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.

Hong Kong: Political Situation

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 29th September 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, the UK has already suspended the extradition treaty with Hong Kong and applies the same rules to China. On Magnitsky sanctions, as I have said before, I will not speculate on future sanctions.

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

My Lords, how many of the 2.9 million BNO passport holders have responded to the offer of an immigration visa? Have the Government reached a decision on the Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans’ appeal to be granted full British citizen passports, which was first raised six years ago, or replied to the 64 individual veterans’ applications sent to the Home Secretary in March?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, on the first question, this is an ongoing process. I do not have a specific figure, nor do I think it would serve a specific purpose. The scheme is open to all 2.9 million and we will continue to support any applications. On the point about former military personnel, as the noble and gallant Lord knows, a proportion of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps hold British dependent territory citizen status. That now translates to BNO status. On his wider point about those who remain, officials continue to have discussions with Home Office colleagues.

Hong Kong

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]]

My Lords, I assure my noble friend that we are working in that context with all our partners in the G7 and at the UN. We are also working with Commonwealth nations such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which are supportive of the UK Government’s position.

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

My Lords, will the loyal veterans of Her Majesty’s Hong Kong Military Service Corps still living in Hong Kong, who have long petitioned Her Majesty’s Government for the right of abode in the UK, be granted this now? Will their request for full British passports, which all other members of the corps retained before 1997, be agreed, in line with the statutory provision for fairness in the military covenant?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon [V]]

My Lords, the noble and gallant Lord has raised this issue consistently and regularly both with me and with my noble friend the Minister of State at the Home Office. Since our last exchange, I have written to the Home Office and I am awaiting a reply. When I receive one, I will update the noble and gallant Lord accordingly.

Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend is quite right to raise this issue. We continue to work through the UN Security Council, where, as she may know, this issue was specifically discussed in May. As I have already alluded to, we have discussed and agreed a statement this week in the context of the UN, through its Human Rights Council. There is also the statement and support that we have received from the G7. It is important that democracies come together. We will continue to work in this regard to ensure that the UK fulfils its obligations to those in Hong Kong, while respecting that we still believe that the agreement signed should remain in force for the period intended, which was 50 years.

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

My Lords, does this welcome BNO announcement include the 64 Hong Kong Military Service Corps veterans who applied for right of abode in March, and who, with other corps veterans, have had applications under active consideration in the Home Office for over five and a half years, without a decision? Does the Minister agree that these loyal veterans who served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces deserve priority approval now, and that their wish for a full British citizen’s passport, which other corps veterans received before 1997, should be met?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I agree with the noble and gallant Lord about the importance of this. I am sure I speak for all noble Lords in paying tribute to those who have served our country and fought for it so bravely. Since the last time we discussed this matter, I have asked for a specific update from the Home Office; I will write to him specifically on the 64 corps members he has mentioned. On the wider issue of prioritisation, as I said earlier, BNO status is granted to all those who qualify, which is 2.9 million, irrespective of their status—the issue of salaries was raised previously—or what they may do. This is open to everyone, and that process will be announced in detail by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.

China

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Wednesday 17th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend raises an important point about the responsibilities that China has. I assure him that we will push on that, not just through the contact group but through bilateral conversations with key partners. He will acknowledge that we remind China that the imposition of the proposed law in Hong Kong is in direct conflict with its international obligations under the joint declaration. As my noble friend knows, that treaty has been agreed by the UK and China, and registered with the United Nations. We will continue to push on that. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made clear the actions that we will take if China continues to persist in imposing this law.

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

My Lords, on 2 June, at Hansard col. 683, the Foreign Secretary said that the Government would provide BNO citizens in Hong Kong with a “pathway to citizenship” if China enacted its new security legislation. For over four and a half years, the Home Office has been “actively”—to use its word—considering applications for right of abode for veteran members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces living in Hong Kong. Will Her Majesty’s Government now honour their obligation to these veterans under the military covenant?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

This is a point that the noble and gallant Lord has raised before and one on which he continues to campaign, and I pay tribute to him. We have made very clear our position on BNOs. I will take back his specific point on those who have served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and will write to him with an update on the matter. I share his sentiments in this respect.

Hong Kong: Covid-19

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, I too welcome and thank the noble Lord, Lord Pendry, for giving us the opportunity to speak about problems facing the citizens of Hong Kong. Others have dealt with Covid-19. I will concentrate on a separate, much longer-standing issue. Responding on 8 January to the gracious Speech, I spoke about the unanswered request to Her Majesty’s Government from some veterans of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps. I will outline this issue.

