Hong Kong National Security Legislation

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, there were several proposals there. Specifically on Taiwan, our position has not changed. We believe that the autonomy Taiwan enjoys needs to be protected, but equally it is for those on both sides of the Taiwan Strait to reach an agreement. On the noble Lord’s wider issues, we recognise, as I said at the start, that China has an important role to play on the world stage. Now is the time for China to show that it wishes to do so, but we will always make the case on human rights internally in China as well as standing up for those in Hong Kong.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I too want to ask about Taiwan. It is anticipated that many Hong Kong residents, including those with BNO status, might wish to go to Taiwan. What further support and indeed recognition are the Government contemplating offering to the state and Government of Taiwan, whether to support them specifically in accommodating Hong Kong residents or more generally?

British Citizens: Working Abroad

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I assure the noble Earl that of course we are working in a very pragmatic fashion with our EU partners. The political declaration, as I have already said, includes a commitment to conclude ambitious arrangements for services and investment that go beyond WTO commitments, build on recent EU free trade agreements and provide new arrangements on key service sectors, including financial services. The noble Earl will also be pleased to know that we have agreed to negotiate visa-free travel for short-term visits and arrangements for the temporary entry and stay of citizens for business purposes in key areas. This will also allow businesses to move their employees and to provide services. We are also considering conditions for entry and stay for purposes including research, study, training and youth exchanges.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister talked about British citizens continuing to live their lives “broadly” as they do now, a word which could carry quite a lot of weight. Can he tell us whether the Government are addressing the issue of British residents who reside in one EU country but have been working across borders in several countries? Of course, free movement rights give them that flexibility. One thinks of translators, interpreters, the musicians that the noble Earl mentioned and those in many other professions. Are the Government addressing the challenge they face in continuing to practise their profession without having to get work permits for every country in which they might be called upon to work at short notice?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that we have agreed to protect the rights of EU citizens in the UK and we are working with our EU partners to assure UK nationals’ rights in the EU under the withdrawal agreement. Details along the lines of what the noble Baroness suggested are of course very much in the mix in the discussions we are having with the European Union. Issues of residence, the rights of workers and the issues she raised in the music industry, where people are often self-employed, are very much part of the discussions we will continue to have and will be among the details that emerge from the political declaration, as has already been stated.

Anti-Semitism

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 20th June 2019 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate strongly the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, not only on securing this debate but on an excellent speech. Like her, I am not Jewish, but I am very sensitive to anti-Semitism not only as the oldest hate, but also as a bellwether for other types of hate. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel and a supporter of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on British Jews.

The fact that this debate is more necessary than ever in my lifetime shows how anti-Semitism is becoming pervasive, as was brought out in the report last year by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. The report found that negative stereotypes are being reproduced and ingrained and that this pervasive anti-Semitism is undermining Jews’ feelings of safety and security throughout Europe, such that they and their family and friends cannot live lives free of worry. I am deeply ashamed that this is happening to my fellow citizens. I do not want to live in a society in which they are afraid and subject to prejudice, discrimination and hate.

The same survey found that anti-Semitism is not only pervasive but has also become normalised. The report states,

“people face so much antisemitic abuse that some of the incidents they experience appear trivial to them”.

That is totally shocking. One clue to this sense of normalisation is that the range of perpetrators is wide, spanning the entire social and political spectrum. Like the noble Baroness, I was truly outraged not only that the Malaysian Prime Minister made the remarks he made at the meeting in Cambridge, but that they were apparently followed by a round of laughter. I find that incredible.

I talked earlier of stereotypes. A poll by the news organisation CNN last September showed that three in 10 adults said that Jewish people have too much influence in finance and business; one in five said they have too much influence on the media; and three in 10 said that Jewish people use the Holocaust to advance their own position.

