Bosnia and Herzegovina: Rule of Law

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd April 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right: our review will be absolutely focused on the UK’s national interest, and the decision was made on the basis of the first duty of any Government to protect their population.

We have been engaged across a wide range of areas in the development and soft power space to contribute to peace and stability in the western Balkans—and Bosnia-Herzegovina specifically. Our development efforts have never been solely about aid. We mobilise a range of resources to achieve our development objectives in the western Balkans and we will continue to do that, influencing policy.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, there is an arrest warrant issued in Bosnia-Herzegovina against Mr Dodik. Can the Minister update us on where that is at and what international co-operation there is on getting him arrested?

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

We have been very clear. Dodik has been spreading rumours that UK forces are somehow engaged in his arrest. These are baseless claims and part of a campaign of distortion and disinformation by Dodik that is clearly designed to distort and distract from his destructive actions. The charges against him are a matter for the authority of the High Representative.

Ukraine

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right: we have to redouble our efforts. President Macron and the Prime Minister in particular are working on a plan at some pace. I do not know the details of all the Prime Minister’s conversations with President Trump; I know they are frequent at present. At every stage, the Prime Minister has said that we will present this to President Trump and the American Administration, and we will urge them to support a plan. President Trump has made it clear that Europe has to stand up and that is what Europe is doing. Countries are working together. That is the start of a process and there will be further meetings of those European leaders represented there. But the noble Baroness is absolutely right; it is very important that we get a plan and then take it to President Trump to seek to get agreement for that.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join in the praise of the Prime Minister’s performance in the last few days, which has drawn a great deal of admiration. It is clear that he is operating in very difficult circumstances, and one understands some of what he feels he has to say. Of course the transatlantic relationship is very important, not least in security, but the Prime Minister referred to President Trump’s “clear support” for Article 5 of NATO. Unfortunately, that is not something that many of us perceive. Can the Minister tell us whether the current circumstances are giving a real boost to the attempt to have a reset with the EU, including on security and defence co-operation? What news can she give us on that front, not just on the very welcome intergovernmental co-operation with our European allies but on us plugging into some of the EU defence-industrial co-operation?

Ukraine

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 24th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord. He has huge expertise in this area and speaks with great authority. He is absolutely right. Russia’s assault on Ukraine is an unprovoked, premeditated attack against a sovereign, democratic state. As we have discussed in this House in recent weeks, the Russian Government have repeatedly denied their hostile intent towards Ukraine. At the same time, they have amassed troops, launched cyberattacks and staged false pretences and provocations. As the Statement made clear, unfortunately, the Russian Government seem to have shown that they were never serious about engaging in diplomacy. I thank the noble Lord for his comments. I entirely agree with him.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, when we eventually get the economic crime Bill, it and other similar legislation will be welcome, but critics would say that the challenge is enforcement. Do the Government plan to boost the resources of bodies such as the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office, HMRC and the Financial Conduct Authority to allow them to crack down on the abuses we see in London and the UK?

There is a very good article in the Telegraph today which reminds us that it is not just cash that is being invested in Londongrad:

“Russian reputations have also been polished, courtesy of London-based PR and libel law firms to whom the oligarchs pay generous fees”


to protect both their image and the Kremlin’s. Specifically, will the Government tackle the abuse of libel laws to stop this crushing of free speech and criticism?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness. Before I answer her points, I should say that I was a bit out of touch. It looks as if the football tournament has already been moved. I was not aware of that. This is good news. I hope that my noble friend is pleased.

As the Statement mentioned, we are setting up a new, dedicated combating kleptocracy cell within the National Crime Agency. We have ensured that it is staffed with both the resources and the people it needs to do its important work. We have done a lot in this area. For instance, the Criminal Finances Act 2017 has allowed us massively to step up our recovery of criminal assets. We seized £1.3 billion between April 2015 and 2021. We have also conducted around 7,900 investigations. There have been 2,000 prosecutions and 1,400 convictions annually for stand-alone money laundering or where it was the principal offence. Our record shows that we are committed to putting money into this area. We have also committed £400 million to tackling economic crime during the next three years through our new anti-money laundering levy.

Ukraine Update

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

We have been working with partners through NATO, the UN, the OSCE and the G7—we are anticipating a further G7 call later this week—and obviously we have been having bilateral meetings with countries around the world. Ministers have talked to our allies in Kraków, Kyiv, Brussels, Tallinn, Munich and New York. We are working internationally and are co-ordinating our response with our allies and partners, for exactly the reasons the noble Lord gave.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I share the puzzlement of those who wonder what else President Putin has to do to get the full barrage of UK sanctions fired at him. The Statement says that he has

“flagrantly violated the Minsk peace agreements”.

