Soft Power and the UK’s Influence (Select Committee Report)

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I join others in expressing real thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for a particularly thoughtful and stimulating report. To have had him at the helm, with his personal and lifelong commitment to the international dimensions of our life, was a great asset.

I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Birt. In the context of my life, which has involved a great deal of international work, I cannot praise too highly the record of the BBC. However, I would like to make a comment on his observations about the BBC. First, in the overseas reach of its work the institution needs to be aware of the pressures that lead it to a preoccupation with listening figures. Often, the most important contribution by the BBC is in situations where the numbers may not be that impressive, but for those who are struggling for the future of their country and their people, and are struggling to establish enlightened stability, this contribution can be crucial. That dimension must be constantly borne in mind.

Secondly, to underline what the noble Lord was saying, my impression has always been that the quality of the BBC’s overseas work, going by its record, has been related to the quality and depth of the knowledge. It was not just up-to-date reporting that was good; that is obviously connected to it. It rested in a really deep understanding, almost with the quality of the most outstanding university, in terms of what it was bringing to the task, which challenged all other types of journalism. That must be watched.

We live in a dangerous world, and there are two dimensions to how we respond. One is in the military and defence sense. The amount of resources available is crucial. I can never forget my experience as a Defence Minister in this respect. It is also essential to look at the relevance of defence expenditure and the realities of the world in which we live and making sure that whether we are putting expenditure up or keeping it up, the expenditure is put to the best possible use. The other dimension to all this, which is perhaps of even greater significance, is the hearts and minds dimension and how we win the battle for values in the world, or should I say, how the world wins the battle for values without which there is very little prospect for humanity.

The world is no longer Eurocentric. We are totally interdependent and this makes our support of and participation in international institutions a top priority. Our present generation of politicians will be judged by history on the extent to which they enabled the British people to understand that the world is no longer Eurocentric and that what matters most is what we are doing, together with others, in international institutions. That matters most.

We have to look at ourselves very honestly and not just go on with the refrain that the world respects us and has a high regard for us. We need to ask ourselves just how far the world has automatic respect for us and how far we can live on the laurels of the past. Are we doing the things that are necessary to ensure that we have that respect?

That brings me to a thought which I hope I will be forgiven for introducing to the debate. I do not like the use of the word “power” in this context. It has so many sometimes quite sinister connotations. I wish we could talk about contribution. I wish we could talk about effective co-operation. Power is not a word which is going to help in this non-Eurocentric world. It is our strength—there is a difference between strength and power—that matters in the way we make our contribution. That is related to our credibility as a nation and a people. The environment has been mentioned. There is no bigger challenge to us all than the issues of the environment, but if the world is going to listen to our contribution on the environment, it will look at us and ask just how high in our real political priorities are environmental issues and how much muscle is being given to responding in the most effective way so far as Britain’s inescapability from that crisis is concerned.

When we talk about the importance of human rights, just how committed is the UK really? How far do the British people and their political leaders understand that the absence of human rights leads to extremism? Churchill understood that, but how many today really understand right in the centre of our thinking and deliberations that the absence of human rights is likely to lead to extremism and all the horrors that go with it? What success are the British people making of their own race relations before they tell other people how they ought to be arranging theirs?

In education, the same thing is true. We can make a huge contribution in education and have and will, I am sure, but its real effectiveness is related to what people see as our own educational priorities. How far have we got locked into a quantitative approach to higher education and universities as distinct from a qualitative approach to universities? How much importance do we give to ethics, philosophy, history and the humanities in our education system as distinct from how far it is contributing to the economy—that is vital, of course—but just in the immediate sense, in a measurable, material sense? I believe there is an indivisible line there, but if we are to go on being a successful economy, the values of our society and the other dimensions of our society feed into that because they lead to richness in personality and originality which are crucial to our future.

I mentioned the BBC at some length. The same is true for the British Council. It has a splendid record, but it should not let the importance of the arts and literature become diminished because they can make a terrific contribution to the quality of thinking throughout the world.

The non-governmental sector must have a mention; I plead guilty because I have worked in it a great deal. Let us listen to the non-governmental sector. It is not just what it is contributing but what it is hearing because it has the credibility of its involvement and engagement. Its voice in helping us to shape policies for the future is crucial. It is not a threat or something to be kept disciplined; it is something to encourage because it is central to its work.

Above all, in all we are doing, the word “solidarity” matters. Do we see living out our lives and our children living out their lives as a mutual experience? Is it humanity as humanity facing the issues that face us all or is our position still too much the old, traditional, paternalistic approach that we make a contribution, but as Britain, to the world? It is not the road to success. The road to success is to ask how we join the world. In joining the world and playing our part as a partner in the world, how do we help to build success for everybody? In that, languages cannot be overemphasised.

Israel and Palestine

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, in congratulating the noble Lord on having introduced this important debate and having given such a clear analysis of the situation, I simply say that if we are thinking about the men, women and children in Palestine and the men, women and children in Israel, we have to look to long-term, sustainable solutions. We must beware of attempts at short-term fixes; we need to find something that will last. By definition, if something is going to last it has to have the support of the maximum number of people on all sides. With our special moral and historical responsibilities, which the noble Lord rightly underlined, we have to think of that principle all the time. The solution in the end will be with the people and their leaders in the region.

If there is one thing that I think that we should say as friends of the Israeli people and friends of the Palestinian people, it is that counterproductivity is the real enemy. Just as it was totally counterproductive of those within Gaza to fire their rockets into Israel and led to great grief on the part of many of us who see ourselves as close friends of the people of Gaza, one must remember that there had been years of provocation, with the ruthless blockade which was systematically destroying the economy and the social welfare structure of Gaza. One has to think of the West Bank checkpoints, the daily humiliation of the people of the West Bank, farmers separated from their land, and the rest. One has to think of the recent proposal by the Cabinet in Israel to make it a Jewish state.

From that standpoint, it seems to me that we must back to the hilt the principle of a two-state solution, which will give both sides the confidence of international respect as they go about trying to find a long-term solution.