Some of your Lordships, like me, will have heard Allan Little’s recent series for BBC Radio 4 called “A History of Hate”, covering events in Rwanda, Bosnia, apartheid South Africa and other places. His first programme was about pogroms in Russia a century ago. Anti-Semitism originated as traditional religious prejudice, but it transformed into what a historian called “modern anti-Semitism”: visions of Jews conspiring to take over all the main institutions of the state, encapsulated in the fake news Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Interestingly, Professor Deborah Lipstadt saw the origins of that Jewish lobby stereotype in ancient times, in perceptions of a small group of Jewish money changers persuading the mighty Roman Empire to kill Christ because he threatened their lucrative business in the temple. These prejudices are very ancient.

This is, of course, a debate on anti-Semitism, but people who hate on the basis of faith often hate on the basis of other features—other faiths, race and gender. I know that we are all conscious of that fact. I do not have time to talk about Islamophobia, but I think it noteworthy that the candidates for the Conservative leadership have pledged to look at Islamophobia in their own party. As the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, said, we need a step change in education. That is the top priority.

Palestinian Territories

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 7th June 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Steel for initiating this debate. As a staunch friend of Israel, and vice president of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, I am adamant that Israel’s long-term security depends on achieving a just settlement with the Palestinians. Israel cannot be a healthy democracy when it lives alongside poverty, misery and despair and occupies the territory of a resentful people. A colonial occupation morally demeans Israel as well as harming Palestinians, so Israel needs a Palestinian state—but preferably as a result of a political negotiation.

While I have no problem in principle with unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state, I never get an answer when I ask how that helps to catalyse the final-status talks. No answer has come so far today, either. I found the creative ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Polak, very interesting and I will perhaps find out more about them from him afterwards. I am very clear about my own strong criticisms of the Israeli Government, whose political feelings are rather far from my own. These have been enumerated: the “Greater Israel” concept, which is total anathema to me; illegal settlements; disproportionate lethal force without independent investigations; the encouragement of the US embassy move to Jerusalem; withholding revenue from the Palestinian Authority; administrative detention, including of children—all these I deplore.

However, Israel has a right—as does Palestine—to live in security, and to have its existence recognised, including by its neighbours, as a homeland for the Jewish people and those of predominantly Jewish identity; these are terms I much prefer to “Jewish state”. I agree completely with my noble friend Lord Palmer and with much of what has been said by other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Anderson and Lord Turnberg, about the responsibilities and failings of the Palestinian leadership as well as those of Israel—not least, the glorification of violence and antisemitism. Many years ago, I went to a Palestinian refugee camp on the West Bank—to a hospital; the walls were covered with pictures of AK47s, which I found completely wrong.

In the context of Palestinian responsibility, it is very unhelpful that the UN special rapporteur on the human rights situation in the Palestinian territories is mandated to look at violations committed only by Israel, not by the PA, Fatah, or Hamas, some of which have been well documented by bodies like Human Rights Watch. The UN special co-ordinator for the Middle East peace process is, in my opinion, more balanced. He documents that, between 28 and 30 May, over 200 projectiles, rockets and mortar shells were fired from Gaza towards Israel. Most were intercepted but 77 were hits and, as other noble Lords have mentioned, one was on a kindergarten yard. Mr Mladenov called such acts “completely unacceptable”. He also pointed out that rockets fired from Gaza had damaged electricity installations on the Israeli side, resulting in a reduction of over 30% in the only electricity supply to Gaza, which is somewhat of an own goal.

This is not the fault of Israel; neither was the destruction of the infrastructure that the Israelis left behind in Gaza when they pulled out. The special rapporteur is obliged, alongside condemnation of Israel, to point out that punitive measures imposed on the authorities in Gaza by the Palestinian Authority continue to impact negatively on the human rights and humanitarian situation of Gaza’s residents—so there is more balance here. Therefore, although I very much agree with the weight of responsibility on Israel, I believe this is also shared by the Palestinian Authority, Fatah and Hamas.

Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Bill [HL]

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st November 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I start by also welcoming the contribution to the debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, whom we much miss from the Front Bench. I am sorry that she is lost from the team of Ministers in DExEU, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I fear that the balance of opinion in the ministerial team in that department has tipped for the worse. I hope she can continue to have input into government policy and towards the achievement of a sensible one from the Back Benches.

This Bill is necessary but inevitably, because of Brexit, it is not as good as what we have at the moment. Within the EU we operate through the common foreign and security policy framework, which serves as a vehicle for the UK to multilateralise its own sanctions policy and benefit from the support of EU partners. It is an example of where we punch above our weight and multiply our power through EU membership, which enhances our overall influence in the foreign policy arena.

The Government say the purpose of the Bill is to continue to work effectively and consistently with our European and international partners to tackle the shared challenges in foreign policy and security. However, part of the Brexit narrative is that we need flexibility to be able to do things differently. There is an obvious tension here, and the Bill represents the conundrum that is there in Brexit as a whole.

The first example of tension could be about how this greater flexibility outside the EU is used—to what purpose and with what potential loss. There will be a loss of voice and influence for the UK and potentially a loss in terms of a weakening of the global effort against rogue states and other actors, because the EU sanctions regime might be less efficient or effective, or if the strength of our own is diminished because of pressures that it will come under.

Secondly, “taking back control” means an increased administrative and bureaucratic burden—having to create and run a UK-only regime and taking up the time and energy of legislators on this Bill. We are not seeing less red tape with Brexit, but more. Compliance costs will increase. Businesses and individuals benefit from having to deal with only one regime, with uniformity and consistency. An authorisation for an exception from sanctions obtained in one member state is valid EU-wide at present. There is also a lot of litigation. Currently this all goes through the Court of Justice of the European Union. In future it will land on our courts, and I am sure they are welcoming the extra work. The sheer costs and upheaval being created in order to liberate ourselves—in the words of some—from an organisation that, despite some flaws, works well is amply demonstrated by the Bill.

Thirdly, as my noble friend Lady Bowles has well described, there is a reduction in transparency and democracy as scrutiny and joint legislative power for MEPs are replaced by a governmental power grab way beyond the correcting power in the repeal Bill. There is no taking back control for Westminster.

Fourthly, the UK risks a serious loss of influence. Will we become like Norway, not in the room when decisions are taken but having to align ourselves with the EU? How will the UK retain a position of leadership as opposed to accepting that it can be only a loyal follower of EU sanctions or choose to weaken that solidarity by departing from them? How will we influence EU sanctions policy from outside the EU?

We do not yet have the benefit of the EU External Affairs Select Committee’s report on sanctions policy as the inquiry is still in progress, but we have been able to dip into some of the evidence. A witness from RUSI said:

“We still have the biggest financial lever in the European Union”—


in the form of the City of London—

“that the EU can use”.

So the collective weight of the EU is greatly strengthened by UK participation in the sections regime. This also includes the institutional capacity of the EU, to which seconded British experts significantly contribute.

Another feature brought out in evidence to that inquiry is that the UK contributes considerably to the backbone—one witness described it as “the lead in the pencil”—of EU sanctions policy. We have a very important position in the development and promulgation of EU sanctions. When or if we are separated from the EU, the ability of the EU and UK to pursue common foreign policy objectives through sanctions will be reduced. Indeed, our pull-out could weaken the resolve and political will of the EU as well as its ability, since we are one of the strongest advocates of sanctions.

We would put at risk the so-called consensus bias in the EU—the way in which it creates an intention and willingness to work together in support of sanctions regimes, even when certain member states are suffering economically. A good example is the way the EU has coped with Russia’s divide-and-rule policy. The EU has managed to withstand the pressure because of its common institutional architecture, within which no doubt there can be compensation in other policies for unhappy member states that are feeling the pinch from Russian pressures. If that EU architecture is fragmented by UK exit, the outcome becomes less predictable and more vulnerable to such pressures.

