Abraham Accords

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 14th September 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am so shocked—I am recalling life in the European Parliament, where we were lucky if we got two minutes.

I am pleased that we are having this debate and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Polak, on securing it, almost on the third anniversary of the signature of the original accords. In fact, the anniversary is tomorrow, which is also the festival of Rosh Hashanah, so I wish Jewish colleagues and the community in general a happy new year and shanah tovah.

I strongly welcome the Abraham accords as a factor of peace and development in the Middle East region. In the 1970s, I visited Israel on a scholarship from the Anglo-Israel Association. This led me on a journey to being today a vice-president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, so I am deeply committed to the security and flourishing of Israel at peace in its region.

I wrote a pamphlet as a result of that trip which urged regional economic integration. Yes, I was inspired by the then EEC and I was thinking of Israel’s neighbours, not Gulf or North African countries beyond Egypt, but the destination is more important than the route. People-to-people contacts as much as official ones will help to normalise relations. Beside trade and tourism, support in bad times can help. We are, of course, particularly thinking, as the noble Lord pointed out, of Moroccan, Libyan and, previously, Turkish victims of terrible disasters. I understand that several Israeli teams are assisting with the rescue effort on the ground in Morocco.

The largely positive picture from the Abraham accords is marred by a deplorable rise in extremism in some quarters. This includes the absolutely shocking recent remarks by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that Hitler murdered European Jews in the Holocaust not because of anti-Semitism but because of Jews’ “social role” in society. Those remarks have been greeted with widespread horror, including by leading Palestinian public figures in an open letter in which they

‘unequivocally condemn the morally and politically reprehensible comments’.

Sadly, we also have shocking extremists sharing in government on the Israeli side. While I will always be a friend of Israel, this has not made me a friend of all Israeli Governments, but the current Government are the worst I have ever witnessed. The make-up and domestic policies of this Netanyahu Government in encouraging illegal settlements and failing to stop settler violence against Palestinians are surely deterrents to reinforcing the Abraham accords—although they in any case bring their own headaches, such as how to treat Saudi Arabia’s leader Mohammed Bin Salman—and to any peace with Palestinians. Of course terrorist attacks by Palestinians on Israeli civilians as much as Israeli settler violence are deplorable, and I condemn both. The prospects for peace and a two-state solution with the Palestinians have rarely looked worse, and the Abraham accords are not an alternative to that.

On a trip last November with Caabu, I found it sobering to hear the alienation of young Palestinians from not only Israel but their own Palestinian Authority, which was last elected 15 years ago. It is interesting and possibly hopeful that a recent poll found that while only just over one-quarter of Palestinians in the West Bank had a positive view of the regional impact of the Abraham accords, this rose to almost half in Gaza and nearly two-thirds in east Jerusalem, and a majority of the respondents in all three places agreed with the statement

“Arab governments are neglecting the Palestinians and starting to make friends with Israel, because they think the Palestinians should be more willing to compromise”.


That is food for thought.

I conclude with the obvious questions for the Minister, who can perhaps report on the Foreign Secretary’s recent visit to Israel. They are: where do the Government think the Abraham accords are going? What is the UK Government’s role in them, as the noble Lord, Lord Polak, asked? Do they offer any hope for Israeli-Palestinian peace? What shoots of peace can he discern for us to deliver a happy new year?

Israel and Palestine

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th March 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I also thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for this timely debate. For 45 years I have been a friend of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people—an expression I much prefer to “Jewish state”. It is a long story as to why I first connected with the country. Suffice it to say that it started by chance, as I am not Jewish and have no family connection to Israel. I found myself celebrating Purim in a kibbutz in March 1978. I have just looked it up on Wikipedia; it was 22 and 23 March 1978.

What attracted me and kept me engaged were the values of the State of Israel and its right, which I very strongly support, not only to exist but to exist in security, without its neighbours and others wishing and trying to wipe it off the map—so I have ended up as a vice-president of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. There is certainly inequality and discrimination within Israel against the Arab minority, but it is emphatically not an apartheid state. Israel is entitled to take military action by the IDF to defend itself and its citizens from attack and, although there have been excesses and wrongdoing by the IDF, the motivation for its action is qualitatively different from the terrorist attacks on civilians by Palestinian militants and the glorification of terror, including by the Palestinian Authority.

I am a friend of Israel but I am no friend of the present Prime Minister, Mr Netanyahu. I never have been, because I am a liberal and he is increasingly like Trump, as shown by the attempts to ram through highly controversial and self-serving changes to the courts. With an undemocratic and corrupt Palestinian Authority, both Israelis and Palestinians are very badly served at present. The present coalition Government Mr Netanyahu leads go way beyond even the tolerable, containing far-right extremists and racists, and they are perpetrating or being apologists for some utterly disgraceful actions and rhetoric about Palestinians and Arab Israelis. The Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel are appalled at the violent attacks by settlers on Palestinians in Hawara, and indeed any settler violence.