Palestine: Recognition

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 29th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, in introducing this debate, for which I thank him, the noble Lord, Lord Steel, referred to that very impressive article by Sir Vincent Fean. I believe it should be compulsory reading for all who take an interest in this subject. It is a model of experience, wisdom and considered analysis.

Sir Vincent underlined the importance of both parts of the Balfour Declaration. We in Britain have a special responsibility because of all we did to promote the Balfour Declaration. Many on all sides of the debate would agree that nobody paid a higher price for the creation of the State of Israel than the Palestinians. We cannot forget that because it is a reality in their approach to everything.

There has been some dispute about the relationship between the two parties. I am afraid that my experience of visits to the region underlines what the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said about the almost classic colonial relationship. I do not hesitate to use that word because the evidence is there. The checkpoints on the West Bank, the illegal settlements, the control of water and of access to Gaza, the punitive scale of the bombardments of Gaza and the suffering of its people as a consequence underline not only a perception but, I believe, the objective reality of the relationship. That is not to deny the good will and commitment of many Israelis, of whom quite a number, I am glad to say, are my friends.

As a friend of Israel, I believe that candour in conversation and dialogue is essential, which means speaking up about what we know is wrong and about what must be confronted. I am chair of the Middle East committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Union. Only last week we had to cancel a mission to Ramallah and east Jerusalem because at the very last moment the Israelis said that they could not guarantee access to those communities. They had known about the visit for many weeks. They knew that it was the first part of a two-part mission and that we were going to return to Israel as soon as possible after the election, yet still this high-handed action was taken at the very last minute. That underlines the point that I am making.

I can think of nothing that would help to take the negotiations forward better than to put the Palestinians in a position where they could have confidence in their identity—so that they are not second-class players who must be accommodated in the discussions but have confidence that the international community recognises them as a people with their own nation. I lament the failure to be able to start tackling the immense contribution that those two nations, Israel and Palestine, working together, could make not only to their own future but to security and stability in the region.

The dog that has not barked so far in this debate is the Holocaust. We have been commemorating the Holocaust acutely in recent weeks. I was 10 when those camps were liberated and I was left with an indelible impression. I remember the utter distress of my parents at what was being revealed. It was a terrible, terrible thing that happened, and it could happen again so easily, because it took place in a supposedly previously civilised European country. The point is not that these people were Jewish but that they were people with the rights and dignity of all other people. I simply say that if we are not prepared to stand up and put muscle into our stance on the question of the people of Palestine, where on earth will we be the next time the Jewish people come under attack?

National Parliaments (EUC Report)

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 15th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I join those who have paid a real tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for the leadership that he provides to the work of the committee and its sub-committees—and to the House as a whole for considering these matters. This report is profound and interesting; it raises major issues and deserves the close attention it is receiving in this debate.

There is a paradox, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made reference to it. We are all concerned about the accountability of the Commission but it should not become a ritual for us in this House to have an exchange with the Government about our frustrations about the too-many occasions when papers do not arrive in time for proper consideration and analysis. This is a major fault in the way in which we operate. I am getting rather tired of Ministers appearing opposite and saying how sorry they are, and how determined they are to work with officials in ensuring that the delays can be overcome. It never happens. It goes on and, in many ways, gets worse. There is a sort of arrogance in the machinery of government here that must be overcome, because the committee work can be only as good as the information on which it is operating—and this means excellent communication between departments and the committees.

In relation to that, if there is to be a future for the European Union—and I suspect that everyone in this Chamber on this occasion believes that the EU is indispensable and must have a future—it will be a healthy future only if there is a real sense that the member countries and their Governments belong to, are part of, and engage in that community. If too many countries and Governments—and I am afraid that the United Kingdom is a prime culprit in this context—are sort of on sufferance in the community and all the time wanting to tell their electorates and public how they are battling for the interests of their own people against this menacing and octopus-like operation in Brussels, we are not going to have a strong future. We have to belong. In the context of belonging, we must have the accountability about which we are speaking in this debate. Accountability’s muscle depends in the end on being aware of a widely based public opinion in member countries that this whole business is relevant to them—that they have an interest in it and want to ensure that those who claim to represent them are therefore playing the dynamic part that they should be playing.

Very often, the scrutiny that takes place goes on in spite of any feeling of public engagement. The public have come to see the European affair—the institutions of Europe; if they see them at all—as an elitist, closed community of those who are playing the European game. I am not sure that the public are totally wrong about that. Those institutions have become elitist, and those of us who have been involved in Europe in one way or another have become part of that reality. We have to re-engage with the public as a whole.

In that respect, I have a suggestion to make about our work in our sub-committees. We do not give the priority that we should give to ensuring that we get a social cross-section of witnesses coming to us when we are taking evidence. I have looked through the reports of one committee after another, and too often we are talking to members of our own political and social elite in Britain, with their views. It is important to talk to people who are in the front line of the reality of how society is or is not functioning, and about what the frustrations are. That means that a great deal more hard thinking has to go into considering: is this bunch of witnesses that we have assembled really representative of Britain and the people who are dealing with the consequences of the policies agreed in Europe? There is a real need for us to tackle that; and I cannot emphasise that too strongly.

I was particularly interested by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, which was refreshing and challenging. It raised certain issues, of course. Would it not be nice if we were not starting from where we are? Historians may well find it interesting to consider why we went for a directly elected European Parliament. When I was Minister of State at the Foreign Office, we were in the period of transition. I was uneasy about what was happening then because it seemed to me that among our own parliamentary body in Britain we were going to lose a degree of direct engagement in the affairs of the European Union. As happened then, people went from our Parliament to the European assembly and reported back to our Parliament. It was a broader basis of engagement. Parliament, through that process, was enabled and encouraged to see the relevance of what was going on in Europe to Parliament’s immediate affairs. Similarly, there are parliamentarians in the directly-elected European Parliament who are not as close to the reality of politics and frustrations of public policy, its implementation and contradictions as the people within the political system, whether British, French, German or whatever. That is an unfortunate divide. I do not see the clock being put back but we have to face up to it.

