Israel and Gaza

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 26th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My noble friend raises an important question. We have seen a continuation, from different parts, of Hamas’s capacity to launch attacks against Israel. That is why, as in the key deliverables that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has highlighted, we need this fighting to stop. First, this resolution can achieve that. Secondly, it means we get the hostages out and aid in. Thirdly, it ensures Hamas is no longer in control or has the capacity to launch attacks against Israel. Fourthly, we can work with a reformed PA that is in control over the West Bank and Gaza towards what should ultimately be our noble goal—an attainable two-state solution. Hamas is a terrorist organisation in the UK’s view. Hamas could end this now. It could put down its weapons, give up the hostages and agree a pathway to peace. Are we at that juncture with Hamas right now? No.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, in the hope that we get a cessation of hostilities, what assessment have His Majesty’s Government made of the attitude of the Houthis and whether they will also observe a ceasefire?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the situation with the Houthis, the UK has taken the principled stand that they have sought indiscriminately to attack and disrupt international commercial shipping. Close to 20% of international commercial shipping went through those channels in the Red Sea, which is why the UK’s response has been robust. We have heard the public declarations by the Houthis. Prior to 7 October, they had started negotiating with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia a ceasefire and a solution to Yemen. We have not lost sight of that—we continue to be engaged on that brief—but the Houthis’ actions do not reflect their words. If they are true to their words, they will cease—if indeed the ceasefire happens. I am not currently holding out hope for that—let us wait.

Russia: Sanctions

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Monday 30th January 2023 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Craig of Radley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the United Kingdom’s sanctions on Russia’s operational capabilities against Ukraine.

[The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)]

My Lords, Russia is struggling militarily and is isolated internationally. It faces enormous replenishment challenges following major equipment losses and high rates of munition expenditure. The United Kingdom and its partners are weakening Russia’s military by sanctioning key defence organisations and banning the export of critical technologies. Our designations of individuals and military entities undermines Russia’s war effort, addressing alleged war crimes. We will continue to hold Mr Putin to account and stand up for freedom and human rights.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering the Question, although I am not sure that the Ukrainians feel as confident as he is that the Russians are hampered by the sanctions. Government and Select Committee reports stress that sanctions are effective if they have clear objectives, well-defined demands and an exit strategy. Is His Majesty’s Government following that wise advice?

Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Friday 9th September 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, share the deep sorrow and grief felt throughout the nation, the Commonwealth and overseas for the passing of Her Majesty. Her devotion, commitment and strength of purpose were not only most remarkable but sustained so magisterially throughout her long reign. I offer my condolences to His Majesty King Charles III and all the Royal Family.

I was 22 years old and on my flying training course when Her Majesty ascended the throne aged 25. It has always been a mark of her greatness that she assumed her role and responsibilities at so youthful an age and in such full measure. While attending the state visit of her parents to South Africa in 1947, she made on her 21st birthday the vow, already repeated today, that

“my whole life, whether it be long or short, shall be devoted to your service”.

It was an admirable and most impressive pledge for a 21 year-old young lady.

Indeed, it was my privilege to meet her for the first time as soon as two months after she made that vow—still a princess and attending one of her early royal solo events. The occasion was the centenary celebrations at my school, Radley. The Archbishop of Canterbury had preached in chapel. The warden and others had made speeches of welcome and thanks. The school prefects, of which I was one, entertained the princess, less than four years our senior in age, to tea in our study. No masters were present; we had her all to ourselves. We plied her with meringues and biscuits and presented her with a box of chocolates; Radley’s archive still holds the receipt, making clear that this sweet offering cost all 15 of us not only 16 shillings and eight pence but a whole week of our sugar ration. Also in that archive is a copy of part of her handwritten letter to a friend, describing her day at Radley. She wrote:

“The tea with the prefects was very enjoyable, and certainly a great change from some of the rather dull teas one has on official occasions. This one couldn’t have been more fun.”


She was well known for her sense of fun, as well as for her sense of duty and responsibility.

Of course, during my time in the senior ranks of the Armed Forces, and even later, I had the privilege of meeting Her Majesty on numerous occasions. In 1991, when I was Chief of the Defence Staff, she asked me personally to Buckingham Palace to brief her on the ongoing operations in the first Gulf War. She was, as always, deeply interested in the performance of her Armed Forces.

It is the greatest of blessings to have known such a charming and charismatic person. May she rest in peace and in our memories for ever.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was born two and a half years after Her late Majesty Queen Elizabeth ascended the Throne. Until yesterday, in common with the majority of people in this country, I had known only one monarch. For so many of us, the Queen alone represented what we think of as and understand by the concept of monarchy. She was “the Queen”. Her reign was one of exemplary, selfless and faithful service, sustained by a profound Christian faith—a life of service inspired by following the way of Jesus, the Servant King.

