Richard Tice THREATENED by MP for EXPOSING 'OUTRAGEOUS' fraud sending taxpayers' money to LEBANON

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

And I thought, what's going on here?I thought this feels to me, in my honest opinion, Madam Deputy Speaker, this feels to me a grotesque abuse of taxpayers' cash, because my constituents in Boston and Skegness believe that it's the Lincolnshire police force that should be properly funded, and with all due respect to the police officers within the Lebanese police force, in the nicest possible way, that's their issue.Our issue is protecting and keeping our own constituents safe.So I do feel that 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'll come on to how I dealt with it.But of course, when contracts are placed by the government, someone has to deliver that contract.So let me now introduce you to

a group of companies under the umbrella banner called Siren.And there are a number of these companies, the first of which is Siren Associates Limited, which is a not -for -profit company, which all sounds very nice and cosy and cuddly.And then there are other private companies that are called Siren Counselling Limited.We also have Siren Advisory Services Ltd and Siren Analytics Ltd, and those are owned and controlled by the four directors, in varying different ways, of the four directors of the not -for -profit company Siren Associates Ltd.Now, this is the company that has pitched for the contracts from the Foreign Office, and not just the three -year contract that I referred to that was granted in September 25, for £46 million, but no, it actually transpired that Saran 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 in order to provide the same sort of services to the Lebanese police force.Now, people might think, well, that's all very well.

I was surprised when I saw that, actually, when you read into the accounts of Saar & Associates Ltd, which are incredibly brief because they claim the exemption from full accounts despite huge contracts from the government, they claim the exemption for small company accounts, which means there's no profit and loss account, there's no explanation of how they are supposedthis taxpayer's money overseas.What an amazing job they might be doing or not doing.Who knows, because they haven't explained how many police they're training and supporting in all the various ways.No idea whatsoever.The only interesting thing that I spotted, Madam Deputy Speaker, was at the end, when I saw that related party transactions showed that millions of pounds are going out the side door to the directors by way of directors fees and also by way of management fees to three separate Sarin companies.

It's quite hard to sort of work it all out but I've done my best and it appears to me that within the first two contracts totalling some £31 million during that period Some directors' 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.And then there's an additional £12 and a bit million by way of management fees to these other companies.And it's probably just worth a little while sort of reflecting on the four directors of these companies, Sauer & Associates, who, one is a British citizen, who appears to live in the United Kingdom, and 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, in Lebanon.And I think many of our constituents wouldbe pretty, pretty outraged, frankly, at the level of money of our cash that has been going out the side door by way of directors fees and management fees.

And I just feel that why is it, for example, that this not -for -profit company, if they are doing such a great job, why do they need all these separate companies?Why not have it in any clear and transparent way within this not -for -profit company that is clearly giving the impression of a great charitable noble endeavour and maybe that was what helped persuade the Foreign Office to grant the contracts, we don't know.But I think it's rather, there's a sort of anxiety about why so complicated, why so little transparency, why so little information about what is actually the performance and the quality of the product.of what they're done.Anyway, so we've got these four Sauron companies.We don't really know how they're performing.

What we do know is that what's called the framework contract under which these contracts were granted is the Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, a multi -billion pound fund, and there are accountability reports and audits of that done by the House and various others.And that fund has been very heavily criticised here in the UK in terms of its performance, with all sorts of red and amber alerts, which gives one rise for considerable pause for thought.And of course, we all know that sadly, Lebanon is essentially in a difficult place.It is essentially a war zone.and what we do know is is that the police force when you actually drill into it there are regrettably but unquestionably considerable links between the Lebanese police force and the prescribed terror group Hezbollah and taxpayers might wonder whether is it a really good idea to be helping to send our taxpayers cash to the Lebanese police force which clearly has significant links to—there is no question about this—Hezbollah.That, I think, is a genuine concern, but in no way am I at all suggesting that that may have any involvement with, I am sure, the very lovely and nice four directors of Sarin Associates Ltd.

