Queen’s Speech

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Tuesday 15th October 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, it is 55 years almost to the day since I was first elected to serve in this building. While making allowances for myself as a grumpy old man, I am bound to say to your Lordships that never in peacetime—and I remember the war very well—have I been so gloomy and anxious about the state of the world, of the nation, of Parliament and of my party. I agreed very much with the first few sentences of my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, who talked about uncertainty. I did not agree with many other things he said, but I will leave that aside.

I spent last weekend at the conference centre across Parliament Square at the annual meeting of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly, with which I have been heavily involved for many years. I was struck by the overwhelming criticism there of Turkey’s recent invasion of Syria. I have to ask myself: how can our belief in a world order fail to be shattered when the United States leadership one week gives Turkey the green light to invade Syria, which is what it did, and then, when it does, imposes sanctions on what is supposed to be a fellow NATO member? It seems that President Trump has taken lessons from the Grand Old Duke of York.

My concerns about the state of the nation, of Parliament and of my own party are, of course, centred principally around the Brexit situation. I cannot disguise —this is well known to many of your Lordships—that I have a profound feeling that the nation took leave of its senses when it voted for Brexit. But of course I accept the decision to leave. For three years I have been trying to point out to your Lordships the folly of Mrs May’s Administration saying soon after the referendum that we would be leaving the single market and the customs union. I believe that she was led by the nose by the early negotiators, whose enthusiasm for a hard Brexit was matched only by their incompetence as negotiators.

Certainly in this House, many of us have warned repeatedly about the double whammy of having, on the one hand, our industry—I refer your Lordships in passing to my interests as a farmer—exposed to a flood of cheaper imports and, on the other hand, our exports to the European Union having to pay the penalty of the extra cost of the common external tariff. This is a major double whammy and I have never got a coherent comment from the Government on the implications of these two man-traps. I have no idea whether that is because my colleagues in government do not understand the dangers of this double whammy or because they are deliberately not talking about its implications.

That takes me to this week’s crucial negotiations. One of the more sensible recent comments came, surprisingly, from Mr Rees-Mogg, who said that there must be compromises. Indeed there must be. Having had some experience of Brussels negotiations many years ago, I hope that a compromise can be worked out in the hours that lie ahead. They are well used to stopping the clock in Brussels when there are critical negotiations. Years ago I held the record—I do not know whether I still do—as president of the Agriculture Council for keeping that council in a continual sitting for 91 hours before getting an agreement at around 4 am on the following Monday morning.

There is one way that a great many of the current arguments could be resolved. That would be to thrash out a version of the Norway agreement. I know that some people will feel that this has been considered before, but I still think it would be possible to build a compromise on the Norway agreement. It would, at a stroke, resolve the Northern Ireland problem. It could still be done; it would be hated by the extremist caucus within the Conservative Party, but it could be the basis of an agreement. If only Mrs May had not foolishly put her head into this noose of leaving the single market and the customs union, the whole issue of Brexit could have been settled months ago.

I tackled the Minister only two weeks ago or so—he is now sitting on the Front Bench—when he said to us that the Government hoped very much to get a deal but that, “We shall be leaving on 31 October”. I do not understand the logic of making those two statements. If we cannot get a deal and we say that we shall be leaving on the 31 October, that clearly would be against the law, and action would have to be taken in the courts to make sure that the law was upheld.

This whole suicidal tragedy has caused lasting damage to Parliament and to my party. It was an extraordinary act of party management to take the Whip away from those 21 Members—an action by a governmental faction who themselves as individuals were well used to voting against the Government. It seemed an extraordinary act of party management, especially when the government majority hung by only a fragile thread. In my four years as the Government Chief Whip, I never took the Whip away from anyone—although I am bound to say I was sorely tempted. It only makes martyrs of those from whom you take the Whip, and, in party-political terms, it runs the almost certain danger that, if they run again as independents, you will lose that seat to another party.