The noble Baroness said that he has flagrantly violated Ukrainian sovereignty and the Statement says that

“the deployment of these forces in sovereign Ukrainian territory amounts to a renewed invasion of that country.”

What are the Government waiting for as a further threshold before there is a full barrage of sanctions? The Statement also says that, when the Defence Secretary and the Chief of the Defence Staff visited Moscow and talked to their counterparts, they demonstrated

“how seriously we take Russia’s security concerns”.

What are Russia’s valid security concerns? NATO is not going to invade it, so why are we taking its so-called security concerns at all seriously?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

What we have said, with our NATO allies, is that a dialogue would cover what Russia says it wants, from strategic nuclear weapons and force posture to exercises and incidents at sea. It is a serious offer which would improve European security for Russia and NATO, but we have been very clear that these talks must be based on de-escalation and an end to aggression against Ukraine.

Afghanistan

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th August 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am not going to talk about the foreign policy, military or security aspects of the catastrophe in Afghanistan. I am not equipped to do so, and many others in this debate are, not least the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who has just spoken.

My only inquest question is to ask why a plan for refugees emerged only last night and why there was no contingency scheme ready to announce an action well before Kabul fell. The Prime Minister told MPs this morning that it is not true that the UK Government were unprepared. Well, it looks like it. Why is the process for issuing visas protracted and bureaucratic? Much as one can admire the heroism of our ambassador Laurie Bristow in administering visas at the airport, this is not the image of simplified and fast-tracked applications and evacuation that one would expect.

I second what others have said about the UK aid budget, but I also urge the Government to scale up our support for the UN’s refugee agency, the UNHCR. In 2020, Germany individually gave almost three times as much as our $135 million, which was not much more than what was given by much smaller countries such as Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands—and all those contributions were on top of the EU contribution of $0.5 billion. Resources, as well as diplomatic influence, must also be used to support neighbouring countries to keep their borders open, in order to provide safe havens to refugees fleeing Afghanistan—as they have long done.

The Home Secretary has announced a UK Afghan resettlement scheme of 20,000 over a number of years, drawing comparisons with the seven-year scheme for Syrians. But that figure needs to be a start rather than a cap, and it needs to be front loaded as an immediate response. The Prime Minister says that the Taliban is allowing the evacuation to go ahead and that we just need to get people out while we can. Why are the Government not simply responding to need and to the moral imperative that others have referred to? Chris Bryant MP asked in the other place:

“What are the 15,000 meant to do? Hang around and wait to be executed?”


Good question—what is the answer?

It would certainly be welcome if the Government committed to a resettlement scheme that was long-term, sustainable, and an embedded part of policy—not just dropped when the news cycle changed. Then, a target figure of, say, 10,000 a year, would make sense. What funding—genuinely new funding—will there be for local councils to house, support and integrate those refugees, without placing even more strain on their overstretched budgets?

I will not repeat what others have said about the ARAP scheme, which must be expanded to contractors. We must also not forget families. Reuniting families and bringing those in Afghanistan with family in the UK here to safety must be a top priority. I draw attention to the Bill that I have in progress on refugee family reunion, which has its Second Reading on 10 September, and I invite more speakers.

United Kingdom–European Union Parliamentary Partnership Assembly

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 12th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement—the TCA—makes explicit provision for a parliamentary partnership assembly, but on a permissive basis. It is implicit in the wording that this must be for the two Parliaments to establish. However, I can tell the noble Lord that, at the very first Partnership Council meeting, both the UK Government and the EU encouraged the establishment of the parliamentary partnership assembly. At a government level, we look forward to seeing the final proposals from both Parliaments and to providing support to the process where we can.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, in its April resolution on the trade and co-operation agreement, the European Parliament said that it wanted the parliamentary partnership assembly not only to monitor the full implementation of the agreement but also to make recommendations for improved co-operation. This Parliament currently has a serious scrutiny deficit with regard to the Government’s Brexit activities under the TCA and the withdrawal agreement. Why is the European Parliament often condemned in some quarters as somehow undemocratic, when it would have much greater democratic powers and aspirations than our own?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Baroness has said about the transparency that we seek to bring about. We are enthusiastic about the setting up of the parliamentary partnership assembly, as I have said. We hope that the plans progress quickly. In this House, we have my noble friend Lord Frost, who regularly answers questions about the discussions and negotiations that are currently proceeding. It is not in any way our desire to have a process that lacks transparency.

