Relations with Europe

Thursday 10th October 2024 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:21

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Newnham]

That this House takes note of the relations between the United Kingdom and Europe, particularly on issues of culture, diplomacy and security.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, I thought it would be helpful to the House to remind all Back-Bench speakers that the advisory time for this debate is four minutes. This means when the Clock has reached three minutes, noble Lords should start making their closing remarks, and at four minutes their time is up. I have asked the Government Whips to remind all noble Lords of this fact during the debate, if necessary. I thank all noble Lords in advance for their understanding, which will enable everyone to contribute to the debate fairly, in the allotted time.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, this debate in my name is on a slightly different topic from the one that we got so used to debating in the last few years: the UK’s relations with the EU. It is intended to be a more general, open and inclusive debate, hopefully working with the interests and concerns of everyone in your Lordships’ House and people of whatever opinion in the United Kingdom and to help us think much more broadly about how we interact with our neighbours in Europe.

I will start, slightly unusually, with a quotation:

“The UK is not just any third country … we share deep historical ties and aligned interests … a stronger partnership is not just beneficial but essential for our security, our economies and our people … cooperation through dialogue, debate and mutual understanding”


is what is needed. Those words come from Sandro Gozi, whom many noble Lords may not have heard of yet but he is the newly elected chair of the UK-EU Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. When Members of your Lordships’ House and the other place have the next delegation with our European parliamentary colleagues, Sandro Gozi will chair those meetings from the EU side.

His words, spoken just last week, are indicative of a new flavour of thinking among our European neighbours. There was a period when discussions between the UK and our European neighbours—whether with the EU 27 as a bloc or bilaterally—had become very difficult. They were tense and scratchy on both sides, yet the importance of working with our European neighbours never disappeared. Whatever you think about the institutional relationship with the European Union, security co-operation with our European neighbours was and remains crucial. That has been especially so since February 2022 and the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. Student and youth mobility are also extremely important to cultural co-operation.

I am delighted that this debate has garnered so much interest, and particularly that the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, will be making her maiden speech. She was a formidable participant in the other place, particularly as chair of the Public Accounts Committee, so we very much look forward to her speech. I am reminded that, almost exactly a decade ago, I made my own maiden speech. In making a maiden speech, one is discouraged from doing or saying anything controversial. It took me a while to find a suitable debate. There was nothing on fly-fishing, painting, pottery or whatever—something that would have looked entirely uncontroversial. But there was one topic on which I thought, “I know something about this”. This is where I declare my interest for today: my day job is as professor of European politics at Cambridge, where one of my research projects is on relations with other European countries.

The topic on which the Whips encouraged me to speak—I was a little worried—was a debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle. It was a Motion to Take Note of the case for the UK’s membership of the European Union. The Whips at the time did not think that was too controversial, but many of the electorate clearly did not take note of the case that the noble Lord and I tried to make. Afterwards, in the cloakroom, the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, came and said, “Good speech”. Obviously everyone in the Chamber makes laudatory remarks on a maiden speech—I have never heard any negative ones—but, outside the Chamber, it was possible that a passionate Brexiteer might have been a little negative. I said that I was trying not to be too controversial. He said, “No, you were just this side of controversial”.

I hope I have made it easy for everyone not to be too controversial in this debate, because our relations with Europe are necessary. They have to happen; the question is how we improve them. I hope that the rather general title of the debate offers the opportunity for an open discussion. At this stage in the Parliament, it is not intended to be hostile to His Majesty’s Government; in many ways, it is intended to try to empower His Majesty’s Government to carry on with some of the initial attempts that have been undertaken to work with our European partners, both at a European level and particularly through bilateral relations with some of our nearest neighbours, particularly Germany and Ireland so far.

The Lords Library has, as always, produced an extremely good briefing. We should have expected nothing less, but the briefing focuses very much on the last 100 days—the period since the new Labour Government were elected. My remarks will look a little to the past, as well as to the future, because some lessons can be learned about the previous “new Labour” Government. There is a lot of discussion about the new Starmer Government, but the new Labour Government offer some lessons, some of which are positive and some a little more salutary. I hope that, by the end of my contributions, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others will be thinking about some of the things they need to avoid.

In the run-up to the July election, now Foreign Secretary David Lammy was making very positive remarks about strengthening the UK’s security relationship with the EU. That, in many ways, is still an open question. Whereas the withdrawal agreement and the trade and co-operation agreement have been settled, there is still very much an opportunity for strengthening our security relations with the European Union at the institutional level of the UK and the EU. Already, as the Library Note reminds us, the Foreign Secretary had been talking about strengthening relations with Germany, Poland, Ireland and France. Those bilateral relations with our European partners are hugely important because, in many ways, they are the building blocks for strengthening and enhancing our relations with the wider European Union and wider Europe.

It is timely to be thinking about bilateral relations, because the new Government have clearly looked for a reset in our relations. We are also at a point in the European cycle where the European Parliament had its elections in early June and the new Commission is in the process of being appointed, so there is now an opportunity for four and a half years of deep and serious discussions about security and defence but also cultural co-operation.

It is also important for us to think at a wider level about bilateral relations. In particular, I welcome the Government’s agreement with Germany. Last month I was on an IPU visit to Berlin, where we had many very significant discussions with committees from right across the Bundestag. There was clearly a lot of interest in working with the United Kingdom on a bilateral basis on defence and cultural issues and understanding that it would be desirable to have much closer co-operation not just between Prime Minister and Chancellor but potentially between parliaments. I very much hope that the Minister might be able to say something about that relationship in his winding-up speech and to speak a little more generally about the extent to which the Government are thinking about strengthening inter-parliamentary relations, because a key aspect we need to think about in strengthening bilateral relations is people-to-people contacts at a variety of different levels. In 1997 and 1998, the new Labour Government understood that.

Here is my little bit of history: the new bilateralism was the term used by new Labour—I am not sure, but it may have been invented by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—and was intended to be a step change in the UK’s relations with our European partners. It was on the basis of strengthening bilateral relations across parliaments: representatives of the Westminster Parliament would talk to their opposite numbers in other national capitals, Ministers would talk to their opposite numbers, and civil servants would strengthen relations. If one really wants strong bilateral relations, the perfect model is the Franco-German couple, which is deeply institutionalised and works even if the Chancellor of Germany and the President of France are not on the same page; the two countries look to work together. That heavily institutionalised relationship was sort of the model for the step change that the UK undertook in the first Blair Government, and it was initially very well received by our European partners.

Thanks to an underspend by the FCO, as it was then, I had some funding for a project at Chatham House looking at the UK’s bilateral relations. I interviewed colleagues in several European capitals, where there was an almost unanimous sense that “The UK understands Europe and how to work with us”—it was very positive. Just a few years later by 2006-07, if one went to European capitals, even in central and eastern Europe where previously they had said, “The UK is fantastic. It’s advocating for us to join the European Union—it’s a real supporter”, the sense was, “You can’t really trust the United Kingdom. It doesn’t understand reciprocity”. The term that had been used for the bilateral relations in the first Blair Government was promiscuous bilateralism—that you picked up a bilateral partner, you worked with them when you wanted something, and when you had what you wanted you did not keep that relationship going. Within a decade there was some disillusion; a sense that the UK maybe did not understand how to work with our European partners and did not understand reciprocity.

Clearly our bilateral relations are now outside the European Union, but the importance of that lesson remains. Therefore, could the Minister reassure the House in his response that, in the new relations we are seeking to build with Germany, France and Ireland, the Government understand the importance not just of the high-level agreements and the rhetoric at the start, but of ongoing relations? They are so important. By that I mean the person-to-person contact—that might be parliament to parliament or within political parties. The Liberal Democrats are still certainly part of the ALDE Party. I believe the Labour Party still has strong relations with the SPD. Whether its links are so strong with the PES I am not sure, but it would be useful to understand that.

Beyond that, will His Majesty’s Government think about how we can strengthen our relations more broadly—on defence, which I am sure several noble Lords will speak on having looked at the list of contributors, but also on culture and cultural co-operation? I know that my noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter will speak on that. If the British Council has, as it does, priority countries in Europe—France, Italy, Spain, Poland, Germany—will the Government commit to ensuring that it is sufficiently resourced to be able to do its work effectively?

Finally, one of the key aspects of closer co-operation must surely be understanding among people, particularly the younger generations. Will the Government think again about youth mobility, as the leader of the Liberal Democrats asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the other place?

16:37

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, to the noble Baroness I say congratulations. Bilateral relations are important but should be no substitute for a closer relationship with the EU as such. I agree with her in looking forward to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Hodge, with whom I have worked internationally as an anti-corruption campaigner.

This is a timely debate because people are, in my judgment, coming to realise that the Brexit vote was a major historic mistake on our part; that the Government now aim to reset relations with the EU as an institution; and that there is the possibility of a Trump victory, which would have major implications for our defence policy. We in the UK now have a new stability at a time of insecurity in a number of EU countries, which gives us the opportunity to promote initiatives.

The EU has changed, and both sides of the old argument must recognise that. We see increasing populism and nationalism in the EU—most notably latterly in those countries close to Russia and Putin: Hungary, Slovakia and possibly, shortly, Austria. On the economic side, the Draghi report shows the current economic disarray in Europe.