That takes us into another, much more profound, issue. As I listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, she provoked me into thinking about it again, and it is not the first time that I reflected upon it. Perhaps we would have had a stronger Europe if we had gone for a more confederal Europe, as distinct from a federal Europe. The reality that we are coming up to is one in which we want a Europe of nation states that co-operate; that is the implication of everything that we are discussing; we want agreement between nation states. That is a sensible reality. Unfortunately, institutions that were established were much more in the context of a federal Europe. We have to face that and debate that. Furthermore, we have to ensure that our Governments, of whatever persuasion, are taking that ongoing reality seriously, because we need perhaps to get back to the confederal approach. I say that as a passionate pro-European.

It has been a very interesting debate so far. What I am more convinced about than ever is that we have to work at accountability. It is not just a matter of finding arrangements for better communication; it is a matter of politicians in different countries being able to work together, seeing much more of each other and developing a common demand of Ministers and the rest. It is also a matter of making sure that British society—a cross-section of British society at all levels—is drawn into our own work and feels that our work is relevant and that they can have a say in what we are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Spicer, I was making a slightly different point, which is about the global market and global manufacturing. The fact that, for example, when the French sell an Airbus a third of the value added to that Airbus comes from British manufacturers, and that every time the Germans sell a Mercedes, it contains a large number of British components, means that markets have gone beyond the nation state but legitimacy has not. That is a fundamental, structural problem of the world in which we now live. I will not touch on the migration dimensions of that, but the security dimensions are also extremely difficult. That leaves us with a set of dilemmas which are not solvable and which we have to cope with.

A number of noble Lords made the point about the resources and time required. Resources are needed for scrutiny, as the report suggests. If we are setting up for national parliaments to be more closely in touch with each other, that requires a good deal of travel and time. One noble Lord remarked—it may have been the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood—that, in some ways, a European Parliament that was drawn directly from national parliaments was more appropriate. However, it did not work before 1979, partly because national parliamentarians are elected to serve constituents in their national parliament and the more time we expect them to spend elsewhere, the less time they will have to do their primary job. So there is a set of real problems there.

I noticed, as a member of the Government talking to newly elected MPs—there was a very large turnover in the British Parliament last time—that a great many newly elected MPs coming from outside politics had very little idea of the complexities of international negotiations in which we are engaged with other European parliaments, or of the contacts one needs to have with members of other national parliaments or, indeed, members of the same political family as yours in other Governments. They have learnt, but it takes time. After all, more and more of our parliamentary candidates, I saw in one newspaper at the weekend, are now being drawn from people who have established roots within their local constituency. They are not elected to Parliament because of their international experience and they are unlikely to get re-elected if they spend too much time travelling around Europe and beyond. That is one of the obstacles with which we have to deal.

The new Commission has signalled that it is open to a much more positive dialogue with national Governments. New President Juncker has stated this on a number of occasions; Vice-President Timmermans, as has been remarked, has made it very clear that this is one of his priorities. As a Minister in the Dutch Government beforehand, he was already heavily committed. Closer co-operation among national parliaments was mentioned by many noble Lords. The offices which we now have in Brussels are to be strengthened. It is a very good way of using Brussels as a means of communication that enables you to find out earlier what is going on, examine proposals at an earlier stage and talk among national parliaments about how one might use yellow cards—lowering the threshold. The green card question is a very interesting one which the Government will wish to consider. We are not yet committed. We note the proposal that the coverage of these mechanisms should be extended to cover proportionality as well.

The noble Lord, Lord Bowness, talked about first reading deals. One of the problems that the Government have in responding to that is the sheer complexity of a multilateral negotiating process, with co-decision with the European Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers coming in. The points at which national parliaments insert themselves into that process and how national parliaments keep up with that process is, again, part of the problem with which we all have to deal. Over the past year, as I have struggled with the EU balance of competencies exercise—a fascinating exercise—I have changed my mind on whether it would be useful for this Chamber also to examine other international organisations through which the British Government work. Time and time again in the EU balance of competencies exercise we have had evidence which has said, “We work through the EU on this, and we also work with OECD or the World Health Organization”. Indeed, the EU operates in some respects as a regional member of the World Health Organization in specific areas. Explaining that to the national public, as far as we can, and examining how effective those other international organisations are—most of them are a great deal less effective than the European Union—is perhaps also something which this Government might be able to achieve.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, remarked that perhaps it would be easier if we explicitly had a confederal Europe rather than a federal Europe. I thought the chapter in this report on economic governance was particularly interesting and difficult because the contradictions of where we have got to with international markets come in because you need some power to decide as soon as you have an integrated single market, let alone a common currency, and when you face a global economic crisis, the legitimacy to decide above the level of the nation state is not there. So we are again stuck with the problem that it is not possible to reconcile the principles of democratic accountability and legitimacy and the need to take these decisions among a range of different actors.

[Lord Judd]

Is it not highly relevant here to recognise that in what the Minister is saying about what has happened to international finance, the real discussions that influence policy are going on in the G7 and places such as that? In this sense, it gives us room to reconsider the structures that built up before this was of such manifest significance.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I suspect that any incoming British Prime Minister does not begin to understand just how much of his time he will now have to spend out of the country dealing with other Governments and so on. One of my very small roles within government has been trying to say, “No, the Deputy Prime Minister cannot go to that international conference, in spite of the fact that he speaks the language”, or whatever it may be. The pressure on Ministers to travel, particularly those in the British Government who have much more pressure to spend time being accountable in Parliament and to parliamentary committees than many of our counterparts, is among the real strains that I see our senior Ministers facing.

On consulting the public, I shall briefly remark on the balance of competences exercise. The final report will be published this Thursday. The two-year exercise has consulted British stakeholders on the single market and a range of other areas. We have had more than 2,000 pieces of evidence from a very wide range of organisations—economic think tanks and others—and have attracted contributions and evidence from more than two-thirds of the other member states.

