Resetting the UK-EU Relationship (European Affairs Committee Report)

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate. I have recently been chucked off the European Affairs Committee—due simply to my three years being up, I hasten to add, not for misbehaviour—but I participated fully and keenly in the preparation of this report. Although I am very happy to have found a berth on the equally absorbing and admirably chaired Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee, I will very much miss the European Affairs Committee and pay tribute to its members and first-rate staff, who were named by the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts. Above all, I congratulate our then chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, on his superb leadership of the committee, which he has also been rotated off, and his introductory speech. From my new committee berth, I take very seriously the problems for trade and business, and, indeed, the democratic deficit in Northern Ireland.

This country’s links with the EU are going in only one direction, a development I wholeheartedly support. EU Ambassador to the UK Pedro Serrano has said that the UK and the EU are “indispensable partners” and described the statement from last May’s summit as

“a new narrative for the relationship”.

The President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, echoed similar sentiments in her visit in the last few days, including in a speech at Chatham House and at a reception held by Mr Speaker, to which he kindly invited me.

I believe the Prime Minister is serving this country and Europe well in fully supporting Ukraine and working with allies to that end. I applaud his speech at the recent Munich Security Conference, although, as far as we know, his welcome words have not secured UK participation in the SAFE project for defence capability improvements. Like other speakers, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s reply on this.

We saw recently in a poll for ITV that over 80% of 16 to 24 year-olds would vote to rejoin the EU in a new referendum. Only 17% of this age group would vote to stay outside, compared with an overwhelming 83% who would vote to rejoin. I am soon 75, but I intend to live long enough, even to 100, to see us rejoin the EU. I venture to suggest that the Prime Minister could reinvigorate his support through the EU question. Of course, the route to rejoin is not where we are now, but it will be before too long. The young, and politics, will see to that. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, that we would serve the young well if we ensured that they were not monolingual.

In a significant article for the Telegraph last November, Jeremy Warner wrote:

“Time to admit the truth: Brexit has been an unmitigated economic failure”,


confirming that

“from an economic perspective at least, Brexit has so far proved close to disastrous”.

The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, illustrated some of the ways in which this is true. Therefore, no Government who cared about economic growth could avoid the need to seek a better trade relationship with the EU, which, from these Benches, we welcome, as far as it goes.

I would, though, sound a cautionary note, as others have done. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, as well as my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that the Government are going to have to be more candid and transparent with the public, sooner rather than later, about where they are headed. There is a limit to how much can be done piecemeal or by stealth, without placing it in a coherent framework and goal. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that a process without a destination is satisfactory. If that coherence is not visible to the public, there risks being a lack of confidence or even a backlash, as well as loss of support for the Labour Party, although I will leave it to worry more than I do about that particular consequence.

The EU will be looking for, if not political consensus—which is unattainable, as we have well heard today—then a solid and consistent majority for better ties with the EU. In my opinion, the Government would do well to bring the public more into a conversation about where all this will be heading. As the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, and others pointed out, there was no reset White Paper. While the Government have previously asserted that they will not cross their red lines of no single market or customs union participation and no freedom of movement, they are already not quite practising what they preach. The Prime Minister’s recently expressed goal of deeper economic integration with and closeness to the single market smudges the red lines—and I gather that the Business Secretary said something today—and that is gaslighting the public, which they never appreciate. For instance, we understand that in the negotiations on the youth experience scheme, the Government are seeking freedom for British participants to move from one member state to another. That would be particularly welcome in, for instance, the travel and hospitality sectors, but the term for this is in fact “free movement”.

We now have a list of half a dozen sectors in which closer links are being pursued. Some present themselves, such as security and the easing of SPS and veterinary controls, but would it not be wise to share more of the thinking behind the choice of all these areas, as well as the neglect of the important issue of touring artists and the lack of much emphasis on law enforcement?

