Afghanistan

Lord Ricketts Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Jay, in paying tribute to the work of Sir Laurie Bristow and the British embassy team in Kabul during these dangerous days. I also fully agree with other noble Lords who have spoken about the need for Britain to be a major player in the looming humanitarian crisis and for a resettlement scheme which enables large numbers to come quickly to this country, particularly vulnerable women and those who are at acute risk because they worked with us in Afghanistan. They trusted us to stick with them, and we have let them down. We also face the reality that to ensure safe passage for vulnerable people, we will need to deal with the Taliban authorities, which is a point to bear in mind when it comes to issues of recognition.

I want to touch on the strategic implications of what has happened, starting with NATO. Good allies need to be honest with each other, so it needs to be said that the American handling of Afghanistan these last two years has been a decisive contribution to the current disaster. President Trump’s decision to negotiate with the Taliban undermined the Afghan Government. President Biden’s decision to set an arbitrary deadline to suit US political purposes has really knocked the morale of Afghan security forces and triggered the unravelling of events that we have seen in recent days. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hammond, that the low-level western security presence over recent years provided reassurance to the regime and deterrence against Taliban adventurism, at low risk to western forces. That is all now gone. The chaotic scenes in Kabul are on a par with Saigon in 1975, except in that case, the humiliation was American; in this case it is shared with all American allies.

Our objective in Afghanistan was never simply to deny safe space to the terrorists. The first ISAF mission that the UK commanded in 2001 set out with a wider objective. The name itself is significant: the International Security Assistance Force. That is the mission that many allies went into Afghanistan with, in solidarity with the Americans. They stuck it out for 20 difficult years, and we have left precious little security behind.

Confidence in NATO has been damaged. China is the main beneficiary of President Biden’s decision. “America is back” now sounds rather hollow—“America is backing down” fits the case better. The British priority must be to address the damage done to NATO, to rebuild effective political consultations within NATO, and to focus on European security and the risk of Islamic terrorism in Europe. Rather than tilting to the Indo-Pacific, that is where the UK needs to put its national security energies.

In the light of the sorry end to the Afghanistan mission, we also need to rethink how the West can use force in the future where it is necessary to protect its interests, as it surely will need to do again somewhere, sometime.

G7 and NATO Summits

Lord Ricketts Excerpts

Thursday 17th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. When the Prime Minister and the President met in Cornwall, they agreed that the revitalised charter was a fitting testament to the sheer breadth and depth of co-operation between our countries. They have resolved to take this co-operation further by expanding trade and progressing towards a UK-US free trade agreement and of course, as he rightly said, by continuing to promote the benefits of free trade more globally.

[Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]]

My Lords, I congratulate the organisers of the G7 summit on their practical arrangements and welcome the outcome of the NATO summit. The major democracies really have found their collective voice again, even if the opportunity for the UK to send a signal in Cornwall that we were working in unison with our friends on the big global issues was spoiled by the Prime Minister engaging in a very public row with European leaders. Bearing in mind that the hallmark of a really successful G7 is that its conclusions get implemented, could the noble Baroness tell us which organisation will be responsible for delivering what I think is the most innovative idea of the summit, the Build Back Better World partnership, to unlock billions in private investment for green infrastructure in poorer countries?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord and assure him that the proposition will now be worked up by a designated task force that will consult with developing countries and other key partners and will report back to leaders on progress in the autumn.

Integrated Review

Lord Ricketts Excerpts

Wednesday 17th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank my noble friend. As he rightly states, we aim to secure our status as a science and technology superpower by 2030. As I mentioned, the defence Command Paper, which will be published on Monday, and the subsequent defence and security industrial strategy will set out more details on exactly the issues that he raises, including government, defence, the security industry, the public and private sectors, and investment. This will be very much at the forefront of our mind as we take it forward in the coming months.

[Lord Ricketts (CB) [V]]

My Lords, having overseen the 2010 review as the then National Security Adviser, I know how much work goes into a document such as this. I congratulate the team on it.