One of the most pleasing aspects of it has been to hear people in other Governments saying, “This is a very useful exercise. We should do something like it ourselves”. People within the French Government, the Dutch Government, the Finnish Government and others have said the same. One of the small achievements of this coalition Government has been to consult widely on how far the current arrangements under the Lisbon treaty suit British business, British interests, British trade unions and others. I cherish the evidence from easyJet, which began, “If it were not for the European single market, easyJet would not exist”.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, touched on the exchange of information between national parliaments and Brussels. I welcome her as someone who has made the transition from being a witness before committees of the House of Lords to being a Member of the House of Lords—a route that I remember transiting myself rather too long ago.

The question of how far we co-operate with other national parliaments raises some difficulties. There are other national parliaments with which we are in very close touch. There are others which do not have quite the same style or tradition. Two years ago I had lunch with the chair of the European affairs committee of a particular national parliament, who did not seem to have the sense that he should ever criticise his own Government or should disagree with their approach to Brussels. It was a rather surreal experience.

Some, however, are very active. I note, incidentally, from the table in Appendix 6 of the report that second chambers in several countries are much more active than first chambers. We are not the only ones who are able, because of our second-chamber status, to do what we can.

The European Union is, of course, a political system. How it works depends on how actively different institutions engage with it. We wish, as far as possible, to encourage other European parliaments to engage with us. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about the government response and how this fits in with the Government’s reform agenda. I remind him that the Foreign Secretary, my right honourable friend Philip Hammond, is engaged in active conversations with other national Governments. He has so far visited 11 national capitals. The feedback he has been getting demonstrates very clearly that there is an achievable, broad-based reform agenda shared by many other Governments which does not require treaty change.

Indeed, other Governments are vigorously saying, “We can do this without treaty change”. It is achievable within the headroom provided by the Lisbon treaty, and it covers a stronger role for national parliaments, effective regulation, the budget, completion of the single market in areas such as services in which the obstacles come from Germany rather than from Britain and others, the digital single market and so on. We have an active reform agenda that we are pursuing.

Time is short, and I am sure that noble Lords would like their dinner before everything closes. I think that one has to stress the obstacles, such as travel requirements, yet again. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Stamford, suggested that one could spend more time visiting others. I am sure that the Daily Mail would take very careful note of the sort of hotels in which Members stayed. Again, all of these things require time and effort. If you do one thing, you cannot do another. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, suggested that we need to get ordinary people involved, not always members of the elite. Unfortunately, politicians by definition are part of the elite. We are not ordinary people, otherwise we would now be at home watching television or doing something else. Part of the underlying problem of democracy that we now have is that it is easy to decry those engaged in national, let alone international, politics as part of an elite.

[Lord Judd]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I find what he says, as ever, very powerful, but I will give a practical illustration. When under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, we were doing a report on drugs in the European context, the noble Lord was at pains to make sure that we were hearing from people working with drug addicts on the front line. That is what I am talking about. It seemed to me that the remarks I was making were being addressed to us in the committees as distinct from the Government.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lord, I understand that, and I take that as read. Time is very short. I will therefore turn to government engagement with our Parliament and our committees which the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, mentioned in his opening. He made a number of strong remarks about the Home Office in particular and also about the Cabinet Office, which I will take back and to which we will respond in time.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, that Ministers are delegates, as I think he said at one point. We all understand that we ask our Ministers to engage in a series of complicated negotiations. The importance there is to have a constant dialogue with Parliament and with parliamentary committees as to how far we can go.

This has been an extremely valuable debate. We all understand how vital is the question of restoring a sense of the electorate’s own membership of the European Union, and how difficult that is—as well as how much we hope that what we do in this Chamber and what is done in the other place and other national parliaments can help to rebuild a sense of legitimacy and accountability for the very necessary tasks that we ask the European Union to fulfil.

Soft Power and Conflict Prevention

Lord Judd Excerpts

Friday 5th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords I am extremely grateful to be able to hear and participate in this debate. We should all be appreciative of the most reverend Primate for the way in which he has given us this opportunity. This has been a refreshing debate, because for once we have talked about strategy rather than about our constant preoccupation with tactics. Our species is lost if we cannot reassert the primacy of strategic considerations, towards which tactics are a means of travel.

This is about conflict prevention. I see a great paradox in human society at the moment. On the one hand, we are more and more conscious of our total interdependence with others across the world. On the other, there is a growing sense and yearning for personal identity and significance. Sometimes we talk, for example, in the context of our own society, about the issues of Scottish nationalism. However, we overlook—I declare an interest as a half-Scot; I am very close to my Scottish family—what people yearn for, which is the sense that they matter and belong, and have dignity and identity. That is of course central to any concern about conflict and its prevention.

However, if we are talking about peace, which by definition we must be, sometimes the language we use becomes too easily confused. We talk about peace enforcement, peacekeeping and peacemaking, but over my lifetime I have become interested in what I see as the greatest challenge, peacebuilding, which is quite different. That is about finding the bricks with which you build the security for the future, and it requires infinite patience. There will be many set-backs, but the danger is that we get into an impatient management mode in which we want to manage a solution and, in a sense, want to find a solution to other people’s problems, get them to buy it, and then enforce it. That is destined to lead to greater and greater trouble in the future. We need solutions that belong to the participants in the conflict. That means building relations of solidarity. Solidarity is a very important concept, because it is not about talking to or about other people but about talking with them, listening and learning from that experience.

The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Baglan, referred to the immensely important part played by the NGOs—and again I declare an interest, because that has been very much part of my life. I think that he is right to emphasise why they matter so much, because, although they are not all perfect, at their best they are close to the people. The advocacy that they bring into deliberations is that based on experience and engagement, and their strength is that they really are in a meaningful relationship with the people about whom we are talking. Governments of all persuasions have failed to see the vital importance of this aspect of NGO activity—that they bring an unrivalled contribution to the quality, content and integrity of the debate.

