G20 and Ukraine
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(5 days, 15 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his comments about the Prime Minister’s commitment. I think that, if you ever hear him speak, or see him and President Zelensky together, you know there is a bond there, and also that he feels this emotionally as well as practically in how we support Ukraine.
On the issue of reconstruction and moving forward in Ukraine, the first prerequisite is that we have a fair and lasting peace. While the Ukrainians are still facing drones and bombs, it really is not possible to make much progress on that. However, in terms of plans, one of the areas is the use of frozen Russian assets, which should be used to rebuild Kyiv and the rest of Ukraine after this war ends. But in the day-to-day lives of people at the moment, we can just imagine all the pressures, going through all the things we go through in our everyday lives, in a country facing bombs and other attacks. If we look at photographs and see films of the consequences of those attacks, we see how much harder life is for people there. So, yes, plans are being made, but they have to be against the backdrop of that peace, because otherwise the work will be lost and more will be destroyed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for answering questions on the Statement. I fully agree with everything that has been said, especially by my noble friend Lord Purvis. Although I am in an opposition party, I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the Prime Minister has been doing a splendid job on the external front, particularly in co-leading the coalition of the willing. I will not say anything about his domestic travails, as I do not want to spoil the harmony. He has been extremely stalwart. I heard what the Minister said, and I think it does come through that he feels this emotionally, not just intellectually. He is quite right.
It has been heartening, in my role as a member of the European Affairs Committee, meeting counterparts from European Parliaments in the last few months. I recall meeting Finnish colleagues and people from the French Senate, yesterday, and today, some of the delegation from the Lithuanian Parliament. That we are able to say, to note and to express the cross-party solidity of views and support for Ukraine is obviously welcome to them, and it is gratifying to be able to express that.
May I press the Minister about the use of the frozen Russian assets? I realise that discussions are ongoing, but could she give us any hint of where the current sticking point is? It is reported in the press that Belgium apparently wants guarantees. I may be out of date, but I think Belgium wants guarantees about its position, because most of these assets are located—in so far as anything is located anywhere these days—in Belgium. But is it that? Is it legal? Is it political? Can she give us any kind of time horizon? People are very impatient, and want to see these assets used for the benefit of Ukraine.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for her comments. She talks about domestic travails, but this is nothing compared with what the people of Ukraine are facing at the moment, and I would not want to trivialise that in any way. As she said, it is important that, across all Parliaments in different countries, it is not just the politicians and the representatives; it goes down to the people of this country. Some friends of mine feel that their lives have been enriched by being hosts to a Ukrainian family, who left Ukraine and want to return when they can. Because the politicians have been united, we have been able to lead our country on that as well.
The noble Baroness asked for further information on where the sticking point is. I cannot go into those discussions, and I think that she will understand why. Let me just say that we will ensure that everything we do on this—we want to make progress as quickly as we can—will be in line with international law and be financially and legally responsible. She will know— I am sure she has been involved in similar discussions before—that it is the case that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. That is why it is important to keep on pressing the point in order to get some progress as quickly as possible. She is absolutely right: we can focus on using the interest on those assets, but we have to look further than that for the long-term future of Ukraine.
Equality Act 2010: Meaning of “Sex”
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government when they expect to lay before Parliament the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s code of practice for implementing the Supreme Court judgment on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are considering the draft updated code and, if the decision is taken to approve it, the Minister will lay it before Parliament. Parliament will then have 40 sitting days to consider the code when it is laid. It is important that the correct process for laying the code is followed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that Answer, but the Equality and Human Rights Commission has today had to write to the Minister for Women and Equalities, reminding her that it is six months since the Supreme Court judgment, which confirmed that “sex” in the Equality Act means biological sex, and six weeks since the commission submitted its draft of the new code of practice for implementation of a judgment that the Home Secretary reportedly regards as “beyond reproach”.
Does the Minister think it is satisfactory that the pitfalls of delay in producing the statutory guidance include that service providers continue to rely on the existing 2011 code, which is now partly illegal and must be quickly revoked and replaced, and that many organisations continue to drag their feet, wrongly claiming that they need to wait for the code, and risk breaking the law in their treatment of women and same-sex attracted people?
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
The code is absolutely important. That is why it needs to be dealt with properly and appropriately. The draft code, which is over 300 pages long, was submitted on 4 September and it is really important that the Government consider this across Whitehall. We also have a duty, as specified in the Equality Act, to consult the devolved Administrations, too. So the timescale the noble Baroness is talking about is not a delayed process. It is absolutely important that we ensure that the Supreme Court ruling is properly applied in the draft code of conduct, and we will ensure that it is done properly.
UK-Mauritius Agreement on the Chagos Archipelago
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I was pleased to take part earlier in a historic parliamentary and Boswell/Prentis family event. I warmly congratulate the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Prentis of Banbury, on her maiden speech, and I sadly say au revoir, but not adieu, to her noble kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell of Aynho, who was indeed a splendid chairman of the European Union Committee.