The starting point must surely be that the referendum result is a fact and that we cannot now hope for a “big bang” return to the status quo ante but must proceed by incremental steps, where we can, with what the EU agrees is in the common interest.

I take the three points made by the noble Baroness. On diplomatic and political initiatives, I submit that our weight in the world has reduced as a result of Brexit. Our influence with key allies, such as the US, is less, so we must seek ways to build bridges. For example, is there scope to strengthen the EPC with more frequent meetings, a formal treaty and a secretariat?

Culture knows no boundaries. Turing is a poor substitute for Erasmus. I hope that my noble friend will update us on the current position in respect of youth exchanges and comment generally on that issue. One fact of migration is that Iberian baristas and Polish plumbers have been replaced by excellent care workers from the Indian subcontinent and southern Africa who do not stay for a short while, like the baristas, but stay for a long time and bring their families with them.

On the security side, here perhaps is the greatest scope for co-operation, with our excellent military, defence industry and intelligence facilities and a common adversary in Russia. After all, in February 2018, Theresa May proposed a defence security pact. I believe that the appointment of my noble friend Lord Robertson to head the review was inspirational. My only fear is excessive caution on the part of the Government, as if they are walking backwards to Europe with great hesitation.

Our direction of travel so far is right but surely, after the great election victory, we can now be bold and put the Ming vase back in the display cabinet.

16:42

[Baroness Goldie (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for securing this debate. Our relations with Europe matter very much indeed, as has already been indicated. I have always described myself as a Euro-realist, not a Eurosceptic. This means being pragmatic, not ideological, and certainly not dogmatic—well, no more than my innate bossy disposition directs.

There are obvious and clear benefits to the United Kingdom in having a positive relationship with Europe, with the caveat that we do not enter into any arrangement that compromises our sovereignty. That stance is neither remarkable nor objectionable. It is particularly relevant where defence is concerned. We should seek strong bilateral relationships with individual European states—we have many of these already—and we should seek an engaged but vigilant approach to the EU.

My party has a solid record on this approach. Under a Conservative Government, the UK entered into defence partnerships with Italy, in the form of the GCAP programme, and with France in the Lancaster House treaties. In 2014, we led the establishment of the Joint Expeditionary Force, a defence partnership between the UK and several other EU and EEA member states.

The UK has been one of the most steadfast supporters of Ukraine, and on this we have closely co-operated with the EU very constructively. Russia’s brazen attack on a sovereign European neighbour united us around a common cause and spurred joint action. We have worked closely with the EU on sanctions, co-ordinating the provision of lethal support and advising on military training.

Along with the UK’s continuing role as a leader of NATO, such partnerships and organisations provide a crucial forum for co-operation and engagement on defence and security matters. Co-operation and engagement are the watchwords. This is precisely the point. The unity implicit within co-operation should not be conflated with uniformity, and engagement should not be conflated with a template of homogenous response—in other words, “It is this way or no way”. It is of the utmost importance that any interactions we have with our partners, with Europe and with the EU, must carefully take account of the future operational independence of UK defence. That is sacrosanct.

The Government propose a UK-EU security pact, and the Defence Secretary has spoken of negotiating a “bespoke relationship” that may see the UK joining as a third-party participant in the EU’s common security and defence policy. If this proposed security pact risks tying the UK into restrictive arrangements which compromise our operational defence independence or our sovereign national security decision-making, it should be rejected.

Under the current arrangements, we have been able to work alongside our European and EU partners in a highly effective manner. Why seek to fix something which clearly is not broken? Why court risk? I hope that, going forward, the Government will continue our legacy of defence engagement and leadership, but, in seeking a closer relationship with Europe and the EU, I counsel caution. There are opportunities that can be responsibly and productively pursued, but there are also areas of clear risk, which I would advise the Government to avoid.

16:45

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interests as a non-executive director of Eurotunnel, chair of the Franco-British Council and president of the British Normandy Memorial—that is probably enough for now. The choice of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, of the bilateral political relationships was inspired. Like others, I very much look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge; having appeared at the PAC under her chairmanship, I am sure it will be powerful and forensic.

I shall start with two special recent moments in the British relationship with European countries. The first is the visits of His Majesty the King and Her Majesty the Queen to Germany and France. The outpouring there of respect and affection for the UK was very moving and a vivid example of how the King exercises real soft power, not least because he is a recognised international leader on climate and environment issues. He is a real national asset. Secondly, I had the great honour of receiving the King and President Macron at the British Normandy Memorial on 6 June to commemorate the 80th anniversary of D-day. We commemorated the fallen among the allied troops but also the thousands of French citizens who were killed then. My point here is that bilateral ties with our European neighbours go far beyond government relations. The surface waters have been quite choppy in recent years, although they are calming down now, but the depths were largely unstirred.

I welcome the priority that the Government are giving to restoring the damage done to our bilateral relations during the Brexit years. It is great to see Ministers fanning out across Europe, engaging with partners and working on the big issues of the day. The Prime Minister’s agreement with Chancellor Scholz of Germany for a UK-Germany bilateral co-operation treaty is a case in point. Germany remains Europe’s largest donor to Ukraine and its defence spending is rising, so it is a particularly good time for the defence co-operation agreement that John Healey is pursuing. But commitments to work together are not enough.

If I may, I draw a lesson from the UK-French defence co-operation that we launched at the Lancaster House treaties of 2010. That has led to a step change in co-operation because it was rooted in specific, tangible long-term projects. We are committed for 50 years to use the same facility in Burgundy to virtually test our nuclear warheads. We have a Combined Joint Expeditionary Force, which is capable of fighting together. In the energy field, EDF is building a new generation of nuclear power stations—another 50-year commitment. We need a similar level of ambition for our relations with Germany.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, good political relations have to be underpinned by a much broader web of civil society and human links. I am thinking of all the co-operation across Europe in science and research, education, culture and sport, and citizens’ opportunities to live and work together. Most of these are beyond the control of Governments; what Governments can do best is to clear away the obstacles to them. In that spirit, if I may, I shall pepper the Minister with three specific points that I hope he might cover in summing up.

First, can the Government work with other European capitals to try to create more momentum for an agreement with the EU on touring artists? That would be of great benefit to both sides and is strongly supported by all sides in the EU-UK Parliamentary Partnership Assembly.

Secondly, will the Minister ask his colleagues to reconsider the rejection of the commission’s proposal for a youth mobility scheme? It may be that the scheme is flawed, in which case propose a better one. This has nothing to do with free movement; it would be a visa-based scheme, allowing limited duration stays and the number of visas could, if necessary, be capped.

Thirdly, and rapidly, will the Minister discuss with Treasury colleagues the impact that the imposition of VAT on private schools will have on European schools in this country? These are specialist schools preparing pupils in their own language for exams set in their own country, so pupils whose parents cannot afford the VAT cannot move to the state sector. This is one part of the rich web of relations between countries and it deserves looking at in implementation.

16:50

[The Lord Bishop of Lincoln]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for having made this debate possible and am looking forward to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, directly after this. Her experience as MP for Barking highlights how important it is that we are alert to the risk that cultural and ethnic diversity in our country can be exploited by extremists, and how important it is for us, as faith communities, not to have our faith and belonging co-opted by extremists in the way that we saw in the summer.

Faith and culture must not be seen as a cause of conflict. Our beliefs and values enrich and inspire us; these are the foundations of both individual and communal strength. Our cultural diversity, moreover, is a source of vitality, creativity and wisdom, but only when we are able to come together in dialogue, study and celebration. Faith remains a key feature of modern society in the UK and across Europe. It is worth remembering that Christianity, Islam and Judaism all have roots in the Middle East and long histories in Europe. It is vital that we build constructive relationships between these significant faith communities as we look towards a more positive future.

Although there are many good stories of community engagement across the UK, it is impossible to address the challenges of our time without working internationally. My good relationship with the Lincoln mosque highlights that the fault lines of contemporary conflicts are rarely limited to national borders. The relationship between the UK and Europe is therefore central to our security, in both the short and longer term.

Diplomatic links are important but we also need to build a web of informal, human relationships which binds communities together in a deeper and more resilient way. These relationships are crucial in times of crisis, when unexpected challenges often drive people further apart. In the diocese of Lincoln, which I lead, we have been developing our links with communities elsewhere in Europe. We have formal partnerships with the Roman Catholic diocese of Brugge in Belgium and the Swedish Lutheran diocese of Härnösand. We find that these relationships enrich us and help us to see the world differently. The long-established Conference of European Churches draws together leaders from all major denominations across Europe, including the Eastern Orthodox, while Archbishops of Canterbury have supported popes from St John Paul II onwards in bringing together the leaders of world religions, focused on Europe, to pray together in Assisi for peace. In a similar and perhaps more modest way, I wonder if we should encourage the renewal of twinning arrangements between towns and cities across Europe, with a real focus on engaging young people in these enterprises.

Higher education also has an important role to play. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has already mentioned the Erasmus programme; it seems to me that universities are places where faith communities encounter one another and engage in creative dialogue. Universities lead the way in the study of holy texts and the appreciation of cultural heritage. When we think about the future of higher education, we need to appreciate the value of cultural and theological studies, which build mutual understanding and therefore indirectly increase our security. This is particularly true when it comes to our relationship with Europe, where the movement of students has helped bind generations together in the most extraordinary way.