The most reverend Primate referred to the issue of visas, and I am very glad that he did. One issue here, it always seems to me, is that we fail to realise that a relevant centre of higher education in the nature of the world in which we live must be an international community. It is not just about having overseas students here and the contributions that they make to the finances of a university. The quality of the education is related to its being an international community, in which people from completely different backgrounds are learning and studying together and informing each other from different perspectives. To do anything in administration that hinders the process of developing these flourishing institutions as centres of international co-operation and understanding is to be very detrimental to our future.

On a more local level, I happen to be a patron of a very interesting local organisation based in Marlborough, set up at the time of the Brandt report, which has kept going extremely well. The point about the Marlborough Brandt Group is that over 20 years it has brought people from the Gambia in West Africa to Marlborough to work there on Marlborough’s social problems and challenges. Behind the façade of the college and all the rest, there are a lot of challenges and social problems in Marlborough. Young people from Marlborough have been going to work in the Gambia. That programme has recently had to stop because they simply cannot cope with the difficulties of getting visas for the Gambians to come to this country. It is at moments like this that we have to ask ourselves what on earth we are doing, cutting off our noses to spite our faces. If anything is an illustration of practical co-operation, that is it.

If we are talking with the NGOs, they would be the first to make the point—and my noble friend Lord Boateng referred to this in a powerful and effective speech—that it is all about a matrix. It is a matrix of climate change and social issues, as well as refugee, migration and economic issues, along with issues of land and water resources and health and security. There is a need for security sector reform, because everyone needs to have a stable society. Of course, the security sector will be necessary—but it must be one that is trusted and in which there is real accountability. So security sector reform is a vital part of our approach.

Underlying all this is the issue of human rights. You can put it very simply—in the absence of any serious human rights issues, there is a chance to have a stable, secure society. If there are human rights issues of any significant nature in society, you are on the road to instability, extremism and tension. Therefore, we must stop seeing human rights as a possible option; we must see them as an absolutely indispensable cornerstone of stable society. That is why the international approach to human rights is so important and any talk of repatriation of human rights is nonsense, because what matters is that these are rights of mankind across the world. They are not just British rights or French rights or German rights but the rights of people wherever they are. If we start to dismantle that principle, which Eleanor Roosevelt, Churchill and others regarded as being so important in the aftermath of the Second World War, what on earth are we doing to the cause of peace and understanding in the world?

The Government are coming to terms with interdepartmental co-operation and are to be commended for that. I am very interested in the concept of the new Conflict, Stability and Security Fund, which is to be introduced in April next year. However, we need to make sure that this is not just—how shall I put it?—a formal response to an issue that has been identified but is an effective muscular response. As my noble friend Lord Boateng said so well, this means that departments have to stop thinking as departments and start to think about being part of a common cause, and of how one carries that common cause forward.

An issue that I do not think has had much attention today is that of arms control and the Arms Trade Treaty. We have to stop thinking that arms are part of our export business and that we can get on with making money for Britain and providing employment in Britain unless there is an overriding reason not to do so. Surely everything we are experiencing in the world demonstrates that arms in the wrong hands are immensely dangerous. Arms are dangerous things to make and you should export them only where a cast-iron guarantee can be given—if that is possible—that they will be used to maintain peace with close allies who can be trusted and that people will be accountable for what happens with them. The whole balance of the assumption behind the operation of the arms industry has to change in that context.

I always thought that one of the finest assets of the BBC was Bush House, as the quality of what was broadcast across the world was due to the quality of the work that was done there. The quality of the community in Bush House reflects what I said about universities in that great experience and learning came together to back up the quality of the journalism. I hope that we will manage to maintain that tradition under the new arrangements. I am not always sure that that is the case. I get worried when I receive letters from the BBC saying, “You will be cheered to know that our audience has increased by this amount”. Of course, I am cheered; I am glad to hear that. However, sometimes the value of the BBC is demonstrated in areas where there may not be a very high listening audience but where the listening audience that does exist is crucial. The BBC, with its objective reporting and wide understanding of the world, is a lifeline for sane, decent people.

As regards the contribution of the British Council to education and cultural exchange, cultural exchange enables us to understand others’ backgrounds so much better. The way in which people across the world have loved Shakespeare as the result of the British Council’s efforts is not to be underestimated.

I conclude by referring to the observation that I was so glad the most reverend Primate the Archbishop included in his interesting opening speech. In all this we have to look at ourselves and what is happening in Britain. Whenever there is a miscarriage of justice, or an unjustifiable action or manhandling in the forces, police or border authority, it is storing up insecurity for the future. It is essential, given the personal experience of people’s treatment by one of these authorities, that standards of decency, care, concern and compassion are there all the time. They are important for the people concerned but if they are not there, we may have bright people going home, alienated and aggravated, and becoming potential recruits to extremism and the rest.

Perhaps I may make one important—for me, anyway; I am sure it is for others— point about all this. We must be very careful about slipping, under pressures and provocation that I do not underestimate, into the concept that somehow the Home Office, which is the equivalent to the ministry of the interior in many countries of the world, is moving into positions of responsibility in our universities. This matters not only in terms of academic freedom, which we have treasured in our society, and the autonomy of universities in that context, but what is the example we are setting to the world? To the world, it is quite normal for interior ministries and the Home Office to do that. Of course the issues are huge, but let us pause for a moment and ask ourselves what we are really doing.

Chilcot Inquiry

Lord Judd Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we want to publish as soon as we can, and before we descend into the election campaign.

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister is, above all, an honourable man—of that I am totally convinced. Will he give the House an unequivocal assurance that no Government of whom he is a part will allow the publication date to become part of political tactics in the run-up to the general election?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we have already agreed that the Government are well aware that it is highly undesirable that publication should run into the election campaign. I stated clearly that I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Owen, on what that means as regards publication. That is part of the context in which we are operating.

