EU and Russia (EUC Report)

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Tuesday 24th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, since I came to your Lordships’ House almost 18 years ago, I have had the great good fortune for eight of those years to sit as a member of Sub-Committee C. Those years have been among the most interesting that I have had among my colleagues here but now that most of us will be rotated under the rules from the committee, I want to say how grateful I feel to the staff and advisers who we have had in putting this report together, as well as for the quite outstanding leadership of my noble friend Lord Tugendhat.

The background to this report is of course the intolerable and outrageous behaviour by Russia in recent times. This report should be seen as a wake-up call, principally to the European Union. Our criticisms in the report are directed principally at Brussels, but also at member states’ capitals. Whatever failings we may have suggested with regard to the United Kingdom, they are overshadowed by its leadership over the years in international affairs in Europe, which is of course exemplified by our defence budget being 2% of our GDP—the largest in Europe and the fifth largest in the world.

First, I want to draw attention to Russia as it is today. In 2014, according to the most recent figures by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, the Russian defence budget was only around 12% greater than that of the United Kingdom. It has increased substantially in recent years, particularly with its nuclear capacity, which Mr Putin never fails to remind us about. A lot of that extra money has gone towards the Navy but the ground troops are visibly stretched and not fully equipped. They are not as potent a force as we may think, but they are of course capable of putting substantial numbers into shows of force and intimidating postures at the frontiers of the European Union and NATO.

That is the defence side but, on the economic side, we should not forget the parlous state of the Russian economy today. The collapse in oil prices and the rouble, and the flight of capital overseas, together with the effect of sanctions and the extra cost of the Crimean occupation, could be catastrophic for Russia. The committee heard from Mr Kasyanov, the former Prime Minister of Russia and, of course, an opponent of Putin. At a time when oil prices were around $80 a barrel, he told us that Russia could be in a major crisis in two years’ time. With oil prices now below $60 a barrel, I guess that Mr Putin must be losing quite a lot of sleep over this.

We must recognise that relatively modest conventional military resources and concerns over looming economic problems could cause Mr Putin to be at his most dangerous and unpredictable at this moment, in the difficulties in which he finds himself. So with this background, we must ask what we ought to do about this. I hope that this does not simplify it too much but the reaction of the European Union and NATO should be defined as the iron fist in the velvet glove. Above all, NATO—with, I hope, full European Union support—must make it absolutely clear that the principles of Article 5 and the commitments of NATO members that an attack on one is an attack on all, as the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, said, are a totally non-negotiable red line. Any incursion, including a cyberattack that we can pin on them, into the Baltic states or on other NATO territories must invoke a positive and immediate reaction, and he should be aware of that at this stage. NATO must work immediately to create what was defined in the Welsh summit last autumn as a readiness joint task force. We must work to create this with redoubled urgency.

Having been in Washington in the past few weeks, I would be surprised if the United States did not provide Ukraine with potent defensive equipment in the near future, although I wonder whether Ukrainian troops are capable of handling some of this weaponry. I also believe that anticipation of a crisis is better than reaction to one. So far as I am concerned, I should like to see us move more military assets closer to NATO’s eastern frontier now. We already have fighter aircraft in the Baltic states but I would not be at all averse to seeing more.

So much for the iron fist. What might be the situation with the velvet glove? The European Union’s task must now be to make every effort to convince the Russians that we wish to live in peace and harmony with them. Trying to find relationships between the European Union and the new Eurasian Economic Union is one way that one might go about it, as has been mentioned. However much they irritate us, we must make real and positive efforts to review the past and, if necessary, seek to recognise ways in which we have missed opportunities to recognise Russian interests and susceptibilities.

It is not too late to forge a new, lasting partnership with Russia. The immediate question will be whether all participants, especially in Russia but also in Kiev, will implement the Minsk II agreement. Once that agreement is firmly and permanently implemented, we can start to talk about reducing sanctions and finding ways in which we can live more happily together.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (EUC Report)

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Tuesday 17th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, this report has been extremely well received all round. I hope very much, when the Minister comes to reply on behalf of the Government, that he will be able to tell us that the Government have received it as warmly as it seems to have been received everywhere else. Extremely warm tributes have been paid both to our staff and in particular to our chairman. I want to endorse that as strongly as I possibly can. We have been extremely fortunate, both in the staff, but especially in the chairman’s experience as a Commissioner in Brussels, which has been absolutely invaluable.