University of Bristol: Jewish Students

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 24th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)]

Universities and other providers are independent institutions, responsible for their own staffing decisions and for meeting their duties under the law, regarding both freedom of expression and equality. However, the Government have been clear that we expect universities to be at the forefront of tackling anti-Semitism and ensuring that they provide a welcoming experience for all students. That is why my right honourable friend the Education Secretary wrote to providers, encouraging them to adopt the IHRA definition, as a result of which, I am pleased to say, more than 50 additional institutions have done so.

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, on that point of a welcoming environment for Jewish students, the University of Bristol, in a statement on its investigation, said that its,

“clear and consistently held position is that bullying, harassment, and discrimination are never acceptable. We remain committed to providing a positive experience for all our students and staff, including by providing a welcoming environment for Jewish students”.

That is not happening at that university and, sadly, at all too many other universities. In a debate in January initiated by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, who follows me today, she said that some universities were becoming no-go areas for Jewish students. This is surely intolerable. There is a systemic problem here and I should like to hear the Minister say how he is going to tackle that on a—

[The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)]

That is an extremely long question. Could I please ask noble Lords to keep their questions short, as a lot of people want to get in and express their views?

Global Britain

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

I set out in my opening comments why this is happening now. I talked about the challenges of the pandemic and the way that that has shaped our view that these things need to be brought together internationally. I can certainly reassure the noble Baroness that girls’ education will remain a priority. I also point out that we are currently one of the few OECD donors that still has a separate development ministry. Other countries, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have merged their functions effectively, and we will look to learn from them. We are extremely lucky to have a very high-quality Foreign Office and Department for International Development, which we can bring together to ensure that our expertise remains unparalleled in all areas.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will follow up the comments from my noble friend Lord Newby. Why do the Government seem to regard support to countries such as Ukraine and those in the western Balkans as an alternative to support for the poorest countries in Africa? The UK currently supports those EU-aspirant countries through its own funding programmes, so all the UK will be doing is spending some of the much-vaunted so-called savings on EU contributions in a less efficient way. There is no need to deprive Zambia and Tanzania to do it. If we are to continue to operate under the OECD DAC rules, as the Government pledge, can the Minister explain what we are prevented from doing at the moment that this move will allow the UK Government to do?

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

My Lords, as I have said repeatedly, our view is that bringing diplomacy and international development together makes sense in our new complex global world. For instance, to protect ourselves against another pandemic, the UK will have to work alongside our friends to strengthen international bodies like the WHO, and help vulnerable countries come together to improve their health systems and achieve greater resilience. Therefore, it does not make sense to have a dichotomy and say that the two should be separate in our complex international world, with the challenges that we face.

Coronavirus Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard) & Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 25th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

As a signatory to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, I give it very strong support. I agree with everything that he said. He referred to his experience as the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation and to how valuable he found the transparency of reasons being given. That should send a very strong message to the Government about how important his amendment is.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Ludford]

13: After Clause 99, insert the following new Clause—
“Powers within the Act: necessity and proportionality All powers under this Act must be exercised in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010, especially with regard to the principles of necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the powers in this Act to be exercised in accordance with the principles of necessity, proportionality and non-discrimination and to be compatible with human rights law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, my amendment is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is also in favour. It is pretty self-explanatory and should not cause the Government any problems in accepting it. Indeed, the Minister, in replying just now, talked about getting advice from scientists on what was necessary.

The Minister has made a declaration that the Bill is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, but the amendment would provide further reassurance. According to the long title, the Bill is to:

“Make provision in connection with coronavirus; and for connected purposes.”


That is quite wide. There are references to a test of necessity—or, variously, necessity and proportionality—in some provisions in the Bill but not in others. There is no consistency, for instance, even between Schedules 21 and 22.

Our Constitution Committee, which I thank for its report, says at paragraph 16 that

“there may be a need to resolve difficult legal questions concerning the proportionality and necessity of restrictions and directions, and of their compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998”,

and by “resolve” it means in the courts. It would obviously be preferable to front-load those tests by requiring the Government to observe them in exercising all their powers under the Bill, which is what this umbrella amendment would provide, rather than load up the courts.

In parallel with these tests, the Delegated Powers Committee report, which I thank the committee for, drew attention to the absence in some clauses of a reference to the coronavirus crisis as justification. That mainly concerns postponement of elections, but not exclusively. I am therefore doing precisely what the committee suggests in paragraph 9 of its report—I have given the Minister notice of these requests: I

“seek an explanation from the Minister about why these powers are not, on the face of each individual clause, explicitly linked to coronavirus”,

and

“look to the Minister to provide an ironclad assurance that the powers contained in the Bill will be exercisable in relation to the coronavirus outbreak only and in no other circumstances.”