Egypt: Human Rights

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has vast experience and is absolutely right to emphasise the significance of what has happened to journalists. This is very sinister, as the whole concept of the freedom of the press is essential to a stable, secure society and to the cause of democracy itself. I hope we can send a very strong message of support from this debate to the journalist community. I take second place to nobody in having to be peeled off the ceiling sometimes because of things journalists say. However, whatever our frustrations, we ought to be congratulating journalists and encouraging them in the crucial role they play for the things we believe in.

I warmly endorse the observations and analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodgson of Abinger. I was greatly heartened by what she said; she ticked off the points one after another. I would like to add and re-emphasise a couple of things. First, I have rather admired the way that the Foreign Secretary has—without qualification—advocated his total conviction on the importance of human rights and the rule of law. It is very important for the Minister to convince and reassure us this afternoon that the Government’s position on Egypt is absolutely consistent with that approach because it would be a tragedy if, by default, the credibility of what the Foreign Secretary is saying was undermined.

It is also important to look at the harsh realities; they have been mentioned but I must repeat them. We have spoken of journalists, but how can the mass trials and death sentences be reconciled with the rule of law and with justice as we understand it? What about the disappearances? When I was rapporteur to the Council of Europe on the conflict in Chechnya, I found this in very real terms. I kept saying to myself: “Think of the mass concern in my country if one child or young person disappears”. People in large numbers are just disappearing. Imagine what that means for ordinary families and people throughout Egyptian society. There is also ruthless, cruel, sadistic torture and all the implications for women of what is happening.

As an old man, I have come to the conclusion that there comes a time when the niceties have to be put in perspective. At the moment, our basic message should be one of solidarity with the Egyptian people. We do not want any rationalisation about how we must be reasonable and so on. What happened in Egypt was, in fact, a military coup. There is no other way to describe it. I was in Cairo when the demonstrations were on. What worried me then was that a number of people with whom I spoke said, “All that matters is to get rid of the Muslim Brotherhood”. I said, “What are you going to replace it with? First, you should not be doing it this way but building up to the next election when you deal with these things.” They said, “That does not matter. We must just get rid of it”. There is a great need for some investigation by historians into what the riots were really about, who orchestrated them and who stirred up the passion there. I think there are some very ugly realities there. I detect the hand of the old guard. I am absolutely certain about that. I suspect the military were very much involved, too.

To conclude, I again emphasise that if we are worried about extremism in the world—I am very worried about it—the one thing we must forgo at all costs is direct or indirect counterproductivity. To try to apologise for or find ways to accommodate the military regime is direct provocation to the cause of extremism and militant behaviour in the Islamic community. We have to be even-handed. I am very uncomfortable about a situation in which we have an inquiry going on about the nature of the Muslim Brotherhood while we may find all sorts of rationalisations for our behaviour on other fronts with Egypt. That is just not even-handed. I look to the Minister to reassure us on these issues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I was fortunate to be added to the second visit of the all-party group to Egypt two weeks’ ago on the grounds that on the previous visit it was suggested that it would be helpful if someone with a military background joined the delegation.

I was particularly interested to have, first, a two-hour meeting with Mr Sisi—he was very much Mr, not Field Marshal, Sisi. We all came away impressed with the grasp that he had of the issues that were facing the country and some of the ways in which he said he was approaching them. He said that Egypt was embarked on a road map which had three main ingredients—two of which had been completed and the third was to come. The first was the writing of the constitution by the committee of 50. Like my noble friend Lord Hylton, I was extremely interested in the exposition of this by Mr Amr Moussa, a wise man. It was interesting that the scope of the people included in the 50- person committee was very wide. I definitely share the impression he got that the Muslim Brotherhood was not to be excluded from future discussions because it was very much part of Egypt.

The second part of the road map, of course, was the election of the president. Although people think that he had a vast majority in the votes cast, we were left under no illusion that the general feeling was that it was of votes cast and did not represent that percentage of the population of Egypt. I was gratified to hear that, knowing of the number of people who deliberately abstained, particularly from the Muslim Brotherhood, because that meant that he would not claim it.

The third part, of course, is the election of Parliament. Quite a lot of time was spent on that. Not least, we were interested to learn that guaranteed numbers of women and Christians would be appointed to that Parliament. Although it sounded extremely complicated, there was a kind of first past the post representation all over Egypt. There was then the production of party lists, which had to contain a number of people of different kinds. Then there was a presidential addition of 20. It all seems complicated but at least it is based on a constitution. Certainly I came away feeling that the jury was out and we would be unwise to be too critical of everything that is in train until it has actually happened and we can see what part it can play in the development of Egypt.

The second point that President Sisi made to us very clearly—as has already been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Williams of Baglan—was that Egypt comes first. As far as he was concerned, gender and religion did not matter. Provided that you put Egypt first, then Egypt welcomed you, but if you put something above Egypt, that was where you parted company. That is where—he did not say as much but others mentioned it—the Muslim Brotherhood had appeared to go wrong, because they had put something above being Egyptian. He went on to criticise the British for our involvement in Iraq and in Libya, and for leaving Libya so soon. Others added a little dagger with the two names of Sykes and Picot, who had successfully mucked up that part of the world. Our status was not as high as we would like .

However, President Sisi said several times that task number one was to put food on everyone’s table, so there was a feeling of reality in all these discussions. The person who most concerned me was the Minister of Defence, not least when he suggested that the internal security situation in Sinai was 85% under control. I did not get the chance to ask him about the other 15%. As a soldier, I have never been able to measure internal security situations in that way. I was interested in the co-operation with Israel over this because, not surprisingly, Israel has as much interest in any terrorism based in Sinai as Egypt has.

The other group which interested me enormously were groups of students, in a meeting arranged by the British Council. I was grouped with a wonderful team of about 15 male and female students from the old Egyptian university in Cairo. Had any of them voted in the presidential election? The answer was no. Were any of them going to vote in the parliamentary election? Again, the answer was no, because they were disillusioned with politics. This was rather sad, because they are the coming generation. They were bright and one just hoped that there was more from that.