Israelis opposed to this far-right Government give me hope about rescuing the soul of their country, with thousands of protesters on the street every week. Prominent among them are members of the Liberal Democrats’ sister party, Yesh Atid, but people from all sections of Israeli society are taking part.

I first said almost 20 years ago that I believed that illegal settlements and being an occupying power were poisoning and politically corrupting Israel, as well as oppressing Palestinians. My visits to Israel and the West Bank last autumn confirmed my view, but even recognition of a Palestinian state does not obviate the need for negotiations. The route to peace and any hope of two states has to lie partly through economic and cultural co-operation and engagement, which is why I fervently oppose any boycott of Israel.

I support the Abraham Accords and was glad to join the call, which others have mentioned this evening, for the UK Government to work with partners to create an international fund for peace for Israelis and Palestinians. The national question between Jews and Palestinians is still just about solvable. I hope the Minister can give us hope of a solution.

Ireland/Northern Ireland Protocol: Scrutiny of EU Legislative Proposals (European Affairs Committee Sub-Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Friday 20th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, came through that terrifying experience to share his wisdom with us today, not least as the former president of the CBI. I absolutely endorse the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, for his chairmanship and stewardship as a sort of welfare counsellor to the sub-committee: he is not a former top diplomat for nothing.

This report is not about the protocol itself, but about the process of scrutiny. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, kept to the confines of his report in his initial presentation. As the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, it contains a plethora of constructive and practical suggestions, and these were referred to and, indeed, added to during the debate. While the noble Lord, Lord Jay, kept to the confines of the report and its subject, other speakers did not, beginning with the noble Lords, Lord Lamont, Lord Dodds and Lord Weir. They ranged a bit more widely, so I will give myself permission to do so just a little.

I went back to read the introductory report of the sub-committee from July 2021. Everything in that report is still entirely valid, including that the protocol was not created in a vacuum but as a consequence of Brexit. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, this was a UK Government choice. The noble Lord, Lord Lamont, referred to paragraph 30 of the Government’s response to the report, which says:

“The imposition of EU law was a consequence of the EU’s unwillingness to accept other solutions.”


Well, as has been remarked on during the debate, the Government negotiated, signed and ratified. They insisted on ratification of the protocol, so this idea that “It’s nothing to do with us, guv”—particularly the “guv”—is, I think, pertinent in this context. Indeed, the introductory report from the sub-committee I just referred to, from two and a half years ago, said:

“Just as unionists and loyalists object to the Protocol being imposed without their consent, so nationalists and republicans point out that Brexit was imposed on Northern Ireland even though the majority of votes there were to remain in the EU.”


As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, pointed out, there was no democratic deficit before Brexit. I really do not want to go on too much about this, but I am responding to remarks made as if this came from outer space. For those of us who have some experience of the EU’s democratic processes, one of our main objections to Brexit was that we would become a rule-taker, not a rule-maker. The sub-committee’s report of July 2021 said:

“While there are mitigating steps that can be taken … there is no apparent way to eliminate the democratic deficit.”


That is absolutely true. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, was one of those who repeated the point that it was obvious what the problem was going to be. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Bew, that it is not a new acknowledgement, or some sort of new revelation, that there is a democratic deficit.

As this report concentrates on, the important thing is how we can mitigate and improve the management of the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, added to the suggestions in the report that the UK should stop blocking an EU office in Belfast—which obviously seems sensible—and the idea of having a Northern Ireland Executive office in Brussels. Scotland and London, among others—forgive my ignorance; Wales probably did as well—had their own offices in Brussels back in the day. It could be not just a section of the UK mission but an office in its own right, as the Scotland and London offices were.

My noble friend Lady Suttie referred to the Commission non-paper of October 2021, which had lots of sensible suggestions on how to improve the practical situation. That is what we need to concentrate on; how will it be taken forward? It is not helpful that we have had to labour for the last few years, as the sub-committee noted in its invaluable introductory report of two and a half years ago, against the Government’s apparent reluctance to accept their obligations under the protocol and the consequences of their policy choices, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others.

I completely understand the dilemma of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, over language when thinking about the former Prime Minister. I am afraid that there was dishonesty—“lying” may be unparliamentary, so let us stick to that term—about what paperwork and checks would be necessary. There was no clarity about what practical obligations would be imposed on stakeholders in Northern Ireland, so it has been a shock to business and others. By the way, I do not think the statistics bear out that the protocol has had a poor impact on the economic situation in Northern Ireland; the situation is rather to the contrary.

