King’s Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th November 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will welcome him as Foreign Secretary, but I will never forgive Prime Minister David Cameron for the casual way that he called the Brexit referendum for party-political reasons when the country was not calling for one, the poor management of the referendum campaign and the exclusion of people crucially affected by it, such as 16 and 17 year-olds. As I recall, it was meant to end divisions within the Tory party; over seven years later, we can see how well that worked.

However, I hope that the appointment of the future Lord Cameron will continue the improvement in relations with the EU that, to be fair, James Cleverly began, such that the Windsor Framework and our re-entry to Horizon were agreed. But it is possible to seek so much more, from easing the Brexit red tape costing businesses, jobs and consumers so dearly—including people such as touring artists—to rejoining the student exchange programme Erasmus and other EU programmes valuable to our businesses, economy and civil society.

I was among members of the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House meeting French MPs this morning, who recalled that the number of French students at British universities has dropped from 13,000 to 3,000—a sorry development when soft power is so important in the modern world. Our committee is currently conducting an inquiry into the scope, in the light of the invasion of Ukraine, for greater UK-EU co-operation on security and defence as a complement to NATO. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, repeat the Labour pledge of a security pact with the EU. At least the UK has joined the European Political Community. I hope an early priority of the new Foreign Secretary will be fixing the date and agenda for the UK hosting its next meeting next year.

I am sure the new Foreign Secretary will also continue the close liaison with the EU and member states on political and military support for Ukraine, as well as on sanctions against Russia, all of which have been pretty successful. We cannot let Ukraine down. I applaud the Minister’s pledges. I am sure the Government will support the process of Ukraine’s accession to the EU.

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s judgment this morning striking down the Government’s plan to send asylum seekers to Rwanda, we will hear a lot of bombast about pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights, even though the Supreme Court highlighted other domestic, as well as international, legal impediments to exposing asylum seekers to the risk of refoulement. I note that a lot of whatever co-operation we have with the EU in areas such as law enforcement, internal security and business data transfers is predicated on our membership of the convention.

We are due to debate next week, on a regret Motion from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, new proposed data protection regulations. Using powers in the retained EU law Act, the Government propose to replace references to EU concepts of fundamental rights and freedoms with references to the ECHR. This is already a worrying loss of some rights, but the regulations would completely collapse if we pulled out of the ECHR. That would be a loss to business.

Turning to the Israel-Gaza situation, I attended at lunchtime a screening of the footage taken from the body cameras of Hamas terrorists—and from CCTV, victims’ phones and Intercept—who participated in the horrific outrages of 7 October. I did not want to attend but I felt I had to out of respect for the victims. Let us be clear: this was not a Hamas war on Israel; it was a massacre—a pogrom—of Jews. As the Hamas terrorists celebrated the number of Jews they were killing, whose bodies they burned and mutilated, they cried, “Praise Allah. Allah is great”. This is desecration of the great religion of Islam.

While most people attending the pro-Palestinian marches in London have not expressed hatred towards Israel and/or Jews, some have. The steep rise in incidents of anti-Semitism has been appalling, and for our Jewish fellow citizens to feel frightened or uncomfortable coming into central London, or wearing visibly Jewish dress, such as the kippah, is deeply shaming. I also deplore any incidents of Islamophobia. I of course understand the calls for a ceasefire in Gaza, but I would like to know how, in that case, Hamas is going to be removed from Gaza and its military capacity eradicated, as not only Israel wants. I note the US confirmation that Hamas is using the Al-Shifa hospital as an operational base.

Lastly, on a question asked many times, can the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, in replying, tell us why on earth the Government will not proscribe Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps?

Ukraine

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Friday 25th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the superb speech from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. I start my own remarks with a light note on which I will not continue. I congratulate my female colleagues, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, and my noble friends Lady Kramer and Lady Smith of Newnham, on their sartorial display of solidarity with the Ukrainian people in their blue and yellow. Sadly, I have neither colour in my wardrobe.