I am in no doubt that there are major economic and trade gains to be achieved as a result of a successful negotiation of TTIP. However, of those people who put figures on this, I hesitate a little. How much the benefits will be, or how soon they may come, is an unknown and is only subject to pious hopes and, in my view, random speculation. For instance, a great deal will depend on the negotiating skills of the Commission in the months and years that lie ahead of us. In my experience, the negotiating skills of the Commission certainly used to be patchy. I can remember just a few years ago I aroused the wrath of that lovely man who many of us miss so much, the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, when he had been told that I had been addressing a large audience in Brussels. I had been recalling the period when I was a member of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council of Ministers and said there were some members of the Commission whom I would not feel comfortable asking to go to market to sell a cow of mine.

Quite frankly, the Government must keep a very close eye indeed on this negotiation as it proceeds to ensure that the Commission is not giving away what it might be tempted to give away to get a deal. We should understand that the Americans do not take prisoners in negotiations of this sort. The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, referred to this, and he was absolutely right. It has been referred to earlier and the noble Lord who just spoke referred to it. I was deeply shocked by the take-it-or-leave-it attitude of the members of the United States Administration from the Treasury who we met. They refused to accept that financial service could be part of the negotiations. As my noble friend the chairman said, this approach is just unacceptable in a negotiation of this sort, and I hope that the Commission will be extremely tough in saying that it is unacceptable.

As has been mentioned, our report makes it clear that the largest part of an agreement will be on the issue of non-tariff barriers; they are much more important than the relatively low level of trade tariffs. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, who came to give evidence to us, pointed out that the previous negotiation failed because an agreement on non-tariff barriers could not be arrived at. My great concern with regard to non-tariff barriers is that a successful negotiation might not give us everything that we would like because of the federal structure of the United States and the underlying structure of states’ rights. As I kept saying during the course of our inquiry, there is a danger that an agreement could be made that would be made effective at federal level but would not be fully applicable at state level. The danger is that individual states would be free to cherry pick the details of an agreement, endorse what is to their benefit and ignore the less attractive ones. This would be especially difficult over procurement issues, although procurement fairness within the EU on this side of the Atlantic leaves a certain amount to be desired and is nothing for us to be proud of. The reference in paragraph 136 of the report to the example of the Canadian agreement with the European Union is relevant here. The final sentence of that paragraph states:

“The Canadian provinces had thus ‘participated fully’ in the negotiations, which had resulted in access to an estimated 70 to 80 per cent of the Canadian procurement market between the federal government, the provinces, and the large municipalities”.

I think that we ought to apply ourselves to seeing what we could adapt from the Canadian agreement.

I will say a word about some of the agricultural problems, and here I declare an interest as a recipient of funds from the common agricultural policy. When this negotiation started, people were saying that agricultural problems could be among the biggest stumbling blocks, but it seems to me that at last Europe has begun to dismantle some of its headstrong opposition to, for instance, genetically modified crops. I understand that agreement has been reached in the past week or two that will mean that for the first time, quite rightly, properly controlled genetically modified crops will be grown in Europe, and that is welcome. However, the United States should realise—I am saying this for its benefit—that opposition to, for instance, genetically modified crops and growth-promoting hormones is really contrary to the science and is a straight policy of trade protectionism. When Europe banned artificially enhanced hormone treatment for the production of beef, I was the only Minister who voted against that ban. It was done in spite of the scientific evidence. It was evidence that the members of the Commission had requested, and when they got it, they suppressed it because they did not like the advice they got.

People should understand that these hormones appear naturally in beef, whether artificially enhanced or not; they are a natural function and natural part of beef. Quite frankly, it is impossible to tell from a piece or side of beef whether that animal was given artificial growth-promoting hormones—I say artificial but they are exactly the same as the natural ones in the meat. It is impossible to tell whether they were implanted in the beef or not and, quite honestly, the European Union’s opposition is nothing more than good old-fashioned luddism.

Here again there are lessons to be learnt from the Canadian agreement. During our discussions and evidence-taking, we came across relatively few outright opponents of the negotiation and, principally, they came from among the representatives of organised labour. However, I felt that the line that the American trade unions took and their approach, while understandable, were largely driven by fear of the unknown and that they were preparing for something that might be unattractive.