As well as lack of clarity, there is a problem of lack of transparency and accountability. Both Brexit and the reset have given a lot of leeway to executive freedom over parliamentary authority. I suggest that this cannot go on. While intergovernmentalism outside formal structures can have its advantages, they say, it has its limitations and comes up against the need for Parliaments, as well as the public, to get a handle on what Governments are up to. It would be a great advantage, as my noble friend Lady Suttie said, if the other place was able to restore a European Affairs Committee to increase scrutiny and seek to keep the Government honest.

The European Parliament managed to make considerable progress when I was an MEP, from 1999 to 2014, in getting a grip on the member states’ liking for unaccountable intergovernmental arrangements, which is how the data-sharing Prüm arrangement started. Prüm is a database of biometric as well as other data, and there were a lot of rows about its content when it finally got “communitarised”. The data retention directive, which the Labour Government of 20 years ago policy-laundered through Brussels under the UK presidency, later came unstuck in the European Court of Justice. Therefore, firm foundations are a good investment. Trying to escape the kind of detailed scrutiny and joint legislative powers that Parliaments need but Foreign and Home Offices are not quite so keen on is only a short-term fix. The UK-EU relationship and reset have provided a context and pretext for slipping back to that executive comfort zone. I predict we could see some revolting parliamentarians on both sides of the channel—and I know the European Parliament is very upset that it is not included in the design of the SAFE system.

We hear the Government claiming that the reset will involve British influence on relevant laws through “decision-shaping”, but I would respond, tell that to the marines. No one who has been an MEP, as others in this House were, believes that a country can call any shots on EU laws from outside EU legislative co-decision structures.

I have a few words to finish, on a very important issue in UK-EU relations: citizens’ rights. The UK’s EU settlement scheme has largely been a success, although there remain some problematic issues such as the cancellation of pre-settled status for some without any appeal rights, the harsh treatment of a particular cohort of families with a British citizen but EU family members—which could yet become another Windrush scandal—the loss of funding for organisations to assist people with their applications, and, in particular, the Government’s insistence on digital-only proof and refusal to let holders have a paper document or card as proof of status. The platform of a largely successful EU settlement scheme in the UK entitles this Government to put more pressure on member states where there are problems for British citizens and to push the European Commission to monitor and intervene more effectively and with greater power than it currently does. I hope the Minister can tell us that the Government intend to do just that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords on the European Affairs Committee for their wide-ranging and considered report. I take this opportunity on behalf of the Government, and, I believe, the whole House, to especially thank the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, for securing the debate and for his skilled chairing of the committee. He has proved himself to be the eternal diplomat—something I am not known for. Since the general election, the collaborative approach he has taken to engaging with the Government has been very welcome. I welcome the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, as the new chair of the committee, and look forward to continuing our constructive engagement.

I am also extremely grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in today’s debate for their insightful contributions—whether I agreed with them or not—which are a tribute to the report and its authors. I will attempt to answer all the questions raised, but with 34 contributions, I will also reflect on Hansard and respond to any issues I miss; the scale and range of our debate means that I will struggle to respond within the time.

This report was an important opportunity to look at the positive progress the Government have made on our manifesto commitment. While welcoming the progress that has been made, it asks important questions on areas such as the security and defence partnership, the SPS agreement, linkage of our emissions trading scheme, a youth experience scheme and potential participation in the EU internal electricity market. It also highlights the important role of Parliament in scrutinising existing and future agreements with the EU.

On progress to date, when the Government were elected, it was with a clear manifesto commitment to reset relations with our European partners. That meant tearing down unnecessary barriers to trade and increasing national security through strong borders and greater international co-operation. I do not wish to bring forth the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, by using the phrase red lines; I want to be clear that there is no return within our red lines to the single market or customs union, and no return to freedom of movement. I gently remind the noble Lord, Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawlor, that our red lines were clear in our manifesto. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Empey, that we were clear on what that meant.