I heard the former head of MI6 on the radio this morning saying that hindsight is a wonderful thing. Well, we have known for a very long time that Putin was a thug who brooked no opposition and had his opponents and critics murdered, including Alexander Litvinenko here in London and Bill Browder’s lawyer Sergei Magnitsky, both back in 2009. It did not need hindsight to worry about Russian oligarchs with close Kremlin links being allowed not only to flaunt their wealth in their London playground and extend their establishment influence here in the UK but to be celebrated in some quarters for it. Putin’s cronies have been getting away with it for years, with successive Governments turning a blind eye. We must stop this rot in our midst and vow never to allow the UK’s subordination to dodgy money to happen again. As writer Oliver Bullough, who knows a thing or two about these matters, said:

“I’m trying to think of a good three-word slogan for my proposals of finding out who owns the shell companies that own our capital city, who’s behind the money laundering schemes, and resourcing the police so it can investigate crimes thus exposed.”


His suggestion for that slogan is—you guessed—“Take Back Control”.

The football authorities have stopped the Champions League final taking place in St Petersburg. The spotlight now turns to the Formula 1 authorities to stop the grand prix, which is due to take place in Russia in September. Can the Minister tell us what representations the Government are making to that effect?

Many thousands of Ukrainians have headed to the borders following the Russian invasion. Slovakia has opened its borders and is allowing every Ukrainian to enter Slovakia, even without a passport. Poland will be receiving many Ukrainian refugees. Ireland has waived visa requirements on Ukrainians. Meanwhile, here, it is bitterly ironic that on Monday we will be debating Report on the Nationality and Borders Bill, one provision of which is the criminalisation of anyone who reaches these shores without a visa.

Our Home Secretary has extended visas for Ukrainians who are already here, which is welcome, but has not set up any routes for most Ukrainian refugees to reach UK shores. The UK has stopped accepting visa applications from Ukrainians stuck in the country, and even family members of British citizens can apply only in Lviv or in a neighbouring country. This means there is no safe and legal route for most Ukrainians to seek asylum in Britain. Will the noble Lord now tell us that the Home Secretary will have a rethink on that?

This is an occasion when the cut in the aid budget is felt most acutely. However, of course we as individuals can contribute in a personal capacity to funds run by the Ukrainian community in this country for their families and friends in Ukraine, and Yale professor Timothy Snyder has given a list of NGOs. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Sedwill, who in his excellent speech called for bodies such as the BBC World Service to be supported to play a major role to counter disinformation and to assist those brave Russians standing up against warmongering.

I understand that the UK is calling for Russia to be excluded from SWIFT. Can the Minister offer an insight into the opposition of our EU partners to doing that? If only we were there in Brussels to argue the case for tougher decisions. This crisis is a perfect example of our reduced influence since we left the EU, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, has said, and indeed of our not seeking any continuing role in the institutional architecture of EU foreign security and sanctions policy. The boast of “global Britain” looks more than a little hollow when it consists of reintroducing blue passports and imperial measurements rather than helping Europe speak with one voice.

One essential element of our longer-term strategy must be to make this country as sound and robust in its liberal democracy as it possibly can be, to equip us, with our allies, to be a beacon to the world for liberal values, and to work as closely as possible with those who share them in order to demonstrate to rogue states such as Russia, and their peoples, not only that might is not right but that their aspirations deserve freedom, democracy and human rights.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 19th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]]

My Lords, we already knew that the integrated review reflected a tilt away from Europe, regrettably making little reference to the potential for a strong security relationship with the European Union. But the Queen’s Speech was even worse in making no reference to Europe at all. There was mention only of the Gulf, Africa and the Indo-Pacific. The EU was the unacknowledged elephant in the room and merited only a sentence or two in the Minister’s introduction.

Perhaps that explains why the Government’s European policy is in such a poor state, with hostility being generated and no strategy for easement and improvement. We have unilateral moves on the Northern Ireland protocol predictably attracting legal proceedings from Brussels, and government mendacity over the protocol contributing to the difficulties in Northern Ireland. We have a huge burden of red tape on British traders and consumers, such that imports and exports with the EU are down 15%—no mere teething problems. Fish and seafood exports are practically impossible. Musicians and actors have been rendered unable to tour, although our creative industries are worth billions to our economy. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, finally admitted yesterday that this is because of UK rejection of an EU offer. Seasonal workers are, absurdly, being brought in from Belarus and Russia because EU workers have been blocked. A permanent data adequacy arrangement is at risk from the Government’s bulk access practices, onward transfers and international agreements. Finally, the treatment of EU citizens is raising serous alarm in the UK’s independent monitoring authority and among EU leaders.

