European Union Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, the noble Lord knows by now that I have unlimited respect for his consistent contribution on European matters. This peroration of his is very powerful. Would he not agree that the trouble with this wretched piece of legislation is that it could not be better designed to undermine our influence on the mainland of Europe?

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords—

European Union Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2011 Lords Chamber

Lord Judd: My Lords, I take that as general advice to the House, rather than as personal advice. There has been a great deal of discussion in this important debate about the interests of the British people and national interests. There are those of us who believe that the biggest challenge of all in politics, across the political divide, is to lead the British people in understanding that the best way their interests can be furthered, in the very uncertain future that now faces us, is to build strong international institutions in which their well-being will be safeguarded by essential—this word that is now so respectable—co-operation with others.

When I intervened at an earlier stage in our deliberations on this Bill, I talked about the lack of vision behind this legislation. Having listened to this debate, I am frankly more concerned about that than ever. I really believe that we are losing sight of the wood for the trees. Of course I respect the legal arguments and niceties but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, is absolutely right to say that if only our energy, thought and deliberations were going into how we strengthen international institutions rather than how we preserve a traditional view of our national interests, it would be a great thing for British politics.

I believe we have to look at the significance of this Bill in the real world in which we are living. We know that part of the political drive behind the Bill is to reassure the British people that they have a Government who are not going to allow this international institution to start running their affairs in any greater dimension that it does already. This is such a wrong concept of the interests of the British people. The whole challenge is how we strengthen this institution in protecting their interests, together with those of our fellow citizens in Europe and more widely.

I feel strongly that we must also recognise how the media will play these deliberations. We know that a great deal of the popular media will say to the British people, “This is a fight against British interests and the European Union”. We have talked in this debate about Brussels and the European Union as though it were separate from us, just as over the years we talked about the United Nations as though it were separate from us. They are us; they have no being other than us, together with our colleagues in Europe. Our challenge is how we should work and co-operate with others in Europe to make them strong and effective. There is a problem of the leadership within the European Union—the drive within its practicalities—having got ahead of and lost contact with the British people. There is a huge job to be done there in re-establishing political leadership and in understanding what is at stake and why certain measures are necessary or not. Most disturbing of all is the reality that if we pursue this Bill to its conclusion, the message that will go to our European partners is that our membership of the European Union is not a full-blooded commitment but conditional.

All of us who have participated in government and been through such issues in the past know that if there was something of such significance that the view of the British people should be tested, any responsible British Government would be prepared on an ad hoc, specific basis to consider a referendum. However, to build into legislation the concept of conditionality is not the way to enhance and strengthen our role within the European Union. From that standpoint, I believe very much that the amendment put forward by my noble friend on the Front Bench and the other amendment, which in all practical respects reflects it, are the right amendments. We shall otherwise be making an historic choice in our deliberations: to go down the road of Little Englandism, as distinct from a role of real leadership and real participation in the international community, where the interests of our people can best be protected.

[Baroness Brinton]

My Lords, although I oppose both Amendments 61 and 63 for attempting to kill the Bill before its effect can be seen in practice, I have some sympathy with Amendment 62. Over the eight days that this Committee has sat, many noble Lords have expressed concern from both the pro and the anti-European perspectives about detail that is often not in the Bill itself, as the Bill is not about policy but very much about a legislative route and framework. As a new member of this House, I have found it somewhat bemusing that we have ended up debating policy issues—particularly dead-fish catches—when the Bill seems really to focus on the framework. That is not surprising given the strength of feeling on all sides about Europe, and I recognise that it is unlikely that we will ever reach unanimity; obviously, much of the concern is about that. Indeed, that was expressed in the coalition agreement—that we would be working from different policy perspectives but trying to find a route where we could work together, better to engage with the British public.

I have some sympathy with Amendment 62, on the grounds that it proposes a range of actions available for a future Parliament, and a future Secretary of State and his or her Government. However, there is one fundamental flaw with Amendment 62, in that it proposes that Part 1 and Schedule 1 expire at the end of this Parliament. The Government have said that they do not expect any referendums during this Parliament, because it is not expected that there will be any transfers of powers or competences during this Parliament. As an aside, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, is conflating the “policy versus law” argument that I made earlier, because the Government have announced that they are taking the logic of this and turning it into law for the framework, not tackling policy issues.

