Queen’s Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, the title of this debate must have been designed as an illustration of the Prime Minister’s erroneous claim that Brexit is done, since neither Brexit nor the European Union feature in it. Are we supposed to regard the EU already as part of “foreign affairs”?

I have to recognise the reality that Brexit is happening, although I cannot and will not accept it. I think it is a terrible mistake. I will never be reconciled to it; I hope that future generations will take the UK back into the EU—not least when they find that ending free movement not only destabilises and harms EU and EEA citizens but rips from British citizens the opportunity that their parents and grandparents have enjoyed to live, work and retire on the continent.

My colleague in the other place, Wera Hobhouse, put it very well in the Second Reading debate on the withdrawal agreement Bill, on 20 December, when she stressed that her,

“passionate belief that the UK is better off as a proud member inside the EU, rather than as an irrelevant outsider, has not melted away overnight.”

She went on to describe the withdrawal agreement as,

“damaging to our economy, our security, our international reputation and our ability to tackle the global climate emergency … it will put a border in the Irish sea and threaten our family of nations. Most of all, we will lose something profoundly British: being international, and leading in the continuous fight for liberal values, human rights and a rules-based international order. We Liberal Democrats will always fight for that.”—[Official Report; Commons, 20/12/19; col. 177.]

We have seen a major illustration in recent days of the challenges Wera Hobhouse enumerated in the crisis over Iran, which also encapsulates the warning of my leader, my noble friend Lord Newby, in his response to the Queen’s Speech on 18 December, that,

“the aspiration of having your cake and eating it is about to be dashed.”—[Official Report; 18/12/19; col. 21.]

But cakeism is exactly what the Prime Minister tried to continue to enjoy in the several days that it took him to come home from his luxury beach holiday in Mustique and address the Iran crisis. The killing of Qasem Soleimani has raised tensions throughout the Middle East while the Prime Minister stayed in the Caribbean, took three days to make an official response and now, I understand, will not be updating MPs in the emergency debate.

[Lord Marlesford (Con)]

My Lords, I think the whole the House will regard those comments as unworthy of a great political party and quite inappropriate when we are discussing serious things today.

[Baroness Ludford]

I thank the noble Lord for that intervention, with which I profoundly disagree. Frankly, there is a crisis over President Trump’s impetuous decision to assassinate Mr Soleimani, as unpleasant a character as he certainly was. It would have behoved the Prime Minister to be rather more visible sooner.

Apart from all the other potential threats, the crisis may well endanger further the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and other Britons in Iran. What update can the Government give us in that regard? I heard Conservative MP Tom Tugendhat, the outgoing—and hoping to be incoming—chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, say on “World at One” that the crisis might have a silver lining in allowing a reset of relations with Iran. He may be among few in thinking that there will be any kind of silver lining.

Mr Johnson has tried to bridge supporting the so-called right of the United States to defend itself—a doubtful justification which appears to have no support in international law—and aligning with his European partners to call on both sides not to escalate into a devastating cycle of violence. There is confusion as well as recklessness in Washington, with President’s Trump’s decision on the assassination having apparently been made on the spur of the moment without any strategic plan. Apparently, the letter announcing the withdrawal of US forces sent by the US military in Iraq to the Iraqi Government was issued in error and US forces are not withdrawing. What is the situation with UK forces?

Instead of being a bridge, the Prime Minister is falling into the gap. Were Iran to respond forcefully, how would the Prime Minister choose between the more aggressive US approach and the more conciliatory EU line? When EU Foreign Ministers meet on Friday, what will Mr Raab say? Will this, by the way, be one of the last EU Council meetings a UK Foreign Minister attends or will Mr Raab attend throughout this year?

The Minister talked of strengthening global relationships but the Iran situation highlights the story and tragedy of Brexit: instead of enjoying being part of an influential organisation, the EU, we will be required to tag along with Trump and his crazy schemes as the price of a trade deal. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, who I do not think is in his place—oh, yes he is—put it last night on “Newsnight”, the UK’s position is uncomfortable since President Trump will demand loyalty on Iran, Huawei and other issues as the price of a UK trade deal for the UK. He tweeted:

“I’m afraid that’s going to be one of the realities of post-Brexit Britain, constantly having to weigh our need for trade deals against foreign policy objectives.”


How and on what criteria will the Government resolve that dilemma? Another expert commented that the crisis between the US and Iran highlights how much of a lose-lose situation Brexit is in terms of geopolitical influence, both for the UK and for the EU 27.

On the economy, some Brexiters have made much of a Financial Times editorial last week about how the UK economy could thrive after Brexit. The editorial read rather as if it were drafted by a committee, or at least two people, but it had one striking conclusion:

“The UK economy will survive”.


If that is the benchmark for sunny uplands and all the amazing prospects that we are supposed to have, it is not much of an endorsement of Brexit.