Over five years ago, some 300 members of this group made requests for right of abode in the United Kingdom. The Home Office was initially dismissive, on the grounds that they were all locally enlisted and employed and so not even eligible for consideration. This assertion was inaccurate. These individuals were employed by the United Kingdom Government, serving full-time in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces and not employed by the Hong Kong Government. Their service took some of them to the United Kingdom or to jungle training in Borneo. Others served in UNFICYP in 1990-91 when they replaced UK servicemen required to take part in the first Gulf conflict. They are rightly categorised by the MoD as veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, so should benefit from the undertaking of fair treatment in the military covenant.

In January 2016, our Home Office Minister—then the noble Lord, Lord Bates—in answer to a Written Question agreed

“to undertake a thorough assessment of the request that this group are offered right of abode in the United Kingdom”.

Since that date over four years ago, in spite of a series of further written and oral requests from Members of both Houses, there has been no resolution or agreement by the Government, merely a depressing series of responses, some even just repeats in the cut-in-paste manner saying that the matter was being carefully considered and a decision would be made as soon as practicable.

In my speech on 8 January, I described this, after four years without resolution, as repetitive indecision syndrome. Since then I have tabled two Questions for Written Answer. The first, on 3 February, received yet another indecisive reply. The second, tabled on 2 March, specifically asked when the assessment—started over four years ago in January 2016—would be completed. Another non-answer, just received, said,

“we continue to actively consider representations made on behalf of those former Hong Kong Military Service Corps”.

It seems that the Home Office does not wish to say yes, but will not say no. Maybe it is fearful of a judicial review, but is such indecision really fit for purpose?

The original 300 possible applicants have now been reduced in number by deaths and by some deciding to emigrate to Canada, Australia or elsewhere. There are now just 64. I have received copies of their applications, with a request that I forward them to the Home Secretary for consideration and decision. I am happy to do so. Indeed, I have them here in this envelope, addressed to the Home Secretary. Tomorrow they should be on her desk.

It is instructive to look back to a debate in this House on 20 January 1986 on the nationality provisions of the Hong Kong Act 1985. The issue of nationality of veteran servicemen was raised by several speakers, in particular Lord MacLehose, who was Governor of Hong Kong for over 10 and a half years:

“This brings me to the case of the veterans … At the end of this long era of British rule inevitably there are some debts to be paid. The legislative councillors say that this is such a debt. I am sure that they are right. I think the question of precedent or of opening up claims from elsewhere can be greatly overstated. It is just a matter of definition, and I suspect that the numbers will be found to be small … we must bear in mind the very special arrangements that we made in this respect for Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands. If exceptions can be made for them, surely an exception can be made for these people. In this case it is the gesture and the recognition of our responsibility that is so important, and I hope the gesture can be made.” —[Official Report, 20/1/1986; col. 91.]


The Minister winding up then acknowledged the strength of feeling across the House on this issue. After outlining some perceived complexities, he said:

“We shall need to look into these in a great deal more detail before we can say whether it would be appropriate or possible to meet the ex-servicemen’s request. But … I can assure your Lordships that we shall give this the most careful consideration.”—[Official Report, 20/1/1986; col. 102.]


That similar self-serving, evasive wording is still used today, 34 years on. The Government might argue that by grouping this cohort with those employed in the Hong Kong Disciplined Services, with the chance for some to be granted British citizenship among the negotiated figure of 50,000, they discharged their obligations. Some veterans did benefit, but it was wrong to group them with Hong Kong government employees. They were uniquely members of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. It is not fair that some benefited but others did not.

Under the military covenant, now is the time to correct this unfairness and allow the 64 members I mentioned earlier to be treated equally and fairly to right of abode. I have instanced the favourable treatment over nationality of Gurkhas who served in Her Majesty’s forces. That 1986 debate drew attention to a similar treatment of Gibraltarians and Falkland Islanders. Far from setting a precedent by granting these veterans’ requests, there seem to be several precedents already set, and the numbers are minimal. As Lord MacLehose so pointedly said, to act fairly in this would be a recognition of our national responsibility. So, will the Home Office and the Government now cure themselves of repetitive indecision syndrome, prove their fitness for purpose, and bring this decades-long issue to resolution?