So, while I am not enthusiastic about or sympathetic towards Brexit, I hope that we can thrash out a deal this week. If Parliament were to agree, I would not be averse to putting it to the electorate again, with the option of remain, in another referendum. However, I find it intensely irritating when people talk about the prospect of a “second referendum”, as we should recall that it would in fact be a third referendum. The first referendum was the one we had five years after we joined the European Community, in the mid-1970s. It was widely agreed at the time that that referendum would put the whole issue to bed for the future. But some people niggled on, wanting a second one, which they succeeded in getting in 2016. They got it then, but the same people now say that if we were to have a third referendum in the months or the year or so ahead of us, it would be a travesty—yet they were the people who could not accept the first one we had in the 1970s.

I hope that we can get a deal and put this whole thing behind us, one way or another. I believe that there are possibilities for getting a deal in line with the suggestions I have made to your Lordships this evening.

UK Foreign Policy in a Shifting World Order (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, has said, this report is the culmination of the first three years of existence of the International Relations Committee. Noble Lords must remember that we had to fight for years to remedy the absurd situation where the House of Lords, with all the wealth of experience within its Membership, had no foreign affairs committee. I can only hope that the committee’s work over the last three years will ensure that its future amounts to long life and permanency.

The success of these first three years of work is largely due to the leadership of my noble friend Lord Howell. Now that both of us are to be rotated off the committee, as he said, I want to say a few words that, no doubt, will embarrass him. We have benefited from his unique experience, his ardent enthusiasm for the Commonwealth, his endless patience and his clear vision of world affairs. He has led us to produce a series of reports, all of which, when debated on the Floor here, have been warmly welcomed by your Lordships.

This is not, of course, the first time that I have had the pleasure of sitting under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Howell. I was a member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in the House of Commons for 10 years, all of which fell under his chairmanship. As far as I am concerned, it has been a wonderful experience and I want to thank him for his contribution to all this work.

This report is based on what we have called a “shifting world order”. I want to refer to only one aspect of that: our relationship with the United States. No doubt many colleagues will recall my long-term enthusiasm for that relationship, because for 14 years I ran, as secretary, the British-American Parliamentary Group, which was founded during the Second World War by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt. As the report says, our shifting relationship with the United States began years before the arrival of Donald Trump.

I hesitate to refer back to my own speeches, but I will. I remember that, after visiting Washington with the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Development Policy Sub-Committee of the European Union Committee, I came back just before the Iraq war. I bemoaned the American approach which I described then as them saying, “We are going to do this. If you want to come with us, very well. We welcome that. If you don’t, get out of our way”. Of course, the election of Donald Trump has continued that regrettable shift away from multilateralism.

But much as we may deplore the new approach to issues such as climate change, the Iran nuclear deal or the threat of serious trade wars, not everything from the new Administration has been to our disadvantage. In particular, I have very much welcomed the President’s remarks to try to buck up the complacency of many of our European fellow members of the NATO alliance. I see a good deal of that complacency as a member of the NATO Parliamentary Assembly.

We should never forget that the United States remains a close and continuing ally. We still have considerable influence with them, which we must preserve and develop. I strongly support the response of the Government to the committee’s report, where they say:

“We will work with the US whenever possible but will continue to seek outcomes that reflect UK values and interests even where there are points of difference, as with the Iranian nuclear agreement”.


I believe that sums up very accurately what our approach should be. Surely this must be the right approach, in spite of our reservations about the Trump Administration’s unpredictability.

I particularly deplore the approach of those who see fit to hurl insults at the President when he comes to London in the next few weeks. It is mindless idiocy to threaten to disrupt the visit of the Queen’s guest when he comes here next month. I do not know if we shall have the opportunity to listen to him speak here, but I find it astonishing that people are attempting to prevent him coming to this building, this ancient bastion of free speech and generosity to visitors. Surely our vital, ongoing need is to continue a warm but objective relationship with our US friends. That must not be soured by boorish and mindless exhibitionism.

Yemen: Giving Peace a Chance (International Relations Committee Report)

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Monday 1st April 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I was unwell in the week the committee had its hearing on the Yemen problem, but the report we are debating demonstrates extremely well the continued horrific situation in that part of the world. I congratulate the Government on bringing forward this debate so quickly. Many noble Lords have already referred to the detail of the horrific situation that confronts us. I will not enlarge on it—the widespread hunger and food shortages, the growing threat of disease, including cholera, typhoid and other maladies associated with the deprivations of this nature, the shortage of medicines, and, of course, civilian deaths as a result of military action.