That is why I hope that the arguments made in Amendment 64, to which I have added my name, will find favour with the Committee. It is a probing amendment that tries to find a pragmatic route through the current impasse in the House. In the amendment, we propose a sunset clause for half way through the next Parliament, which will give time to see how the referendum lock would work in practice. Importantly, it also provides for the opportunity to revive the order, should a future Secretary of State so will it; of course the correct instruments would go through both Houses. This gives a future Parliament the means to let the Act expire or to revive it by order, without having to schedule large amounts of time in both Houses at the beginning of a new Parliament. Amendment 64 therefore offers a neat solution for those on all sides of the argument, and I commend it to the House.

European Union Bill

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Deben]

That would mean that we had no common trade policy. Every country could say that this decision was contrary to their national interest. The French have managed to make the sale of Orangina contrary to their national interest. What the noble Baroness suggests would destroy any possibility of the scheme. It would not touch their sovereignty. They would not have to use the electricity. All that they would have to do was not prevent someone else using the electricity. It is otherwise a curious definition of national sovereignty.

Secondly, if we do not do that, my national sovereignty is being infringed, because my climate is being changed. Unless we find ways of using non-fossil fuels, my climate will be changed. This is a question on which we have to accept that our national sovereignties are all imperilled—but I do not want to go further down that road, or someone will suggest that I am not keeping to the amendments.

There is a whole series of issues here where the Government are making it more difficult to stand up for Britain's interests within the European Union by setting this entirely unnecessary and manufactured way to enable them to say to the rest of the world, “We are not going to be pushed around”. I think that the Government are perfectly capable of not being pushed around without the Bill. I think that my noble friend is quite wrong to apply Canute to a bit of the Bill. The whole Bill is a Canute Bill. It suggests that you can in some way stop the necessity of the nations of Europe working together by setting in train a system which makes Britain uniquely unable to play its part in the European Union. It is all right saying that other people have all sorts of methods, and the rest of it, but they have been much more careful in writing their legislation, and they do not have a situation where even the simplified system is called into question, which is the way that this legislation operates.

I want to say just two more things. The first is that if ever there were a policy that needs change, it is the common fisheries policy. It is hugely important, and it is based on a European competence, but there are some things on which the European Union does not have competence. For example, it does not have competence to enter member states’ ports with European inspectors, but there is no way to have a sensible common fisheries policy without that. Who has been against that? We do not want people entering our ports. I cannot understand why, because we try to keep the law, but evidently we will not allow that. If we were to do that, we might do something about the very policy which is, for most of us, the least satisfactory of European policies. That is why, given the environment, it will be very important. Evidently, we are not going to do that unless we have a referendum asking people whether they are prepared for French inspectors to come into English ports. Of course, they will say no to that, because the question does not say what I want it to say: are we prepared for British inspectors to go into French ports? They would say yes to that. It depends what the question is. That again comes back to the danger of having referendums.

My last point is that the trouble with this bit of the Bill, unless it is amended as we suggest, is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, rightly said, it gives the opportunity for anybody who does not like the European Union, who has an obsessive belief that somehow it is the epitome of evil instead of being our most exciting and remarkable peacetime achievement, to find any change, any aspect that is altered, any suspicion or scintilla of alteration proof positive that there should have been a referendum. Therefore, instead of doing what the Government think will happen under the Bill, instead of ensuring that people feel happier about the European Union, it will give endless opportunities for the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others to suspect that there is something much deeper, much worse, much more wicked. Frankly, it is like the Jehovah's Witnesses. It is a perversion of the realities and the truths. Once you have caught it, you cannot see the realities and the truth except through that prism. The Bill helps that. The bit which does not allow the European Union to take proper steps to strengthen its effectiveness in mitigating the effects of climate change and pollution is particularly damaging, and it is especially damaging for the nation that leads in these matters—Britain. I want Britain to lead in these things and not to say to the rest of Europe, “Frightfully sorry, old boy, we can’t manage this because it means a referendum and we’re within two years of an election”.