As your Lordships’ House knows, at the UK-EU summit in May last year, the Government agreed a new strategic partnership with the EU. This strategic partnership will unlock huge benefits for the UK, reducing barriers to trade, accelerating economic growth and keeping us secure in an uncertain world. It is good for bills, good for our borders and good for jobs. We took this decision—exercising our sovereignty—to strike a deal in the national interest. We are making good progress on talks with the EU since the summit to implement the joint commitments made.

I wrote down the name of every noble Lord who mentioned the issue of security and defence, but as it is over 20 names, noble Lords will have to bear with me. I was listening, and I am very grateful for their contributions. At the recent summit, we secured a new security and defence partnership agreement. As the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, reminded us, it is all the more salient this week as we mark four years since Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. This agreement represents a joint commitment to European security built on the long-standing commitment of the UK to support Ukraine and our cross-continent work to protect our NATO allies. We continue to step up on European security, including through leading the coalition of the willing for Ukraine.

This sits alongside the defence co-operation agreements we have struck with our other European partners. Last year the Prime Minister refreshed the Lancaster House agreements with France, deepening our defence and security co-operation, including nuclear co-operation through the Northwood declaration. The Prime Minister also signed the Kensington treaty with Germany, a generational shift in our relationship which broadens our co-operation across defence and security issues, building on the Trinity House agreement.

We are working quickly with the EU to implement our security and defence partnership and have already stepped up our co-operation on supporting Ukraine, tackling hybrid threats and increasing stability in the Western Balkans. Our co-operation is already delivering results. We have worked together to maximise the impact of sanctions on Russia, including jointly lowering the crude oil price cap to curb Moscow’s energy revenues. We also worked with the EU to ensure a successful UK-hosted Berlin process on the Western Balkans in October to promote regional co-operation and deliver security and growth.

Since agreement of the partnership, we have also established senior, structured dialogues with EU counterparts. This is all to ensure that co-operation delivers tangible benefits to European security. We remain fully committed to our continued close co-operation with the EU and European partners to strengthen European security and maintain unwavering support for Ukraine.

As the Prime Minister said at the Munich Security Conference:

“We want to work together to lead a generational shift in defence industrial cooperation … We must come together to … build a joint European defence industry”


and

“go beyond the historic steps that we took at last year’s UK-EU summit to build the formidable productive power and innovative strength that we need”.

Obviously, this then takes us to the questions on SAFE, which were raised by many members of your Lordships’ House, but specifically by the noble Lords, Lord Ricketts and Lord Moynihan, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup. The security and defence partnership unlocked the possibility for enhanced UK participation in the Security Action for Europe scheme, also known as SAFE. We entered those discussions with the EU in good faith. We were prepared to make a fair financial contribution that reflected the potential for a mutually beneficial relationship and value for the UK taxpayer. It is disappointing that we were unable to come to an agreement, but we have always said that we will not sign any deals unless they are in our national interest. The UK’s defence industry continues to have access to SAFE under standard third-country terms. UK companies will be able to participate in and benefit from SAFE contracts to provide up to 35% of their content.

Issues related to Erasmus and the youth experience scheme were raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Since this report’s publication, the Government have reached an agreement with the European Commission for the UK’s association to Erasmus+ in 2027, fulfilling a key commitment made at the summit. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Elliott, on the benefits of Erasmus, association will open up world-class opportunities for learners, educators and young people, as well as youth workers, sports sector professionals and communities of all ages across the UK. We expect that over 100,000 people could benefit from participation in 2027. We will work with the national agency to encourage people to sign up when applications open, and we welcome the focus of the Erasmus scheme on disfranchised communities.

We will further strengthen the people-to-people ties between the UK and the EU by creating opportunities for young people to travel, to take up short-term work or study, to broaden their horizons, and to get to know new people and places through the establishment of a balanced youth experience scheme with the EU. We are also currently negotiating the parameters of the scheme with the EU and aim to conclude these negotiations by the time of the next summit.