But last October, when I learned this, I put out a tweet, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I gave my honest opinion.that I felt that this is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers' cash to grant a contract for 46 million pounds to help train the Lebanese police force.And I expressed my concern about millions of pounds going out in fees to other companies.Now, this was not well received, I think it's fair to say, by the four directors who, they sent me a letter from their lawyers at the end of October.and just recently, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have been notified that I will be receiving a writ and that they will be suing me.Now, I believe that it is a fundamental duty of a Member of Parliament, all of us across all parties, to scrutinise the expenditure and the value for money and performance of taxpayers' cash.

And I don't think it's unreasonable, therefore, to be looking at that, and in a democracy where we pride ourselves with the joys of free speech, to be questioning where we can, where we should, where we must.And sometimes that might involve some language that some might find a bit bullish, some might find a bit offensive, some might find a bit too gentle.Who knows?But that is our absolute solemn duty.Otherwise, what's the point of us if we're not going to scrutinise that level of expenditure?And it causes me just real concern when you see this sort of secrecy that may be going on, this complexity, when it could be so simple and they could be so informative, but they're not.

And so you sort of think, what have they got to hide?I mean, they could.They could have just rung me up or sent me a very nice email or a nice 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?And I would, of course, welcome that.

And if they had convinced me that I'd got it wrong, then I could have corrected the record.Whilst bearing in mind that my responsibility and duty is to my constituency in Lincolnshire, which is suffering the burden of colossal underfunding as I started this debate with.But no, no, they didn't do that.They just took the most aggressive route possible, which is not even to write to me directly from the company, but just to send me notification from the lawyers.And I think that indicates to me that, hmm, what's going on here?Where is the rational, calm, friendly, supportive approach you would expect from a UK company based in Northern Ireland that is benefiting from, in total now, across the three contracts, £77 million of taxpayers' cash to be sent and spent with the Lebanese police force, where we know there are problems with their links to Hezbollah.

So I just think they've got it very badly wrong.And I think to aggressively say to a member of this House, a member of Parliament, we're going to sue you, is completely the wrong approach.And I was then even more surprised that just yesterday, I was approached by another honourable member of this House, who gave me essentially a warning, a veiled threat, on behalf of, he said, a third party, that I should be very, very careful.Bearing in mind this was a Northern Irish member of Parliament with regard to a Northern Irish company, and we all know the horrors and the fears that came from Northern Ireland, I have to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, I received that with some considerable concern and trepidation.And frankly, I think it's It's outrageous.Absolutely outrageous.

And then, I was also surprised to hear that it appears that SarahAssociates wrote a letter to the Speaker expressing their concern that this might be debated and the purpose of this debate.The very purpose of this place, Madam Deputy Speaker, is to do our job on behalf of our constituents and to ensure we secure good value, better public services and make people better off in this United Kingdom, across all of our constituencies.So I thought, well, what's going on here?Why would they behave like this?And then I'm thinking, if you don't understand something, follow the money.

And there's a lot of money here.And I'm deeply, deeply concerned.And therefore, my questions that I pose to the minister, a fellow Lincolnshire MP, is simple, actually.It is, does he condemn, on behalf of the government, a member of parliament being threatened in this way?Does he condemn a lawsuit by a company against a Member of Parliament, merely seeking to secure good value and to scrutinise taxpayers' cash, as I have received.And given this chain of events, I've asked the Minister, I think there should be a full and proper inquiry into what's going on here.

Who's granted these contracts?Where is the accountability?Where is the assessment of how well they're doing?Because we don't know anything from what's in the public domain, because they haven't told us in their accounts, which I believe they should have done.And then, I think finally, I ask the Minister, after those three to condemnthe threats, to condemn the lawsuit, to conduct a full inquiry into what's going on with these contracts.

I actually think that this new three -year contract should be suspended pending the review and that inquiry, because this is not right, it's not fair, it's not proper, and it's not how we do things in Britain.It's just not the British way.And to conclude, I just revert to where I started, which is that £15 million a year, I believe, would be much better spent on the Lincolnshire police force as opposed to the Lebanese police force.And that is why, in my honest opinion, it is a grotesque abuse of taxpayers' cash.I thank you.