[Lord Judd]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. That was a powerful argument, well put, and one with which I found myself completely in agreement. These amendments go to the centre of what is wrong with this lamentable piece of legislation. It is not just a question of a lack of vision; it is a matter of selling the British people short. If there is one fundamental reality in relevant politics, it is that we live in a totally interdependent world. The job of government is to help the British people to find a place within the reality of that interdependence and to work out how the interdependence can best be handled. That should be central to our education system and to the whole message of politics.

The trouble with the Bill, as we said powerfully at Second Reading, is that it does not provide any flexibility. Here I slightly differ from my noble friend Lord Liddle, who is doing a formidable job on the Bill and makes me very proud to come from the same county in England. However, it is not simply flexibility that we are talking about but leadership of the British people in meeting the realities that confront us. The trouble with the Bill—and we all know it—is that it is an effort to reassure the British people that government will protect them against the European Union. Instead of asking how we can strengthen the well-being of the British people through the part that we play in Europe, and instead of coming out of negotiations and saying, “My God, look at what we have achieved for the people of Europe and therefore for ourselves in this context”, we come out saying, “Look at what we’ve managed to hold off in looking after British interests”. That kind of argument is all tactical and totally lacks strategy. From that standpoint, it seems to me that these amendments are central. Not one issue is mentioned in them that can possibly be carried forward on behalf of the British people within the context of the nation state alone. They require international solutions.

In responding to my noble friend’s very important intervention on piracy, kidnapping and ransom, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, seemed to suggest that these are matters of international law. Of course they are, and they are absolutely central to the future of my children and grandchildren. Of course we have to get the international and global policies right, but surely the noble Lord does not want to align himself with the argument that establishing firmly in the European Community a stepping stone towards making that wider international policy effective is somehow unnecessary. It is vital, and we have done it with, for example, arms exports. It was in the context of the whole issue of arms exports and the damage they could do that we saw the establishment of the European code on arms exports. A lot of work is still to be done on it but it is a starting point. It illustrates to the world what can be done and it enables us to move forward practically to a wider, more successful policy within the United Nations.

The issue that we must come back to is that these amendments are vital because they try to ensure that we bring home to the British people that their interests lie in strong collective action at the international level. I repeat that the trouble with the Bill is that it faces in the opposite direction. It is saying, “We will make some concessions to Europe where necessary, but we do not see our future in international co-operation and effective international instruments: we see these as something that reluctantly we have to concede from time to time—and, my God, we will insist on the opportunity always to test public opinion if we are asked to take an obviously sensible step”.

These amendments deal with the heart of the Bill. It is a sad day in British history when we have this wretched piece of legislation before us.

Arms Trade

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Judd]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conclusions they have reached on the future regulation of the arms trade in the light of recent events; and what action they are taking to ensure a successful outcome to the arms trade treaty negotiations in 2012.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I remind the House that I am a trustee of Saferworld, a charity working in security sector reform.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom continues to take a leading role in negotiations for an arms trade treaty and actively participated in the recent UN arms trade treaty preparatory committee meeting. It is important for us to learn lessons from recent events. On 16 March, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary announced a review of the sale to Middle East countries of weapons that could be used for internal repression.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply and underline that the British delegation played a lead role in the discussions in New York last week. Does the noble Lord not agree that, while significant progress was made in the realm of conventional weapons, equipment and ammunition, there is still a glaring gap in the area of police equipment and internal security equipment? What arrangements are the Government making to address this key issue, which has obviously become very significant in the context of recent events?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that we are making progress, but that there are still some gaps. The next preparatory meeting is in July, when we will address these issues closely. It is of course our broader aim to see smaller weapons more effectively included and embraced in the arms trade treaty, including the categories that the noble Lord mentioned. These are matters to which we are giving close attention.

Arms Trade: Libya and North Africa

Lord Judd Excerpts

Wednesday 9th March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint]

My Lords, I think the whole House shares the instinct that lies behind the noble Lord’s questions. It is absolutely imperative that we conduct our defence and security sales business on the basis of high standards and under strict controls. Those controls are in place, but we always need to make sure that we take account of new experience. As for the proposal on the re-export of arms and control of that, the difficulty is that it is always the case that once arms have passed from this country to the buying country, there is no jurisdiction for any law passed in this country. We therefore remain concerned that any such Act would remain effectively null and void. We should continue to base our approach on careful pre-licensing scrutiny of export sales.