On the Bill itself, I am glad to see the “reasonable grounds to suspect” standard of proof adopted, in line with the recommendation in the report from the EU Justice Sub-Committee, on which I sit. There has been some criticism in the past of due process failings in the EU sanctions regime, although there has been improvement in recent years. I was going to ask the Minister if he could highlight ways in which the Bill corrects those failings but the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has answered the question: he says there are no ways in which the Bill improves the EU procedures. Indeed, he highlighted that in both remedy and review the Bill creates a worse situation. Could the Minister at least assure us that the administration and enforcement of UK sanctions will be well-resourced? We have seen that other enforcement areas, such as the police and trading standards, which are well away from sanctions, have been considerably weakened by cost-cutting. Will the enforcement of sanctions be protected from that?

It is asserted by some that if we get greater control we can better tailor compliance regimes to suit the needs of UK business and other affected sectors. The Minister mentioned licences for humanitarian NGOs, but there might be less laudable beneficiaries. What happens if the City of London tells the Government that it would like to see less pain than it currently gets under EU sanctions? How will the Government ensure that there is not inappropriate deregulation? At present the EU acts as a shield for national Governments who are reluctant to defend and justify their own decisions. “It was terrible; we got outvoted,” they say, when you know jolly well that the decision was taken by consensus. The UK Government running its own sanctions regime will not have that pretext and will be more exposed to lobbying at the national level. Can the Minister give us some idea of how the Government intend to exercise their new-found autonomy and flexibility and reassure those of us worried that this could mean a laxer regime?

A senior Treasury official told the EU Committee inquiry:

“We have the ambition of reducing burdens on business where we can with any additional flexibility we may have once we exit the EU”.


What did that remark specifically envisage? It could mean sensible reform or it could mean an ominous weakening.

The UK must not become a haven for those escaping validly applied sanctions elsewhere through British deviation from an EU sanctions listing. Britain must not become a refuge for the corrupt, the criminal and the corporate villains—or at least, no more than, sadly, we are now. Will the Government surprise us by exhibiting a resolve to use its new-found freedom from the alleged Brussels straitjacket to tackle money laundering as well as tax evasion in the British overseas and dependent territories? Will they now commit to introducing that register of true owners of overseas companies currently able to purchase UK property anonymously? That was highlighted by the noble Lord, Lord Freeman. As Transparency International, whose figures were cited by the noble Lord, said,

“this bill is a timely opportunity for ministers to confirm their determination to deliver on this promise”,

of introducing that register. It went on:

“Without doing so, there is little prospect of ending the UK’s role as a safe haven for corrupt money”.

Israel and Palestine

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for introducing this debate. Next year’s centenary of the Balfour Declaration, in the preparation of which I applaud the Liberal role, gives an opportunity to celebrate the success of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people and its huge achievements, as cited by the noble Lords, Lord Mitchell and Lord Sacks.

Recognition of the right of Israel to exist as such a homeland and in security must be the foundation of any peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. The noble Lord, Lord Dykes, asserted that Israel has all the security it needs. It does not, not at all, as others have noted. Of course, I am aware of the call to give unilateral recognition to a state of Palestine, irrespective of negotiations. But I believe that that would hit a brick wall and only direct negotiations between the parties can achieve a lasting two-state solution. Will the Minister tell us what representations Her Majesty’s Government have made recently to the Palestinian Authority to accept the Israeli Government’s offer of negotiations without preconditions? Does she see a helpful context in the warming relationship and security co-operation between Israel and a number of Arab states, especially Egypt and Jordan, with which economic co-operation is also advancing, as others have noted? Of course, this would have warmed the cockles of the heart of the late, lamented Shimon Peres.

The superiority of two states living peacefully side by side over the present situation is self-evident but it requires hard work with a mix of pressure and incentives on both sides, not instant solutions. It is not platitudinous to say that those direct negotiations are essential. I thought that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, was particularly valuable. Of course, he knows what he is talking about regarding the emotional hurdles to a peaceful settlement.