So what did I conclude from all this? I declare an interest as a member of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. When I look at the world and consider the national security interests, I look at the geopolitical position of Egypt, the junction between Arabia and Africa and that immensely important waterway between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean. We have a very long connection with Egypt. Despite all the human rights problems, I think that the attitude of critical friend is the one that we should adopt.

Finally, the most interesting person we met quite apart from the political scene was the Grand Mufti. I had not realised until he spoke to us that when all these death penalties are passed in the courts, that does not mean that they have been passed. Every death penalty that is imposed then comes to the Grand Mufti and he looks at it from the Islamic point of view. It then goes to the appeal court, then back to the Grand Mufti, then to the president. So I suspect that there is quite a long way to go. That is not to say that I support any of this, but I am interested that there are checks and balances in the system. These ought to be allowed to work through before we damage our position in the eyes of a country which is one with which we ought to maintain friendship—albeit a critical one.

[Lord Judd]

Before the noble Lord sits down, may I just ask him one question? It would be interesting to hear his research. In this House he is renowned for his stand on the implementation of justice and the penal system. Did he make any inquiries about what was happening within the penal system?

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I did not. I would dearly liked to have done so. However, the 62,000 my noble friend Lord Hylton mentioned are out of a population of 90 million, while we have 84,000 in prison with a far lower population.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, this Question asks us to assess the human rights situation in Egypt. I have to say that it is poor, and at the moment is getting worse. We all recognise that and the severity of the situation. We also recognise, as the right reverend Prelate said, the conflict between interest and values in foreign policy. Egypt is one of the most important countries in the Arab and Muslim world. It is also an important player in the world economy because of the Suez Canal, and in regional order, because it is Israel’s neighbour and part of the key to Gaza. So we have a complex number of interests there.

I recall that when I first started studying international relations, Egypt was in those days the largest and most important player in the Arab world and the source of influence on other countries. That is less so now because the Egyptian economy is in an extremely weak position and has gone backwards sharply over the past three years. The poverty of Egypt, in contrast to the wealth of the oil-producing states, has to some extent altered the balance. We have to start by recognising that the countries which now support the Egyptian economy and are perhaps helping to rebuild it are the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which gives them much more direct influence on what is happening in Egypt than we have.

We also have to recognise that Egypt has, after all, the origins of the Muslim Brotherhood—an important Sunni player. The Muslim Brotherhood, in a sense, was one way in which to reconcile traditional Islam and aspects of modernity. As such, it is seen by a number of other Governments in the Gulf as being a threat to their rule. The Saudi Government declared the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organisation in March this year; that was very much because of its history within Saudi Arabia, in the sense that it is a challenge to the nature of the Gulf regimes.

Therefore, alongside the pressures that we are putting on the Egyptian Government, we also have to recognise that others have different priorities, which are not ours. Her Majesty’s Government have a close and continuing relationship with the Egyptian Government. We speak frankly to them. We have issued a number of statements about the numbers who have been imprisoned and, in particular, about the recent condemnation of the journalists and the liberal activists with whom we were in indirect contact. We have made, and continue to make, our position entirely clear to the current Egyptian Government.

Some participants in this debate have suggested that there are chinks of light. The new constitution has elements guaranteeing the rights of women. If we are to believe President Sisi, he sees his role as being to provide a gradual transition to democracy. We all know that such a transition can be extremely gradual; that is part of the problem we have to bear. The European Union has some influence. Egypt is part of the southern neighbourhood with which we work. We, and others, through, in our case, the Arab Partnership Participation Fund and a number of European Union funds, have been working with bodies in Egypt which want to promote a more open, liberal and equal society.

That is not easy under the current conditions. In the Chamber not long ago, some of us were debating whether foreign NGOs and other organisations are recognised as legitimate in other states. Egypt is as conscious of sovereignty as any other state in this regard. The Egyptian Government’s response to Secretary of State Kerry’s condemnation of the punishment of the journalists demonstrates how difficult it is to get one’s influence through.

That being said, the Government will maintain their dialogue and their strong condemnation of the direction in which Egypt is going. To be honest, we have to recognise that Egypt, like Turkey until recently, has a deep state which is the military—linked to military control of aspects of the economy, the intelligence services, the police and the judiciary. I never entirely understood what was meant by the phrase “the deep state” until I worked on the Cyprus problem many years ago. After funny articles and various bits in the press started getting published attacking me, I met somebody in Istanbul who told me how that had been arranged. There are parallels between Egypt and Turkey. They are not entirely dissimilar regimes, although Turkey is a great deal more developed than Egypt.

Moving the Egyptian regime on from the current privileged position of the military within the state apparatus and the economy is going to be extremely difficult. We have to recognise that, in doing so, we will not be pushing them in the same direction as Saudi Arabia or the Emirates. Thus the Europeans and, to an extent, the Americans will have a hard task to get their messages through. What we saw with the Arab spring in Egypt, as in a number of other countries, was the emergence for the first time of an urban middle class. There is a similar one in Tehran. Iran, after all, has all the tensions between rural elements and educated urban elements that we now see in Egypt, although, again, Iran is much more economically developed than Egypt.

There is a very long way to go in Egypt, and I have not yet touched on the treatment of minorities, the Coptic Church and other elements which we also have a great deal of concern about. We recognise that what happens in Egypt matters for the whole of the Middle East, for the Sunni dimension of the Middle East, in particular, and for the relationship between the Middle East and Europe as a whole. We therefore must maintain our dialogue and our criticism. We need to speak on the rights of minorities and the role of women, as well as the need to accept that the media must be allowed to criticise and that foreign media play a legitimate role in contributing to the national debate. All those messages, which the current Egyptian Government do not wish to hear, have to be repeated on a regular basis.

I think I have covered all the points. I accept what the noble Baroness said about mass arrests, torture, the role of the remarkably untrained and over-independent judiciary and all the problems that we see in that society. We are attempting to train a small number of Egyptian judges but that is also a very large task. The experience we have gained in helping to move the states of eastern Europe through transition shows just how difficult this can be. I recall going to Budapest in about 1995 and meeting my noble friend Lord Lester, who said: “We are having great difficulty in explaining to the judges here that they can rule against the state.” If that was the case in a country as developed as Hungary, the problems are much larger in less developed states and those with no tradition of democracy.

