Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 13th April 2021 Lords Chamber

Genocide is the crime above all crimes. I end by urging Ministers to urgently change course to take our responsibilities seriously in holding the perpetrators of the worst crimes imaginable to account. If we set a precedent with the Bill as drafted, I fear that other countries will soon follow. The noble Lord’s amendment deserves our overwhelming support today.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I support Amendment 3 and have added my name to it. I have the advantage of having heard the last two contributions to this debate, which is, to some extent, a rehearsal of that which we held in Committee. I will take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, on one point—I have often known him to be hopeful but never naive.

I am tempted to adopt a speech that I made in Committee and sit down, but I will not do that because, like those who have spoken already, I do not understand the intransigence of this Government. I do not recall any noble Lord, other than the noble Baroness herself, making any speech in favour of the Government’s position either at Second Reading or in Committee. How much does it take? How much evidence is necessary to persuade this Government to change their mind?

Of course, we have heard the weight and the quality of the evidence of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, with his extensive experience. We heard, essentially, the forensic destruction of the government case, line by line, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, in Committee, and we continue to hear the well-known and, one might think, well-informed opposition of Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank and General Sir Nick Parker. Some of these have been mentioned already, but no one has mentioned Elizabeth Wilmshurst —that most courageous opponent of the legality of military action against Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, who resigned from her position in the Foreign Office—and Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who has been both Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. How is it that, in the face of the mounting volume of evidence against them, the Government insist on holding to this position? I fail to understand.

In Committee, I quoted from the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law. At that stage, its approach to this was to provide an executive summary, in the course of which it said that

“murder, torture and other grave war crimes face substantial legal barriers before there can be a prosecution … The Bill undermines our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the UN Convention Against Torture”.

Again, I ask: what further evidence is required to persuade the Government that they are in the wrong place? Since then, the Bingham centre has produced a more detailed analysis of this proposed legislation. If your Lordships wish to see it reinforce what it has previously said, you will find that on page 16 of that analysis.

What do we know now? The chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has made pretty clear a view that might result in a British citizen, a member of the British Armed Forces, possibly being taken to the International Criminal Court—can you imagine it? This country takes pride in our being advocates for the rules-based order in the face of other countries that simply want to ignore it or toss it aside.

I refer to the interests of the United Nations and the official responsible for human rights. Can you imagine the embarrassment of a prominent member of the Security Council asserting the rules-based order, in the teeth of Russian and Chinese unwillingness? I would love to know what the permanent representative of the British mission at the United Nations thinks about the position now being adopted.

Perhaps we should not be surprised. To plagiarise Lewis Carroll, laws mean what we want them to mean. That is certainly the position that was adopted when we came to Part 5 of the Internal Market Bill. What does this do for our standing and influence? How can we make those who breach international law understand the consequences of what they are doing if we are, on the face of it, doing exactly the same ourselves?

I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness because she has gallantly sought to defend the Government’s position. However, I finish by offering her some advice: Oliver Cromwell, in a substantial disagreement with the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, wrote on 3 August 1650—the language is perhaps of its time:

“I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken.”


The language may no longer be appropriate, but the sentiment is surely something to which she should give effect.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB) [V]]

I wish to speak briefly in support of Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, and others. I say at the outset that I will not be able to match the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, who preceded me and whose views I totally share.

I speak in support of this amendment, as I did in Committee, on the grounds of both principle and pragmatism. The arguments of principle that underpin this amendment are clear. Unamended, the Bill would effectively—de facto if not de jure—open the door to a time limitation on the inquiry into and, where justified, the prosecution of the most heinous of crimes set out in the Rome statute, establishing the International Criminal Court—war crimes and genocide—and those set out in the convention against torture.

I say gently to the Minister that I was a bit disappointed that, in one of her replies to earlier amendments, she suggested that the suggestion that this was a de facto limitation was quite wrong. I question what she said then because if it is not a de facto limitation, what on earth is the point of the Bill? I really do not understand it. I happen to support the main thrust of the Bill.

Neither the Rome statute nor the torture convention provides for any such time limitation on the crimes covered by them, nor in my view should they do so for crimes of that extraordinary seriousness. I suggest that to allow such a limitation into our domestic legislation is not consistent with this Parliament’s ratification of the Rome statute and of our acceptance of the jurisdiction of the ICC. At a time when there is so much evidence worldwide of these sorts of crimes being committed—the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has spoken movingly about them—we should not be playing fast and loose with our own obligations to inquire into them and to prosecute.