Other progress needs to be made on the ground to foster greater trust through an end to violence, murder and incitement to hatred—particularly, though not exclusively, Palestinian; an end to settlement construction and the obstruction of Palestinian development; and an end to the illicit arms build-up and militant activity in Gaza. But there are also all the educational and cultural exchanges that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and others mentioned. There is the medical collaboration just mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Grade, and the economic collaborations described by the noble Lord, Lord Stone. In such a complicated situation, it is necessary to do all this kind of work to support the possibility of dialogue and negotiations. Boycotts are not only ineffective but absurd in a situation where we are trying to get people to work together. I was proud of the role that I was able to play as a Member of the European Parliament in securing an agreement between the EU and Israel on pharmaceutical trade.

I want to say a word about anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism. Too many of those who claim to be only anti-Zionist use it as a fig leaf for prejudice and bigotry towards Jews. It is frankly absurd to claim that it is impossible to criticise Israel or its Government’s actions without being accused of anti-Semitism. Tell that to the Members of the Knesset, who make PMQs in the other place look like a vicarage tea-party.

Lastly, I share the outrage of the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, at the decision by UNESCO to question any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. That this is unhelpful in the extreme goes without saying. For a UN body not to acknowledge the significance of the Temple Mount to Jews is beyond belief. What we need is all these measures of confidence and trust to support the possibility of negotiations, not the blunt instrument of measures such as boycotts.

EU: UK Settlement

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 8th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con)]

My Lords, I will sit down and see which of these noble Baronesses—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, I can confirm that. It has been made clear that the agreements reached by my right honourable friend take effect only if there is a vote to remain in the European Union in just a couple of weeks and one day. If the country decides that it prefers that the UK should leave the European Union, one then invokes Article 50 and we go through that process.

[Baroness Ludford]

Does the Minister agree that the February decision—

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am sorry to have to get up again. I think it is the turn of the Lib Dem Benches, having not heard from them. Then we can come back to the Conservative Benches.

[Baroness Ludford]

Does the Minister agree that the February decision of the heads of state and government—not of the European Council—and indeed our future in the EU, has a degree of clarity and certainty which shines out, compared with the sketchy and shifting scenarios that we hear from the Brexiteers, whose model is based variously on Norway, Canada or Albania, depending on the speaker, the day or the hour?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to point to the fact that the deal is indeed in international law and therefore its terms are certain, and that, at the moment, those who wish to reject that deal have not set out the alternatives.

EU Foreign and Security Strategy (EUC Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I hate to intrude on the love fest between the noble Lords, Lord Balfe and Lord Judd, but I very much agree with the former on British officials in EU institutions and with the latter that we are locked into the global community and cannot solve our problems by running away.

I, too, am very grateful to the External Affairs Sub-Committee and its outgoing chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, for a very interesting and useful report. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Bolton, on taking over the chairmanship and look forward to future reports.

Like others, I start from the position that Brexit would weaken both Britain and the European Union and thus agree strongly with the paragraph in the report which states:

“The UK is an important player in international affairs, and the EU has the potential to enhance UK influence. A UK exit would significantly limit the UK’s international reach, not least by removing the UK’s influence over, and access to, the Commission’s instruments of foreign policy. It would also diminish the foreign policy of the EU”.

To borrow a phrase from the Prime Minister, Brexit would “put a bomb” underneath what Professor Richard Whitman, of Kent University and Chatham House, described as the,

“50 year-old strategy, pursued by successive British Governments, to structure its political and economic engagement with Europe through the politics, policies and institutions of the European Union”.

I emphasise: “through” the EU. Watching and trying to influence the EU from the outside would absorb a lot of the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, instead of using the EU framework as a springboard for and magnifier of our influence in tackling substantive neighbourhood and global problems. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, mentioned the effect of being on the outside.