I was really surprised, when we went to Washington, that TTIP was far from the front of the minds of some members of the United States House of Representatives and the Senate. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, who referred to the street outside and the noble Lord, Lord Radice, who referred to other places in the United Kingdom, where not many people know what a TTIP is. It was not terribly different on Capitol Hill.

Understandably, we now have a lull in the hard phase of the negotiations themselves. This is totally understandable with the elections we have just had in the European Union and the mid-term elections on Capitol Hill coming in only a few months’ time, together with the lame-duck Commission, pending the appointment of a new one at the end of the year. However, come 2015, early next year, there will be an 18-month window to come to an agreement. I believe that the President will be very keen indeed to achieve a settlement over TTIP in the final months of his presidency. The stakes and the benefits to his inheritance are very great, and I think he will go very strongly for it. My concern is that, if there is a totally Republican Congress on Capitol Hill, it may be tempted to play silly games in order to thwart him. That would be the greatest misfortune. It is vital that Congress gives the President the fast-track arrangements, which mean it cannot pick from the agreement but has to either take it or leave it. We were assured when we were there that Congress would give fast-track permission to the President, but the last two years of a presidency can sometimes give rise to actions in all parliaments which are not exactly logical.

I just hope that, in the 18 months of this window from the beginning of next year, we can achieve an agreement which will be for the benefit of both the Americans and Europe—including, in particular, the United Kingdom.

Syria: Humanitarian Assistance

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Warsi]

We take our obligations to all the regional countries incredibly seriously and, indeed, as far as Jordan is concerned, the latest figure is that we have provided £87 million in aid. Jordan has about 500,000 refugees at the moment—about 25% of the people who have been externally displaced. That support is in the form of humanitarian assistance and support, but also support to the Jordanians to cope with the wider infrastructure challenges that are being posed by such a large influx of people arriving.

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I endorse the question just asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Symons; will the Government give particular attention to the plight of Jordan? It has already absorbed 550,000 refugees and is preparing for a future influx. While our Government have been particularly generous towards Jordan, will they spend some time stirring up some of our European colleagues, such as France, who have been much, much less generous?

[Baroness Warsi]

I completely take the point that my noble friend makes but we understand that the biggest percentage of refugees are currently in Lebanon. It was for that reason that at the UN General Assembly meeting, the P5 Foreign Ministers created a new international support group for Lebanon. It may be that we will continue to monitor the refugee situation and to respond accordingly. However, I assure noble Lords that we are incredibly aware and responsive to the pressures that have been placed on the region because of this crisis.

European Union: Recent Developments

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Monday 17th December 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, I was particularly interested in the noble Earl’s speech and will return in a few minutes to the problems of the western Balkans. First, I refer to a theme that has run through the debate: how we might change our relationship with the European Union, and how the European Union itself might change in future. I wonder sometimes if those who see little good in the European Union realise what the effect is of the continual drip of the slagging-off of the endeavour on the United Kingdom’s effectiveness within the EU. What is forgotten is that if we want changes in our relationship with the EU, it is important that as many other people within the EU as possible are sympathetic to us. Sometimes the way this is carried on has the opposite effect.

Years ago, I had experience on the Agriculture and Fisheries Council. I followed a series of Ministers including Peter Walker, Fred Peart, John Silkin and Cledwyn Hughes, most of whom were less than sympathetic to what was then the EEC. All my life I have felt that membership of the Union is in Britain’s interests, in spite of some of the daft things that it does from time to time. It is 55 years since I proposed a motion on Europe at the Conservative Party conference. That was the first time that the party discussed Europe.

On the council it took me quite a time to convince some of my colleagues that I was sympathetic to the whole enterprise. Once they realised, I found it a great deal easier to get them to listen to my problems. That is what I mean when I say that I am concerned that with the torrent of abuse of the EU from some quarters, we are shooting ourselves in the foot and making things much more difficult than they need to be. I suppose that those who say that we must come out of the Union altogether may consider what I say as grist to their mill. However, those who would like to continue to be part of the Union—but with changes—might recall my experience. I will give a further example. In the past few days I heard a report from an official connected with Brussels who said that he saw no point in answering some of our questions because the United Kingdom was so detached. The word he used was “parochial”.