As the sub-committee has been pointing out for its entire existence, there was a paramount need for the British Government to be trustworthy, rigorous and honest and show good faith and good will in acknowledging what they signed up to and its implications, and then carry through the good governance machinery necessary to make it all work. Unfortunately, that did not happen. We had the internal market Bill and now we have the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, which is parked—thank goodness—and will hopefully go up in a puff of smoke. Both of them have been detrimental, to put it mildly, to any chance of demonstrating trust and getting on with the necessity of implementing the protocol.

To quote the report we are discussing, this is not helped by the fact that

“the Government’s stated intention in pursuing the particular form of Brexit it has chosen is to give the opportunity for the UK (in respect of Great Britain) to diverge from EU Single Market rules.”

That complicates the situation because, if you have the moving target of regulatory divergence all the time, there will be no stability in the situation for Northern Ireland, which is effectively under single market rules.

Today we are trying to discuss day-to-day process rather than policy. One element that we can demonstrably very much rely on is the assiduous, diligent and thorough exercise of the scrutiny duties of our protocol sub-committee under the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, said, no other body is doing this. The sub-committee on the protocol is filling a gap where the Government should be leading the way. I enjoyed some of the acerbic comments in the report on the Government’s failure to fulfil their duties in a prompt and efficient way. I thought some of the language reflected the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, in his long career in Whitehall. It is not good enough to have sloppy Explanatory Memoranda —“unacceptably poor” is the phrase used.

I am running out of time. What occurred to me in reading the report was the need for trust, honesty, rigour, respect, fairness, engagement, fulfilment of obligations, provision of information, good will and good faith. That is all that is being asked for—I see the Minister grimacing; it is a lot—and it is not too much to ask from a Government who want to implement the obligations that they signed up to.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Godson, referred to the Irish Government. It is worth recalling that the sub-committee referred in its introductory report to the Irish Government’s important role in facilitating dialogue between the UK Government and the Northern Ireland Executive on the one hand and the EU on the other. We cannot expect them to take on too much, but we owe it to them to recognise the role they have played in the last few years.

European Political Community

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

I thank the noble Earl for the second half of his question, which I will convey to the Government; it is not a commitment that I can make but I imagine that it is something that the Government will want to do. The UK has been clear from the start about the importance of any new European political gathering not duplicating the established work of, for example, NATO, the Council of Europe, the OSCE or the UN. However, the summit was an opportunity for the UK to lead that European debate and deliver on issues that matter for the UK. It is worth pointing out that around a third of the participants at the summit are not members of the European Union. No new structures, institutions or anything of the sort were created; this is a forum for addressing pan-European issues of common interest.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The attendance of the former Prime Minister at the EPC meeting was a welcome surprise. Given that one of the themes was security, as cited by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, can the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to advance co-operation in the foreign and security sphere; for instance, by providing support to EU civil and military missions under the EU’s common security and defence policy?

[Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park (Con)]

My Lords, there were no formal conclusions from the summit itself but progress was undoubtedly made in a bunch of areas and key priorities for the UK. For example, the former Prime Minister and President Macron issued a joint statement confirming plans to finalise arrangements to proceed with the Sizewell C nuclear power station by the end of the month—to be built, as noble Lords will know, by EDF. There was also agreement to enhance broader civil nuclear co-operation, to conclude a bilateral agreement on illegal migration, and to hold the first bilateral summit since 2018 in France next year.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)]

But if the consequence of doing so is to embrace a Bill which drives a horse and cart through the procedures and principles by which this Parliament operates, surely that is an inhibition and we should avoid it at all costs.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

To prevent the noble Lord, Lord Bew, having to get up and sit down again, I ask him again to appreciate and acknowledge that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, nobody in the debates we have had, whether at Second Reading, on the first day in Committee or today, is arguing to invoke Article 16. No one is advocating its use, let alone now. All that is being said is that the legal argument of necessity invoked by the Government is undermined by the fact that they have never resorted to the use of Article 16; hence necessity is on very shallow foundations.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, is there not a very short answer to all of this: not to proceed with the Bill?

Ukraine: Defence Relationships

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 9th June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for this very timely and important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, said we have a better system in place, as a democracy, to identify and correct errors. I thoroughly agree, and I am going to talk about correcting the errors of Brexit.

There has been much debate this week over how to improve the economic and trade relationship with the EU, not least the suggestion by senior Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood that the UK should seek to rejoin the single market and customs union—a suggestion my party fully endorses, but it has ruffled some Brexiter feathers. A closer relationship in foreign and security policy ought to be less controversial. It was a sadly missed opportunity that this was not part of the Brexit deal, partly because of the poison from the rest of the “done deal”. The lack of trust being generated by this Government is prejudicing the chance of picking up that baton again and capitalising on the UK’s undoubted assets in security, defence and diplomacy. Health Secretary Sajid Javid has urged the RMT rail union to think again, act sensibly, “act like adults” and withdraw its strike threat. Would that he would address the same admonition to the Prime Minister over the crazy and damaging proposal to tear up the Northern Ireland protocol.