My second opening thought is that the best platform the EU and its member states can create for making a success internationally is to be a success domestically, and in particular economically—reversing what the high representative, Mrs Mogherini, called the EU’s “declining economic dynamism”. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, said, our foreign influence needs the restoration of our economic vigour. It is much harder to have a coherent and effective refugee and migration policy if it is contested at home by people who resent migrants as they see them taking their jobs. So let us create more jobs. It makes the EU less credible in negotiating trade deals if its market is not as enticing to potential trade partners as it could be.

I agree with the report’s recommendations that a large part of the EU’s focus should be on enlargement and the eastern neighbourhood. I share the regret that the review of the European neighbourhood policy has, apparently, not been co-ordinated with this exercise. I also agree that the EU needs to be clearer about what the end game is. We have seen in the referendum campaign the mischief that can be made out of the fact that Turkey is a “candidate country”. This has allowed Boris Johnson and Vote Leave to assert that “Turkey is joining the EU” when everyone, including Mr Johnson—who very recently expressed firm support for Turkish accession—knows that Turkey is not joining for a very long time, if at all.

On Russia, I have listened to various noble Lords who are far more expert than me and I find I agree with every one of them in turn. My conclusion is that, whatever the EU decides on its long-term policy, there must be agreement and coherence in its position. My noble friend Lord Oxford made a suggestion for a longer-term policy of engagement with Russia. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that we need to be realistic about what we are up against. I find a curious contrast between the UK taking a lead in the policy of sanctions—which is starting to be questioned by the German Foreign Minister—and our inexplicable absence from the process of the Minsk agreement. Perhaps the noble Baroness will explain why we were not involved in that process.

On Ukraine, I was a little surprised at the comment in the report that Russian opposition to the deep and comprehensive free trade agreement with Ukraine was,

“a salutary lesson on the need for caution in the use of these tools”.

Personally, I do not accept that Russia should have any kind of veto over an EU association agreement with Ukraine. Maybe the remark was more about the way it was handled on both the EU and Ukraine sides. Of course, extraordinarily we have recently had a Dutch referendum which rejected the Ukraine agreement. I have a feeling that they were voting not actually on the Ukraine agreement but just to give a kick to politicians and the EU.

I will spend some time on the comment:

“The EU is a weak military actor”.

Of course it is—I do not think that anyone ever sees it as a major purveyor of hard military power—but the important comment was that,

“EU-NATO co-operation was not functioning”.

During the referendum campaign we have heard the assertion that the EU is irrelevant to security. NATO leaders have countered that assertion by saying that the EU is an essential partner in delivering European security. The weakness is that member states are seen to be unable to underpin their own and EU foreign policy with an ability to use legitimate force, which undermines the EU, so the EU and NATO must “work together more effectively”.

We have heard ludicrous assertions about the creation of a European army, including a recent article in the Times by one of Boris Johnson’s successors in Brussels, but what the EU leaders are talking about is co-operation and co-ordination. That is made very clear in the conclusions of the Foreign Affairs Committee in May last year and the conclusions of the European Council in June last year. I rather liked the comment by Sir Robert Cooper, the former head of foreign policy at the European Council, that,

“while he was not in favour of a European army, he was in ‘favour of a European rifle’”,

and that the EU ought to do more to harmonise specifications and joint military procurement because there are huge inefficiencies, with outdated equipment and facilities that cannot be used in tandem.

There are also operational inefficiencies. The report stated:

“A NATO exercise to bring one brigade from Portugal to the Baltics took 21 days in order to facilitate all the customs and regulations and a further 10 days to find the trains to transport the tanks”.

Thanks to Twitter, during the debate I came across a new article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the American Council on Foreign Relations, talking about how in some new member states,

“bridges and railroads are simply not suitable for large troop movements”,

and that getting permission for those movements for exercises is very frustrating. It calls for a military Schengen for NATO. Apparently, Poland requires 15 days’ notice to give clearance for troop movements. Presumably it would not do so if—God forbid—there was actually a war. But it seems to me that the EU can surely help by supporting NATO in the construction of the infrastructure and in trying to iron out the red tape. That is a good example of the possibility for convergence.