Communities built around faith or culture play an important role in building a more just, sustainable and secure world, but this is possible only when the relationships between them are good. As we think about our relationship with the European Union, we need to consider how cultural links can be nurtured and developed to serve the common good.

16:54

[Baroness Hodge of Barking (Lab) (Maiden Speech)]

My Lords, it is with humility, pleasure and a little disbelief that I deliver my maiden speech. My heartfelt thanks go to you all for your warm welcome. Your Lordships have confirmed this as an environment rich in civility and kindness, where Members work together to improve legislation based on their knowledge and expertise. I give special thanks to my noble friends Lady Blackstone and Lord Kennedy of Southwark who introduced me, and my thanks to the officers of the House for their help.

I have been privileged to work with many noble Lords down the years, but I still got lost when I arrived as a Member. I could not even find the ladies’ toilets. As an immigrant, who came to Britain aged four, escaping the fear of persecution, and whose parents were forced to flee two countries, I never imagined in my wildest dreams that I might become a Member of the House of Lords.

When my elderly and sick Jewish grandfather arrived from Vienna in 1939, he was classified an enemy alien and imprisoned in an internment camp outside Liverpool with no mattress and a straw-filled pillow. Worst of all, he was imprisoned alongside German Nazis. My family arrived in 1949, stateless. Five years later we applied for citizenship. My older brother and sister were away. My mother had died, and my father was at work. An immigration inspector came to tea with me, aged 10, and my sister, aged seven. My father insisted on cucumber sandwiches and dried fruitcake, though I hated both. We were questioned about the books we read, the games we played and the friends we had. We passed the cricket test, but both then and today we still have much to learn about welcoming immigrants and celebrating their contribution.

I chose to speak today because of my determination that we should tackle dirty money, with £350 billion lost each year through economic crime—twice the nation’s health budget. Britain has become a jurisdiction of choice for every kleptocrat and criminal. Our secretive overseas territories and Crown dependencies play a central role in facilitating tax avoidance, tax evasion, money laundering and sanctions evasion. Secrecy enables kleptocracy to flourish and kleptocracy breeds conflict. Allowing bad actors to use Britain to launder and hide their stolen wealth is a major security threat.

In 2018, Parliament legislated for public registers of beneficial ownership in our overseas territories. Tragically, the previous Government did not enforce the legislation. The tax havens pray in aid the European Court of Justice’s judgment that public registers are unlawful because they undermine fundamental privacy rights. I urge the Minister to raise this issue with our European colleagues, seeking new regulations so that public registers can operate while safeguarding privacy rights. This really matters for our security; £68 billion flowed from Russia to our overseas territories between 2008 and 2018. Russian kleptocrats, including Usmanov and Abramovich, use secrecy and tax havens to evade sanctions.

The UK and its network of overseas territories and Crown dependencies are responsible for 35% of tax losses suffered across the world. I urge the Government to raise the issue of economic crime and the importance of transparency in Europe, use our legislation to guarantee public registers in British jurisdictions and, please, place economic crime and its threat to security high on our new agenda with our European colleagues.

16:58

[Lord Liddle (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a huge privilege to congratulate my new colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, on her wonderful maiden speech. I first became aware of her when she had what I thought the most difficult job in Labour politics: leader of Islington Council in the turbulent 1980s. She next really attracted my attention in the late 2000s when, as Member of Parliament for Barking, she led a most noble and ferocious fight against the British National Party, for which she deserves great credit. Morgan McSweeney, the Prime Minister’s new chief of staff, played a helpful role, but it was the noble Baroness’s courage and defiance that won back the white working-class vote in Barking. At the same time, it is worthy of note that she was Minister for the Arts.

I also greatly admired the noble Baroness’s role on the Public Accounts Committee—even when she took on BBC pay and attacked my wife’s pay, but she was right to raise these issues. That role, of course led to her passion for tackling fraud and all the terrible things that she described so ably in her maiden speech.

Most of all, I note that, having seen off the right, the noble Baroness then saw off the far left. She once made the remark—I may be misquoting her—that whereas the rabbis had failed for years to make her a proper, proud Jew, it was Jeremy Corbyn and his acolytes on the anti-Semitic hard left who succeeded. By God, she fought hard. We would never be in this position, in government on this side of the House, if not for the courage of people like her.

I have left myself very little time to say something about Europe, but Margaret Hodge joins the House of Lords only once in her life, and I dare say we shall have many further debates on the European Union. I will make two quick points. Unless this Government build a closer relationship with the EU, Brexit will be a drag anchor on most of our ambitions: for economic growth, given that investment has flatlined since Brexit; for tackling climate change; for migration, where we need European co-operation to tackle the gangs; for defence and European rearmament given the new threats we face, with which my noble friend Lord Coaker is concerned; and for educational and cultural opportunities. A drag anchor—that is what Brexit is.

To overcome that damage, we have to do two things. First, we must start talking frankly about the damage Brexit has done. Secondly, we have to convince our European friends that we are not seeking special arrangements just for ourselves, but that there are huge benefits on both sides to much stronger mutual co-operation. If we do that, we can begin to change attitudes in this country towards wanting a close relationship with Europe.

17:03

[Baroness Helic (Con)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and to welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. As a fellow immigrant, I share in this belief and humility each time I enter the Chamber. So, with less experience than the noble Baroness, I feel exactly how she does.

I welcome this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for introducing it. I fully support closer educational and cultural ties with the European Union. I encourage the Government to seek bilateral solutions to the post-Brexit problems facing the young in particular, as well as up-and-coming musicians, artists and performers based in the United Kingdom and the European Union.

I am conscious of the time limit today, so I will use my time to focus on security and conflict prevention. The Prime Minister’s commitment to closer co-operation with our EU allies, the Foreign Secretary’s prioritisation of Europe, and the Defence Secretary’s proposed security pact all create new opportunities for promoting peace and security in Europe. This is common sense.

We now know that Russia has emerged as one of the greatest threats to our security and prosperity, with its efforts, as was recently explained, to cause

“sustained mayhem on British and European streets”.

Yet the United Kingdom’s co-operation with the EU is today weaker than that of any other non-EU NATO country, such as Canada, the United States or Norway. Russian operations are interconnected and intentional, including in the western Balkans, where the Kremlin has exploited our perceived weaknesses, particularly our relative lack of attention to the region in recent years, as well as local tensions, energy dependence and endemic corruption.

As in Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine, Russia seeks to stoke unrest and reverse the progress made on the EU and NATO paths. It is using the same playbook, such as hybrid threats, disinformation campaigns, intelligence operations and energy blackmail via its proxies. Genuine engagement with the EU on defence presents an opportunity to help course-correct and counter these threats. In practical terms, since the withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union did not specify any provisions on the common foreign and security policy, the UK ended its contribution to Operation Althea in Bosnia and British personnel left the mission. Current force levels are not adequate to deter secessionists or external meddling, and I urge the Government to look again at the policy they inherited. What consideration has been given to the United Kingdom rejoining Operation Althea and pushing the EU to increase resources and manpower for the mission?

Secondly, the Security Council meets each year in November to extend the authorisation of the mandate of Operation Althea, as set out in Resolution 2183. Each year, the mandate is weakened and compromises are made under Russia’s pressure. The possibility of a Russian veto cannot be excluded, and further compromises are not tenable. Can the Minister tell the House what consideration has been given to engaging EU and NATO Governments at the ministerial level to agree on a plan of action to maintain an executive military presence as long as is necessary, as per Annexe 1A, in the event of a Russian veto? Citizens of Bosnia need reassurance that the terms of the Dayton peace agreements will be enforced with the existing executive instruments unless and until the Dayton framework is replaced by popular consent.

We need security and peace in the region. As Ukraine has shown, European peace and security can no longer be taken for granted, and investing in deterrence and long-term stability is far cheaper than dealing with the consequences of conflict.

17:07

[Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)]

My Lords, it is an excellent subject for debate today, chosen by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham. We have heard what I know will be the first of many excellent speeches by the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge.

I should perhaps declare an interest, as I was ambassador in Paris in October 1997, the last time a Labour Government were working hard to establish themselves—but things were not, of course, quite the same then. With Britain inside the European Union, other EU member states were beating a path to our door, wanting to know and understand the British Government’s view on EU and other matters. Now, with Britain outside the European Union, we are knocking on its door, when much of its attention is understandably elsewhere; but, of course, it is the right thing to do.

The EU and its member states remain an important trading partner, and we have huge and urgent foreign policy issues in common. Uncertainty over the future direction of US foreign policy strengthens the case for European co-operation, so I welcome the Prime Minister’s and Foreign Secretary’s recent visits to EU capitals and the Prime Minister’s recent meeting with Ursula von der Leyen. A closer and more constructive relationship is needed with the EU and its member states, although there will be difficult and no doubt fraught moments along the route. With EU negotiations, that is always the case.