It is not only the prospects for British science that are being damaged by the confrontational approach currently being pursued. British, European, transatlantic and indeed global security are being harmed as well by the absence of trust and the failure to seize opportunities for a closer foreign and security relationship. Apart from changes in attitude, there needs to be a big, clear political declaration of a fundamental change in the UK’s approach, setting out the intention to act as a good neighbour to the EU and to repair the damage caused over the last six years by Conservative Governments, and especially this one. This may not happen under the present Government, but hopefully will under a new one. There is a clear basis for extending co-operation, building on areas where it is working well, most obviously in the policy towards Ukraine. It makes sense to start with the content of co-operative ventures and look later for suitable structures and mechanisms, but it can start with good relationships through meetings of Ministers and officials, maybe backed with exchanges of staff, such as between the FCDO and the European External Action Service.

The present Government have prioritised bilateral relationships with EU states over those with the EU institutions. There is nothing wrong with good bilateral relations, of course, except that doing it in order to undermine the EU and somehow demonstrate that the UK does not need, and indeed disdains, the EU is very unwise and counterproductive. I hope the current Foreign Secretary can adopt a more pragmatic attitude than the arrogant one of the previous incumbent. Maybe the FCDO does not do humility, but the attitude of superiority coupled with cynicism that the UK often got away with as a member state will not wash as a third country.

There needs to be a recognition in London, in particular, that the EU is a serious security and defence actor. The scope for this is evident from the experience on sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, where the alignment has either been explicit, such as UK sanctions mirroring those of the EU, or the two have been complementary and mutually reinforcing. This is an excellent precedent.

The European Council, at the Versailles summit in March,

“reaffirmed their commitment to take more responsibility for the EU’s own security … The leaders stressed that continued strong coordination on security and defence with partners and allies is key in this respect, including EU-NATO cooperation”.

In addition, EU

“leaders agreed to … develop further incentives for collaborative investments in joint projects and procurement; invest in … cybersecurity … ; foster synergies between civilian, defence and space research and innovation”

and

“invest in critical and emerging technologies”.

This surely gives a good platform for deepening UK-EU co-operation over defence industrial issues, perhaps by joining or becoming an associate of the European Defence Agency.

The UK could also seek to participate in one or more PESCO—Permanent Structured Cooperation—projects. The one on Military Mobility is much valued by EU and NATO members in eastern Europe, and is indeed a centrepiece of the increasing EU-NATO co-operation and overlap as Finland and Sweden are poised to join NATO and Denmark has decided through a referendum—which is very welcome—to end its opt-out from the EU’s common security and defence policy. The importance of the Military Mobility project hardly needs stressing; it enables

“the unhindered movement of military personnel and assets within … the EU.”

The other opportunity, besides the European Defence Agency and PESCO, might be for the UK to participate in European security and defence missions, as other third countries do. There is, of course, a chapter on cybersecurity as an example of thematic co-operation in the TCA. It is disappointing that this has, so far as I know, remained an unexplored opportunity. Can the Minister tell me if there is any more life in it now? Is there any prospect of the UK participating in the EU Agency for Cybersecurity—ENISA—which it can in fact request?

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned the idea from President Macron of a political community wider than the EU. It may go nowhere, and it is partly designed to head off pressure from candidate countries for early membership. However, it is an olive branch and the kind of idea that offers opportunities for a third country like the UK, so I hope that it will get a positive response, even from the present Government.

Working Practices (International Agreements Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, wondered if it was self-indulgent to debate the work of one of our committees, but no one needs to persuade me, as a former MEP, of the valuable work of committees, which are the main forum—rather than the plenary—for the European Parliament’s work.

I am not an expert on the matter of scrutiny of trade agreements, unlike my colleagues, my noble friends Lord Oates and Lord Purvis of Tweed, and indeed the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. My focus in the last six momentous years has been on the relationship—which I would call more of a domestic relationship—with the EU, rather than on external trade agreements. So I warmly thank the International Agreements Committee and its chair for their admirably informative report which was so clearly presented today by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. I also thank her committee and the EU and Constitution Committees for their earlier reports. It has taken an awful lot of heavy lifting by committees in this place, and the other place, to get even as far as we have on the scrutiny of treaties—although I take the point about the Grimstone rule being here, and then not here, and then here again. Even now, there is still much work to be done. One of the main messages which comes out of the committee’s report is to formalise any understandings in a formal concordat and to consolidate. This point about the Ponsonby rule is clearly one which needs to be pinned down.