An arms trade treaty is a priority of the Government. We are committed to agreeing a strong and comprehensive arms trade treaty. We have a unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office that provides official support. We are working with key partners, such as the European Union, the United States and the co-authors of the treaty proposal—Argentina, Australia, Costa Rica, Finland, Japan and Kenya.

[Lord Judd]

Does the Minister agree that the real issue of concern is the underlying drive in policy? Armaments should never be another useful export unless there is some specific reason for not exporting them. Surely the culture in the unstable world in which we are living, with all the recent experience, should be that arms are an extremely dangerous export to promote, and should be exported only when there is a specific strategic purpose that can be monitored and held to account in the context of our relationship with the people who are receiving those arms. At the moment, we need to bring the emphasis in that direction, instead of the one that has prevailed.

[Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd, for that question. It is important to keep a balance. Every country has a right to self-defence. We live in an imperfect world; if it were a perfect world we would have no need of defence industries, needless to say. It is clearly extremely important that sales of defence and security equipment are conducted to the highest possible standards, and that we work with recipient Governments to ensure the proper use of such equipment and services. We must also make sure that we learn from experience. We would all acknowledge that we have some things to learn from the terrible events in Libya.

Israel

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, on having so firmly introduced this debate today. I would just like to make two or three points. First, I think historically it is a major tragedy that we have seen the United States behave as it has at the United Nations in recent weeks. It is while the United States still has ascendency in the international community that it is so important for it to throw its weight behind the strengthening of international institutions and international law. That is in the interests of the future of the people of the United States because it will not always have that ascendency. It will then—too late, perhaps—realise the importance of having strong international institutions and the rule of international law.

Secondly, what is so sad about what the United States has done is that it is absolutely counterproductive to the security of Israel. It will not help the people of Israel. No one cares more than I do about the future of Israel; I have many friends in Israel. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, in introducing the debate, referred to the people of Israel letting down themselves. Many people in Israel want the debate in Israel to open up. They have a completely different perspective on the future. They see that the future of Israel, the strength of Israel and the safety of Israel lie in negotiated settlements and making peace with the people in the surrounding area.

If there is to be peace in the region, it is essential that negotiations are as inclusive as possible. That is where the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, is so right again—he has done it before—to emphasise the importance of Hamas. At the moment, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy: we strengthen the extremist elements in Hamas. They are not all extremists in Hamas; we should be strengthening the more moderate elements and bringing them in to help move the negotiations forward.

Finally, let us just remember that when we talk about aggression and the threat of aggression, of course it is wrong to kill innocent Israelis. That cannot be condoned, but what about the bombardments of the so-called buffer zone within Gaza? What about the 52 innocent people killed within the buffer zone last year? What about the embargo and the damage that it has done to the health, well-being, industry and economic life of Gaza? Is that not aggression? From every standpoint, the American position has been disastrous.

I congratulate the British Government with one reservation. Having made such a courageous, firm and sensible stand at the UN, why on earth did the Prime Minister at this very juncture go with a group of arms salesmen to the Gulf, sending a completely contrary message to that which is inherent in everything that we are arguing about how peace and security need to be achieved? That was counterproductivity of the first order.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 14th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am grateful to my noble friend. On her last point, she is right that the Amnesty International report has just come out and we will obviously be studying it carefully. I am not aware of the question of the priorities of Statements on Afghanistan but there is absolutely no relationship between the particular day-to-day timings of Statements and the importance of issues. Everyone recognises fully that the Afghanistan situation is deeply serious and central for the foreign policy of this country and of many others; everyone recognises, with great sadness, and salutes the courage of our soldiers in Afghanistan; everyone offers deepest condolences to the families of those very brave young men and women who have given their lives, including the most recent ones. I do not think there is any connection between my noble friend’s concern about Statements and our deep feelings about the seriousness and centrality of the Afghan issues.