However, it was not a slavish adherence to duty. Many people have commented on the late Queen’s pertinent comments on visits, her informed observations and the real interest she showed in people and communities. She engaged with these people and their communities on visits for 70 years and more, and invariably left them feeling much better for having met her. It is testimony to the gracious manner in which she fulfilled her role as our Queen.

Comments have been made today and in many of the commentaries over the past 24 hours about the dramatic changes that have taken place in our country, across the world and in society since the Queen ascended the Throne in 1952—things that almost certainly would have been unimaginable in that year. I recall reading somewhere that, at the age of 50, she was the first head of state ever to send what we now call an email. The Scottish Parliament was probably only a twinkle in the eye of some political activists, but the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, recalled her visit to the Scottish Parliament’s Sitting in Aberdeen on the occasion of her Golden Jubilee in 2002. She gave so much encouragement to those of us who had been in there from the beginning and had taken some brickbats from the press for what we were doing. I also recall that, when she opened the new Scottish Parliament on 1 July 1999, she referred to the

“pragmatic balance between continuity and change”.

Truly it was her ability to achieve and maintain that pragmatic balance over seven decades, not least in political and constitutional relationships, that was one of the key hallmarks of her reign.

I first met the Queen in Kirkwall in 1987 when she unveiled a new stained glass window in St Magnus Cathedral on the 850th anniversary of the cathedral’s foundation. When I last met her, less than three weeks ago, she referred to that visit. As a former Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, a church in which she always showed a keen interest, I had been asked to preach the sermon at the Sunday morning worship in Crathie church. The Queen graciously invited me to spend two nights at Balmoral Castle on her beloved Deeside—but no barbeques. It was a privilege to have had such quality time talking to her. Her mind was sharp. She had a keen interest in what was going on. I experienced the warmth of her personality, which so many people have talked about. She so readily put me at my ease.

It was also a privilege to engage with close members of her family over those two days, who also did so much to make me feel welcome. It is them—the family to whom the Queen was a mother, grandmother, great-grandmother, aunt and mother-in-law—I have particularly been thinking about over the past 24 hours. As we give thanks for the life of the Queen—a remarkable life of humble leadership and service—I know that we will want to keep in our thoughts and prayers her close family, especially His Majesty King Charles, for whom her death is so very real and personal. May they know the comfort that Jesus promised to those who mourn.

Ukraine: Defence Relationships

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too join noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, on obtaining this debate and on the robust way in which he introduced it.

In previous debates on Ukraine, I raised the issue of sanctions and in particular, what assessment the Government have made of their effect on Russia and on Putin. In answer to my question on this on Tuesday the Minister said that they

“have had an inhibiting effect in relation to Mr Putin’s ability to mobilise his forces.”—[Official Report, 7/6/22; col. 1078.]

I doubt that Ukrainians defending the Donbass would agree.

Historically, sanctions imposition has often been a political response to a “do something” cry falling short of war. A most significant distinction between all other sanctioned countries and those against Russia is that the former could be dealt with by Theodore Roosevelt’s diplomatic truism,

“Speak softly and carry a big stick”,


but Russia, unlike all others, also has a big stick.

Viewed from the Russian side, this is the second time that they have been sanctioned in the past decade. American sanctions following the annexation of Crimea in 2014 were aimed to make Russia a pariah state. Should sanctions become an existential threat to Russia itself, the risks of their response, being a nuclear power, cannot be downplayed or ignored.

As the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, argued in his recent excellent essay on this topic:

“Economic sanctions against Russia are supposed to be an alternative to war, but they can reasonably be expected to change the Kremlin’s behaviour only by becoming tactical components of the conflict.”


Ukraine’s supporters do not intend to make or threaten war themselves directly against Russia, but without such, the true value of sanctions becomes unclear. As the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee report in May 2007 on The Impact of Economic Sanctions concluded:

“Economic sanctions used in isolation from other policy instruments are extremely unlikely to force a target to make major policy changes.”


Foremost among “other policy instruments” listed was the threat or actual use of force.

The assessments the Government have made do not show, even after 100 days of conflict, any great reduction in Russia’s war-fighting capability. Bearing in mind that some nations are still trading actively with Russia and many European countries are still paying Russia for oil and gas—no doubt with pricing increases—are the sanctions achieving the result required of a major change in Russia’s “special operation”? Not yet, and do not hold your breath.