My approach to the topic of today’s debate is very considerably shaped by my 15-year experience as a Member of the European Parliament, although even there I was not on the International Trade Committee. However, I was heavily involved as a member of the Committee on Civil Liberties in the tussle over international data transfers and, in particular, the big row, 12 years ago, over an agreement that became the catalyst for the modern EU system of engagement between the Executive and the Parliament over the scrutiny and approval of external agreements. This was the famous SWIFT agreement, whereby it was proposed to transfer the personal bank data of Europeans to the United States via the SWIFT network, which we have heard a lot about recently in the context of sanctions on Russia. The European Parliament rejected this agreement, amid concerns for privacy, proportionality and reciprocity, in the context of rather weak—indeed, almost non-existent—US law on data protection and the scandals of extraordinary rendition and Guantanamo.

There was quite a bit of shocked and outraged huffing and puffing from the Commission, the Council and member states, but we had given them fair warning of our discontents over inadequate data protection standards and human rights-breaching anti-terrorism laws in the US and the inadequate balance between security and civil liberties in the agreement. So the Commission, the Council and member states came to their senses and fairly quickly reached an accord with MEPs on strengthened safeguards, such that the Parliament approved a new stricter version of the SWIFT agreement, renamed the Terrorist Finance Tracking Program agreement, five months later. However, we requested the suspension of that agreement, three years later.

Apart from the substance of that text, what this debacle led to was a better way forward. I was interested to note—I found it on Google—that the European Parliament press release of February 2010 included a quote from one Timothy Kirkhope of the ECR group, who we know better as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. I hope he will not mind that I cite it in his absence; I saw it too late to ask his permission, but it is a good quotation. He said he was “frustrated and angered” by the Council’s treatment of Parliament. He went on to say:

“Parliament’s right to consent should not be used as a retrospective tool. We are finally getting assurances from Council and Commission”—


on data protection issues—

“but we now need some time before proceeding further in our considerations.”

This was the key point that is relevant to our debate today. The European Parliament demanded and won, in the name of parliamentary democracy, the right not only to give or withhold its consent to international agreements but to be involved in their genesis, including the development of negotiating objectives and progress reports on the negotiations. What the EU authorities had wisely learned was not just a lesson in respect for parliamentary rights but one about effectiveness, efficiency and coherence as well. Her Majesty’s Government are being somewhat slower to learn and apply these lessons.

This Parliament, unlike the European Parliament, did not have the power to give or withhold consent to the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement with the EU. We were allowed only to scrutinise the relevant implementing legislation, so the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the missing link of approving the treaties themselves were very well made.

The International Agreements Committee makes the point that more needs to be done to improve the effectiveness of the existing scrutiny system to make it more robust, and highlights that

“formal points for engagement with the committee are always set for after Government decisions have already been taken, so we are effectively responding to a fait accompli.”

It says, in what I think is a key point:

“The Government should not see parliamentary scrutiny of treaties as a rubber stamp at the end of the process to convey simple approval.”


For the sake of Hansard, I point out that this is at paragraph 45 of the report. This is the vital lesson that the EU Council and Commission learned: if you front-load the system, you are not only more likely to get approval but you have more chance of getting it in a time-efficient and energy-efficient manner and in a constructive spirit.

Finally, I want to say a word about the involvement of the devolved Administrations. I am very far from being knowledgeable about devolution, but I had an opportunity to raise in yesterday’s debate on the foreign part of the Queen’s Speech—which is meant to include Europe; I am sorry, but that is a bee in my bonnet—the question of human rights compliance in Northern Ireland and the potential challenge to the entrenchment of that compliance in the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the Northern Ireland protocol. This challenge comes from the government plans to reform the Human Rights Act and their threats to rewrite the Northern Ireland protocol. I urge that full consultation be held with the Northern Ireland authorities, including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, as well as with the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, whose chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, I am delighted to say has fortuitously joined us. I flag that with her and may well pursue it with her. Having said all that, I am very grateful for the report and for today’s debate.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, Europe does not figure in the title of today’s debate, or indeed of any of the five days of debate on the Queen’s Speech. Europe, it seems, has been abolished.

Some Brexit-related issues were debated last Thursday, when I could not be present as I was participating in the first meeting—finally—of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, set up under the TCA. That meeting was surprisingly useful. I must admit that my expectations were rather modest, fearing that it would just be a talking shop, with speeches by rote, but it was gratifyingly political and practical—not just the very spirited exchange between UK Minister Michael Ellis and Vice-President Šefčovič over the Northern Ireland protocol, to which parliamentarians also contributed, but the calls for progress and resolution over specific issues such as touring artists, rules of origin, bivalve molluscs and citizens’ rights. From our House, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, vice-chaired admirably, as one has learned to expect.

Everything points to a need to repair the UK-EU relationship, with a fundamental change in the UK’s approach signalling an intention to act as a good neighbour to the EU. The experience of co-operation with regard to the war in Ukraine exhibits, albeit in tragic circumstances, the potential for co-operation on security and defence, as the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, talked about. I hope that the Government, having refused to countenance a chapter in the trade and co-operation agreement to that effect, might now reconsider. Can the Minister tell us what potential the Government saw in President Macron’s recent speech on a political community in Europe with “concentric circles” of co-operation and association?

