litani Sector the difference this support is making.
As this House is aware, and as the hon. Member alluded to, Lebanon faces an extremely challenging security situation. The actions of Hezbollah have dragged Lebanon once again into a conflict that neither its people nor its Government have sought. We have been clear that Hezbollah’s reprehensible attacks on communities in northern Israel must cease, but disproportionate Israeli military action in Lebanon has displaced over a million people and caused significant loss of life.
It is in that context that we seek to help. For all these reasons, it is vital that Lebanon’s legitimate security institutions are able to exercise state sovereignty across the country and provide security to Lebanese citizens. The UK has been a close partner of the Lebanese armed forces and internal security forces since 2009. We have provided training, equipment and advice to build their capability. That is important support to address key threats to Lebanon’s security.
Turning to the contract currently underway with Siren, the Foreign Office’s procurement processes are designed to ensure that all programmes are subject to robust due diligence, that they deliver value for money and that they are aligned both with UK priorities and the interests of taxpayers, including those in Boston, Skegness and Lincoln.
The contract with Siren Associates was awarded under the conflict, stability and security fund framework agreement, now known as the ISF framework agreement. It followed a competitive tender process and was open to around 80 suppliers, including a mixture of not-for-profit and commercial organisations. We received three tenders from interested suppliers, and each tender was checked for compliance with published instructions. Technical proposals were assessed against published criteria by a panel of subject matter experts, with scores moderated and agreed through a clear and documented process.
Commercial submissions were evaluated separately using the published methodology, with pricing tested against affordability, framework limits, eligible cost rules and value for money considerations. Due diligence was a core part of that procurement process. That included conflict of interest checks, financial health reviews, sanctions screening and an assessment of delivery and commercial risks. The competitive process was also scrutinised by a commercial governance board, which approved the outcome before the contract was awarded. As I set out in my letter in January to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness, the review of Siren Associates did not identify any areas that would prevent awarding the contract.
The contract is currently valued at £17.2 million over three years—rather less than the increase to Lincolnshire police over the next three years, I am sure the hon. Member will be pleased to note. As he said, the contract began in September 2025 and runs until March 2028, and it can be extended until March 2030. Any further changes to the contract would be subject to a further rigorous assessment to ensure continued value for money.
The hon. Member raises concerns about the size of payments to Siren Associates’ directors, reported in the company’s filed accounts. I have checked this question with the Department, and the Foreign Office’s understanding is that other than the fees for services rendered, there are no other payments to Siren Associates’ directors in its published accounts. The Foreign Office manages and monitors payments to Siren Associates for work conducted for the Foreign Office; however, we do not have oversight of transactions that do not relate to Foreign Office work.
Let me be clear with the House that all relevant due diligence checks have been completed and deemed satisfactory. We will continue to keep the programme under close review, as we do with all Foreign Office programmes, to ensure that it delivers in full. We remain committed to supporting the Government of Lebanon and addressing threats to their security. Our long-standing work with the Lebanese armed forces and its internal security forces is a core part of that. That capability is central to maintaining security in Lebanon and preventing threats to the country, to the region and, ultimately, to the United Kingdom.
I will conclude with three clear points. First, supporting Lebanon’s security is firmly in the UK’s national interest. Secondly, we believe the programme delivered by Siren Associates is a practical and important part of that effort. Thirdly, the contract was awarded to Siren Associates through a rigorous and proper process.