We also know that the European arms industry is very fragmented and subject to national procurement priorities and markets. Not so long ago we had the failure of the merger between Airbus and BAE. Each country wants its national champion but that does not bode well for obtaining best value for defence budgets and structuring our procurement and defence industry collaboration to deliver more efficiencies through joint capabilities.

The report rightly states that the EU has limited ability to act as a “global security provider” but it does have the ability to support NATO. Mrs Mogherini, in her response, also legitimately points out that the EU must take some responsibility for managing “global commons”, and particularly for delivering and supporting rules-based global governance. That is all part of security as well.

In finishing, I want to mention some things which the EU has as tools, including its values and its promotion of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of Russia, even though that is obviously not an EU instrument. There are also all the anti-trust, trade development and humanitarian aid policies. I do not think that the report mentioned the US trade and investment partnership, TTIP, but it ought to be a priority for the European Union to stand up to some of the demonisation of that. Building our economy through science, research and innovation could also help restore Europe’s global influence. There are so many areas where European policies—not classic diplomatic policies—can strengthen the potential of the EU on the international stage.

I agree with the report that the high representative should be involved with ad hoc groups and it is disappointing that the Government do not agree. As the report brings out, even if the EU works through ad hoc groups, the key is to bring together the varied ways and means without being too tidy or precious about how it all works, as long as there is co-ordination and not contradiction. We are never going to have a very neat expression of the EU’s common foreign and security policy—but a lot can be done to make sure that it all pulls in the same direction.

EU: Turkish Membership

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

The position remains exactly as I outlined in my Answer: we see the EU accession process as the most effective way to encourage reform, stability and democracy in Turkey. Turkey has to meet the EU norms—the rule of law, fundamental freedoms and competition rules—to be effective.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, is it not the truth that the Brexiteers making an issue of the very distant prospect of Turkish accession is an example of their having lost the plot? They have lost the argument on the economy, are unable to portray a credible alternative to the EU—sorry, I forgot Mr Gove’s Albanian model—are fighting among themselves like rats in a sack, and are scapegoating and insulting all and sundry with abandon, including Turks. Should they not concentrate on trying to find some integrity for their campaign?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, the Government’s view is that we should put to the people of this country the positive and correct information about the benefits but also responsibilities of being a member of the EU. We believe that we are stronger, safer and better off in the EU. We have issued information about that. It is up to others how they interpret it—or, indeed, misinterpret it.

European Union: United Kingdom Membership

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Ludford]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the reasons for the call by five previous Secretaries-General of NATO for the United Kingdom to remain a member of the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con)]

My Lords, national security is the first duty of any Government, and Europe helps us to make Britain safer. Leaving Europe is a threat to our economic and national security. NATO is the cornerstone of our security, but the EU is part of the West’s core security. Our NATO allies do not want us to leave the EU. Beyond NATO, there is no indication that any of our key partners want us to leave.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is it not arrogant of the Brexiteers to substitute their view for that of our NATO friends, whose view is that the EU is a key partner for NATO, that Brexit would undermine NATO and give succour to the West’s enemies and that, at a time of such global instability, it would be very troubling if Britain ended its membership of the EU? Is it not the truth that any supporter of NATO must be a supporter of remain?

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

My Lords, of course, all noble Lords are able to take their own view on these matters; I like to go for information about the real, the how and the now. It is the case that the EU complements NATO’s high-intensity military activities with important long-term stabilisation and development work. I saw that at first hand on two separate visits I made last summer: one to Kosovo, where NATO is in position; and the other to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where I had the opportunity to meet the general in charge of the EUFOR Althea force and see the work which the EU can do which NATO does not and cannot.