I want to talk about Brexit consequentials. Both the Brexit freedoms Bill and the Northern Ireland protocol were referred to in last Thursday’s debate but they are also relevant to today. But first, a word about where we are on Brexit. It has been conclusively demonstrated that the sunlit uplands and the land of milk and honey have not materialised, but costly Brexit red tape, hits to trade and our economy, big inflationary pressures and labour shortages have, as my noble friend Lord Taverne described so well.

The Government insist that there are Brexit opportunities—we even have a Minister for them—but the National Audit Office has issued a warning that three key regulators are struggling to recruit and train enough staff to establish bespoke post-Brexit regulatory regimes after leaving the EU. They cannot recruit staff such as lawyers, veterinarians and toxicologists, so how is that going? The Liberal Democrats are right to recommend progressive steps and road maps towards a closer partnership with the EU instead of the barren and costly Brexit that we have at present, and for the UK to set out to rejoin the customs union, the single market and other EU agencies and programmes as appropriate.

The Brexit freedoms Bill is set to provide for retained EU law to be easily amended or repealed by the unamendable stroke of a ministerial pen. As my noble friend Lord Beith warned last Thursday:

“This is a profound and retrograde constitutional change”.—[Official Report, 12/5/22; col. 165.]


What consideration are the Government and civil servants giving to the constraints on what they can do to rid themselves of EU and other European law arising, first, from legal commitments towards Northern Ireland under the devolution settlement and the Northern Ireland protocol and, secondly, from the treaties with the EU?

In respect of Northern Ireland, the Belfast/Good Friday agreement obliges incorporation of the ECHR, which the Human Rights Act currently does, and Article 2 of the Northern Ireland protocol obliges the UK to ensure

“no diminution of rights, safeguards or equality of opportunity”,

including under Union law—EU law—which is set out in the annexe to the protocol. Will the legal advice that we have been promised on the Northern Ireland protocol cover this very important issue and constraint on diluting the Human Rights Act?

The protocol also requires the UK to

“continue to facilitate the … work of the institutions and bodies set up”

under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement,

“including the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission”.

I am sorry to say that the funding and resources of the NIHRC have been so cut to the bone that its status at the UN as a category-A human rights watchdog could be at serious risk within months. That would put the UK at risk of breach of the withdrawal agreement. Are we going to be on the naughty step, like Russia? That would be hugely embarrassing as well as a legal breach. Meanwhile, any tinkering with the UK’s respect for the ECHR could bring into question the justice and security co-operation we are granted under the trade and co-operation agreement.

On data protection, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, warned last Thursday that if the data reform Bill, which aims to cut the burdens on business, relaxes the EU regime in the general data protection regulation so as to

“imperil our precious adequacy agreement from the European Commission”,—[Official Report, 12/5/22; col. 171.]

that would be not only a legal breach but a huge blow to businesses, such as finance and tech. So, instead of charging around like a bull in a china shop, causing damage, when will the Government be constructive in a partnership with the European Union?

Northern Ireland Protocol

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating this important Statement. That the Government have been preparing legislation relating to the Northern Ireland protocol is no secret. Senior members of the Cabinet have taken every opportunity to issue threats to this effect in recent weeks, but we should be thankful that the tone of the ministerial intervention today has shifted somewhat. We have gone from what felt like the inevitability of unilateral action to this proposed Bill being a mere insurance policy. However, as I will return to, and as many commentators have said in recent times, the Government’s approach to this challenge posed by the protocol has been erratic and at times reckless.

The backdrop of the dispute over the protocol now is, in part, the crucial question of the formation of a new Northern Ireland Executive. The Prime Minister was clear in his Belfast Telegraph article that he believes that Sinn Féin, as the largest party following the Assembly elections, has secured the position of nominating the First Minister. He called for the DUP to nominate a Speaker and First Minister as a matter of urgency, to get the Assembly up and running, and for once we are in full agreement with the Prime Minister. The people of Northern Ireland want their leaders, of all parties, to get on with the job. The cost of living crisis continues to bite, and the Assembly and the Executive will have an important role to play in the coming months. Politicians must, first and foremost, fulfil those duties while negotiations on the protocol—which the majority of newly elected MLAs wish to see fixed, not scrapped—continue.

We on these Benches understand the concerns regarding the operation of the Northern Ireland protocol. We have long called on both sides to show the flexibility needed to ensure that the protocol works in a way that enjoys the highest possible public support. The operation of the protocol has revealed tensions which need to be addressed; however, it has also been used by some to stoke tensions, and such behaviour is highly irresponsible. To uphold the principles of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and sustain the peace that it brought us, we need willing from both the EU and the UK Government. Checks must be reduced to the absolute minimum necessary.