Mr Johnson intends to tear us away from the EU single market and tie us to US standards and trade intentions, which many of the public are rightly wary of, from food hygiene to designs on the NHS. Even if a deal is reached, with Mr Johnson’s risky refusal to contemplate an extension to the negotiations very unwisely being written into the draft legislation, all that we are going to get, even with success, is a Canada-style trade agreement with, as my noble friend Lord Newby said in December, free trade in goods, where we have a deficit, but no equivalent deal on services, where we have a surplus. Indeed, services represent 80% of our economy. What about industries, such as the automotive industry, that rely on a long uninterrupted supply chain and on being part of a customs union with common rules of origin? What are their prospects under the Government’s intentions?

On fisheries, the Conservative manifesto promised that the UK would control its fishing waters, and the Minister repeated the pledge to take back control. That promise will definitely be broken if there is to be any prospect of the 80% of our catch that goes to the EU getting into its primary market on the continent without tariff and administrative hurdles.

The withdrawal agreement Bill includes a clause specifically about parliamentary sovereignty, stating:

“It is recognised that the Parliament of the United Kingdom is sovereign”


and that nothing in the Act derogates from that sovereignty. Not only does that contradict other clauses in the withdrawal agreement Bill and the withdrawal agreement itself since we are going to be a rule-taker—or, if you like, a vassal state—for at least a year, and for some aspects way beyond that, but it is of doubtful legal significance. Mike Gordon, professor of constitutional law at the University of Liverpool, has said that,

“it is difficult to see that it has any practical effect in terms of diminishing the actual legal status of the obligations flowing from the Withdrawal Agreement in domestic law.”

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Given the disastrous performance of the noble Baroness’s party at the general election and the loss of its leader, does she not think that instead of just repeating the same carping criticisms, she and her party should get on board and make a success of Brexit?

[Baroness Ludford]

We will do our very best to make it the least worst Brexit, but the fact is that what the Government have already said and put in the draft Bill is making that prospect extremely difficult, on top of Brexit itself.

As I said, there is a declaratory clause about parliamentary sovereignty. That is then completely undermined by the removal of the clauses that were in the October version of the Bill which were going to give MPs a veto over an extension and control over negotiations on future relations. It seems contradictory, if not hypocritical, to declare parliamentary sovereignty and then take away its substance.

We also know that the Prime Minister tried to claim black was white when he said there would be no checks on goods going between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All we had to do was read the Government’s own impact assessment which said that those moving goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland will be required to complete both import declarations and entry summary declarations, therefore completely contradicting what he tried to claim. The Government need to come completely clean on that.

Many people are already worried about Prime Minister Johnson being tied to the coat-tails of an erratic and unpredictable President Trump, but there was a curious speech a few weeks ago from No. 10 adviser Tim Montgomerie, which has further set alarm bells ringing. He said that the UK would forge a special relationship with Viktor Orban. He praised the “interesting early thinking” on “the limits of liberalism” of Mr Orban, who is of course a notorious authoritarian. Brexit is set to tear us away from our pole position as a leading member of the liberal, democratic EU into alliances with dodgy leaders across the world, because we are desperate for trade sweeteners. I will never, ever regard that as a good bargain.

Finally, the only wry amusement that might emerge from the situation will be watching the tensions between the little England nationalists who want a nostalgic return to the 1950s, such as Charles Moore, who wants to go back to imperial measurements, the creative destruction of Mr Cummings, as he recruits weirdos and misfits to Whitehall, and the global, buccaneering Singapore-on-Thames that the hedge fund backers of Mr Johnson desire. It will be funny, if terribly sad.

European Union: Environmental Policy

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 12th December 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the great repeal Bill will provide an opportunity to ensure that there will be no gaps, to provide certainty for businesses, stakeholders and everyone. It is precisely the case that those standards will be coming back to this country and if there is any requirement for alteration, it would come before Parliament in the normal manner of scrutiny by both Houses.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, health and flooding have been mentioned, but is it not true that without EU environmental laws on air pollution and clean water, we would have had an even worse situation on air pollution, particularly in London, and would not now be building a supersewer to stop the discharge of raw sewage into the Thames, which is still happening in 2016?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, what the noble Baroness said about the Thames Tideway project is extremely important: raw sewage is going into the Thames; we must reduce it and work on it. That is why it is a very important investment. However, when I looked into the matter, much of what the noble Baroness mentioned is domestic legislation which even predates our membership of the EU. We will be continuing with our environmental course so that we have a better environment.

Natural Environment

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Bakewell on introducing this debate. I will follow other noble Lords in concentrating on air pollution, especially from vehicles.

As another former Member of the European Parliament, it is a pleasure to welcome my noble friend Lord Callanan. We will both have to get used to calling each other that.