Queen’s Speech

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, our current front line lacks resilience, with too few fighting ships, inadequate numbers of operational aircraft and reduced army manning—a legacy of years of underfunding. Our forces have not been exposed to serious enemy capability in conflict, nor experienced significant losses in men and materiel, since the Falklands conflict nearly 40 years ago. We had resilience then: sufficient strength in depth to cope, and to fight the first Gulf conflict in 1991 with sizeable forces—now way beyond our reach. Resilience in conventional power is gone. If the credibility of our nuclear deterrent is to stand, conventional forces must have hitting power and sustainability to first resist aggression and demonstrate national resolve. Without this, the Prime Minister would face the starkest of choices: rapidly to go nuclear or to surrender. I therefore welcome the uplift in the defence budget, but it must be sustained and increased.

I turn to two issues facing forces personnel that have troubled me and many others for some years. The first I brigade as the fog of law. In the past decade, we have seen more and more examples of the impact of differences in the laws of conflict and human rights legislation for service personnel engaged in combat or peace enforcement operations. When this House considered the Bill that became the Human Rights Act 1998, I argued that its provisions and those of the services’ Armed Forces Acts were incompatible, and that it would be better to incorporate into service legislation aspects of human rights that the services must follow and, in times of conflict, have pre-prepared derogations that could and should be observed. The then Lord Chancellor, in charge of the Bill, refused to countenance the concerns that I and others expressed.

I cannot claim to have had any detailed foresight of what has brought such legal trouble to many operating in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as in Northern Ireland during Operation Banner. Those problems have been exacerbated by the way the courts, in particular the European Court of Human Rights, have chosen to extend the reach, both temporally and territorially, of the Human Rights Act 1998 well beyond what was envisaged to retain human rights legislation in national courts.

Only recently have the Government shown determination to tackle this problem. I welcome the consultation, just completed, on whether to introduce a statute of limitation. I welcome the setting up of an office and two Ministers for veteran affairs. I welcome the various statements by successive Defence Ministers in recent months and the Conservative Party 2017 manifesto commitment to protect our Armed Forces personnel from persistent legal claims, stating that our troops will be subject to the laws of armed conflict, not the European Court of Human Rights.

These are all welcome signs of intent, but there is regrettably no mention of them in this gracious Speech. I hope that this time the Government’s determination and resolve will be sustained, but if new legislation is required—I suspect that it will be—I strongly plead that it form part of the next revision of the Armed Forces Act and not be a stand-alone one which, like the Human Rights Act, may end up lacking compatibility with the Armed Forces Act.

The second personnel issue is the complex and indefensible treatment of Armed Forces pensions. By 2010 a common new pension scheme for all public servants, introduced by the Finance Act 2004, had a lifetime allowance—an individual’s pension pot—of £1.8 million and an annual pension input allowance of £255,000. The Treasury has since drastically reduced these sums to around £1 million and just £40,000 respectively. Breaching the annual allowance incurs a significant—for some a multithousand pound—tax charge. This must be paid forthwith, unless, by using irrevocable scheme pays, it is off-set by a pension reduction for the rest of life. Last year almost 4,000 people, including some 400 non-commissioned ranks, breached their annual allowance.

Of further concern for Armed Forces medics working alongside NHS colleagues, as many do, is that the Department of Health is seeking flexibility to adjust the annual allowance taper for NHS clinicians who have opted to work less to abate their tax liability. It would be unacceptable to have differing tapers for service and civilian personnel. Pay review bodies have also been critical of these pension arrangements.

Treasury vacillations over allowances and tax clawback arrangements smack of serious mismanagement in setting up the scheme. It cannot be defensible morally, let alone fair under the military covenant, to seek to recoup large sums either through a tax related to pensions yet to be paid or by a lifetime reduction in pension. Heads the Treasury wins, tails the pensioner loses.

There will be great pushback from the Treasury, but it should be held accountable for a botched scheme that is having adverse stress effects on some and a premature loss of experienced others in undermanned public services. The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review this nonsense—or, to use a now Oxford English Dictionary-approved word, this omnishambles.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting 2018

Lord Craig of Radley Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Craig of Radley (CB)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and I add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Geidt, on a most insightful maiden speech.