I have two specific points to make. The first—and I am not the first to say this—is on youth mobility and student exchanges. Understanding others’ cultures and, indeed, speaking their languages is, or certainly should be, a key part of our culture. However, the Government seem to have turned their face against the Erasmus scheme. The Turing arrangements are a lot better than nothing, but a lot less good than Erasmus. I know that money is scarce, but can the Minister assure us that the Government recognise the value of student exchanges and that rejoining is not off the table?

The second subject is security and defence co-operation. The bedrock of our security is of course NATO, but EU security and defence co-operation is strengthening. Our interests and those of most—alas, not all—EU countries are similar, in particular over Ukraine and the threat from Russia. We need a close relationship on defence and security with the EU and its member states. The EU being the EU, there are various security and defence structures that we can aspire to join. My only advice is that it is the substance not the form of that relationship that matters, and that it is urgent.

17:11

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

My Lords, I join in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, on her maiden speech. I am so pleased that we have another person in the House who understands the importance of culture and the arts, having been a Minister for the Arts.

On that note, I thank my noble friend not just for instigating this debate but for including “culture” in the title. It is too often overlooked. Sadly, this Government did so in the King’s Speech debates—sadly and surprisingly, because the new Secretary of State, Lisa Nandy, recently made two excellent speeches which made it clear that she understands the central importance of creativity and culture in our education system to the citizen, to our communities and their cohesion, to our economy and to our place in the world. In both these speeches, however, there was something missing: the effect of Brexit on our creative sector and the need to revisit the terrible deal brokered by the noble Lord, Lord Frost. I am sorry to be controversial, but I note that he is not taking part in this debate.

The consequences of Brexit have been calamitous across the creative sector. Red tape surrounding visas and work permits, complicated paperwork and trade restrictions have damaged our ability to access the continent of Europe, our closest and largest creative market. Spiralling, punishing costs have led to cancellation of tours, gigs, performances, fashion shows and exhibitions—it is not just music. Think of the effect on the workforce, particularly those at the start of their careers. My noble friend Lady Smith mentioned people-to-people contact. What is more important than that in the cultural sector?

The creative superpower that is the UK—in multiple artistic fields—is being held back by a deal that is not fit for purpose. Creatives from across the sector have launched a campaign: Cut the Red Tape. I hope that the Government will support this and engage with the EU to make it easier for our creatives to tour and work in Europe. We are asking for incremental steps, among them being reducing the cost of carnets, negotiating visa waivers for creative workers and getting rid of the 90-day restriction. Things will only get worse in November, when new biometric checks are being introduced which will further tighten this rule. Will the Minister consider negotiating a visa waiver agreement with the EU? It would not involve reopening the trade agreement but simply adding a joint declaration. Can he also provide an update on progress so far on bilateral agreements with EU states on work permits?

Our young people are being cut off from European culture, and vice versa, yet the relatively narrow youth mobility scheme suggested by the EU, which so many have mentioned tonight, has been rejected by the Prime Minister. Given that it is time limited and age limited, can the Minister explain why? Does he not also agree with so many here that we should negotiate a return to Erasmus? The Labour manifesto promised

“to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, by tearing down unnecessary barriers”.

What more worthy sector than the creative industries? With this in mind, will the Minister confirm that they will be part of renegotiations with Europe, and that the restoration of full participation in Creative Europe will be included?

It was heartening to see the Prime Minister’s positive visit to Brussels and the joint statement of intent, but intentions are not enough; we need negotiations.

17:15

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for introducing the debate and I add my voice to those congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. Her great experience in local and national government and in the private sector, as well as that extra dimension and perspective that comes from seeing this country from the outside as well as the inside, will surely continue to elevate and enrich your Lordships’ counsels.

This is going to be unpopular, but there are two fundamental misunderstandings when we talk about our relationship with the EU. The first is that the EU is behaving as a rational economic actor interested in maximising the benefits for its citizens. Of course there are people in the European Commission who think that way, and there are many in the national capitals who do so, but there are also many who are still resentful about the referendum result, whose judgment is clouded by emotion, who see Brexit as a sin that needs excommunication and who look on this country rather as China does on Taiwan: as a kind of renegade province that needs to be brought to heel.

That leads to the second misunderstanding, which is the implication that has run through a number of the speeches today: that somehow the remaining blockages and shortfalls in the TCA were all a result of Tory standoffishness. I just do not think you can look at the story of the negotiations and credibly claim that. Where we have imbalances—for example, the way in which EU nationals can use our eGates but not the other way around, or the way in which we grant equivalence to financial services companies from Europe without any reciprocity—the blockages were not on our side. On the issue that the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, just raised, the United Kingdom does give visa-free access to touring artists, for a long time if they are on expenses and for a slightly shorter time if they are being paid, but the blockage, again, is not on our side.

I am afraid there are some people in this House who will always blame Britain, never Brussels, regardless of where the problem lies, but it is not the UK Government who can fix this. I think that this Government will learn what the last one did, which is that the EU is conditioned to say, “No cherry picking; you cannot have your cake and eat it”, whatever we come up with, even if we are coming to it with precisely what it has just been asking for. We found this during the talks. In September 2018 at Salzburg, Theresa May came to the EU with the kind of deal that it should have bitten our arm off for, promising to follow all the rules and pay for the privilege—but it replied, “No cherry picking. You’re a third country, you’re going to have to be treated like a third country; take a Canada-type deal”. A year later, Boris Johnson said, “Okay, fine”, and it replied, “Oh, no, you can’t have a Canada-type deal because you have to regulate”. I am afraid that there is a certain conditioning that is not prepared to engage in productive bilateral talks. We need to understand that.

I can understand how the new Government came in, as many previous ones have done, and said, “We’re going to reset by offering all these things that the EU has been asking for: a new deal on energy, a new deal on chemicals and a new deal on defence”. But again, instead of pocketing those concessions or saying, “That’s great; quick, grab those things before the Brits change their minds”, the EU came back with a list of counterdemands, as though we were not offering concessions but rather making demands. Actually, who is the bigger beneficiary of these things? Yes, both sides would gain from an energy deal, but particularly those countries that we kept warm during the last winter when their Russian gas supplies ended. Yes, a mutual deal on the recognition of qualifications would help both sides, but there are many more EU professionals here than the other way around. On defence, I have to say, frankly, that there is not a scenario where we will be menaced by a Russian army from across the channel. We are not the demandeurs here.

The worst possible attitude with which to enter negotiations is some kind of need, or perceived need, to atone for the referendum result. The sooner we look at our actual, practical national interests, the better for both sides.

17:19

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannan; he always speaks with articulate conviction, which makes my disability always to agree with him the more striking. I ask him one question: if what he says is correct, why did the noble Lord, Lord Frost, admit in the papers that we got the negotiations wrong on touring artists? Sadly, we do not have time to debate it now—perhaps we can do so another time.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for this very important debate and welcome with great open arms the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. Were my noble friend Lord Clancarty here, I know that he would want to talk about the fashion industry and the visual arts. I mention them for him, but I will talk mainly about music.

His Majesty the King is passionate about music. He plays the cello. Our Prime Minister loves music. He plays the flute. A vast proportion of our children are not as privileged as they and I were, because the rich can afford to pay for music while the poor cannot. We have to change that. Why is that relevant to this debate? It is about aspiration and ambition; if our next generation of children are to become musicians, they need to be able to look forward to a career. I should declare an interest as a composer who has many fewer performances in Europe than I used to. Therein lies the problem.

The Labour Government have said that they will look at the touring question. I would love the Minister to tell us, if he can, what they will try to change. If he would like a cue sheet, the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has given us some important pointers: visas, fees, paperwork and cabotage. Can noble Lords believe that, if you are trying to do a tour in Europe, you need a new truck after every two venues? This is just insane and punitive. We need to look at these things so that we can allow the creative arts industry, which has brought so much to our country both economically—billions of pounds—and in culture and sensitivity. Art is about curiosity linked to intelligence. To have curiosity, you have to be exposed to other people’s ideas. Europe has to be exposed to ours.

I was very lucky last night to go to a concert given by that wonderful guitarist David Gilmour, and today I was in a conversation with Bryan Ferry of Roxy Music. They and the LSO can tour because they have the backing, but when the chief executive of the LSO came to talk to an APPG about classical music, she said “Yes, we can pull it off, but God help a string quartet or young pop group—managing the paperwork, the colossal expense, the time”. There is a lot that a new Government can do. I beseech them to do it.

17:23

[Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)]

I am very glad to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley; it is a very strong theme. I welcome this debate and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge. I look forward to hearing more from her. However, I disagree with the contribution before last. In my view, Brexit has been a reputational, political and economic disaster for the UK. It was ill thought out—perhaps they never expected to win—and characterised by fantasy, rudeness and arrogance, and there was no consideration for the impact on our friends and allies. The UK is now seen as a disrupter and there is no immediate prospect of a return to any of the old relationships.

Nevertheless, there is a need and a desire both in the UK and in the EU for a reset—a new relationship. We need to do this bilaterally and collectively, with member states and with the EU itself, but it cannot be a pick and mix solution or cherry picking.

I was shocked when Keir Starmer said that the UK would never rejoin any part of the EU in his lifetime. That is not his decision to make. Then Yvette Cooper said that the UK voted for Brexit, that there was no going back and that the Government would not entertain the EU’s proposed youth mobility scheme. That is alienating great swathes of aspirational young people and, I suggest, is not actually a vote winner for the Labour Party.