A good strategy should set out both goals and priorities. This one has plenty of ambitious goals in all directions, such as taking on new tasks in the Indo-Pacific, becoming a science and technology superpower, leading on climate, reshaping the international system and much else. What I do not see are any clear choices among all these priorities. Indeed, I see that the review dropped the prioritised list of national security risks, which we introduced in 2010. Can the Minister tell us what the UK will be doing less of to free up the people and money for these new endeavours?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I can certainly say—I am sure that the noble Lord, with his experience, recognises this—that we believe that this review brings together national security and international policy in a way that previous reviews have not, and establishes a clearer connection between our domestic priorities and international objectives. These are some of the review’s key conclusions: we must do more to sustain our “strategic advantage” in science and technology, as has already been mentioned; we must take a more active role in

“shaping the open international order of the future”;

we must strengthen our security and defence; and we must bolster our resilience. Those will be the key priorities shaping the work that we take forward in the coming decades.

Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament: Special Report

Lord Ricketts Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2019 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I note the noble Lord’s comments. The governing Act—the Justice and Security Act 2013—makes it clear that the impact of releasing potentially sensitive or sensitive information needs to be considered carefully by the Prime Minister on the advice of civil servants. That process cannot be rushed; I say that with some emphasis.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, I have had the privilege of appearing before the ISC many times in my career; it is always a bracing experience. Does the Minister accept that the committee is widely renowned for the quality of its judgments and the value of its advice? Does he further accept the central point: that the ISC is the only Select Committee of Parliament that requires the Government’s agreement to publish its reports? When Ministers say that they need time to respond, they miss the point that what is being asked for is publication of the report; the response can take its time. There is a clear public interest in the national security implications of Russia’s adversarial conduct.

[Earl Howe]

I concur completely with the noble Lord’s points. The ISC does its job in an exemplary way and has been chaired exemplarily by my right honourable friend Dominic Grieve. Its reports are thorough, in depth and substantive. However, I must depart from the noble Lord in his implication that there is a special case here for accelerating the process of publication.

Update to Parliament

Lord Ricketts Excerpts

Wednesday 25th September 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

In the other place, the Attorney-General said:

“The Supreme Court has made new law … from now on, the prerogative power”,


can be a justiciable subject and the implications,

“for the future of our constitutional arrangements will have to be reflected upon”.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, the striking unanimity in this House will not be missed abroad. Our European partners will be reading this Statement as much as we are. The Prime Minister has some interesting comments about the state of the negotiations and takes a very optimistic view of the likelihood of negotiating changes to the withdrawal agreement. One of the things European leaders will want to judge in deciding whether to make any moves in negotiations is whether the Prime Minister can get another deal through Parliament. I wonder whether the noble Baroness has any thoughts on how they will judge that likelihood in the light of the tone of this Statement towards his own Parliament.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The Prime Minister has been making it very clear to our European colleagues that the biggest issue MPs in the other place had in relation to the withdrawal agreement that was put forward was the backstop. That is why intensive efforts have been focused on trying to amend and change that element, because that is what raised most concerns. That is what he has been talking about with other leaders—I mentioned a number of them who he has been speaking to—and that is the focus of meetings with officials in Brussels. That is the focus because we want to get a deal. We are working very hard to get a deal and we are honing in and focusing on the element that MPs were particularly concerned about, which was a reason that the deal did not get through, despite three attempts to get a vote in favour of it from the other place.

Brexit: Withdrawal Agreement and Political Declaration

Lord Ricketts Excerpts

Thursday 6th December 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest—that of my children and grandchildren, who cannot take part in this debate but whose interests will be affected more deeply by decisions taken in the next few weeks than those of any of us here today. Like the noble Lord, Lord Haselhurst, whose speech I listened to with great interest, I wanted to take some inspiration from Winston Churchill, just to set the perspective of our debate, so I shall quote his great speech in the other place in 1940:

“It is not given to human beings … to foresee or to predict to any large extent the unfolding course of events. In one phase men seem to have been right, in another they seem to have been wrong. Then again, a few years later, when the perspective of time has lengthened, all stands in a different setting ... History with its flickering lamp stumbles along the trail of the past, trying to reconstruct its scenes, to revive its echoes, and kindle with pale gleams the passion of former days”.—[Official Report, Commons, 12/11/1940; col. 1617.]


I wonder how history with its flickering lamp will look back at the period we are passing through. It may judge that leaving the EU marked the point where, at the end of a long period, Britain saw itself no longer as a major European power with vital strategic interests in the continent which still starts just 20 miles from Dover. I hope not, but I see some sign of a pulling back, a loss of interest in the events of Europe, an introspection that I think is very worrying. In my view, history will also judge that our participation in the EU has been a real success. It was Britain that campaigned for the single market. Lord Cockfield of this House of course played a distinguished part. It was Britain that benefited from the single market, with the modernising economy we had in the 1980s. It was Britain that pushed through enlargement, which expanded the EU’s horizons and enabled it to play a crucial strategic role in stabilising Europe after the Cold War.