The arguments of pragmatism are equally compelling. Unamended, the Bill will actually increase, not decrease, the chances of British service personnel falling within the purview of the ICC. We know that because we have been explicitly warned of it by the court’s prosecutor, who has hitherto relied on our willingness to prosecute crimes under the Rome statute as a sufficient reason not to pursue such cases through the ICC machinery. If that commitment were in any way removed or questioned, the chances of action by the ICC would sharply increase. I was glad to hear the Minister, in responding to earlier amendments, recognise that that risk really exists. It would be a supreme and shameful irony if action by the ICC had to be taken by the recently appointed ICC prosecutor, a British national.

I hope that the House will amend the Bill in the sense proposed to remove from it any limitations of time for crimes set out in the Rome statute and the torture convention and will do so without in any way calling into question the original objective of the Bill: to lift the shadow of vexatious inquiries and prosecutions for lesser offences from our service personnel.

Integrated Review: Defence Command Paper

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I say to the noble Lord that business in the Chamber is not my responsibility; it is the responsibility of his and my colleagues, working through the usual channels. Your Lordships will all be aware that an extraordinary amount of time in the Chamber has, rightly, been deployed on the consideration of the consequences of a pandemic, not least in relation to health issues, social support and related educational and broader welfare issues. This Chamber has been coping with a lot. I have welcomed the idea of a debate. The noble Lord referred to two Statements in quick succession. No one is more aware of that than I am: tonight will be a busy night for me, and I look forward to further engagement tomorrow.

On the “jam tomorrow” charge, I would say that it is perfectly clear from the figures disclosed by the Government that there is jam today waiting to be invested. There is an exciting programme of investment, there is a vision and a strategy set out. I think it is relevant and, at last, meeting the threat that we face: that rapidly changing, very diverse, different threat from that which many of us have previously known. It is a new world, and this is an exciting response by the Government and the Ministry of Defence to that world.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness mentioned Lossiemouth, and as I had the good fortune to be the Member of Parliament for RAF Leuchars for some 28 years, let me ask her a question about the Royal Air Force. Why have the Government refused in this review to commit to purchase any more F35 Lightning aircraft? Does this mean that, as will be the case when the carrier “Queen Elizabeth” deploys to the Far East in the summer, it will always have to rely in part on American aircraft and United States Marine Corps pilots?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Lord is aware, we have a partnership at the moment with our American friends, who provide support to the carrier. That is a matter of merit; it is about alliance, friendship and interoperability, and we should understand that. The Government’s commitment is to increase the fleet size of Lightning beyond the 48 aircraft of which we are aware. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Committee stage & Lords Hansard
Tuesday 9th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment, to which I have added my name. It is always a pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, not least as, like him, I had the privilege of serving as an advocate depute, as Crown counsel, under the authority of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern.

As others have done, I begin by saying that the Armed Forces have my unequivocal support and admiration, not least because they often put themselves at risk of their lives in the interests of this country. More particularly, in recent months they have demonstrated precisely the flexibility and capability that have enabled us to deal with the problems caused by the coronavirus.

I can be brief because I shall speak only to Amendment 14. In doing so, I accept and adopt the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, authoritative as it was because of his previous responsibilities as Secretary of State for Defence and Secretary-General of NATO. It is clear that the purpose of this amendment is simple: to remove the presumption against prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture. I accept that the Bill does not prevent prosecution, but I believe that a presumption against it is misconceived.

In support of that, I pray in aid the executive summary of the Bill produced by the authoritative Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law on 19 January 2021. I begin with a direct quote. It says that

“murder, torture and other grave war crimes face substantial legal barriers before there can be a prosecution. ... The Bill undermines our obligations under the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention Against Torture.”

Further, it says that the Bill weakens the United Kingdom’s reputation for decisive action against war crimes and increases the likelihood that British soldiers may be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court. We heard, in the introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, of this amendment, the particular interest that the Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court is taking in this legislation.

I have great difficulty in understanding the Government’s position on this matter. I have tried. I listened to and, indeed, read again the speech of the noble Baroness at Second Reading. She was kind enough to extend the opportunity to me and others to discuss particular issues connected with the Bill. I have read, too, the letter that the Government produced.