It is difficult to see how we can secure a closer relationship with the EU without some accommodation—on both sides, I agree—but ruling out ever rejoining the single market or the customs union rather limits the room for progress. Improving bilateral relationships is absolutely right and desirable, but we should recognise the limit. The EU will not look kindly on attempts to detach members from community-wide agreements.

It is all very well to claim we have the freedom to diverge from EU single market rules because of Brexit, but it is quite hard to see where that takes us. For small and medium-sized enterprises, participation in the single market gave free access to the EU market. Now, the cost and bureaucracy of proving conformity often makes the exercise unprofitable, so exporting is often abandoned or the business is relocated inside the EU.

I live in Scotland and represented a Scottish constituency for 32 years. The EU referendum, following the Scottish independence referendum, divided SNP supporters. SNP voters provided the largest number of Brexit supporters because they did not want Scotland to be in any form of union, yet the SNP argues that the only way for Scotland to rejoin the EU is to leave the UK and then apply. But the European Commission has made it absolutely clear many times that there is no quick and easy route for Scotland back into Europe. Scotland is not a sovereign state and has unsustainable debt, no central bank with a serious track record and no sovereign currency. Scotland would be at the back of the queue and would face the need to secure a unanimous vote—no easy task for a disruptive spin-off of a disruptive former member. The country would spend years in no man’s land outside the UK and the EU, with no timescale for any resolution.

In any case, independence is off the agenda for the foreseeable future. If you ask whether Scotland should remain in the UK or leave, the answer is overwhelmingly in favour of remain. A different question gets a different answer, but the fantasy that separation offers a quick way back into the EU does not fly. The best prospect for Scotland re-entering the EU rests with the UK, where the Liberal Democrats are leading the way for a step-by-step re-engagement, recognising that we need to move towards the single market by negotiated steps, by agreeing with many of the things that people are asking for, and really pleading with the Government to deliver.

17:27

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, a triple congratulations is surely in order for this debate: first, to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who has obtained a topical and substantive issue for us to cover; secondly, to the Government, for having set out so clearly in the gracious Speech the twin objectives of their European policy, a new security pact with the rest of Europe and a reset of the post-Brexit relationship with the EU; and, thirdly, to the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, whose chair, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, spoke earlier in this debate, and whose previous chair, the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, set out in April 2023 a very clear agenda of what needs to find its place in such a reset.

We can now see, more unmistakably than ever, just how bad the Brexit deal that the Johnson Government “got done” in 2019 really was. It was bad for Britain’s trade and economy, bad for our relationship with the rest of Europe and bad for our influence around the world when we need it most in troubled times. Such mitigation as came with the Windsor Framework and rejoining the Horizon research programme has not altered the case for the substantial reset that the Government are now contemplating.

But we should have no illusions. Such a reset will need to be one that brings mutual benefit to both parties—otherwise, there will just be a lot of talk about cherry picking. That does not mean that every item of the reset has to be perfectly balanced; that would be to fall into the trap that Brussels has rightly criticised as the “juste retour”. But there will need to be an overall balance—otherwise, a better deal will not be struck. The Government are surely right to give priority in timing to the new security pact. That will be needed whoever wins the US election. It will need to cover security issues in the widest sense, including not only defence issues but law enforcement and the vexed issues relating to migration, which are showing so many signs of destabilising the domestic politics of too many European countries.

In responding to the debate, I hope that the Minister, who not only is responsible for defence but has experience with migration, will be able to say something about the objectives the Government are pursuing in the security pact. Are we thinking of joining more PESCO projects? Are we planning to establish a link with the European Defence Agency, such as the US has? Are we making a larger contribution to peacekeeping in the western Balkans, as the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, called for? As to the wider reset on cultural, economic and trade issues, the agenda of 2023 remains as valid as when it was put forward.

All this will take time to achieve. There will be setbacks along the way. The issues are complex and sensitive. We are asking the EU to contemplate a deeper relationship with a third country than it has ever had before. It will need to be underpinned, I suggest, by a structured framework of foreign policy co-operation, from which the previous Government shied away when the European Affairs Committee proposed it. I hope the Minister will reverse that shying away, because we will need to work closely with our European partners on a whole range of issues: Ukraine, obviously; relations with China; restoring our eroding links with what is called the global South; and handling the global challenges of climate change and pandemic diseases. We will have to do that if we are not to fall far short of what we could achieve working together collectively.

I conclude with a fourth congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, on her very moving maiden speech.

17:32

[Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)]

My Lords, I join with others in welcoming the presence of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, and her wisdom and authority, which are well known and will greatly reinforce our counsels.

Following the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, when I look across Europe on matters of stronger ties in culture, diplomacy and security, which I greatly welcome, I find I come not to solutions—because Europe is an organisation of constant bargaining; it never reaches settled places in any of these areas—but to the European Political Community, which has not had much mention in the debate so far. President Macron described the political community as a new space for co-operation on politics, security, energy, investment, migration and the evolving economic situation, with all its revolutionary qualities. My view is that we should do much more to be creative with the European Political Community, and I would like to know from the Minister how it is seen in government. Is this something that we will really work at, produce more plans for and build on? There was a very good atmosphere in the last two or three community meetings, and we should develop that. It has 45 attendees and is much bigger than the European Union, and it is addressing the modern issues of order and survival in an acutely dangerous world in a way that, one sometimes feels, Brussels has not quite grasped yet—but it needs to do so.

Then we come to the central issue: Germany. At the moment, Germany is closing down Schengen—that is what is happening. The free movement throughout Europe has been closed for the time being, and it will be interesting to see when it opens again. Not only that but the German economy has been really badly hit by China and the prospect of its whole motor industry being undermined—as well as ours. It is a deeply divided nation at the moment, in a way that it has not been, as a model of industrial power and strength, for the last 70 years or so.

Germany is ceasing to dominate the EU. That is the important point that I do not think all noble Lords and honourable Members have quite grasped, let alone the press. So, with that question of a new power source bringing together the interests of Europe, and it no longer being just the old Franco-German alliance running everything, this is a time for new ideas. We have a fund of new ideas in this country for developing and strengthening Europe in a totally changed international order, and I hope that we will pour that fund into working in the EPC and creating the conditions in which all these issues can be tackled and some of the obstacles we find day by day overcome.

It is a Europe of constant bargaining, as our wise experts point out, so I am afraid that those who are looking for the future of Europe to be settled are going to be disappointed. I say that to the noble Baroness who brilliantly opened the debate. There is not an immediate settlement. There is, however, the possibility of a great many new ideas, driven and shaped, particularly by technology, being poured into the assessment and creation of a changing Europe, and it is in the forum of the EPC that that can be usefully shaped and decided. I would like to hear a lot more from the Minister on that matter.

17:36

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on securing this key and very interesting debate, and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, on her maiden speech. Economic crime knows no borders and is a threat to us all, and I think we are grateful to her and look forward to hearing more from her as she makes her way around the Chamber.

I always find it interesting to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell. He has decided to look at the European Political Community; I am also particularly interested in relationships, not just at a governmental level, and I want to focus on how political party relations across Europe can also make an important contribution to building relationships.

As a Lib Dem, I am one of the elected vice-presidents of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe, or ALDE. I was first elected in December 2019—an interesting time. Over the last five years, I have seen the importance of Europe-wide party bodies to enable working together locally and nationally, building those relationships, especially for us Lib Dems.

Only ALDE—founded in 1976 as the ELDR—and the Greens alliance, have European membership beyond the EU. ALDE, with 52 MEPs, sits in the Renew group, and the Greens are with the European Free Alliance, including the Pirate parties, and they have 53 MEPs. However, all the other groups, including the EPP and the S&Ds, do not permit such a formal arrangement. ALDE’s role in bringing together sister parties across Europe has strengthened relationships. Using links in CoR, in the Council of Europe and within ALDE, we are able to develop projects together.

For me, the most interesting group in ALDE recently has been the non-EU bloc. The Motion for debate talks about Europe, not about the EU, but when you are a non-EU party working with a predominantly EU organisation, one’s view becomes somewhat different. We all have different relationships with the EU. There are the non-EU countries in south-eastern Europe, some of which have been waiting for accession since 1993, which live and trade side by side with EU countries, and then we compare them with the EFTA countries, which are contented with their trade agreements and their style. Then there are the countries such as Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia, which are all facing real threats from Russia. Then there is the UK.

The Lib Dems and the Alliance Party in Northern Ireland are active members, but no one understands why we left the EU, and most of our sister parties think that we were contented with that lot. I should say that is what they thought in 2019; they do not think it now. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that Brexit broke that trust with our EU partners, and that is why as yet there is no route back, not least because of that lack of trust from our EU sister parties about the way the UK behaved. So, when we ask for special treatment, it is not surprising that we are told the EU will not bear that.

Most of my time is spent rebuilding trust at sister-party level that attitudes in the UK are changing, listening to them but also working with them on matters of common interest, including security, especially where UK forces are embedded in Europe, following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. I work also with sister parties in Ukraine on their non-security needs—for example, we have put visiting Ukrainian MPs together with groups of Ukrainian refugees. Our young Liberal groups work very closely together to encourage Ministers across the EU and UK to look at youth mobility movements.