I, too, am grateful for the recent Environmental Audit Committee report in another place. As time is short, I would just urge noble Lords to read it. I broadly agree with it. It is nearly 60 years since the Clean Air Act and more than 40 years since the Control of Pollution Act. I was, briefly, a very junior civil servant and worked on drafting the latter. It is a scandal that, all these decades later, we are not dealing with what has become the number one environmental health challenge. It is estimated to cause 29,000 premature deaths a year in this country and 7 million or 8 million worldwide. It is not just diesel exhaust but air pollution as a whole that is classed as carcinogenic by the World Health Organization. London seems to have the highest monitored nitrogen dioxide levels in the world—three times WHO limits, especially on Oxford Street and Marylebone Road.

Quite rightly, there has been great emphasis on carbon dioxide limits in the tackling of climate change—no one, certainly not a Liberal Democrat, would quarrel with that. However, there has been an overlooking of the problems and challenges of air pollution. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, that it needs to go very fast up the policy and political agenda. I applaud the Healthy Air Campaign, which is run by a group of non-governmental organisations, and also Living Streets, which emphasises how tackling air pollution can make life much pleasanter and safer for pedestrians.

Liberal Democrats have long championed the need to tackle air pollution as well as climate change. Perhaps I may quote from a document which is headed “Localised Air Pollution”. It says that, “There is increasing evidence that many people in the UK become exposed to concentrations of pollution above World Health Organization guidelines as the result of emissions from road vehicles. This includes ground-level ozone, which is a problem in both rural and urban areas, nitrogen dioxide at urban sites, PM10s —the fine particulate emissions from diesel engines”. That was in a Liberal Democrat policy paper of 20 years ago. The working group was chaired by my now noble friend Lord Bradshaw. My noble friend Lord Tyler was also a member of that group. So, we are not Johnny-come-latelys when it comes to tackling air pollution.

I congratulate the successive holders of the post of Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change in the current Government. I believe that they have been more active than their counterparts at Defra in dealing with air pollution and that there has been some complacency at Defra on the issue. One of the most urgent requirements is to update the air quality strategy in this country. We need a holistic approach and a clear demarcation of responsibilities and resources as between central government departments and between central and local government. One rather simple thing that could be done is to incorporate pollution warnings into weather forecasts as happens with pollen counts. There seems to be a curious contrast in those things. The planning framework needs to place much more emphasis on air quality matters. Locating schools and new homes away from main roads is one example.

Although I cannot enumerate all the issues that need attention, one of them, of course, is airport construction. We need explicit air quality objectives for the current Airports Commission appraisal framework. Liberal Democrats believe, of course, that aviation expansion must not further damage health. That is the reason for our negative response to suggestions to build new airports, particularly in the south-east. As others have said—including, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—we must not allow the Red Tape Challenge to undermine local air quality monitoring.

As others have also said—I will not dwell on this—the main problem is diesel engines. Although there were undoubtedly good reasons for encouraging diesel, it is way past time for a radical change in policy direction. That will mean giving attention to the fiscal and other frameworks—such as fuel duty, vehicle excise duty and so on—under which people have been encouraged to go for diesel. I do not own a car but sheepishly admit that, as a member of a car club called Zipcar, I find myself involuntarily driving cars with diesel engines. I do not drive frequently but when I do, the engines always seem to be diesel. Can my noble friend say what the Government are doing to remove the loopholes whereby diesel particle filters are removed after being factory fitted? People are apparently managing to remove them through these loopholes, so I would very much welcome a specific answer on that. We need to aim for the adoption of zero-carbon technology in motor vehicles and in London. Liberal Democrats propose having a big switch to 100% electric buses, taxis and vans. We regard the Mayor of London’s ambitions for the ultra-low emission zone as lacking both urgency and stringency. We need to go much further and much faster.

We work in a European context because air pollution does not recognise national boundaries. The coalition agreement pledged compliance with EU clean air laws but the UK is massively in breach of these laws and is thus subject to legal action. We are 20 to 25 years late in the schedule. My noble friend Lord Callanan and I are not quite on the same page on this matter. He says that air quality rules must not impede economic growth but that is a false choice. I also venture to suggest that the engineering companies of the north-east could make big business out of clean technology.

My last question to the Minister is therefore to ask whether he will update us on the Government’s efforts to ensure that the EU’s ambitions for clean air will continue and to dissuade the Commission from withdrawing its proposals for new air quality directives. Unfortunately, I believe that there is a lack of consensus in the European Parliament to pass a resolution now to urge the Commission not to withdraw these measures. It was disappointing that the Environment Secretary was not a signatory of a letter from the national Environment Ministers to the Commission President urging against withdrawal. Will my noble friend tell us whether the Government are determined to press forward to meet EU laws?