The right reverend Prelate said that Egypt is currently narrowing the space for democracy. Egypt has not yet been a democracy for any sustained period. As we all now understand in this country, democracy is a frail concept which we have to cherish. It is very easy to lose and very hard to build. It will take a long time to build it across the Middle East but we must work as hard as we can, through all the means and with all the allies we have to promote it. I assure him that the Government will continue to make their views clear as we continue a close, frank dialogue with the Egyptian Government.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, the noble Lord has been emphasising positive engagement and dialogue. Before he sits down, can he give us a specific assurance that the Government’s representations will include the dangers of counterproductivity and the hard-headed argument that what is happening within the penal system plays right into the hands of the extremists?

[The Lord Bishop of Coventry]

My Lords, I did not hear the Minister address my question about whether the loosening of arms licences is envisaged, in the light of the recent statement by the US Secretary of State.

Voluntary and Charitable Sectors

Lord Judd Excerpts

Thursday 26th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, like a considerable number of Members of this House, I have been privileged to spend a great deal of my life within the voluntary sector. I have worked as a professional and a volunteer and as a trustee. I am still very much involved in the trustee role. With that experience, I know that there will be literally—and this is no exaggeration—thousands of people in this country who would be very happy to know that we are debating this issue. For that reason, I think we should warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for having given us the opportunity.

I have become convinced that an essential pillar of a healthy society is a vibrant civil society, of which the voluntary sector is a crucial part. What has impressed me repeatedly, and has impressed me more and more, is the quality of people involved in the voluntary sector. I keep saying that I find that professionals are in many senses volunteers because countless professionals are working without calculating for a moment the number of hours they are putting in and are doing things which are way beyond the demands of any formal contract.

The volunteers increasingly want to be professionals. They want their work to be effective. For that reason, the importance of good administration and effective structures within the sector are crucial. We must not, however, allow ourselves to get—if I may put it absolutely bluntly—into the mindset that somehow the success of a charity or voluntary organisation depends upon its demonstrable business effectiveness. It must be effective, but it is about far more than being a business. A business has the basic discipline of profitability. Voluntary societies are not primarily about profitability. As the right reverend Prelate has put it so well, they are about a complex inter-relationship with society in a host of different ways.

There are two points which I want to emphasise. The first is that I am very glad that progressively over the years, under successive Governments, there has been much more co-operation between the voluntary sector and Government. That is very important. I think the enlightenment of successive Governments in seeing the importance of this and supporting it and putting more resources into it is to be wholly welcomed. But there is a danger. Voluntary societies must be alert to the process of co-option. They are not, and should not, be part of the formal state structure. Unless they are to betray their birthright, they are about being a catalyst in society and a challenge in society, all the time. If they allow themselves, consciously or unconsciously, to become dominated by anxiety about whether a government contract is going to be continued so that the organisation can continue, and organising their affairs in such a way that they do not threaten or undermine that contract, they will have lost it. Of course, co-operation is essential, but it must be on the terms of the charities. They are there to be a challenge and a catalyst.

I do not think that I am oversimplifying in saying—it was particularly during my time as director of Oxfam that this thought began to crystallise very clearly with me—that advocacy is not something that charities do in addition to their voluntary work; I became convinced that advocacy was an essential and inherent part of the voluntary service.

Let me finish, as I like to do, with an anecdote. I was in Latin and central America when horrible things were happening there. It was a very ugly, sinister time. I was talking with a very courageous bishop in Mexico, the Bishop of Chiapas, who was always in trouble with the Government because he kept standing up for the poor. He was a wonderful bloke. I asked him whether he had a message for me to take back to my colleagues and friends in Britain. He said, “Yes, I have. First of all, you are inclined in voluntary agencies to talk about equality. How far are the people with whom you’re working really your equals, or how far are they the indispensable objects for your institutional needs?” I still wrestle with that problem frequently; it is a very real issue. Secondly, he said, “In these sorts of situations, you can’t be neutral. You have to identify”. Thirdly, he said, “For me, solidarity is the real meaning of charity. What do I mean by solidarity? Be it within the family, the community, the nation or internationally, it is identifying with the people whom you claim to be serving”. He was so right, because so often in political life we talk about the poor and the excluded, and we talk to them. But how often do we talk with them and for them? That is the crucial role of charities in our society. From this House, we should send out a message of encouragement and good cheer for all that they are doing.

Ukraine, Syria and Iran

Lord Judd Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

I think that we should hear from the noble Lord, Lord Wills, because he has been trying to get in for a while.

Syria: Refugees

Lord Judd Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wright of Richmond (CB)]

My Lords—

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Jopling (Con)]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)]

My Lords, it is the turn of the Labour side.

[Lord Judd]

My Lords, the humanitarian challenge is formidable. Of course, it is not just a matter of relief; it is also a matter of long-term investment in children—their education and their health—because they are going to be displaced for a long time to come. What are the Government doing to face up to the immense regional political implications of what has happened in the sense that almost a third of the population in Jordan will soon be refugees? That is acutely destabilising, and it is the same story in Lebanon, with all kinds of dangers for the future in terms of extremism, political disruption and the rest. Can we promote international discussions about how to have a positive pre-emptive regional approach towards the long-term political issues?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I think that it may be beyond the capabilities of the United Kingdom Government to resolve all the problems of the Middle East. We are, however, now involved in a range of multilateral discussions. Sadly, the Geneva II conference, which we hoped would take place in November, is unlikely to take place before towards the end of the year. As the noble Lord knows, tentative dialogues with the Iranians are under way, and the Middle East peace process between the Israelis and the Palestinians is, thank goodness, also again getting slowly under way. We are engaged on a large number of fronts but, as the noble Lord knows, the problems are extremely complex and long-standing.