The Government are giving spurious excuses for why they will not accept the EU offer of a veterinary agreement to resolve many of the issues over food safety and animal health measures under the Northern Ireland protocol. The justified suspicion is, of course, that the Government are not only obsessed with their Brexit sovereignty thesis but want to allow in food from Australia—over which a furious row is going on in Cabinet—and from the US, which would breach EU-UK food safety and animal welfare rules.

EU citizens resident here fear legal limbo or falling foul of a new Windrush scandal. They may be faced with loss of employment, homes, entitlement to NHS treatment and more, even the risk of detention and removal from the UK, if they do not have the required immigration status to remain beyond 1 July. But 370,000 submitted applications have not been concluded. A large number of people will submit an application before the 30 June deadline. Will the Minister now answer the question put by the3million group: how will those people prove their right to work, rent or access benefits in the UK after 1 July if a decision has not been made on their case?

I hope that our European Affairs Committee in its welcome short inquiry into citizens’ rights issues, covering both EU and UK nationals, will also get an explanation for the shameful imposition of the full hostile environment treatment on newly visiting EU citizens. Until a welcome change of heart in the Home Office, some were being immediately locked up and expelled if suspected of wanting to work without a visa, even though they are not in breach of the law unless and until they do. This is not only shabby behaviour in itself but risks rebounding on our own nationals in the EU and EEA.

On Hong Kong, Britain’s role means it has a unique responsibility to protect the rights and freedoms of people there. The Magnitsky-style sanctions regime introduced last year gave new powers to target those who have been involved in some of the gravest human rights abuses around the world. I understand that, so far, no Chinese or Hong Kong officials with personal links and assets in the UK have been targeted under this regime, despite clear human rights violations. Will the Minister tell me the Government’s plans on this point?

Lastly, I want to raise the Alliance for Middle East Peace, brought into even greater relevance by the present renewed conflict between Israel and Hamas and the appalling intercommunal violence within Israel. This group, founded in the United States some years ago, consists of over 100 NGOs working to foster reconciliation. The plan, supported by legislation in Congress, is to set up a sizeable international fund for Israeli-Palestinian peace, inspired by our own successful International Fund for Ireland. It would bring together public and private donors to focus on supporting joint initiatives and co-operation between Israelis and Palestinians, and between Arabs and Jews in Israel and the wider region, encompassing both business and economic development and a range of civil society projects.

The Britain-Israel all-party group chaired by Bob Blackman MP and the noble Lord, Lord Turnberg, wrote to the Foreign Secretary earlier this month, in a letter I was pleased to co-sign, urging UK support for this fund and that the opportunity for a place on the board should be taken up. No reply has been received, but current events suggest that now is absolutely the right time to strengthen the UK’s support for coexistence. In answer to debates in the other place, Ministers confirmed that participation was under consideration. I hope the Minister can tell me today that a positive decision is in the pipeline.

Report of the Iraq Inquiry

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 6th July 2016 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I have had precisely an hour, prior to its publication, to look at the executive summary of the report. I cannot claim to stand here and recount to your Lordships every nuance of the report; that can only be done over time by us all. I do not have full answers today but, certainly from my reading of the executive summary, there is no question of intelligence being falsified. However, I think Sir John concludes that there was a gap between the ways in which the intelligence was framed and presented to the general public, and that he leaves open the explanation for that. There was certainly no suggestion in anything I read that the Cabinet was deceived nor of an undisclosed plan to go to war, although there was a certain point in 2002 at which Sir John says that the Government committed themselves to a course of action which would have been very difficult to reverse. They did not necessarily commit to military action but committed to a chain of actions which, if unsuccessful, might almost inevitably lead to war. While what the noble Baroness says is correct, there are nuances in this that we all need to take on board.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, is there not a striking parallel between the failure to plan for an aftermath in 2003 and our worries about the failure to plan for the aftermath of the recent EU referendum? I want this to be not about Brexit but about the machinery of government. What has been learned in 13 years about how that machinery must be ready to go in that context, after an event?

[Earl Howe]

With respect to the noble Baroness, we are dealing with two very different situations. It is not the business of Sir John Chilcot to comment on issues of that kind. Indeed, there is an opportunity for the noble Baroness to make points of that sort during the debate that is continuing later today. I shall have to reflect on what she said but I do not have a ready answer at the moment.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, welcome and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, and say au revoir—but, I suspect, not adieu—to the noble Baroness, Lady Perry.