Imposing sanctions is not a zero-sum game. Individuals and businesses that are no longer able to trade with Russia will not necessarily be able to make good in other markets what they were achieving in Russia. They will suffer losses, which will increase with time. The financial and banking sanctions sound severe, but workarounds are already evident. The rouble is trading near its pre-war rate. Rising oil and gas prices have increased the cost of living for all here in the UK.

More needs to be said publicly to explain what sanctions achieve. Russia’s combat forces remain active, even if their tactics are less than competent. So where does the balance of advantage lie? Should even more sanctions be imposed, with the attendant risks if Russia feels itself threatened, or has a limit been reached?

What plan, even thought, has been given to an exit strategy? No sanctions can be indefinite. As long ago as 1999, a government review of sanctions policy stressed the principle:

“Sanctions should … have clear objectives, including well-defined and realistic demands against which compliance can be judged, and a clear exit strategy”.


The present sanctions targeting falls far short of such a principle, which, as well as anti-corruption and Magnitsky ones, should have greater exposure in an integrated review.

Looking to the future, when some settlement has been achieved and peace restored—I have little confidence that this will be very soon—what support can be given to the inevitable restructuring needs in Ukraine? Can assets impounded from individuals or Russian banks and businesses be switched to benefit the restoration funds that will be required? Is that going to need legislation, and would that be internationally legal? What steps have the Government in mind or are they taking to study and to implement these post-conflict needs?

Ukraine: International Conference

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, the UK position has not changed. We have been providing support continuously since the beginning of this grim episode. I think it is true to say that we are the second largest contributor of military equipment and the second largest supporter of Ukraine through humanitarian efforts. We have always maintained that, although it is for Ukraine to determine the final settlement, arrangements or agreement, if such an agreement is reached with Russia, our support is unambiguously with Ukraine.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister mentioned sanctions. What assessment have the Government made of the effectiveness of the sanctions so far imposed, and will they continue to be imposed even if there is a ceasefire?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

On the second point, I am afraid I cannot answer; it is not for me to discuss future policy in relation to sanctions. However, there have been a number of assessments of the effect of the sanctions. We believe that the sanctions have had an inhibiting effect in relation to Mr Putin’s ability to mobilise his forces. For example, several weapons manufacturers have had to suspend their activity as a result of lack of access to parts, and defence company capabilities have been restricted, limiting Russia’s ability to replace advanced tech, including drones. Russia’s domestic vehicle sales have dropped by around 80%, partly due to lack of components. It is also forecast that Russia’s GDP is shrinking by anything between 8% and 15% this year, with the IMF expecting its economy to shrink further next year. As I said, it is not appropriate to speculate on specific future designations as that would undermine their impact, but there is no doubt that the sanctions are having an effect.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, it is timely to make some assessment of what has been happening in Ukraine. Where may it lead?

The starkest aspect is the intensive and brutal scale of combat. Large numbers of bombs, missiles, rockets and other ammunitions have been used on both sides. Much equipment lies destroyed beyond recovery. Unless these rates much reduce, it will be possible for Ukraine to keep fighting strongly only if allies and defence industries can keep up and replenish stocks as quickly as they are used up.

The Minister stressed that the UK would keep up its supplies, so are steps necessary to put relevant defence industries on a war footing or extra shifts? More than fine promises are required. Our national defence needs must also not be neglected. What information is available to assess whether Russia will sustain its current efforts and, if so, for how long? It must keep enough to repel a NATO attack which it says it fears. Sadly, protracted conflict seems unavoidable.

In a recent debate on a Ukraine Statement, I asked whether the Government had made any assessment of the impact that economic and other sanctions might be having on the Russian war effort. This question applies even more to the effect of all these sanctions, both economically and politically, on Russia. Sanctions do not seem to have deterred or deflected Putin from combat, or from his determination to claim some substantial victory over Ukraine.

Germany and other European states still see it necessary to draw extensively on Russian oil and gas to keep their own economies going. Eliminating this dependency will take time. Russia also had $600 billion of reserves to prosecute the war and overcome the effects of sanctions. The dollar/rouble exchange rate, which halved for a short while when Russia invaded, is now back to where it was before 24 February. The overall Russian position does not seem immediately perilous.

Putin was asserting only last week that sanctions were not working—well, he would, wouldn’t he? But sanctions are not a zero-sum game, as Putin also pointed out. They will have detrimental effects on UK nationals and their businesses. Other sanctions impact on the wider public, with very unwelcome increases in the prices of fuel and electricity, maybe on inflation too.

There needs to be some form of strategic assessment of all these conflicting issues. Where does the balance of advantage lie? When there is some form of ceasefire, what easements of sanctions should be made or should seized assets be put into a great Ukrainian recovery fund? Would that be legal, or is new law required to do so? How soon could such law be enacted?