My perspective on Chagos is shaped by my membership of the Chagos all-party parliamentary group, founded nearly 20 years ago. I believe that His Majesty’s Opposition is being utterly disingenuous and dishonest in condemning this treaty. We know that negotiations began in autumn 2022 under the auspices of Prime Minister Liz Truss and Foreign Secretary James Cleverly. They continued for nearly two years under the Conservative Government of Rishi Sunak and were almost complete when Labour came to power. So how on earth can the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, claim that the treaty is a “strategic capitulation” and “surrender”? He says that Ministers must take responsibility for their choices—well, I think the Opposition must, too. It is pretty off-putting to see the Tories now adopting opposition to the treaty as a cause célèbre and deploying a range of false arguments.
I believe that the International Agreements Committee, in its balanced and sensible report, is correct in its conclusions, including that the future of the base on Diego Garcia would be at greater risk in the likely event of a future legal judgment in favour of Mauritius. I will say a word on that base: I would want to be assured that the UK would not permit the United States to breach international law there, as the UK Government did in colluding in the use of Diego Garcia for extraordinary rendition after 9/11. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, is not now in his place, because he and I corresponded on this matter when I was an MEP in 2006.
The committee heard from Sir Christopher Greenwood, former judge of the International Court of Justice. He told the committee:
“Following that opinion from the international court and the vote in the General Assembly on the resolution, I think that it would be in Britain’s interests to ratify this treaty. The consequences of not ratifying it are that, first of all, it completely undermines our position that we are a state that wishes to promote the rule of law in international affairs … Secondly, the risks of it being tested out in some other context are very troubling indeed and could lead to a result far less attractive than the one we have from this treaty. I would be in favour of the agreement”.
He recognised that the ICJ opinion was advisory and not binding, but that it is
“a very authoritative guide to the legal position. In reality, it would be very difficult for any state just to ignore an almost unanimous opinion of the international court”.
I think we all agree that what a Labour Government did 60 years ago in displacing the Chagossians was disgraceful, and there has been a tangled web of deception ever since, under Governments of all parties. The Chagossians have been treated with shameful contempt and disdain. However, views among Chagossians now on the new treaty are far from unanimous. The majority support it, especially the Chagos Refugees Group, the largest single group, led by Olivier Bancoult, who I listened to about six weeks ago. It believes that the treaty is the only way Chagossians will be able to return for visits and resettlement.
Sir Christopher Greenwood said:
“Britain’s standing to argue that Mauritius should be required to resettle Chagossians on the other islands, frankly, is somewhat undermined by the fact that the United Kingdom has consistently refused any suggestion of resettlement on the other islands. That is a position that the UK Government have reaffirmed relatively recently”.
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, replying in 2022 to a Written Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who is here this afternoon, wrote that, in November 2016—which was of course under a Conservative Government—
“the UK Government announced that resettlement of Chagossians could not be supported on the grounds of feasibility, defence and security interests, and cost to the British taxpayer. There remains no right of abode in BIOT”.
That was the Conservative position, so it is deeply irresponsible of the Opposition to try to suggest that the Chagos agreement has any legal impact on other British Overseas Territories, such as the Falklands and Gibraltar.
As my noble friend Lord Purvis said, we seek more clarity, as does the committee, about the implementation of the agreement, including on funding and resettlement. It is important that, before we vote this evening, the Minister gives assurances on the points raised by my noble friend.
UK-EU Summit
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(6 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has been a good advocate for exchanges and touring artists. I can tell him that paragraph 15 of the common understanding says:
“The European Commission and the United Kingdom recognise the value of travel and cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. They will continue their efforts to support travel and cultural exchange”.
That indicates the direction of travel, and that we do want to ensure that there are such arrangements. I cannot answer the noble Earl him on Creative Europe, as those discussions have not taken place. Not everything was dealt with at this summit, and that is one of the issues that we wish to see progress on.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the outcome of the summit is welcome, and the restored trust has been vital, although it does leave a lot of detail to be filled in. I fear that the Conservative reaction is insulting to business. There are also limits to what we can get, imposed by the Government themselves. For instance, even though, very welcomely, some red tape will be cut by the SPS agreement—of which we are yet to see the detail—there will still be customs hoops to jump through. Why are the Government maintaining their red lines against the single market and customs union? We know the ideology around that, but what is the practical value? I heard the Minister talk about the India and US agreements, but the volume of the EU market is far more important and the Government are limiting our ability to improve life for businesses and citizens.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
I do not accept entirely the noble Baroness’s parameters. We are where we are, and in our manifesto we set out what the clear red lines were, recognising the public vote on Brexit. As well as having an agreement with the EU, we are looking further abroad as well. We have two agreements in place with the US and India, which, as she will know—as she was in those many debates until very late into the night—so many said would never be done if we had any arrangement with the EU, and we have proved them wrong. It is important that we look across the world for agreements as well, and we will continue to ensure that our relationship with the EU is one that is mutually productive.
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Rule of Law
Baroness Ludford Excerpts(7 months, 1 week ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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?