The noble Baroness asked about our view about all parties being included in a transitional Government. That appears to be the broad intention, but I emphasise what my right honourable friend said in his Statement: it is not for us to dictate or place a template on how the Egyptians organise their processes of government and how they move forward. It is for them. The more that the western powers try to assert their pattern, the more counterproductive that will be. This is a very important lesson, and I am not sure that everyone has fully grasped it yet. It is for Egypt as a nation to restore its own respect and redeem its own feelings about its possibilities in the world and recognise that it is potentially a great nation, not a suppressed and oppressed people. That appears to be going forward, but it is for the Egyptians to decide.

As for the freezing of assets, the Statement indicates that we are now looking at this matter. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is looking at it very carefully. These are very early days, and it is not possible to give details about the nature of the assets held. However, if anything is held illegally, the processes of law enforcement will apply to it. I can assure my noble friend of that.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of us will be greatly reassured by his firmness in saying that it is not for the outside world to run the show but for the people of Egypt to take forward the opening that they have generated? In this context, does he also accept that many of us will be greatly encouraged by his tone in saying that while we thank and, indeed, congratulate the army on its restraint and the role it has played, it is a holding role, and history and the world will judge the army on how it enables the people to make a success of the opening they have generated. We need to see firm indications of how that is to be done as soon as possible.

On Yemen, there is a very difficult situation, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s comments because while acute poverty is not the whole explanation, the grave problem of Yemen is, of course, related to the instability associated with that country. We must therefore be very careful about not appearing to say that enabling the people to enjoy greater prosperity and material well-being is somehow conditional upon the Government playing a fuller part in the battle against al-Qaeda. That battle is vital, but the needs of the people for economic and social progress are paramount.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

Those are very wise words from the noble Lord. He rightly says that as far as the politics and democratic future of Egypt are concerned, we can support and assist and offer our skills and experience, but we cannot lecture, dictate or harangue. The more we and other outside powers do so, the more counterproductive it will be.

I agree with what the noble Lord says about the military. They will be judged by how they proceed. We are entitled to watch, to hope, to note some encouraging aspects as well as—one must be realistic—those that are bound to take time, if I may put it like that, and possibly to show a degree of patience as well as a desire to see things go the right way. I also agree with what he says about the pattern in Yemen. The terrorism, the divisions, the civil war, the problems in the north, the other difficulties, the poverty and the many other internal challenges that Yemen has faced in recent years add up to a very difficult situation. There is no one button that can be pressed to bring it all to a happier state of affairs. We have to proceed with great care and understanding in that country.

Middle East and North Africa

Lord Judd Excerpts

Friday 11th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, it is good to follow the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, because not for the first time in recent weeks and months I find myself in so much agreement with what he has been saying. In congratulating him, I also warmly congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford. He and I have known each other for more than 45 years in politics, across the divide. What has frequently been heartening to me is the degree to which we find ourselves agreeing in analysis of foreign policy matters. If we must have this Conservative-led coalition, I for one am very glad that his wisdom is at the disposal of the Government and I hope that they always listen. But he must take very seriously the challenge in the concluding passages of a particularly effective—characteristically effective but particularly effective—speech by my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean. If he is to win the ends he really must ensure the resources. Some of the things that the Government have been doing of late, as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, has underlined with regard to the BBC World Service, are quite extraordinary. These are the very times when these kind of activities become more important than ever.

In a lifetime of international work, some of it in the most turbulent and insecure parts of the world, I have perhaps injudiciously reached some pretty firm conclusions about human affairs. I declare an interest as a continuing trustee of Saferworld. One of my conclusions—I have no doubts about this—is that the origins of extremism and terrorism lie in the sphere of alienation, cynicism, exclusion, disempowerment and poverty. Looked at in a global context, one of the things that sooner or later we all have to recognise is that the world is full of people, many of them very well educated and articulate, who are absolutely fed up with being managed by the traditional powers and being pawns in the traditional powers’ play game. They want responsibility and power for themselves as well as a say in their own future and in how the world is organised.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, was right to point out—I almost leapt to my feet and cheered, as I cannot say how strongly I agree—that peace and security cannot be imposed; lasting, enduring security has to be built “brick by brick”. That phrase is one that I have often used myself—I hope that he will not mind my saying so—and is one that I totally endorse. What are these bricks? Of course, they are in the realm of hearts and minds. I wish that we would not talk about “winning hearts and minds”, as the point is that the solution lies in hearts and minds. That includes security sector reform, the removal of the counterproductivity that is over and over again a real thorn in the flesh of progress, accountable government, justice, and of course human rights. We are still, I am afraid, inclined to see these principles as a sort of optional extra in a decent society rather than as the absolutely central pillars of stability and peace.