Amid all the sound and fury of this referendum campaign, what has emerged is the consistency and continuity of the arguments for and against UK membership of the EEC, the European Community or the European Union going back 70 years. Everyone has quoted Winston Churchill, and so will I later, but let me for now give you Harold Macmillan, from a Conservative pamphlet in 1962:

“We in Britain are Europeans. That has always been true, but it has now become a reality which we cannot ignore … Are we now to isolate ourselves from Europe, at a time when our own strength is no longer self-sufficient and when the leading European countries are joining together to build a future of peace and progress, instead of wasting themselves in war?”.

The answer—no, we should not isolate ourselves—is just as relevant today.

I recall that Liberal Democrats and our predecessor parties have unitedly, consistently and persistently been pro-European. We are the only force in British politics that has not vacillated, oscillated and self-destructed over the question of whether our country should participate in a united Europe. We believe that being in the EU is both the patriotic choice and the rational choice. Liberal Democrats, in the 2010-15 coalition, kept the European show on the road, while blue-on-blue discord on Europe developed into the distasteful full-scale internal party war that we see today. In the past, the same was true of Labour and its bitter red-on-red feud.

My hope is that after 23 June, when, as I hope, this country settles its future firmly in the EU—or, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Soley, makes up its mind—we can focus all our efforts on creating the best possible European Union, and here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howell. This would be for the sake of ourselves, the whole of Europe and our international partners, setting aside the waste of energy on the distraction of internal party fights.

There are so many vital and urgent challenges in the world today, as my noble friend Lady Williams pointed out in a speech this morning, from climate change to conflict to pollution to nuclear proliferation, not to mention tax evasion and corruption on a grand scale. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, gave an impressively long list of priorities for EU action, and the noble Lord, Lord Luce, emphasised all the major challenges that we need to address. Yet much of the navel-gazing media focus in this campaign is about whether George Osborne or Boris Johnson might be our future Prime Minister. I have heard about as much from IDS and Jacob Rees-Mogg as I can bear in a lifetime. I exempt the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who makes me laugh. I still have an appetite to follow the splendidly sensible and robust tweets of Sir Nicholas Soames MP, who is much more qualified than most to talk about what Churchill thought.

It is time to stop treating Europe as a party political football, accept the legitimacy of our EU membership and start concentrating all our efforts on getting the best out of it. I echo some remarks by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, in that respect. Europe should be mainstreamed in our politics, not treated as some kind of alien body. It was almost amusing to hear some speakers in this debate attack the pro-European elites, echoing the conspiracy thesis of the Brexiteers. It is a bit ironic to hear Members of this House knock the elites.

Far from “mainstreaming” implying an acceptance of everything that comes out of Brussel as a good idea, it means the contrary. Just as you can have lively disagreement in a marriage, even a jolly good row, without risking a divorce, so there is plenty of scope for policy divergences without bringing our actual membership into question. The contribution made by our own EU Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the estimable noble Lord, Lord Boswell, to securing good policy in the EU is admired across the continent. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Garel-Jones, on the need to rigorously apply subsidiarity and to bring a sensible critique to EU matters.

It is time that we properly informed and educated our citizens so that they understand the basic mechanics of the EU, which are not in fact that complicated, and are not hoodwinked by, let us call them, untruths coming out of the Brexit camp, such as “We have no control over our borders”—try telling that to passengers arriving at Heathrow Airport—or the confusion between the single market and external trade agreements. We must not go back to the days when even the quality press mixed up the non-EU Council of Europe with the EU’s European Council of 28 Heads of Government, and BBC political correspondents knew absolutely nothing about the relationship between the European Commission, the Council of Ministers and MEPs. A little more knowledge would prevent the repetition of the charge that the Court of Auditors does not sign off EU accounts. In fact, it has done so every year for the past decade.

A refreshing experience of the past few months has been how much of an input we have heard from people who are not politicians. Not only businesspeople but scientists, academics, artists, actors, environmentalists, lawyers, law enforcement specialists and many others have spoken up about why they want to remain. That contribution must not be lost. A silver lining has been that the press and broadcasters have had to talk about Europe.