I call the Minister, Minister Hamish Faulkner.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I'm grateful to the Honourable Member for Boston and Skegness for securing this debate and for providing me an opportunity to talk about the Lincolnshire Police which is where he started and so where I shall as well.He will be pleased to know that since what is after years and years of underfunding for Lincolnshire Police that we've secured £12 million further a year in the first multi -year Lincolnshire Police Funding Arrangement starting in January.I know he will share my gladness in that arrangement.The Honourable Member refers to a range of issues which I won't pass comment on, including—unless the Honourable Speaker wishes to instruct me otherwise—the conduct of other Honourable Members in this House, and indeed what sounds like a private law dispute with the company in question.But let me turn to some of the substantive questions he raises in relation to this contract.I was pleased to see the Honourable Member briefly earlier today and I'm very happy to be here.

some of these questions in person, which may be easier.I very much agree, however, with the Honourable 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 this contract being discussed today does not align with those principles, so I will say a little bit about the contract itself, a little bit about Lebanon, and then I will seek to wind up.The Foreign Office currently has one contract with Siren Associates, and it's subject to formal commercial oversight.It is, as he says, part of the overall ISF program.As the Honourable Member knows, it's to deliver the internal security assistance program in Lebanon.

That is to support Lebanon's internal security forces, 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 issue he alluded to.We must see in Lebanon the security forces of Lebanon in control of the whole of the country, not Lebanese Hezbollah, a group which he rightly identifies as a prescribed terrorist group in this country.The programme supports better planning, stronger police operations, improved coordination with the Lebanese Armed Forces, including in the South Latane sector, which you will know is the area which 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 I believe is firmly in the UK's interests.

I've seen for myself in the South Latane sector the difference this support is making.And as the House is aware, as the Honourable 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 has solved.We have been clear that Hezbollah's reprehensible attacks on communities in northern Israel must cease.But the disproportionate Israeli military action in Lebanon has displaced over a million people and caused significant loss of life.It is in this context that we seek to act.

For all of 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.Since 2009, the UK has been a close partner of the Lebanese armed forces and internal security forces.We've provided training, equipment, and advice to build their capability.That is important support to address key threats to its security.But turning now to the contract currently underway with CYRON.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're aligned both with UK priorities and the interests of taxpayers, both in Boston, Skegness, and indeed in 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.It was open to around 80 suppliers, a mixture of not -for -profit and commercial organisations.We received three tenders from interested suppliers.Each tender was checked for compliance with published instructions.Technical proposals were assessed against published criteria by a panel of subject matter experts, with schools 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, sanction 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 of January to the Honourable Member, the review of Siren Associates did not identify any areas to prevent awarding the contract.The contract is currently valued at £17 .2 million over three years, so rather less than the increase to Lincolnshire Police over the next three years.

I'm sure the Honourable Member will be pleased to note.It began, as he says, in September 25.It runs until March 28 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 Honourable 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.

The Foreign Office's understanding is that other than the fees for services rendered, there are no other payments to Siren Associates Directors in their published accounts.The Foreign Office manages and monitors payments to Simon & Associates for work conducted for the Foreign Office.We do not, however, have oversight of transactions that do not relate to Foreign Office work.I want to be clear with the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all relevant due diligence checks have been completed and deemed satisfactory.We will continue to keep this programme under close review, as we do with all Foreign Office programmes, to ensure it delivers in full.We remain committed to supporting the Government of Lebanon and addressing threats to its security.

Our long -standing work with the Lebanese Armed Forces and their internal security forces are 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'd like to conclude, Madam Deputy Speaker, with three clear points.Firstly, supporting Lebanon's security is firmly in the UK's national interest.Secondly, the programme delivered by Siren Associates is, we believe, a practical and important part of that effort.And thirdly, the contract was awarded to Siren Associates through a rigorous and proper process.