I come back to the speech of the noble Earl and will speak about EU expansion. In recent years in particular, the accession of Romania and Bulgaria prompted a great many people to ask questions such as: was it too quick? Were the conditions that the European Union demanded for membership properly executed? The Minister told us, on the subject of the Croatian accession, that never had more stringent conditions been imposed. I was very glad to hear it, but the implication was that some of the earlier accessions were squeaked through without an insistence on the full meaning of the conditions.

The difficulty is, of course, that once a country has become a member state of the EU, it becomes much more difficult to demand that the standards that were originally insisted on are introduced. We heard in a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, that Croatia will shortly join the Union. I have visited Croatia twice in the past two years, and it feels like a European state. I hope that the conditions that we imposed have been enforced.

During the past year I have visited Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo, where there is much instability. Progress in Bosnia is hampered by the existence and the obstruction of the Serbian enclave in Republika Srpska, based around Banja Luka, which I have visited. In Kosovo, which I visited only a few months ago, progress is likewise hampered by another Serbian enclave in the north, which is based around Mitrovica.

The various leaderships, in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Pristina, as well as those in Banja Luka and Mitrovica, are all, as we know, still capable of serious political mischief-making. The continuing disputes in that region of the western Balkans could so easily turn much worse and revert to the dreadful bloodshed of only a few years ago. However, the factor common to all those countries is that they are dead keen to join both the European Union and NATO. I hope, therefore, that there will be no fast-tracking at all of the negotiations over the entry of Serbia, Kosovo and Bosnia.

We have the opportunity to use the prize of European Union membership to insist that the obstruction and hatred which surround these places are set aside by permanent commitments and settlements of their differences, quite apart from our insistence on European Union standards. I understand that some of the reasons for their differences can be seen in their recent history, which has been dreadful and bloody. However, we have the opportunity to use our strength to insist that they be settled on a permanent basis if we have the strength to broker a peaceful future in this war-torn region. We should make the best use of it.

NATO

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Tuesday 29th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Browne, for instigating this debate. I was struck particularly by his comment about the danger of sliding back into the Cold War. I say that because I returned last night from Estonia, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale, and the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who graces us today on the Woolsack. The noble Lord was there to give up his committee responsibilities and to take up his new ones, which we all welcome.

At the NATO Parliamentary Assembly meeting, there was much talk about Russia. I am the chairman of the committee on the civilian aspects of security. I commend to the House and those who have time to see it a comprehensive paper on Russia written by the Italian Member of Parliament Lucio Malan, which we debated in my committee. It is on the internet and is well worth reading.

When I think about the changes that have taken place in Russia in recent years, I recall particularly the first meeting between Margaret Thatcher and Mikhail Gorbachev at Chequers in December 1984, at which I was present. That meeting and the subsequent events led to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the drastic decline of Communism. It heralded the dawn of a new Russia and the introduction of perestroika and glasnost. However, the development of new Russia over the years since then has been one of stuttering progress. We seem to have been living in a switchback which has gone from warm to tepid to chilling. As my noble friend Lord King said, we have always made it clear that we want a closer and more understanding relationship with Russia. It seems frequently to prefer the tensions and confrontations of former years. I become alarmed at the way in which things are moving backwards towards the Cold War, which the noble Lord, Lord Browne, rightly talked about. For instance, a Freedom House survey of the scale of press freedom in Russia—where 100 is the worst level of press freedom—shows that in 1994 it stood at 40, that in 2002 it was 60, and that in 2011 it had gone up to 81. Russia seems also to be going back to some of the old malpractices in electoral arrangements. In recent elections in some of the north Caucasus republics, the voter turnouts, as well as votes for Mr Putin, were around 99%.

Only yesterday, those of us who were in Tallinn heard the President of Estonia refer to Mr Putin’s speech on the Monday before the recent elections as anti-Europe, anti-United States and anti-Baltic. Using a horrific phrase, he described it as a,

“throwback to the pre-perestroika period”.

We heard also from the Deputy Secretary-General of NATO, who told us that it was felt at Chicago not worth having a meeting with the Russians, as has been arranged in the past, because of the misunderstandings. He cited a lack of trust and transparency. He referred, as did the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, to the stand-off in Georgia over South Ossetia and Abkhazia and to the difficulties over missile defence. The Deputy Secretary-General accused Russia of misrepresenting NATO systems. He recommended that politicians in Russia listen to the impressive views of some of their scientists and former military leaders, who agree that the NATO/US missile defence system, even at phases 3 or 4 of its development, does not affect Russia’s strategic deterrent. He pressed again for Russia to join in and develop a joint defence system, to the benefit of all of us as we face developing challenges from the Middle East.