There must be an element of common sense as to exactly what trade is subject to which checks. It cannot be right that goods from Great Britain which have no realistic prospect of moving into the EU single market are subject to excessive, costly and burdensome checks that only hamper business, inhibit trade and undermine confidence and consent. We have long called on both sides to show the flexibility needed to resolve this. We need calm heads, responsible leadership and serious diplomacy from both sides, statecraft, diligence and graft. While the process is under way, the people of Northern Ireland need and deserve a functioning Government who reflect the outcome of elections, as well as restoring the institutions created by the Belfast/Good Friday agreement.

The Government negotiated this deal. They signed it and ran an election campaign all about it. The Prime Minister refused to be upfront about the implications of his agreement, and that is his failure. Yesterday, in an interview with the BBC’s new political editor, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the Northern Ireland protocol was his creation. It is important that he has finally taken responsibility for negotiating an agreement that required, by its very design, some checks in the Irish Sea.

Aspects of what the Government are proposing on the protocol are helpful. However, these must be subject to urgent, detailed and technical negotiations, rather than endless media briefings. Labour has long argued that a veterinary agreement with the EU would eliminate the vast majority of checks on produce going from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Although this would not solve every problem—I accept that—it would be a sensible way forward. Crucially, it would act as the starting point for all sides to work with communities and businesses in Northern Ireland to find other creative solutions to minimise these checks.

One thing which is certain in this process is that the breaking of an international treaty will do nothing to improve the current situation. The proposed Bill may have been called an insurance policy but, if it is taken forward, it would amount to a major breach of our international commitments. There is no long-term unilateral solution to the issues with the protocol, and to pretend otherwise is disingenuous and will make achieving a negotiated settlement even harder. The EU has already said that it will respond to any breaches of the protocol with all measures at its disposal. We think that that is code for trade friction, which affects the cost of living and which people across this country do not want and cannot possibly afford, given current pressures.

Simon Hoare, chair of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, has said:

“Respect for the rule of law runs deep in our Tory veins, and I find it extraordinary that a Tory Government needs to be reminded of that.”


I suspect that the Minister will have some sympathy for what his colleague has said today. I hope that he will impress on the Foreign Secretary the need to de-escalate this situation and to take the right and responsible approach that is in the long-term interests of the people of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, while political knockabout is tempting in the surreal circumstance to which the Government have brought us in respect of the Northern Ireland protocol, the situation is too serious and dangerous for that. The Foreign Secretary’s claim that the Government’s

“first priority is to uphold the Belfast/Good Friday agreement in all its dimensions”

does not stand up to scrutiny. The protocol exists solely because of the nature of Brexit and the hardest of hard versions that the Johnson Government and their DUP allies chose, despite the voters of Northern Ireland not supporting a Brexit of any kind. Brexit was the original sin. The Government’s choice meant that the UK and Ireland were not aligned within the customs union or the single market. The result was the need to manage the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland through special arrangements. It was impossible to have the hard Brexit cake and to eat the no-checks-across-the-Irish-Sea cherry. However, the Prime Minister and his supporters seem never to have accepted the consequences of their choices and the treaties they signed.

The protocol can be changed only by an agreement between the UK and the EU. At the time it was signed, there was still hope that the trade agreement would supersede the protocol and make it unnecessary. Hence, the Government’s impact assessment in October 2019 said:

“The Government intends to conclude a future relationship with the EU that is centred on a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU and the outcome of this will affect the operation of the protocol.”


However, that comprehensive FTA never materialised, so the protocol—imperfect as it undoubtedly is—is still the essential best of a bad job. The Government’s announced action will put the UK in potential breach of international law. Like the noble Baroness, I will quote the Conservative chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Simon Hoare, who quoted Margaret Thatcher as saying:

“The first duty of Government is to uphold the law. If it tries to bob and weave and duck around that duty when it’s inconvenient … then nothing is safe—not home, not liberty, not life itself.”


The Assembly election results show that a clear majority of voters and elected Assembly members not only want to see the political institutions operating immediately but generally support the protocol. This also applies to the vast majority of the business community, who also want a pragmatic, not confrontational, approach.

The dual-market access that Northern Ireland enjoys is an economic asset, but the Government are not listening to these messages. In the strong words of my friend in the other place, Stephen Farry of the Lib Dems’ sister party, Alliance, which did so well in the Assembly elections:

“This proposed action is unwanted and unwarranted. Indeed, it may prove to be counterproductive and destructive. Much of the rationale cited by the Government is disingenuous … Any action or even threat of action that takes Northern Ireland out of the single market, including disapplying the jurisdiction of the ECJ, will undermine our region”—


I repeat, “will undermine our region”—

“as an investment location. It would also lead to even greater political instability.”

These are serious words for a very serious situation.