What has also come out of this campaign and this debate is the enormously valuable contribution that this country already makes to European and international affairs and the potential for an even greater one. We are the network country par excellence. My Churchill quote of the evening is from a letter that he wrote in 1961:

“I think that the Government are right to apply to join the European Economic Community … We might well play a great part in these developments to the profit of not only ourselves, but of our European friends also”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jowell, referred to that theme of what we can contribute in stability and reform to the EU. The noble Lord, Lord Low, talked of the importance of our philosophical orientation, not bean-counting. Former Polish Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski had some double-edged words of praise for the UK a few years ago. He expressed frustration at us, but he first stressed the assets that we have put into the European pool:

“Britain … You have given the Union its common language. The Single Market was largely your brilliant idea. A British commissioner runs our diplomacy”—

this was in 2011—

“You could lead Europe on defence. You are an indispensable link across the Atlantic”.

Apart from hiring the guy as our brand ambassador, we should realise what our friends realise and have been saying for months: we need you, we want you, you have so much to give. Stop messing around. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, being in the EU strengthens our voice in the US, the UN and the Commonwealth.

My last quote is from Roy Jenkins in 1975. He referred to fear as the most vulnerable British emotion on which hostility to the EEC can play. How prescient. We have seen that with the Brexiteers whipping up fear against Turks, EU migrants, President Obama and now Canadians in the person of the Governor of the Bank of England—in fact, against foreigners in general in a really xenophobic fashion. In a month’s time, will it all be over? No, it will only just be beginning—the chance for this country to deploy all its assets, advantages and network strengths towards assuming the leadership role in the EU that is ours to take, without one hand constantly tied behind our back.

Strategic Defence and Security Review

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 3rd December 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, for initiating this debate and in warmly applauding the four maiden speeches. I hope that it is not invidious if I single out my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie as a very strong addition to our Benches.

The SDSR was of course accompanied by the national security strategy. Although that is not name-checked in the title of this debate, it is security in the broadest sense that I want to focus on rather than defence. One priority in the national security strategy, according to the Government, is to:

“Help strengthen the rules-based international order and its institutions”.

To that end, the UK will work,

“to promote stability, good governance and human rights”.

Then there is a high-level objective in the document, which is to “project our global influence”, which covers means such as expanding our world-leading soft power, investing more in alliances and building stronger partnerships. I fully support both the overall priority and the enumerating objectives. What I struggle with is matching the Government’s words with their actions. How does the pledge to abolish the Human Rights Act, threatening our adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights and our respect for Strasbourg court judgments, comply with the aspirations of strengthening the rules-based international order, upholding our values and promoting human rights? If we cannot do it on the European front, how can we do it internationally?

Under the rubric of “protecting our people”, the National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review pledged to work with allies to respond to threats and challenges. However, as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, said, there is no mention of European co-operation in the response to the migration challenge. While there is a commitment to strengthen our capabilities to disrupt serious and organised crime, and the Prime Minister’s forward vows to counter threats which recognise no borders, those pledges are contradicted by the Government’s refusal to participate in a strengthened Europol—which, as it happens, has a British director. The Prime Minister said in his recent Chatham House speech that the EU matters for national security, so is he not endangering our security by repeating his periodic claim—not least in the Daily Telegraph today—that he might recommend a Brexit? The EU as such is hardly mentioned in the national security/SDSR document.

Another example of contradiction is the reported omission from the revised Ministerial Code of any specific pledge to uphold international law. That surely completely cuts across the pledge to a rules-based international order. Indeed, the constant sniping that we hear against judges and courts of all kinds—both European and domestic—strikes a contradictory note if the Government are attached to rules.

Too many in the UK, and even in the Government, seem not to be at ease with our international and European role and want to pull up the drawbridge and retreat into aggrieved and curmudgeonly isolation. We should, on the contrary, capitalise on our strengths in democracy, human rights and law and on our position at the intersection of so many networks—the EU, the Commonwealth, the United Nations, the transatlantic relationship and NATO—to contribute with confidence to Europe and the world. We should take our cue as a country from the contribution that all those British individuals who we furnish to European and international institutions make—most recently, and I congratulate her in her absence, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, the new Secretary-General of the Commonwealth. There are so many more whom I do not have either time or place to name-check. We as a country should follow their example.

[Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)]

I remind noble Lords about the four-minute limit, because otherwise we are going to cut into the Minister's reply.

National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 23rd November 2015 Lords Chamber

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord asked me three questions. The first was about the rapid deployment strike capability. The Army is able to deploy a division now with sufficient notice and has been able to for some while. During the time of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, as Defence Secretary, he was instrumental in ensuring that capability. This division could consist of an armoured infantry brigade, 3 Commando brigade and 16 Air Assault Brigade as well as forces from other nations. This SDR is investing in improving the readiness level and upgrading the capabilities of the division, so that by 2025 we will be able to deploy a division comprising two armoured infantry brigades and a strike brigade, in addition to our high-readiness forces of 3 Commando Brigade and 16 Air Assault Brigade.

The noble Lord, Lord Reid, also mentioned intelligence and expressed a fear that this capability might be off-set by reductions in numbers in community policing. The SDSR document does not cover community policing, which is a matter for local forces, as he knows. We will no doubt be hearing news of that as the effects of the SR are made known. I cannot comment on that today but I can say that we will protect absolutely the counterterrorist police we need to ensure national security and that the funding for that will be ring-fenced. He also said that innovation was not mentioned. I will just refer him to part B of chapter 6 of the document, which is entitled “Innovation”, and is on page 73 and the following.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister help to resolve a disconnect between the recent remarks of the Prime Minister and this document? The Prime Minister recently stressed the significance of the European Union for the UK’s national security in the context of, for instance, standing up to Russia, helping to stop Iran’s nuclear programme and tackling maritime piracy. But this document hardly mentions the European Union as such, as opposed to individual European allies. For instance, in chapter 5, “Project Our Global Influence”, you have to get to its seventh page before there is any mention of the EU. This seems to contrast with the Prime Minister saying a fortnight or so ago:

“The EU, like NATO and our membership of the UN Security Council, is a tool that”,

we use,

“to get things done in the world, and protect our country”.

One would have thought that would count as projecting our global influence, so why is there so little mention of the European Union?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Baroness should not read anything in particular into what she perceives as a paucity of mention of the European Union in this document. There is no doubt that our membership of the European Union adds value to our defence capability. We have only to look at the operation in the Mediterranean to rescue migrants earlier this year to see how the European Union came together. I was in Brussels last week at a meeting of the European Defence Agency, which is another means whereby member states can collaborate to ensure that we have such things as common standards in air-to-air refuelling, aircraft safety and a range of other areas. The European Union is a vehicle for co-operation, in parallel to our membership of NATO, and I would be the first to pay tribute to the work of its member states in protecting the security of Europe.

Europe: Renegotiation

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, mentioned primarily migration and the problem hitting the whole of Europe at the moment. I see no reason why we would stop our continuing work, and particularly our DfID budget, helping those migrants—preferably upstream, where we can stop them moving towards Europe in the first place.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Smith said, none of us wants any abuse of free movement and benefits. Will the noble Earl confirm that the statistic much cited today, that 40% of EU migrants claim benefits, largely means tax credits and possibly child tax credits? We are not talking about scroungers on the dole but working EU migrants. That is what this is meant to be about. Could the noble Earl kindly explain a little more on this? The Prime Minister still talks about a four-year wait but there are hints that other solutions could be possible. For instance, does the Prime Minister mean codifying the very helpful recent judgments by the Court of Justice of the European Union? Could the noble Earl signpost us to an alternative to a frankly unachievable objective?

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned the detail of my right honourable friend’s speech earlier today. He said:

“We now know that, at any one time, around 40% of all recent European Economic Area migrants are supported by the UK benefits system … with each family claiming on average around £6,000 a year of in-work benefits alone”.

On the noble Baroness’s other point, relating to the four-year restriction, I will read out the whole paragraph I have here, if the House allows. It says:

“Our objective is to better control migration from within the EU. There are obviously different ways in which we could achieve that. We … can do that by reducing the incentives offered by our welfare system”.

That is why we set out the proposal that you must contribute before you can claim. We understand that others across the European Union also have concerns about this. That is why we say to them: “Put forward alternative proposals that deliver the same results”. We are open to different ways of dealing with this issue, as long as we do just that and agree new measures that will reduce the numbers coming here.