Let us continue to use our good will, as my noble friend Lord King said, to try to build a relationship of trust and mutual benefit with Russia. At the same time, we must not let ourselves be bullied or manoeuvred into positions which are against our best interests.

Inter-parliamentary Scrutiny: EUC Report

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Thursday 31st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dykes]

My Lords, I too welcome very much the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, has tabled this Motion. I also welcome the fact that he has explained the background to it as well as the background to the Select Committee report and the recommendations. We on these Benches, and I as a member of the EU Select Committee, very much endorse Appendix 1 and the details of the proposal. We thank the noble Lord for having had oversight of this matter. He followed it through in painstaking detail. Without wishing to embarrass him by heaping too much praise on him, which is deserved none the less, I can think of no one more suitable or with a longer pedigree of knowledge on this subject and this particular theme than the noble Lord, Lord Roper. He mentioned his work in the Assembly in the early 1970s. I remember vividly having a long meeting with him in Paris to discuss these matters in the early days of the development of the WEU and the rest of the apparatus.

It is a very good way of viewing the gradual development of this new architecture, bringing in the European Union, as a result of the two recent treaties, into the oversight of defence and security policy for European Union member states. Originally, there was resistance from certain senior members of NATO and various member states about the idea of the EU being involved in some aspects of the other subordinate bodies that the EU proposed to be established to deal with these subjects in detail, including the defence agency. I think now that there is a much more contented atmosphere between the two. There is a feeling now of reciprocal aid and support in psychological terms between NATO and the EU on these subjects, which I hope will continue without me being too complacent about the difficulties therein, because old habits can die hard.

This is a moment too to pay tribute to the WEU and what was achieved over the years with it and the great experts among parliamentarians of all countries who developed a profound knowledge. I recall, over many years, quite a few laudatory comments from the RUSI, the Royal College of Defence Studies personnel and so on about the quality of the investigations and reports of WEU committees and the work that they did. It was inevitable that it would end. That is quite right and people accept that now. We move on to the new ESDA structure and we wish Robert Walter, the new chairman, and his colleagues well with those functions.

Now that NATO is in areas other than just western Europe, there will be more and more areas where the EU will wish to follow what is going on as a united body. Equally, it is right that it should remain primarily in the intergovernmental cockpit because that is the nature of the subject. Gradually, the European Parliament will also extend its activity and architecture in the whole area of defence and security. That is a decision which will, I am sure, in friendly consultation with national parliaments, reflect the worthy sentiments of the Lisbon treaty. It specifically built into the development of the European Union—and the integration that we are now seeing being accelerated, I am glad to say, in various fields—the idea of a much bigger involvement of the national parliaments in all sorts of European policy forming areas. The involvement was not just in this particular area. The way in which the European Parliament responds to that now will be much more encouraging than we might have feared in the past. For all those reasons and for the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in his initial remarks, we very much hope that this Motion will be supported today.

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, I am glad to be able to give broad support to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, in opening the debate. There are some people who look back with great nostalgia on the work of the WEU over the years, and there is no doubt that it has done some extremely useful work. But over the last few years I have heard the WEU described in a rather rude way as being similar to an old dog who is much loved but for whom sentimental affection prevents it being gently put to sleep. It has been right to put it to sleep over the course of the last year or so.

Little objection has been made to the view that there really must be some form of parliamentary oversight over both the CFSP and the CSDP. The question is what form that should take. The Select Committee report—the House may recall that I happen to be a member of that committee—is absolutely on the right lines. The first point is that national parliaments must take the leading role in this. I notice that the latest Belgian proposal suggests that there should be not six but four Members from each parliament. Personally, I do not mind that very much. Bearing in mind that someone spoke earlier of the quality of the likely representations from the UK Parliament, I am sure that we shall be extremely well represented whether it is four or six, but my preference would be for four representatives. I imagine that if there were only four representatives, the two from your Lordships’ House would be the noble Lord, Lord Roper, and the chairman of Sub-Committee C, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. They would represent us extremely well and bring a great deal of expertise to the conference.