The disingenuous nature of the Foreign Secretary’s Statement is illustrated in her assertion that

“all Northern Ireland’s political parties agree on the need for changes to the protocol.”

Of course those parties, including Alliance, which accept the protocol still want to see improvements in its operation, because it is certainly necessary to address a range of issues. However, the way forward lies in partnership and mutual agreement between the UK and EU around legal and sustainable solutions to reduce the nature and level of checks through various mitigations and flexibilities in the operation of the protocol, or via building on the trade and co-operation agreement.

I note that the Foreign Secretary says that our preference is to reach a negotiated settlement with the EU—so please just do it. One extra that the Government should pursue is a veterinary or SPS agreement; there is a clear alternative here to just whingeing about SPS checks. Can the Minister explain properly why this is not being pursued? Yes, the EU should display even more flexibility than it has already—over medicines, for instance—but it also says that the flexibilities it has proposed have not been fully explored by the UK Government, and it cannot be expected to do more when the Government display belligerence instead of co-operation and undermine trust, especially as some of the solutions involve the EU subcontracting functions to UK authorities.

To risk a trade war with the EU at a time when there is a military war in Europe and when the UK economy is weak and vulnerable is deeply irresponsible. No wonder the Cabinet is split. I hope that the necessary negotiations will be taken forward.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I first thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Chapman and Lady Ludford, for their contributions and broad support—certainly from the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman—for the importance of moving forward in a collaborative and collective way and ensuring that the importance of upholding the principles, nature, context and content of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is at the heart of this. I know that this point was also shared by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and it has really been the basis of why the Government have chosen the particular pathway that I articulated in repeating the Statement.

The formation of a new Executive and a functioning Assembly—which the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, alluded to—are, of course, the primary objectives of the United Kingdom Government. I state again that this is not about scrapping the protocol, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, acknowledged; it is about fixing those elements of it which frankly are not working. They are not working for the political parties, for communities and, importantly, for businesses operating and seeking to strengthen their work across both Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, talked about Brexit and referred to Northern Ireland voting in a particular way, not for Brexit. The whole essence of the vote on Brexit was exactly what we are standing up for today: the unity of the United Kingdom. This was a UK-wide vote. It was a democratic vote—one person, one vote—the result stands and we really need now to move forward.

I also challenge the premise that, because of Brexit, our relationship with the European Union has suffered across a range of priorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to Ukraine. As someone who has been involved at the heart of our response, collaboration and collective working on Mr Putin’s aggression and war on Ukraine, I assure her that our work with the European Union and our partners in Europe is in a very strong place, particularly in an area that I oversee and work on with my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary: that of sanctions. I assure the noble Baroness that our relationship is very strong both bilaterally with countries across Europe and in the European Union context. I was pleased, as were many noble Lords, I am sure, when I heard the votes of the Eurovision Song Contest and heard Paris award the United Kingdom douze points. That reflects the strength across all cultural ties as well as what we are doing across important areas of our collaborative work.

On the issue of working with the European Union, Mr Šefčovič and my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary have been engaged in regular meetings, both calls and direct. Indeed, in the Statement today, my right honourable friend again outlined the importance of meetings. As I articulated in repeating the Statement, in introducing the Bill, we are working in tandem to ensure that ultimately our objective is to find a strengthened partnership with the European Union based on negotiated amendments to the protocol—it is very clear that it is not working.

I look forward to working with the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman, along with my noble friend Lord Caine and the noble Lord, Lord Collins, among others, on how we move forward with the legislation. I assure all noble Lords that, in taking forward this Bill, I am someone who has at the heart of his responsibilities the importance of the international rule of law—it is something I have personally defended—and this is very much consistent with our obligations to international law. We will put forward a Statement on the Government’s legal position in due course.

On all the technical points within the protocol—the areas which are not working— we will continue to engage not just with the political parties and the EU but, importantly, with businesses to ensure that we can find the most practical and pragmatic solutions. Ultimately, the Government are making this Statement today and the proposals they have to ensure a functioning Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland. As we have articulated —it is a point emphasised by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister—we need to act and move forward but do so always with the hand of co-operation and collaboration with the EU, and the door remains very much open for future discussions.

Shireen Abu Aqla

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 17th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi (Con)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, we have time for just two more so we will take a Lib Dem first.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister did not quite answer the question of whether he thought it feasible and valuable to have a joint investigation. The bullet is clearly an essential piece of evidence. He talks about an impartial investigation; does he believe it should be a joint one?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, that has certainly been put forward, and the Israeli side has called for a joint investigation. As I have said, one hopes that both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli authorities can come to an agreement to ensure that the evidence necessary to any investigation is fully provided, so that we have that impartial investigation. One hopes that that bridge can be crossed, so that there can be agreement on the investigation.

With the indulgence of the House, I will also take the second question as the Whip indicated.