Bilateral and multilateral relations at this level enrich our parties and countries, and I hope will lay the groundwork for a stronger formal relationship once trust has been developed and all countries want to take the next steps.

17:40

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus my speech on the Council of Europe. I suspect I am preaching to the converted because the Minister and I actually met as joint members of the Parliamentary Assembly for the Council of Europe in 2018. Since then, I have had the privilege of being the lone Cross-Bench non-political member of the parliamentary assembly.

I would describe the last six and a half years as witnessing a state of not particularly benign neglect by previous Governments, and I think that there is now a chance for a real reset. We were a founding member of the Council of Europe in 1949. We are one of the four “grand payeurs”, those who pay the most money into the organisation, together with France, Germany and Italy. We have an excellent track record in front of the European Court of Human Rights, despite whatever at least one of the contenders for the leadership of His Majesty’s loyal Opposition appears to believe.

However, we have had a very limited focus and attention from previous Governments on our membership. There has been what I would describe as a somewhat indiscriminate choice of members. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others, at the time I joined most of them were chosen because they were not supporters of the then leader of the Labour Party, and it was a convenient way of getting them out of Westminster for certain weeks during the year. In my experience, the majority of MPs who are on the parliamentary assembly, from whichever party, have little interest and rarely even bother to come or participate. If they do wish to do so, it is particularly disappointing when, in my experience, the Whips in another place do not give people slips to go and do their duty in the parliamentary assembly.

The Council of Europe gives us a real opportunity to exercise a high degree of soft power rather effectively. Most of the key elements are not well known. The European Court of Human Rights is well known, as is perhaps the council’s support for Ukraine, but it is also the repository of about 200 or more conventions on a whole variety of areas, excluding defence. These include cybercrime and anti-money laundering—I suspect these are subjects close to the heart of the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, and she would be a very welcome member of the parliamentary assembly if she was chosen by her party. It covers artificial intelligence, anti-doping in sport, anti-corruption, prevention of torture, data protection, criminal law co-operation, the quality of medicines and avoiding counterfeit medicines, the environment, the protection of wildlife and habitats, human rights and, of course, the Istanbul convention.

My plea to the new Government is: for goodness’ sake, please take the Council of Europe seriously. We should be extremely proud of having been a founder and we really should take it more seriously. I appeal to the Minister to tell the Chief Whips in both Houses—Sir Alan Campbell in another place and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, in this House—the Minister for Europe, Stephen Doughty, the Lord Chancellor, Shabana Mahmood, and the Attorney-General, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hermer, who is in this House, that we need a complete and utter reset. We need quality people on the parliamentary assembly and, from the party in office, really strong leadership, not dissimilar to the leadership Sir Roger Gale gave very effectively prior to 2019.

I end with a tribute to those in Strasbourg, our ambassador Sandy Moss and his outstanding team, who support and give the United Kingdom a voice probably beyond the degree of input that we give it. I also pay tribute to Nick Wright and his team here in Whitehall, who enable us to take part so effectively.

17:44

[Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow that speech, because in my remarks I also want to communicate my affection for and commitment to the Council of Europe—but not before I pay tribute to our new arrival, who is going to impose some of her strict, applied and disciplined thinking here, as she has done so well in many other places. My long association with both Barking and Islington has made me not unaware of the noble Baroness’s presence and influence, so it is brilliant to have her here.

A week ago, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and I were in Strasbourg for the deliberations of the Council of Europe. This is the 75th anniversary of its foundation and, because of the election that we have just been through, it has been impossible to organise an appropriate event in our Parliament to remember and make something of the work of the Council of Europe. It will happen now in the spring.

The British people have a safe space in Europe, where we can make contact—informal and humane, as well as that focused on items of business, some of which are very lofty—and establish relationships with other parliamentarians, from 46 different nations. At a personal level, representatives from Kosovo come to see us all the time; they can never get over what we helped them with all those years ago. We could be talking to both Azerbaijanis and Armenians about the dispute that was at the heart of some violent thinking there. We might hear points of view from Greece and Turkey about northern Cyprus, for example. We may just make friendships and feel that we can constitute a presence and contribute something of a very human kind.

I spoke twice last week. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, actually presented a report, but he humbly did not mention that. I suffer from no such feelings myself and will talk about what I did last week. I spoke about freedom of information, which was part of looking at one of the conventions, and then about the metaverse and the way that we safeguard our countries across borders, with the rise of the technology that we are so preoccupied with at the moment.

In addition, I worked in a focused way on its migration committee. It was galling to be a member of that committee during a period when our Government was ramrodding through Parliament three Acts that many of us felt were in violation of international law and that were being argued across the Floor of the House in so cruel and hard-hearted a way. In a council that was founded with lots of energy from the United Kingdom, all the way back, the situation in which we found ourselves was met with incredulity by fellow members of the migration committee—and not a single member of the Conservative Party sitting on the committee to defend the Government.

I have nothing but praise for having a safe space where we can pursue matters of such interest in a person-to-person way. If that is not culture, I do not know what is. I am very grateful for this debate being brought to us today.

17:48

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I was puzzled by the assumption in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, that while the European Union’s negotiators have not been entirely rational in their approach to bilateral relations with us, the British negotiators since Brexit—David Davis, Boris Johnson, the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and others—have been entirely rational actors. That is perhaps something that the noble Lord will cover in a future Telegraph column.

I want to talk about the situation that we are in now. We are in a very dangerous situation for British foreign policy. For the last 60 to 70 years, we have assumed that our closest and most mutually trusting relationship is with the United States. In four weeks’ time, there will be a presidential election, which will give us either a second Trump presidency—it is highly unclear what that will mean for transatlantic relations, as he pays little attention to Britain except for his golf courses—or a Harris presidency, which will arrive contested, with law suits and quite possibly disorder, and will also distract the United States. We will have lost American leadership. In this situation, we need to go as far as we can to develop the closest possible relations and better mutual understanding with our neighbours in Europe, because those are the most trustful and important partners we have. If we are going to build closer mutual understanding, it has to include a range of relations, formal and informal, at all levels.

That is why so many of us think that youth exchanges are very important. When I first started studying the European Union, I remember discovering how much effort the French and the Germans had made to rebuild relations between their countries by encouraging student and youth exchanges and putting money into them. When we joined the European Community, as it then was, the then pro-European Conservative Government tried to do something similar, and in 1973 suggested a range of those models. Of course, in 1974, the then anti-European Labour Government cancelled those, and we have never put enough effort into it since. I say to the Minister that the argument against going back into Erasmus is that more students come to Britain than British students go there and it therefore costs us more money; the argument for going back to Erasmus ought to be that we need more British young people to travel abroad and more British students to study at European universities and learn the language. That is a matter of sufficient importance for the future of British society and British foreign policy to make going back into Erasmus worthwhile.

Furthermore, we need to have exchanges not just between parties and parliamentarians, which has already been discussed, but between police. We have lost that through leaving Europol. There is no organised crime that is purely national these days. Cross-border contacts and understanding between police forces are very important, as they are between officials at all levels. We have lost our European cadre in the Foreign Office, and the European Union works the way it does precisely because there are intense and regular contacts between officials from different countries, bilaterally and multilaterally. That is what we need to regain and what this Government need to begin to build. At that point, we will have again the mutual understanding that we need.

These are our neighbours. We need to understand each other, to work together and to negotiate with each other. For that, we need to change the way that we behave in our relationships.

17:52

[Lord Bilimoria (CB)]

My Lords, referendum is the most undemocratic method. It is a snapshot of a point in time; it is finite. Democracy needs to be dynamic so that every four or five years people have the opportunity to change their minds. For the last year or so, at every opportunity, in every speech, at the opportune moment, I have boldly asked the audience—domestic, international, at universities, even schoolchildren—whether they think Brexit was a huge mistake and an act of self-harm for the United Kingdom. I am not exaggerating when I say that 99% of the hands go up—it happened just today.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, for initiating this debate, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, on her excellent maiden speech. We first met two decades ago, when we were on “Any Questions?” on the BBC together.

The Government have said clearly and unequivocally that they are interested in re-establishing our relationship in Europe since it weakened post-Brexit. This includes a new UK-EU security pact, improving bilateral relationships and the Joint Expeditionary Force—I do not think anyone has mentioned that so far.

It is a complex geopolitical environment, increasingly so, but here is a fact: in 2023, 52% of our imports and 42% of our exports were with the European Union. We got a huge trade deficit with the European Union, and these levels of exports are 11% below the pre-pandemic and pre-Brexit levels. The TCA has arrangements that are very restricted. The Government have said that they want to improve the relationship but do not want to rejoin the single market. Come on—why cannot we be bold? Why cannot we join the single market? Why cannot we then move towards the EEA Norway-type model and eventually move towards rejoining the European Union?

The war in Ukraine has led to increased co-operation between the UK and EU with regard to sanctions, intelligence sharing and military training, and with the challenges we face in defence procurement. Will the Minister admit that we have problems when it comes to defence procurement because we are no longer in the EU?