One of the contentious issues, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Roper, was what the role of the European Parliament should be. Of course it should have a presence, I am entirely in favour of that, but most emphatically not of the first proposal made by the Belgian Parliament. It suggested that one-third of the membership—54 members—should come from the European Parliament. It modified that figure in the second proposal to bring it down to 27. My suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Roper, is that when he goes to the meeting in Brussels next week he would do well to insist on 12 representatives from the European Parliament. I think that that would be ample. It would mean that the European Parliament had 10 per cent of the membership and that the total membership of the conference, with 108 representatives from the various member parliaments, would be 120. Thus, if the conference meets for one and a half days twice a year, at 120 members, those representatives would have an adequate opportunity to make a contribution. I should have thought that that number was entirely adequate with no need for any more.

My own view, which I know some people do not agree with, is that a small representation as observers—I insist on that—from candidate states to the EU should be included, and from European states that are members of NATO, which is in the amended Belgian proposal. I would have thought that that was reasonable. If the proposal is pressed on the noble Lord, Lord Roper, I hope that it will be written into the rules that they can speak but that they do not have a vote and cannot put down amendments to motions. They should be there entirely as observers with the opportunity, if they wish, to speak.

There is no need to set up a new institution with a galaxy of officials if it is only to meet twice a year. The suggestion that it be organised through COSAC is reasonable. I am bound to say that I have never been a huge enthusiast for COSAC. Over the years, I have attended various meetings. I remember going to some of them as chairman of Sub-Committee C, the foreign affairs and defence committee, years ago. My experience is that that body is not as well directed and effective as it should be. I hope that its new responsibility for organising COFAD meetings twice a year will give it a new objectivity and we are right to give it a try.

I am not very happy with the latest Belgian proposal that the COSAC secretariat organise meetings in conjunction with the troika and the European Parliament. I do not really see why the European Parliament needs to be involved in the organisation of the meetings. It should not be left like that, with just the COSAC secretariat in Brussels and the troika. The troika does not give a feeling of continuity; it is a transient thing, as we all know—although it takes 18 months to get through it. If these meetings are to discuss defence and security matters, it is very important that military/defence expertise is somehow attached to the organisation. Unless it is, we could have trouble ahead and the work of the conference in future would not be sufficiently oriented to defence and security matters. Perhaps it would be possible temporarily to attach specialist defence consultants to the secretariat to add that expertise. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roper, will be able to insist on that when he is in Brussels next week. I am perfectly confident that he will look after the United Kingdom’s interests in those meetings and the interests of this House. I certainly wish him well. However, I must stress to him the need firmly to set the new body up so that it is tied into various conditions and rules which prevent the sort of mission creep which has befallen some international bodies in the past.

I am concerned that some of these international bodies do too much travelling, and to places which are unnecessarily distant. Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example which irritates me to death. I have to leave home at six o’clock tomorrow morning to fly to the Azores for a meeting of the standing committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. It is meeting on Saturday and we come home on Sunday. That seems an enormous waste of time and money, when the meeting could perfectly well have taken place in Brussels or even in Lisbon. To have to go through Lisbon to go to the Azores to be there for 48 hours seems to me an absurdity and a waste of money. It is the sort of thing that we have to try to correct. Certainly, that will be one of the things that I say to the standing committee at our meeting on Saturday.

Piracy: Operation Atalanta (EUC Report)

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my friend and neighbour, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge. Although I am now a member of Sub-Committee C, sadly I was not a member when this report was put together. However, I am at the same time a rapporteur of a committee of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly and a year ago I presented a report on behalf of one of its committees on the Somali piracy situation, which was accepted by the Assembly. This weekend in Warsaw, at the annual meeting of the NATO Assembly, I shall again be presenting a report, which is entitled Maritime Security: NATO and EU Roles and Co-ordination.

I have spoken here before about the need for much closer co-operation between NATO and the EU. In some cases, that co-operation continues to be abysmal. The lack of co-operation between NATO and the EU is often explained away because of the situation with regard to Turkey, Greece and Cyprus, but in spite of that I believe that there should be no reason not to have much greater co-operation in certain fields, especially now that France has rejoined the central command structure of NATO. As an example—this has nothing to do with Somalia—in the Mediterranean, NATO and the EU both operate, on one hand with FRONTEX and on the other hand with Active Endeavour. However, the separate activities there, although similar, are barely co-ordinated. It is true, I think, that NATO and the EU work together a good deal better in Somalia than in other places, so that is a start, which I very much welcome.