Lastly, will the Minister clarify the situation with regulations? The ones issued last Saturday under the Public Health Act, on premises, are not abolished by the Bill, but the February ones, on persons, are. In a reply during Second Reading yesterday, the Minister said that the powers to enforce the Prime Minister’s instructions regarding essential travel and gatherings

“will be introduced by regulations under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984.”—[Official Report, 24/3/20; col. 1733.]

But I have learned from tweets by journalists that those will be introduced tomorrow, when we are not here. As I asked at Second Reading yesterday, how will these regulations mesh with the Bill and with regulations to be made under it? I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich]

My Lords, I signed Amendment 13 and I offer two sentences on it. The amendment will have no legal effect because, admirably, nothing in the Bill seeks to oust or modify provisions of the Human Rights Act or the Equality Act. But if the Minister can confirm that there is no intention of departing from those important statutes, that would be a powerful signal to the sceptics and conspiracy theorists, both here and abroad, who might otherwise wrongly suggest that in enacting this unfortunately necessary legislation, we are abandoning some of the fundamental legal and moral principles that bind us together.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bethell]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and all those who have signed up to this amendment have made incredibly important points that the Government utterly confirms. I reassure the Committee that this Bill is very clearly focused on the present danger of SARS-CoV and the Covid-19 disease. If there is any other virus—and even if this virus mutates— we will need a new Act or at least to amend this one.

The Government are 100% committed to protecting and respecting human rights. We have a long-standing tradition of ensuring that rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our human rights commitments. That will not change. We have strong human rights protections, with a comprehensive and well-established constitutional and legal system. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect in UK law to the rights and freedoms contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. Nothing in this Bill contradicts that.

I reassure a number of speakers—including but not limited to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy—that there is nothing in this Act that allows the Government to breach or disapply the Human Rights Act or the Equality Act. The Bill itself is fully compliant with the Human Rights Act and the Government have certified this on the face of the Bill— in fact, I signed it myself in accordance with Section 19. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Human Rights Act, every exercise of power by a public authority under this Bill is already required to be compliant with the Human Rights Act. I further reassure the House that, at all times, this Government will act with proportionality.

I am advised by legal counsel that the amendment is potentially both unnecessary and unhelpful. If we accept it, it might imply that the Human Rights Act and Equality Act do not apply in this way in other Bills or Acts that do not feature this sort of provision. For that reason, I suggest that the amendment should be withdrawn.

[Baroness Ludford]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he said, which gave considerable reassurance—up to the last sentence or two. I was permitted by the Public Bill Office to table this amendment, so I am therefore slightly surprised at his reporting of the advice he has had from legal counsel. Obviously, I have to take note of what he said. No doubt they have greater legal minds than mine, although I note that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, co-signed my amendment. I am a little taken aback by what the Minister said, but I none the less welcome the rest of his response. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 13 withdrawn.

Global Britain

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

The noble Lord obviously knows that the EU published its negotiating mandate only this morning. We will, of course, look in great detail at everything set out in it, as I am sure it will look at ours. I am sure that all negotiations will be done in good faith. We have an excellent international record: we are proud of our standing in human rights across the piece, both in the work that we do and in our support for the international rule of law. We would not want to do anything to put that in jeopardy.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell us how the categorical rejection of any regulatory alignment in the Statement squares with the robust commitments the Government signed up to in the political declaration to ensure a level playing field? Secondly, and related to it, the assertion that the UK will have separate and independent policies in areas such as data protection seems to contradict the assertion at the end of the Written Ministerial Statement that seems to expect an easy agreement for data adequacy assessment, because

“the UK will be operating exactly the same regulatory frameworks as the EU at the point of exit.”

Surely that is not the point. If the Government are saying that we have no intention of aligning dynamically in the longer term after we leave, surely that completely undermines any trust that the EU can have in our regulatory standards and means it is impossible for it to work on the basis of a level playing field.

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park]

There is no requirement for alignment under the withdrawal agreement, and the political declaration sets out our commitment to discuss open and fair competition as part of negotiations on an ambitious future relationship. As the noble Baroness rightly says, we already start from a place of exceptionally high standards and we intend to maintain our standards in all these areas. In many instances we actually have higher standards than the EU and we do not need a treaty in order to do that. We are absolutely committed—we have made commitments time and again and have said repeatedly that we do not intend to lower our high standards; we intend to lead the world.