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”.