The situation off the Horn of Africa is becoming even more worrying—I agree with many of the things that my noble friend Lord Hamilton said about that. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, referred to the continuing, very serious situation: the number of kidnapped seafarers; the fact that 2010 is likely to be worse than 2009; the almost £100 million that the terrorists got last year; the widening area of pirate activity; the problem of arresting Somalis cruising around in small boats with heavy weapons and no fishing nets and therefore no evidence to convict when they throw their weapons overboard; and the hesitant legal process in Kenya and other places. We badly need to encourage the development of much better international legislation to enable the prosecution of suspects to be made easier. Introducing photographic evidence of weaponry being thrown overboard in certain designated areas in prosecuting a criminal offence might be one way of doing it.

Of course it is true, as others have said, that the long-term solution to this problem lies in the establishment of a much firmer Government in Somalia, but other, wider things can be done in the mean time before we achieve a major improvement in that field. We heard a moment ago from the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, about the Strait of Malacca. Somalia is, of course, not the only place in the world where maritime safety and security are challenged. Although to a lesser extent compared with Somalia, there are also significant piracy problems in Nigeria and off the coast of Indonesia.

I want to say a few words about the need for new initiatives to achieve a better maritime security picture worldwide, which includes ways of trying to improve the situation in Somalia. First, I am sure that there is a need to address the current gaps in the type of information that is collected on maritime flows. Currently, only commercial ships over 300 tonnes are required to use the automatic identification system transponders. These are gadgets that broadcast the basic information of a ship’s destination and cargo. If smaller ships, which are widely agreed to be most likely to be used to support illicit activities at sea, were required also to use these AIS transponders, that would significantly help to develop a comprehensive picture of maritime traffic.

Secondly, there is a need for better information sharing. There is a good deal of agreement that information is not shared as well as it could be and that there are far too many obstacles and difficulties in the sharing of information. There are political difficulties, largely because of the reluctance of some states, which we quite understand, to share information with certain participants in these sorts of difficulties—one does not need to mention names. There are legal difficulties with, for instance, data protection rules and restrictions over sharing information that arises from commercial sources or from criminal investigations. Here, again, we have problems with rules of engagement, which brings us back to the possibility of prosecutions.

Thirdly, there are technical difficulties that make it hard to share crucial information, such as the use of non-compatible or non-interoperable systems. Again, there has been reference to the lack of UAVs. I have been told in the past that there was a possibility of UAVs operating out of the Seychelles, on the return journey from the Gulf or wherever they have been, to be used in their journey back across the ocean.

We need new efforts to minimise these difficulties at both regional and international level and to increase information sharing on maritime flows and activities. With regard to Somalia, some good initiatives have already taken place. The European Union’s maritime security centre on the Horn of Africa and its Mercury web-based information tool, as well as the shared awareness and deconfliction mechanism, have already been extremely useful in improving the sharing of information, in breaking down some of the barriers and in fostering exchanges between the military and the shipping industry. My impression and my information are that the inclusion of the shipping industry in recent times has been very productive indeed.

Above all, we need to bring up to date the co-ordination of efforts to improve maritime security overall on a global basis. This does not, of course, mean that we need a new overarching structure—I believe that it can be done within existing structures—but we need different systems and assets to operate better together, whether at national, regional or international level, and a number of political, legal and technical changes need to be made. I hope that the Minister when he replies will accept that these necessary changes and improvements need to happen and that he will be able to tell us that a start on that will be made shortly.

Finally, I very much agree with what the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said about this being a long haul. The international community must not sign off as a result of mission exhaustion. That would be absolutely fatal. This is a long haul and we must stick with it.

Uganda

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Thursday 15th July 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I will look into that. This will affect not only Somali communities but Somaliland communities, and it is very important to bear in mind that there are those two communities here. I will certainly pursue the matter which the right reverend Prelate raises.

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, the Government in the past have said repeatedly that there is no evidence that the proceeds of piracy off the coast of Somalia are not going into the hands of terrorist groups like al-Shabaab. Is that still the case?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I think I am right in saying that there is no hard evidence but it seems a possibility and a likelihood. A great many sinister things are happening in that part of the world. It could well be that resources from piracy are going in that direction and, similarly, that the piracy is being supported by those who wish to destabilise the whole area.