One of the most senior police officers in this country—I will not name the individual—said during the Brexit debate, “If people knew the security arrangements we have with the EU, they would vote to remain just because of that one issue alone”.

Regarding the youth mobility scheme, why can we not have a scheme where 18 to 30 year-olds can study and work in the UK and Europe? That has been proposed by the EU—we have rejected it. On the security partnership that we have, can the Government make their ambitions more concrete? The Erasmus programme is way better than Turing. Turing is one-way; Erasmus is both ways. We are losing out, our children are losing out, European children are losing out. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, how the music sector is losing out due to complex visa rules, cabotage restrictions, carnets, and musical instrument certificates. This is ridiculous. We do not need this. In 2018, 10,100 UK students participated in Erasmus. School trips have dropped hugely since Brexit. Some 47% of musicians report reduced EU work.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannan, spoke about cherry-picking. Well, I was president of the CBI, I sat on BusinessEurope. Do you know what its people used to say to me? “Why did you leave? We really respected you. You were different, but we envied you because you had the best of both worlds. You had your own currency; you could set your own interest rates.” Today we have the worst of both worlds.

17:56

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, particularly because I agree with him. The speaking order at the close of this debate is like the old days, with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, following straight after me. However, this is the kind of debate in which I will ask him questions rather than generally agreeing with him, as in many of the debates that we have had. I look forward to, I hope, a characteristically positive reply from him to this debate.

I join others in welcoming the noble Baroness, Lady Hodge, to this House, and her moving maiden speech. It had powerful messages, and gave an indication of the issues she will raise with characteristic determination in this House. She is now in a parliamentary Chamber with many colleagues who were senior civil servants that she skewered on the committee, so I am looking forward to seeing the peace offerings of cups of tea in the tearoom.

My noble friend Lady Smith ensured the breadth of the topic of this debate. War in the east of the European continent, the conflict in the near neighbourhood of the eastern Mediterranean, the climate emergency, a terrible humanitarian crisis in Africa that might automatically lead to migration challenges in our continent—all these aspects are worthy of debate. It has also been recognised throughout the debate that the European Union is the key political body in the continent that is tasked with the policy responses to many of those challenges.

The underlying aspect is whether the UK is better out than it would have been if we had stayed in. Some argued during the process that the UK leaving the bloc would automatically mean that the bloc would be weakened. Some almost saw that as an ambition. However, we have not seen that—in many respects the bloc has been strengthened. Indeed, Putin’s calculation that his actions would see a fundamental undermining of the European Union has not come about, notwithstanding the challenges among some of its members. Therefore, from these Benches, we want the Government to be successful in their reset, but we also want to reconnect in many areas. The Minister will not be surprised to hear us wanting the Government to go further.

On Monday, a Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross—told the House:

“This Government want to and will make Brexit work”.—[Official Report, 7/10/24; col. 1818.]


That presupposes that by “work” they mean that the UK can be better off across business, people-to-people relations, energy, sustainability, security and culture outside the European Union—inevitably influenced by it, but not part of shaping it. We respectfully disagree. Making Brexit work is a bit like getting Brexit done: two falsehoods do not make a truth.

From the Opposition, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, eschewed dogma and heralded pragmatism. All those debates dominated by that dogma must seem so many long years ago, but the very dogma that was at the fore handed us the hardest of exits. So the debate today is significant, especially since we now know that getting Brexit done is almost an impossibility and making it work is incredibly difficult. We have seen UK border checks with the European Union delayed again under this new Government, and the Windsor Framework is not yet operable.

We have seen, as we heard in this debate from the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, the impact on trade in goods. UK goods exports to the EU have not recovered to pre-Brexit levels. We were told that this would not happen, that it would be a boon for exports of goods, and that if there were any reductions, they would be more than offset by the riches of non-EU exports facilitated by new trade agreements. Goods exports to non-EU countries also remain below pre-Brexit levels, because the damaging impact of our harder trade with the European Union is that we have made it harder to trade with non-European Union countries as well.

Goods imports from the European Union have fallen, but they have been offset by imports from China, contributing to the UK having the biggest trade deficit in our history with only one country and the biggest deficit with one country of any advanced economy, making us strategically vulnerable. For our geopolitical security, making Brexit work will risk the UK being less resilient and secure, and more dependent on China. In opposition, Labour called for a strategic audit of our relationship with China. I will be interested in whether that is on the agenda when the Foreign Secretary visits Beijing. However, the Chancellor has called for more trade with China—that is, more imports from China.

As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, in a very powerful message, we now enjoy a less deep relationship with our colleagues in the European Union on security status and military involvement than Canada and Norway. That cannot be in our strategic interests, given what Russia is seeking to do in the western Balkans. If we are to be pragmatic, as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, asked us to be, then it is in our interests to dust off the draft text of the security agreement, use that as a starting point and have it as the basis of many of the talks because clearly, some work had previously been done and we should start from that basis. Indeed, we should make it as cross-party as possible. Let us have some pragmatism here.

Where we need pragmatism most now is for young people. Therefore, it was disappointing that the Government said that free movement for young people was a red line, somehow claiming that the European Commission had argued that it would be equating free movement with mobility. Mobility is not free movement: a mobility agreement is not a free movement agreement. That is why a European Commission spokesperson replied to the Prime Minister’s statement:

“A red line is as if the EU was asking for something. We are not asking for anything”.


As the EU put it,

“the youth mobility proposal on the table is a ‘reaction to the UK request to some of our member states’”.

It is welcome that the Government are seeking bilateral agreements on mobility with member states, but let us ensure that the talks with the Commission progress well for an overall mobility agreement—that is vital. As part of it, we should have regard to student participation. Applicants from the EU to UK universities have dropped by 43%, according to UCAS. That compares with 29,000 applications from China, a number that has more than doubled. What is the Government’s strategic aim when it comes to European students learning in the UK?

We also heard in the debate that red tape on the UK-EU border has prevented children taking part in overseas educational trips, resulting in a 30% reduction. The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said this week that any consideration of school trips facilitation would have to be seen in the context of the immigration system. It is as though 13 year-olds will somehow be so enamoured by seeing Buckingham Palace that they will seek to overstay their time in the youth hostels. Surely we can get school trips agreed; I look forward to the Minister’s positive reply on that.

My noble friend Lady Bonham-Carter spoke with real passion about the benefit of supporting culture for culture’s sake but also about the need to support the UK as a superpower for the creative industries and the economy. It is in our economic interest—for not just London but Cardiff, Belfast, Edinburgh and the north-western regions of England. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I felt as though I would not be able to respond to him properly and eloquently, so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, did so, and so well. If I may paraphrase his words, I think his message to the Government was: it is just not good enough to change the mood music in our relationship if it is difficult to get the musicians to travel to play the music in the first place.

To conclude, my noble friends Lord Bruce and Lord Wallace asked us not to look back but to look ahead for the young people who will have to face the challenges of an increasingly complex world and will have to live with Brexit. Just over 2,000 children were born on 23 June 2016, and at the end of this Government’s term they will be 13 year-olds. They will be living with the consequences of Brexit, but they will have to face the challenges of this difficult world. We need to ensure that they face fewer barriers and burdens and more opportunities. That must be our task, and I hope that the Government see that as their task, too.

18:07

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the many positive and challenging contributions on this topic, all said in a way that seeks to improve public policy to do what it can with respect to the UK-Europe relationship. People come from different perspectives, but we all want the best for our own country.

I will endeavour to answer many of the points; whether I attribute them to the right noble Lord remains to be seen, and I apologise if I get it wrong. If I miss something that was directly asked of me, I will write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library. A number of points were made relating to numerous government departments. I accept that I am answering for the Government, so I will go through Hansard and make sure that the various points made to different government departments are sent to the relevant Government Ministers so that they can take the appropriate action.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on an excellent topic for debate, and the way in which it has contributed towards encouraging numerous noble Lords to stay through a Thursday afternoon into the early evening. That shows the importance of this debate. I also thank her for the way in which she introduced the debate and raised many of the important issues, some of which I will deal with as I respond to the debate. It is a particularly appropriate time for us to debate this.

I will spend a little while congratulating my noble friend Lady Hodge on her wonderful maiden speech. I will not go into all the years that we have known each other, and the various ups and downs now and again—mainly ups. On a personal note, I think all of us have found her an inspiration in the way that she has dealt with some of the difficulties she has faced with respect to anti-Semitism. One of the great tributes to her as a person is that she has never become cynical or negative about that. She has seen anti-Semitism as the issue and fought it but recognised that, for the vast majority of people in this country, anti-Semitism is as abhorrent as she feels it is. We are very pleased that she is with us.

I also say to my noble friend that economic crime, which I know has been close to her heart, is really important. Dirty money is something that all of us in this Chamber have debated through many Bills. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, has been with me on various committees where we certainly pressurised the then Government. We should continue to say to our own Government that, from our perspective, we need to do as much as we can to tackle Russian dirty money. Indeed, we should see any economic crime as the priority that it is. I make that point to her.

It is really important to see the context within which this debate takes place. There will be disagreements with and disappointments about individual policies that the Government may pursue and the ways in which they will pursue some of the challenges that they face; I will come to one or two of those. But have no doubt about it: there is now a Government in this country who seek a positive relationship with Europe in its widest sense, and want to establish better relationships with EU Governments and wider European Governments, at the collective level and at an individual bilateral level.