Respectfully, one difficulty is the fact that there is opposition such as I have described. I have no recollection, in the proceedings on the Bill so far, of any noble Lord speaking enthusiastically in support of the provisions that we seek to remove. That opposition consists, for example, of the Joint Committee on Human Rights—as the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has just told us—General Sir Nick Parker, Elizabeth Wilmshurst and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank. I would add to that panoply the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, because, in the latter part of his speech on the first group that we discussed today, quoting the perceptive remarks of Mr John Healey, Member of Parliament, in the other place, he made the case against the Government’s provisions as eloquently as I have heard. If this were a piece of civil litigation, it would be easy to argue that all the authorities favour the amendment. I favour the amendment for this reason: it is necessary for both reputation and regulation, and I shall vote for it.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds [V]]

My Lords, I understand the stated rationale for this Bill and I state at the outset that I have enormous respect for the noble Baroness the Minister, but I am struggling. I am not a lawyer, but I would like to focus on a couple of specific questions. I understand the difficulty with vexatious and untimely litigation, which is a curse, but legitimate litigation, however inconvenient, is surely the blessing of a free and civilised society that honours international law and a rules-based system in more than words.

The basic reason why I speak in support of Amendment 14 is that I fear the law of predictable or conscious consequences more than the law of unintended consequences. I ask the Minister to explain clearly this anomaly, which I cannot get my head around: this Bill, as currently drafted, will make it possible for an incident of torture or murder not to be prosecuted while a sexual offence committed in the same incident would be subject to prosecution. That suggests to me either that the reference to sexual offences is arbitrary or that torture and crimes against humanity and so on should also be admitted in the same category.

I understand the assertion that the Bill does not prevent prosecution, but we are dealing with law, not just with assertions of what may or may not be possible—it is what is written in the body of the Bill. I have said that I am not a lawyer, but I support the Armed Forces—my first career was at GCHQ in Cheltenham, providing direct support to our forces, not least during the Falklands conflict—and, despite not being a lawyer, I know that torture is absolutely forbidden in both domestic and international law and that no bars to prosecution are possible.

As Field Marshall Lord Guthrie pointed out more than once, these restrictions in the Bill cannot stand unchallenged. He said:

“By introducing a statutory presumption against prosecution and statutes of limitations, this bill undermines the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition of torture and violates human rights law as well as international criminal and humanitarian law.”


Making torture an excluded offence under the Bill would, I think, have the double benefit of first, avoiding what Lord Guthrie rightly called the “de facto criminalisation” of the offence and, secondly, keeping the UK in line with the rules-based international order that we claim to uphold.

Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes are similarly forbidden in law. Amending the law as proposed in the triple lock would make the UK the only country in the world to have deliberately legislated to restrict the Geneva conventions. Where does this place us in a world to which we claim to be an example of law and civility? Most oddly to my mind, however, as a signatory to the 1998 Rome statute, which enables the International Criminal Court to prosecute genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes when a Government are unable or unwilling to do so, the Bill will make it possible for British soldiers to be prosecuted in the Hague—that is, before a foreign court. Really?

I strongly support the amendment not just because of the legal questions, but because there is a strong moral case for it. I recognise that the last time I made a moral argument in this House during the internal market Bill, it was dismissed by another Minister with the words, “We will not be listening to moral strictures,” but there is a moral case here. The church that I represent stands with victims of torture, and I think that our nation has done hitherto and should continue to do so. Our reputation as a country that is committed to the rules-based international order matters more than I think we sometimes realise. This amendment would further incentivise the UK to maintain the highest standards on the battlefield. It is this that differentiates the civilised from the uncivilised in combat.

If the Government will not accept the amendment, I would be grateful if they could explain rationally, legally and consistently, and perhaps even morally, why these anomalies are acceptable.

Armed Forces Act (Continuation) Order 2021

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Reid of Cardowan, something I did on many occasions when we both spoke in defence debates in the House of Commons. I begin, as others have, by paying tribute to the professionalism and commitment of all three of our Armed Forces. This proceeding has great constitutional significance of course, as has already been pointed out, and is sometimes regarded as the first illustration of human rights being made available to the citizens of this country.

The short debate provides the opportunity to reflect, to some extent, on the state of the Army. I shall not anticipate the issues that are likely to be raised when we come to Second Reading of the Armed Forces Bill, which passed that stage in the House of Commons last Monday. The point I raise arises from the used of the phrase “standing army”. Standing implies substance, both quantity and quality. That is why I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Reid, in relation to the issue of numbers. It is an extraordinary, and some might say curious, consequence that the figure of 10,000, which the Army is said to be short of, is equivalent to a rumour that the Army will cut 10,000 members. I hope that this is mere coincidence and not an acceptance that recruitment is unlikely to improve.