A number of noble Lords have talked about the Stockholm agreement. It seems inadequate in meeting the crisis. Of course, we have always known that it was only the first step in the process of achieving a peace. In spite of it, the port of Hodeidah, contrary to all the intentions of the Stockholm negotiations, continues to be blocked as a conduit of food aid and other humanitarian assistance to the stricken 24 million people who comprise 80% of the population. I hope that, in spite of some pious hopes, we can see a little more evidence that there will be significant troop redeployments around the city of Hodeidah by the Houthi leadership to ensure full delivery of essential food and medicines to the beleaguered millions.

The Foreign Secretary referred a short time ago to the 50,000 tonnes of grain that sit in stores in Hodeidah and remain there as the millions starve. Following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, I hope the Minister will update us with the latest figures on relief supplies, especially food, entering the ports of Yemen—and Hodeidah in particular, which is much the most important—as well as on the movement of those items from the docks and the stores to where they are urgently needed. An update of that sort would be most welcome.

We have heard continually that there is no military solution, and we know what a divided country Yemen is. As a background to this, I hope noble Lords will remember that at the heart of the Yemen crisis lies the centuries-old rivalry between the Muslim factions of Sunni and Shia. I was in Riyadh not too long ago, where we met virtually all the key leaders, including the King. We did not meet the Crown Prince because he had other distractions, with the President of China in town at the same time, so that was understandable. But I was struck that almost wherever we went in Riyadh we were regaled with tales of how dreadful and evil the Iranians were and of the malevolence of those in Tehran. Surprisingly, only once during our visit were we retold the familiar view of their attitude to Israel. Indeed, since that visit, there have been stories about very high-level visits by Saudis to Israel and suggestions that a visit could have been made by the Crown Prince himself.

So, it is this Saudi-Iranian rivalry that lies behind so many of the problems that confront Yemen. The frequent Houthi missile attacks on Saudi territory, around Riyadh as well as other places, must alarm us all. The situation could surely escalate, leading to a much wider conflict between the rival Islamic Middle Eastern states themselves. Hence, the UK Government must do everything in their power, and in the United Nations, to give full effect to the Stockholm agreement and then to move on to a wider settlement of this dreadful situation.

While I am not opposed to us selling armaments to the Saudis, I am alarmed at the committee’s conclusion that they are, as it has been quoted,

“narrowly on the wrong side”,

of the law. The Government need to review this situation urgently and take steps to ensure that this accusation cannot be made and maintained. Especially, I ask the Minister to tell us what the situation is about our arms sales to Saudi and the United Arab Emirates, which is also actively engaged with the Saudis in Yemen. Is he satisfied that the UAE sales in particular are within the law?

I end by saying that the Saudi regime has continually told us that UK arms sales are compliant with the rules of international law. The chairman of the committee, my noble friend Lord Howell, I think referred obliquely to the problematic veracity of some of the things the Saudis say. I hope the Minister will tell us that whatever assurances we are given by the Saudis will be thoroughly examined for their veracity. We have had recent cases over the death of Mr Khashoggi that lead us to the conclusion that they do not always mean what they say.

Iran Nuclear Deal

Lord Jopling Excerpts

Wednesday 9th May 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister will no doubt have had his attention drawn to the rather surprising reports in the Israeli media that in recent weeks there has been an unexpected visit by a senior member of the Saudi royal family. As far as I know, that has not happened for a long time, if ever. Are the Government concerned that a new alliance between the United States, Israel and Saudi Arabia might be planning much more aggressive actions against Iran than we have seen previously?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

There is speculation about different associations. What is required in that region is a degree of taking stock of what this decision means. We call on not just Iran but all the players in that region to take heed of the need to ensure stability as a priority and to show due restraint. I have made it very clear that Iran has complied with its obligations under the treaty, but the United States has raised particular concerns about the sunset clauses. However, we remain very much committed. We have seen the results and the benefits of the treaty. For other players in the region—my noble friend mentioned several countries—it is also important to reflect on what has been achieved thus far, and the importance of remaining firm on the principles of the treaty and ensuring that we can work with Iran for continued stability in the wider region.