We will work to reset the relationship with our European friends, to strengthen ties, to secure a broad-based security pact and to tackle barriers to trade. We will build stronger and wider co-operation in a whole range of areas. We will look forward, not backwards, by improving our trade and investment relationship with the EU and Europe more generally, while recognising that there will be no return to the single market, the customs union or freedom of movement. This is about turning the page, reinvigorating alliances and forging new partnerships with our European friends, rather than reopening the divisions of the past.

We will work to improve the UK’s trade and investment relationship with the EU, tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade and strengthening co-operation to keep our people safe. This should not come as a surprise, as the previous Government frequently acknowledged that there was still much work to do to improve UK-EU and UK-European relations. There is more we can do to minimise friction with our major trading partners, by reducing barriers for professionals to do business across the channel, as well as strengthening co-operation on the security threats that we face.

As I say, this is not about renegotiating or relitigating Brexit but about looking forward and realising the potential of the UK-Europe relationship. We have been clear that these trading relationships can be improved, including through the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and in areas such as helping touring artists. This is about not just the EU, as I say, but Europe as a whole. A new era for these relationships is what we seek to achieve, culturally and diplomatically, and from a defence and security point as well—bilaterally and collectively too.

Your Lordships will recall that the Prime Minister, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell, pointed out, hosted 46 leaders from across Europe, including President Zelensky, at Blenheim Palace just before the Summer Recess. Others will recall the marked increase in engagements in the past few months, not only by the Prime Minister but by the Foreign Secretary, the Defence Secretary and many other Ministers, with their respective counterparts.

These relationships are not only at a political level. As many noble Lords have made clear in this debate, they include but are not limited to improving our relationship with the European Union. Many noble Lords have spoken about the people-to-people relationships. We are aware of the British support for the Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games. There is the upcoming co-hosting of the UEFA championships with Ireland in 2028. There are also renewed commitments to the UK-France Lancaster House treaties and His Majesty’s Government’s ongoing work to develop a friendship treaty with Germany. We are doing all we can to reset the relationship and improve it.

That is the context in which this debate takes place. We have no hesitation as a new Government in saying that we want to have a better relationship with Europe, and we want to establish it. I say this to noble Lords: in the discussions I have had with Ministers from across the European Union and beyond, I felt that they too believe that there is a reset and that we now have a Government who do not see Europe somehow as almost the enemy of this country. It is an important step forward to have that trust and that relationship. The ability to recognise that we now work from a position of mutual respect and trust is really important.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, spoke about the bilateral strengthening of our security relationship and mentioned Poland. I was in Poland recently at the Warsaw Security Forum. The UK is seen as a valuable partner there—not just an add-on, but right at the centre of the demands of Poland, the Baltic states, Romania and all the countries there, as well as the more traditional European countries. They want us at the heart of things, working with them on a new EU security pact, our commitment to NATO, and their defence against the Russian threat. We have been talking to Germany and have a new agreement. We are refreshing the Lancaster House agreement, and we are talking to Ireland as well. As I have said, many visits have been made.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, pointed out the importance of NATO, which will remain the foremost military alliance we have, but the UK-EU security pact gives us the opportunity to reflect on where there are other things we can do. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, pointed out, we may use that relationship or that vehicle on migration and some other matters involving security while NATO remains the fundamental part of our military alliance.

I look forward to meeting the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, before I go to Bosnia in a couple of weeks’ time and hearing her experience and knowledge. I say to her, and to the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Howell, that we understand the difficulties in the west Balkans and we will look at what more we can do to support the work that has been going on there. To be fair, some of that was under the previous Government, but we will look to see whether there is more that we can do. We understand the deepening concerns in that area, which is one of the reasons why I am going to go there—to see what more we can do.

The noble Lords, Lord Jay and Lord Bilimoria, pointed out the importance within the EU of the Joint Expeditionary Force. Again, we will look to see what we can do and work with our neighbours. We know the importance of the High North, the change that climate change is bringing to that area, and the increasing problems and threats we have there.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, mentioned the PESCO arrangements and what we should do with permanent structural organisations in which we try to work together. We will not make a general statement that we will join all of them but look at them on a case-by-case basis.

The noble Lord, Lord Howell, mentioned the European Political Community. We see that as an important addition. It is an informal arrangement as it stands, but it has brought people together in a forum that no other European multilateral institution offers, even with respect to the Council of Europe.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned the Council of Europe. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, was another significant member of the Council of Europe over the years. I also mention my noble friend Lord Griffiths in this respect. Forgive me if other people in this Chamber have been members of the Council of Europe—I notice the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and I beg his pardon. There are people who have been members right across this Chamber. It is a fundamentally important place where countries come together. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, was right to point out the importance of the Council of Europe, of our membership and of all Governments taking it particularly seriously going forward.

The noble Lords, Lord Ricketts, Lord Bruce, Lord Liddle, Lord Hannay, Lord Wallace and Lord Jay, and others mentioned the importance of delivering the forthcoming EU-UK security pact and of diplomacy and bilateral relationships. This Government’s fundamental point is that we are not afraid of saying that we need international co-operation and relationships to deal with the problems we face. We talked about that in this House at great length when we spoke about the need to tackle migration. We said that by working together we can overcome these problems. We have to come together to do that. On security, migration and climate, we will seek to work together.

I say to the noble Lords, Lord Anderson, Lord Wallace, Lord Jay and Lord Ricketts, that we work closely with the higher education sector, but we do not have any plans to rejoin the Erasmus scheme. However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Jay, that we recognise the importance of student exchanges and are looking to see whether there are other ways of delivering the same desired outcome of Erasmus.

There was some scepticism about the value of Turing. This year, 2024-25, £105 million is available to send 43,000 students abroad, both school students and those in higher education, and 23,000 of those are from disadvantaged backgrounds. I appreciate that some noble Lords may be sceptical about the Turing scheme, but I just point that out as something for us to consider in our deliberations. On the point from the noble Lord, Lord Jay, of course student exchanges are important. The Government seek a better way to deliver the same things within the context we are in.

On culture, I say to the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord Purvis, that we have no plans to look at an EU-wide youth mobility scheme. However, I take the point about trying to deliver the same thing through bilateral relationships—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will look at whether we have been able to succeed and deliver that. I will ensure that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on VAT on education—with respect to schools run by other European countries in the UK—are looked at by the relevant department.

On touring artists, we are committed to working collaboratively across departments to address musicians, performing artists and their support staff being able to tour across the EU. We recognise that that is a very live issue. The noble Lords, Lord Berkeley and Lord Ricketts, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bonham-Carter and Lady Helic, and a number of others made that point. We accept that there is a real issue and we are trying to ensure that our touring artists are not in any way disadvantaged. We are looking at how we can do that. We will also look at how we engage with the European Commission and EU member states and explore how best to improve arrangements for touring across Europe.

I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, that there are no plans to rejoin Creative Europe, but we are working with the creative and cultural sectors to ensure that those world-leading sectors can continue to promote growth and enrich lives at home and abroad.

The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Hannan, I think—I will check—were right to say, on inward mobility for artists, that the UK domestic rules allow musicians, entertainers, artists and their technical staff from non-visa national countries, such as EU and EEA nationals, to perform in the UK without requiring a visa. If I have got that wrong, I will write and put a copy of the letter in the Library, but I think that that is the situation at the moment.

The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, rightly challenged us on making Brexit work. There is no doubt that we will come back to the situation in a year or two. What we mean by making Brexit work is all the things that I have gone through—looking at whether we can deliver some of the outcomes that we would have been able to achieve within the EU from without it, and at whether we can generate that new EU security pact.

On China, the Government’s policy is one of co-operating, competing and challenging; again, we will see whether we can get the balance right between all those.

I will finish where I started by saying this to noble Lords, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, who proposed this important Motion: there will be individual debates and discussions between us about some of the challenges that noble Lords have raised, and I understand that people will be disappointed with some of the answers I have given with respect to mobility, and people will think that the Government have got it wrong, but let there be no doubt that we are now in a changed context and changed environment. We are now in a situation where we have a Government who are determined to rebuild our relationships with the EU and with Europe, and to co-operate, because we believe that that is in the best interests of our country to overcome common problems and challenges. By doing that, we will have a more prosperous future for our country, as well as benefitting Europe.

I finish by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on the Motion that she has introduced, which has allowed an important debate to take place. I wish my own Government well in resetting that relationship; it is crucial.

18:27

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the speakers’ list suggests that I can speak for a few moments but I am aware that I am detaining the House—and, as the Minister pointed out, it is late on a Thursday.

I think that the Minister has just summed it up for all of us. We wish his Government well and hope that relations with Europe can be strengthened as far as possible. We will continue to hold His Majesty’s Government to account. I heard little voices behind me saying ,“Not enough”, and ,“Too little, too slowly”, and so on, but I think that the Minister and other members of the Government Benches have heard our views. We very much hope that, in the coming months and years, we will be able to strengthen relations and that youth mobility in particular will be reinstated.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 6.28 pm.