The Minister may remember that some weeks ago I asked her a number of questions, mainly about the Royal Regiment of Scotland. I was, as I suspect she was, taken aback by the rather alarming shortages that these questions revealed. That provokes me into asking: what analysis is being made of the reasons for these shortages? What assessment is being made of the impact on capability and employability as a result of these shortages? As the noble Lord, Lord Reid, has just indicated, last week, in a national newspaper, some of the most famous regiments were revealed as being substantially below strength. What analysis is being done of the reasons for this and what impact has there been on capability? If these are the figures for regular soldiers, what is the position in the reserves? In recent history, in engagements abroad we have had to draw very substantially upon our reserves. So, if the regulars are so poorly below strength, what is the position with the reserves?

We are waiting for the comprehensive review. It sometimes feels like “Waiting for Godot”. Godot never came, but hopefully the comprehensive review will finally be upon us. We are led to believe that it is an opportunity to address new strategic objectives. There will be no point in having new objectives if we do not have the resources to implement them. I listened recently to a most challenging speech by the Chief of the Defence Staff—in truth an excellent speech—setting out a new strategic concept. I hope that he will excuse me if, for the small purpose I have today, I sum it up in the rather ugly way of “fewer tanks and more drones”. That does not do justice to the intellectual and far-seeing nature of the speech, but the cornerstone of defence is deterrence. Faced with a variety of threats, we must maintain a full spectrum of deterrents, and therefore, of capability. If an adversary mobilises tanks, we can hardly rely on the nuclear deterrent as an effective one.

I have one final point. We lead the battle group in Estonia, which is part of the enhanced forward presence of NATO and a deployment of very considerable military and political purpose. If we are to reduce the Army by 10,000, might it be that when asked by NATO to take charge of a deployment of that kind, we will be unable to do so by reason of a shortage? That would be a grave embarrassment.

British Armed Forces: Global Britain

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 21st January 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Lancaster, for introducing this debate, but I fear that much of the British public sees global Britain as involving the British Council rather than the British Army, and certainly not the intractable problem of Mali, currently the most dangerous of all United Nations peacekeeping missions. The humanitarian achievements of our armed services are legion and demonstrate in a very practical way their capacity for dealing with the unexpected, but if the Army is to be deployed on missions such as Mali, the criteria for doing so must be spelled out clearly in public, and must include the possibility of mission creep.

Overseas Operations (Service Personnel and Veterans) Bill

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

2nd reading & 2nd reading (Hansard) & 2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 20th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow all who have spoken in this debate, because it has been of rare quality. Like others, I want to begin by expressing my admiration and affection for the Armed Forces and recognising the particular imposition their families are subject to when they find their loved ones are engaged in extended deployment across the world, often in harm’s way.

As the debate has progressed it has become clear that the Bill enjoys considerable sympathy for its intentions, but it has little support for its substance. This is all the more surprising since there was prior consultation in relation to it. This necessarily creates a dilemma: should the Bill be supported and energy invested in amendments, or should it be rejected?

My noble friend Baroness Northover pointed out early in the debate that, in spite of a wealth of amendments in the other place—many of them similar to the observations and criticisms made today—the Government refused to accept any of them. So, what confidence can we have that amendments made in this House on, for example, the matters of torture or war crimes would not simply be rejected again? If we accept that it is our responsibility to do our best to put this Bill into proper order, we are entitled to expect a change of heart from the Government and certainly no repeat of their apparent unwillingness to accept any amendment or notion which deviates in any way from the exact terms of the Bill.

If the Bill remains in its present form, how can we possibly accept provisions which constitute a breach of international law? This is not new territory, as the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, reminded us at the outset of the debate. He recalled, as others have done, the now enacted United Kingdom Internal Market Bill.

The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, made a powerful case regarding our responsibilities according to those elements of international law relevant to our consideration. Would we really be willing to consider a possible breach of the United Nations Convention against Torture? Would we really, in spite of the observations made about the creation of the Geneva conventions, be willing to consider breaching them? If any individual member of our Armed Forces found himself or herself subject to prosecution by the International Criminal Court, would we really be willing to act in a way that constitutes a breach of the Rome statute of that court?

In a very short report, no doubt under the pressure of time, your Lordships’ Constitution Committee raised a number of issues. I wish to return to one raised by the Minister, who opened the debate in, as has already been pointed out, her characteristically frank and helpful fashion. The committee said:

“The House may wish to seek the reasons for including most war crimes and crimes against humanity in the presumption against prosecution.”