However, no British Prime Minister since Edward Heath has been willing to tell the British people that the EU that we shaped was a benefit to Britain. Governments of left and right, egged on by a large part of the press, have tended to dump on the EU at every turn. Take the issue of free movement, which a number of noble Lords have referred to. This has been presented as a dark threat to this country: it is exactly the opposite. It has enabled millions of British people in the past 40 years to live, work and settle in other European countries. It has given countless British students a life-enhancing opportunity to study abroad. It has enriched our own country with the talents of people from across the EU to the benefit of our business, our public services and our culture. Ending free movement is not a gain to be celebrated; it damages the life plans of very large numbers of British and EU people now and deprives the next generation of opportunities that we have had. It will be a great sadness if that is the outcome of Brexit.

What of the partial deal now on offer? I say partial because the political declaration is the longest to-do list in history, rather than a settled deal with the EU. I pay tribute to my former colleagues in the Civil Service, who have done an extraordinary job in producing the documents we are debating. They had an unenviable task in trying to reconcile the red lines set down by their political masters with the realities of what the EU would accept. I am willing to recognise that this is the best plan that could have been produced within the parameters set by both sides. It is certainly better than no deal and I will vote enthusiastically for any amendment that rules out no deal, but it is clear that this deal will leave the country worse off than we are now.

That applies in security, the field I know best. I have heard it said, even recently, that the European contribution to British security is minimal. That is a serious mistake. On the issue of intelligence co-operation, for example, I know from my own experience that our joint work with France on counterterrorism has been invaluable. I have had the opportunity of consulting my noble friend Lady Manningham-Buller, who is in her place but whose wisdom will unfortunately be denied to the House in this debate as she failed to notice the start time yesterday so is unable to speak, for which she apologises. However, let me report that she agrees that other European countries, beyond France, have given unstinting support to this country, as we have to them, and that they have done so in operations that were of only peripheral interest to them. That is a key point.

It is no answer to say that intelligence co-operation will be fine if we leave the EU because it is only police work that is affected. Intelligence needs to be followed up by good police and judicial co-operation, so that the whole system can work as effectively across borders as the terrorists and organised criminals do. The whole apparatus of intelligence and law enforcement needs to work together to keep us safe. The security partnership, even if it proves possible to achieve it, will clearly leave us outside some of these areas of co-operation, as is spelled out in the Select Committee report. A no-deal Brexit would shut us out completely, with calamitous implications in security, as in other areas. In the defence-industrial area I am concerned to see the outcome on Galileo: it is a bad portent of how that area may develop if we leave the EU.

What to do? As a country we have been on a voyage of discovery for the past two years on the extent to which every aspect of our life is now entwined with the EU. The effect of cutting ourselves out of that fabric, woven over the past four decades, will be far more disruptive than anyone imagined, and certainly than anyone was told during the referendum campaign. That is true even with an agreed deal and even more so without one. The deal on offer is very different from what the people were promised during the campaign. The very best that the Prime Minister, supported by the Civil Service, has been able to negotiate would still leave us worse off, and with security co-operation with Europe damaged. To my mind, democracy means that the people can change their mind, especially when presented with the full facts. I see no disrespect to the democratic process, now that the real costs of leaving are clear to everyone, in going back to the electorate in a second vote and offering them the opportunity to say whether the deal that may be on offer is one they would accept, or whether they would prefer that we stay in the European Union.

Salisbury Incident Update

Lord Ricketts Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I think that is already quite clear.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, I commend the Statement by the Prime Minister as strong, clear and measured, but the story that it tells is a chilling one: it is highly likely that a fellow permanent member of the United Nations has used a military-grade nerve agent in an English country town. As a former ambassador to NATO and national security adviser, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Newby, will allow me to take polite exception to his comment that this is not a matter for NATO. When the Prime Minister states that, if the Russians cannot produce an explanation this would amount to unlawful use of force by the Russian state against the UK, I ask the Minister whether she agrees that there is a strong case for consulting our NATO allies on what is a very grave national security threat.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I assure the noble Lord that we will be raising this matter with our allies in a number of forums, including the UN. There can be no return to business as usual with Russia, and this incident proves that our actions over the last decade have been justified. We have taken the lead against Russia’s foreign aggression and abuse of the international rules-based system.