What are the processes for moving forward? Well, if I have learnt anything, it is that the processes must be as inclusive as they possibly can be, but the other principle that I have come to endorse completely is that there should be as few preconditions as possible. Preconditions can make progress very difficult indeed. The objectives spelt out in preconditions are things that you build by common ownership in the process of negotiation and talks. Getting this point accepted is crucial. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, for whom I have infinite respect, said very indignantly that there has to be an acceptance of the state of Israel. Few of us would disagree with that, but my noble friend and others must also look at the issue from the point of view of the Palestinians. Where is the absolute acceptance of the principle of a state of Palestine? Where is there a real, demonstrable commitment to finding ways not of delaying but of speeding up the creation of that state?

Another issue of which we hear a good deal—this argument has also been used in the case of Egypt—is that, where it is very difficult to see where the new leaders are, one is left with the perhaps unacceptable reality that one simply has to deal with the existing leaders. Of course, if there has been tyranny, oppression and a denial of freedom and debate, it is hardly surprising that new leaders are not always obvious. Leaders will emerge in the context of debate, of freedom and of peacebuilding. We have to be open to the leaders who will create the future rather than always harking back to the leaders who have made such a mess of the past.

Perhaps I could refer for a moment to one or two specific dimensions of what I have been saying. In the case of Egypt, the points that I have been making are fairly obvious. Like others, I cannot put on record too strongly my admiration—my unlimited admiration—for the courage and dignity of the Egyptian people. What a lesson and challenge they have been to the people of the world. In that situation, however, we have been inclined to talk about the role of the army. I just make the point that any future for Egypt that depends on the role of the army is not the kind of peace and stability for which we are looking. The army may have an interim role to play, but we must not become dependent upon it; that is not a democracy or what a well founded society is about.

The other thing to recognise is that there is acute poverty in Egypt. There is a lot of social disempowerment as well as political disempowerment. The suffering has been made worse because of the amount of resources that the outside world has put into supporting the tyranny of the army and the rest, so this is a complicated issue. I think that there has been a certain amount of oversimplification in the journalistic response to the role of the army in the situation.

On Israel, a great deal has already been said in this debate, so let me just underline a couple of points. First, I am delighted to find that, like the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, I was in Israel in the middle of the 1967 war. I can remember sitting in the basement of a hotel—the air-raid siren had sounded—and talking to some of my Israeli friends. As we listened to the radio, when some particularly militant Zionist comment came into that situation, my friends became exasperated and said, “It’s all right for these people, but we have got to build a future for this country, and that future depends upon our relationships with the people surrounding us. This kind of simplistic propaganda is actually making all that more difficult”. If I have a criticism of how we in the outside world have responded to Israel, it is that we have repeatedly let down the voices of moderation and reason within Israel—courageous people who have refused to participate in military activities that they find totally unjustifiable; and where has been our strong support for those people in Israel? My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis referred to Israel as a democracy, but why is it that we always seem to end up on the side of authoritarian Israel instead of on the side of the intellectual—let us not be afraid of the word—and thinking Israeli people who are really looking for the constructive way forward?

[Lord Clinton-Davis]

At no time do I have any room for Prime Minister Netanyahu, but I was trying to suggest that, by comparison with other leaders in the Middle East, he has something to say.

[Lord Judd]

Well, let us ponder those words and evaluate them for ourselves.