The Minister offered some kind of explanation for that. I say to her, with all due deference, that she will have to find something rather better than what she offered today, because up to now I do not accept—and I believe I am not alone—that the Government have found sufficient justification for the way they have framed the presumption. That, in many respects, is the most damaging feature of this Bill. I hope we will have the opportunity to get the Bill into a condition which achieves the Government’s intentions, even though it cannot now necessarily be read as capable of achieving these intentions at all.

UN Mission in Mali: Armed Forces Deployment

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Monday 14th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for alluding to an important point. He is right; I outlined earlier the principal objectives identified by the Foreign Secretary for ODA. In respect of our military activity, it is important we align these two so that there is a complementary effect. He is correct that these are not problems that one solution will address; there has to be a multifaceted approach.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this is a most dangerous peacekeeping mission, which has seen 220 fatalities already, together with many injuries. I welcome the range of vehicles to be provided as part of force protection, but that will not be the only element of force protection required. Is the Minister in a position to give us more detail on that matter?

Returning to the matter raised by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, the rules of engagement are extremely important in a theatre of the kind we are discussing. Will the forces there deployed be acting under the rules of engagement of the United Kingdom or the United Nations?

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My understanding is that the direct line of command will be to the overall commander, Lieutenant-General Gyllensporre. But, obviously, our deployment unit has a commanding officer as well. As for specific rules of engagement, these would not normally be disclosed, but I seek to reassure the noble Lord that there is clarity as to why our deployment is there, what it is there to do and how it is intended it should do that.

War Widows Pensions

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con) [V]]

Of course, I reaffirm that the Government recognise the unique commitment that service families make to our country and we remain sympathetic to the circumstances of those who remarried and cohabited before 1 April 2015. But the Ministry of Defence is not able to act unilaterally because, in doing that, it could well compromise the position of other government departments and it might unintentionally interfere with or prejudice active litigation in which other departments are involved. That is why I thought it important to explain to the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, the nature of the complexity. This is not something that the current Government have dreamed up and it is not an artificial obstruction that the Ministry of Defence has created; it is, I am afraid, the consequence of established policy covering such matters as payments when a request is made to make these retrospectively.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

But does the Minister understand the contrast between the actions of a Government, who, up till yesterday, were willing to break the law but today will not modify slightly a policy to benefit 200 citizens whose spouses gave their service on behalf of this nation?

Armed Forces: Reduction

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Thursday 22nd October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton, and assure my noble friend that we are always cognisant in the MoD of what we are there to do and what our priorities must be. We shall ensure that we have the resource to address those key priorities, which are, as I said earlier, looking after the security of the United Kingdom and protecting our citizens.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, in spite of what the noble Baroness has said, should we not be giving our allies an assurance that we will be able to fulfil existing obligations? I have in mind our leadership of the multinational battle group, which is part of NATO’s enhanced forward presence in Estonia.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

As the noble Lord is aware, the Government have committed to honour our spend commitment to NATO by spending 2% of GDP on defence. We also had a manifesto commitment to increase the defence budget by at least 0.5% above inflation every year of this Parliament. We are currently involved in the exercise to which the noble Lord referred, which is important. We are aware that the Baltic and north Arctic areas are strategically significant, and we will ensure that we have the key resources to address any emerging threats.

Armed Forces Personnel from Commonwealth Countries

Lord Campbell of Pittenweem Excerpts

Tuesday 20th October 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

The MoD, the Home Office and the Government in general provide financial advice to veterans who are facing financial difficulty. Following discharge, Veterans UK’s Veterans Welfare Service and Defence Transition Services provide support to Commonwealth and Gurkha veterans, as they do to any other veteran.

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

My Lords, this “lefty lawyer”—which I regard as an accolade rather than an insult—cannot understand why, if these men put themselves at risk in being willing to fight on behalf of our country, we should not remove every obstacle in their way, including this quite extraordinary charge that they are liable to pay. If the problem is in the Home Office, perhaps we should be doing something about reforming the Home Office.

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

I do not for one moment doubt the noble Lord’s sincerity, although he will be aware that the policy obtained during the time of the coalition Government, of which his party was part. It is complex, and I am not diminishing that. We are talking not just of Commonwealth citizens, which I think is the focus of the Royal British Legion campaign; we are also talking about the Gurkhas. We are very conscious of the immense contribution that they all make, and we are actively investigating whether there is anything that we can do to support them better.