Queen's Speech

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Wednesday 26th May 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling]

My Lords, having been a Member of one or other House within this building for the past 45 years, I thought that the speech that we heard from my noble friend Lord Ferrers yesterday was undoubtedly the best speech from the mover of the Motion on the Address that I have ever heard, and I congratulate him on it. He used one phrase that I particularly liked. He said:

“Governments consider it a matter of pride to pass more laws”.—[Official Report, 25/5/10; col. 11.]

Having read the gracious Speech, I have a feeling that our coalition seems hell-bent on doing that. There was a very long list of future legislation. I really hope that they are not overdoing it so that we will find ourselves suffering from legislative indigestion before very long, because that has a big effect on the outside world. When, years ago, I found myself in charge of a department, I said to the Permanent Secretary on the first day: “Please remember: I am not interested in legislation except where it is vital”. It may be that that is why I never moved on to take charge of another department after that.

Turning to today's debate, I add my warmest congratulations to my noble friend Lord Howell. It must be rare, I think, for one so expert and experienced in foreign affairs and government to become a Foreign Office Minister. I had the enormous pleasure to serve for 10 years in another place on the Foreign Affairs Committee under his chairmanship. Over the past 13 years here in your Lordships' House, I have admired his expertise on foreign affairs from the opposition Front Bench.

In particular, he has a great enthusiasm for the Commonwealth. I remember a study that we did on that down the other end of the Corridor many years ago. I have always admired his great enthusiasm for the Commonwealth, and I am glad to see that among his responsibilities is responsibility for Commonwealth affairs. I was sorry that yesterday, in the Speech, I was unable to find the word “Commonwealth” expressed at all. I hope that that was an oversight, and I hope that my noble friend’s influence will bring Commonwealth issues more to the fore in future.

To turn to my noble friend who will be winding up the debate, I want to make a few comments about defence, and NATO in particular. I hope that, when he winds up, he will be able to say something about our strategic defence and security review. It has already been delayed because the previous Government put it off until after the election—which is culpable. There are massive questions to answer, and a number of them have already been raised this afternoon. There is the huge question of whether in these straitened times we can afford both an updated Trident and new aircraft carriers. I do not know; I have considerable doubts as to whether we can. If my noble friend is able at this early stage to say something about that, that will be most helpful.

I am particularly concerned that as the strategic defence and security review proceeds in the months ahead, it takes place in conjunction with NATO's current moves to revise the alliance’s strategic concept. The Albright committee has already reported with a draft of its proposals to the North Atlantic Council on the alliance’s strategic concept. The new Government will have already considered this. I have a copy of it. It will clearly lead to consultation, with, I hope, the prospect of an agreement in Lisbon in November. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us an undertaking that it will be done in conjunction with our review. Can he tell us who will represent us after Mr Hoon’s departure from the Albright committee? I imagine that the committee will continue its work, and it would be interesting to know who will represent the United Kingdom.

That takes me to the matter of parliamentary oversight of defence issues. The NATO Parliamentary Assembly does a thorough job in this field. It so happens that this weekend I shall be presenting to the assembly in Riga—I am rapporteur of one of the committees—a report entitled Maritime Security: NATO and EU Roles and Co-ordination. I have spoken to your Lordships before about the problems of NATO and EU co-operation. I know that some people blame it on the Turkey/Cyprus problem and that other people say that things are improving. However, the issue needs very firm direction and I hope that the new Government will provide it. The Albright committee was pretty firm on this. I was glad to see that it said:

“NATO and EU leaders should do everything possible to prevent disagreements from interfering with effective cooperation between the two organisations”.

There are far too many overlaps and parallels between EU military affairs and NATO that need dealing with.

Lastly, in their final days the previous Government did something that ought to have been done a long time ago: they decided to wind up WEU. It was rather like deciding to put to sleep an old dog that had been useful in the past but had withered away to skin and bone. For the past few years the parliamentary arm of WEU floundered about trying to find a new role for itself, and it took on parliamentary oversight of the European Union’s common security and defence policy. When he winds up, will my noble friend tell us whether the Government continue to favour any sort of parliamentary oversight over CSDP after the demise of WEU, and, if so, where it should be taken? It should clearly not be taken in OSCE because of the Russian involvement, and it is not really a matter for the Council of Europe. I suggest that the Government look carefully at the prospect of finding a way, if possible, of attaching parliamentary oversight on CSDP to the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I hope that the Government will consider that.