I should like to speak about an organisation that I have been associated with for the past 20 years: the Commonwealth Partnership for Technology Management, more conveniently referred to by the four initials CPTM. Let me elaborate on that title. First, why Commonwealth? CPTM owes its foundation and continuing existence to CHOGM. It was set up by the 1995 CHOGM in New Zealand to replace earlier Commonwealth-wide consultative arrangements for technology management. It was formed as a company, limited by guarantee, in England to act as a co-operative organisation dedicated to bringing together elements of Commonwealth Governments, the private and public sectors and individual professionals on an open networking basis. The Commonwealth secretary-general appoints a liaison officer. The organisation is mandated to report biennially on its activities and achievements, latterly to the pre-CHOGM Foreign Ministers’ meetings. The report to this year’s ministerial meeting covers a wide range of activity in the past two years and sketches out CPTM’s intentions and ambitions for the future.

Partnership is a key word in CPTM’s title. Unique to this organisation is a code of practice—indeed, a philosophy—that the most valuable form of partnership is one that stresses and strives for win-win solutions and outcomes, rather than beggar-my-neighbour or confrontational exchanges. The values of tolerance and co-operation are equally prized. It has proved its worth as an organisation that relies totally on being able to bring together groups and individuals from around the Commonwealth—and beyond—to work, discuss and engage co-operatively together. A whole variety of topics has been addressed over the years, ranging from agriculture to tourism, from industry to academia and from disruptive digital technologies to programmes for national vision ambitions. The spread of interest that this has generated in the Commonwealth nations of Africa, Malaysia, the island communities of the Caribbean, Mauritius and elsewhere is impressive. So, too, is the level of engagement. One of the key features of CPTM over the past two decades has been its ability to bring together large, 500-plus groups from many Commonwealth countries, including up to a dozen Heads of State or Government prepared personally to devote considerable time and effort to the dialogues that take place. I have attended or spoken at a number of them.

Another key development in this partnership has been the growth of a younger element of participants, known colloquially as the 29ers. Their interest and enthusiastic engagement gives me confidence that the work of CPTM will be taken forward by new generations of participants. That confidence is further enhanced because, over the years, I have seen that many of today’s heads of participating countries, like their predecessors in office, have been attracted to CPTM and are actively pursuing their involvement. This partnership is encapsulated in the phrase “smart partnership”, and it is proving to be just that—smart in achievement, smart in bettering human relations and smart in striving for win-win outcomes and understandings.

Technology is the third word of CPTM’s title. It is perhaps hard to recall now that, 20 to 25 years ago, the buzzword for covering modernisation and development was just that—technology. It has, of course, been much superseded by the digital language and outlook of today’s fourth industrial revolution. CPTM, in that sense, may best be characterised as a platform for interactions. It provides the lodestone for progressive and interactive developments in today’s ever more integrated global societies. Certainly, CPTM has found that it has become a platform for much interaction and exchanges of ideas on modern developments. A most successful interchange has taken place recently within the CPTM format on disruptive digital technologies and their relationship to new currencies like bitcoins, engaging the active participation of a number of governors of national banks.

Finally, I turn to management, the fourth of the words in CPTM’s title. An important aspect of CPTM’s work is that it brings together individuals and groups with much experience and interest in the methods, theory and practice of leadership and governance, both in the public and private sectors. These are individuals with ideas and experiences to impart to newer and younger generations on how to bring out the best in national or personal endeavours. CPTM itself relies on a minute and dedicated staff. The chairman is Malaysian—indeed, domiciled there. The CEO and “action lady” is Dr Mihaela Smith, who has been with CPTM from its inception. She has a unique and unrivalled ability to connect personally with many of the Heads of State or Government who have played such an active part in the development and encouragement of CPTM in the past two decades. She spent last Monday visiting His Excellency President Museveni in Kampala at his personal request.

While much has gone well for CPTM, it has not enjoyed universal approval in some parts of the Commonwealth. In the UK, FCO interest in particular has been lacking under successive Administrations, in spite of varied attempts that I and others have made to foster it. CPTM’s approach is to bridge difficulties, rather than to hide behind them. I hope that those heads who have benefited from CPTM and are supportive of it will speak up for it next month and encourage greater interest in the UK and older Commonwealth countries that have felt obliged to keep a distance from it.

Time moves on and one individual stumbling block that has been an issue in the past is now behind us. Once again, I encourage the FCO and the Minister in particular, to whom Dr Smith, the CEO, has recently written, to revisit their thinking about CPTM and recognise what a force for good it is, has been and will be in the future. Brexit is with us, encouraging and reawakening interests in an expanding, global future—interests in which the great Commonwealth must have an exciting part to play and in which CPTM can make its own unique contribution.