In all of this, it is vital to keep public support on side. Sanctions must be explained for their effectiveness; why, as necessary, they must be continued; and how they can help Ukraine after the conflict ends. Is this at the forefront of government thinking, their policy and pronouncements? I look for some reassurance that it is.

Russia: Sanctions

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I assure the noble Lord that we are working to ensure that we respond effectively to Ukraine. I know that the noble Lord has been very supportive of the package we announced in support of humanitarian assistance. Equally, we are very conscious of our obligations in other parts of the world. Your Lordships’ House has been through challenging circumstances on Afghanistan. We know about the continuing conflicts in places such as Yemen, and the issue with the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar and Bangladesh. I assure the noble Lord that we are very much focused on ensuring that our response to these issues is equally robust.

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, in addition to economic sanctions, what scope is there now for more diplomatic sanctions during this terrible situation? For example, after the Salisbury event, considerable diplomatic sanctions were imposed.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I am sure that the noble and gallant Lord will appreciate that I will not go into specifics on what steps we are taking next. I assure the noble and gallant Lord, as my right honour friend the Foreign Secretary has said, that all options are very much on the table on how we can further pressure Russia to do the right thing. If it pulls back from Ukraine, talks can begin. All credit goes to the Ukrainians who are engaging in this initiative on the Belarus border. At the same time, Russia is, as I said yesterday, holding a trigger to the head of the Ukrainians and claiming that they believe diplomacy to be the route forward.

Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, recent thinking and experience points to a growing third part to our defence and security, that which lies between active overseas participation and defensive preparation: the grey zone of hostile acts that fall short of open warfare but which are nevertheless profoundly troublesome and which must be countered in that grey zone.

One aspect of this has been the setting up of the National Cyber Force as an offensive unit. This introduces a new doctrine of offensive actions as well as, and apart from, the traditional role of intelligence gathering in all its methods, from SIGINT to HUMINT. I have raised this topic before, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, kindly wrote to me to explain the new arrangement for control of the National Cyber Force. She said that the National Cyber Force commander

“will report to both Defence and GCHQ. The first Commander of the National Cyber Force is currently a civilian employee of GCHQ. They are not being named as, while National Cyber Force is publicly avowed, it is not public facing.”

There seems to be a distinct lack of a clear chain of command in this response. Perhaps that is not so surprising, since the new force is yet to bring together and blend what were clearly distinct areas of responsibility for two different Secretaries of State.

Nevertheless, a committee-type structure to run or oversee live operations, with all their potential hazards, is a recipe for mismanagement and divided, unclear responsibility. That is not satisfactory. While I recognise that we are at the early stages of setting up this new force, I was and still am concerned about the chain of command and responsibilities of the two Secretaries of State involved. It might at first blush be reasonable to assume that the offensive use employed is directly either a defence or a Security Service action. But if it is not already—very soon in cyber strategy terms—such a distinction will become blurred or non-existent.

While the examples quoted by the Government for offensive cyber action are clear-cut, there could, as capabilities mature, be abilities to disrupt national infrastructures, for example. While the possible targets should and must remain secret, the legal, human rights, ethical and political considerations cannot be ignored. Will the Intelligence and Security Committee be given an overwatch role on offensive cyber force operations? There is surely such a role for Parliament, and this should be clear from the outset.

Hong Kong: Democracy Movement

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord’s first point. We continue to engage with China on a raft of different issues, including the environment and climate change. However, it is important that the statements of trust which are made by the Chinese authorities are ones that can stand scrutiny. From what we have seen in Hong Kong, that is not the case.

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

My Lords, those Hong Kongers who hold BNO status and are veterans of Her Majesty’s Hong Kong Military Service Corps have long pressed for grant of full British citizenship, which was given to a large number of their colleagues before 1997. Does the Minister agree that in view of the current developments, the time is right for their applications to be decided, having been under active consideration by the Government for over six years?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the focus of the noble and gallant Lord on this campaign, which he has again drawn to the attention of your Lordships’ House and the Government. As we look at BNO status and its application, I will certainly take back once again the long-standing position on this issue of the noble and gallant Lord and I will write to him.

Integrated Review of Security, Defence, Development and Foreign Policy

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd November 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Noble Lords have ample opportunity, as do Members in the other place, to question and challenge the Government, whether in defence, development or diplomacy, and that will continue.

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

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a nuclear deterrent lacks credibility unless it is underpinned by capable, modern, conventional capabilities? If so, does he agree that the current resilience and fighting strength of the three services is less than adequate and must be improved rapidly as part of this review?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I agree with the noble Lord’s first point. However, I have already alluded to our increased budget in defence spending, which underlines the importance and priority that Her Majesty’s Government attach to our defence capabilities.