If we are talking about Israel, we also have to face up to the issue of Hamas, which has been mentioned. What grieves me is that Hamas was a pluralist organisation, but the cards have been played in such a way as to play right into the hands of the extremist elements of Hamas. We create self-fulfilling prophecies. Of course the challenge is to have dialogue with Hamas. I certainly agree with those such as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, who say that, in the end, there is no alternative but to talk to Hamas—and the sooner, rather than the later, the better. In that context, we have to remember that, while provocation, which is stupid and counterproductive, by those elements within Hamas and other parts of the Middle East in, for example, their actions against innocent people in Israel should be condemned, we must remember that it is not a one-way story.

The siege of the economy in Gaza has been a very cruel and blunt social and economic action, which could not have been designed better than to play into the hands of the extremists. The UN has pointed out that, in the so-called buffer zone within Gaza, last year Israeli shootings killed 52 people, including farmers and young people. Only recently, my old organisation, Oxfam, saw some of its work in the West Bank set back by the demolition that took place at the hands of the Israelis. People have to face the economic and social consequences of that action. Let us not think that the whole provocation comes from the Arabs. There is repeated counterproductive provocation from Israel itself.

The solution as I see it is of course to have a viable state for the Palestinians, but if there is to be such a state it must be one with proper boundaries, not Bantustans. It must be a state that in every sense, geographically and politically, makes sense. It has to be based on the involvement of the widest possible cross-section of people in finding the way forward.

In conclusion, in the region as a whole we have some huge adjustments to make. France, the US and ourselves are seen as being hand in hand with the outdated tyrannical rulers who have called the game for so long. We have to make a strategic transition to being on the side of the people. This will be complicated by the degree to which we have built up our arms relationships with so many of the outdated rulers and have become economically so dependent on the money we have made out of those situations. That has been provocative to the people and will be difficult to remove ourselves from. But these are the strategic issues. Otherwise, we will just be trying to put a finger in the dyke again—and sooner or later the dyke will crash. The lesson of Egypt is startlingly clear.

Bangladesh: Rapid Action Battalion

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 24th January 2011 Lords Chamber

Asked By

[Lord Judd]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what part they are playing in the training of the Rapid Action Battalion in Bangladesh.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

The United Kingdom Government have been providing basic human rights and ethical policing skills training to the Rapid Action Battalion in Bangladesh since 2008. We consider it important that the Bangladeshi Government have the capability to maintain effective law and order, so as to protect the safety and human rights of the Bangladeshi public and to minimise the extent to which counterterrorism threats emanate from Bangladesh to the United Kingdom. The aim of our work is to further improve the Rapid Action Battalion’s standards in accordance with our own values and legal responsibilities.

[Lord Judd]

I thank the noble Lord for that reply and for his very positive leadership on this issue. Does he not agree that great commendation is due to the British armed services for much of the training that they do across the world in very difficult circumstances? Does he not also agree that great pains must therefore be taken to avoid directly or indirectly becoming associated with organisations conducting themselves in a way that not only negates everything that we believe to be worth defending in our society but plays into the hands of militant extremists by provoking resentment? Does the noble Lord further agree that, within Bangladesh, there is widespread popular dismay and contempt for the behaviour of that battalion?

Africa: Ivory Coast

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 21st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord has great experience of these things, but different situations demand different approaches. Preventing the rising and particularly ugly conflict in this country from spreading to other areas and affecting everyone's interests may well need a larger military mobilisation. However, for the moment there is a precarious situation in which the UNOCI has insisted on staying there, the army appears to be under the control of ex-President Gbagbo—or President, as he would style himself—and there is a sharp stand-off between the two. That is the position at the moment and it is very hard to comment beyond that. Certainly, any remit for a larger military force would not be at all clear in the present complex situation.

[Lord Judd]

Does the noble Lord agree that there is a danger of a trend towards tokenism in the international presence in these situations, and that this is disastrous for the effectiveness of the UN? Does he also agree that if this is to be put right, it is absolutely essential that in the Government's approach to the reform of the UN they give priority to increasing the effectiveness of the military planning staff at the disposal of the Secretary-General?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Lord is right that a more effective arrangement of that kind should be followed through in precisely the way that he suggests. However, “putting right” is a big phrase in the present situation. The pressures from outside are bound to have some limitation on them, and within this hapless country there are hideous and dangerous rivalries that I am afraid have been there for many years and are nowhere near being resolved at the moment.