On the costings that were touched on, the UK will contribute around £570 million to the Erasmus+ programme in 2027. This is down from the approximately £810 million we would have paid under default terms. The UK will receive most of that money back to distribute among the UK beneficiaries, which will also have the opportunity to compete for grants from a £1 billion central pot directly managed by the European Commission. This is a good deal for the UK. We have negotiated financial terms which reflect a fair balance between the UK’s financial contribution and the number of UK participants receiving funding.

Noble Lords rightly challenged me on the issues relating to touring artists. This was a manifesto commitment. To reassure the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, because this issue was in our manifesto we are consistent and clear on its importance. Just as we recognised at the UK-EU summit the importance of opportunities for young people, we also jointly recognise the value of travel and of cultural and artistic exchanges, including the activities of touring artists. We will continue our efforts to support travel and cultural exchange, and we are exploring how best to improve arrangements for touring across the European continent with the EU and member states. We are determined to make progress, including on the ambition to agree improvements as soon as possible.

I will answer specific questions on some of these issues, if noble Lords will bear with me. The issue of electricity and trade was raised by several noble Lords. Following last year’s summit, the UK and EU have also concluded exploratory talks on the UK’s participation in the EU’s internal electricity market. Participating in the EU’s electricity market will have tangible benefits for the people of the UK, driving down energy costs and protecting consumers against volatile fossil fuel markets. We are now in the process of negotiating a UK-EU electricity agreement.

I move on to the SPS agreement, a key issue raised by many Members of your Lordships’ House. To reassure noble Lords, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, we are moving at pace on these negotiations. I love the phrase, “at pace”; it is good Civil Service language. The committee’s report also contained recommendations on next steps for the agreement. Let me be clear: the UK is the EU’s largest market for agri-food and vice versa. UK agri-food exports to the EU were worth £14.1 billion in 2024, while UK imports from the EU were worth £45.5 billion in the same year. Agri-food producers are among those most affected by increased paperwork and checks associated with exporting to the EU, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. A food and drink agreement will change that, boosting our exports and cutting costs for importers. We are working with Defra on negotiations and implementation of the agreement. The implementation of the SPS deal will be a matter for Defra.

Let me be clear: the Government believe that in some areas, such as SPS, it is in our national interest to align our rules with the EU. This is a sovereign choice that we make because it will cut paperwork, costs and barriers that have a negative impact on our businesses and consumers every day. We know that there are trade-offs with that approach, but we believe they are worth it. To reassure noble Lords, as agreed with the EU, we will have decision-shaping rights when new EU policies are made. Parliament will rightly have a say on those new rules. Any disputes will be overseen by an independent arbitration panel, not the European Court of Justice. Of course, many of the rules that we expect to be in scope of the agreement already exist in UK statute, with minor divergence between the UK and the EU since we left in 2020. This reflects the fact that we are like-minded trading partners with mutually high standards.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Redwood, that we may have to agree to disagree on the issue of growth, as deeper economic integration is in all our interests. We must look at where we can move closer to the single market in other sectors, as well as where that would work for both sides.

I move on to the ETS and CBAM. British businesses and consumers will also feel the benefit of linking our carbon markets, cutting costs, making it cheaper for UK companies to move to greener energy and once again saving the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism charge being paid on £7 billion-worth of UK goods exports to the EU. Where the UK needs access to EU agencies or databases to make the agreements set out in the common understanding a reality, it is reasonable that the UK pays for these services. For example, the UK should make a fair contribution towards the running costs of the EU agencies, systems and databases that administer the food, drink and carbon market linking deals. We will negotiate the details of any financial contributions with the EU. The food, drink and carbon market linking measures alone are set to add up to £9 billion a year to the UK economy by 2040 in a significant boost for growth. We aim to conclude negotiations on these areas by the time of the next summit.

The Government will introduce primary legislation later this year to ensure that we can deliver these agreements and that the benefits can be felt as soon as possible. It is important that Parliament has its say, so where we are making commitments to introduce new laws, Parliament will, as always, play its role in scrutinising the legislation that implements those commitments—I think we have many hours in your Lordships’ House ahead of us. The precise timing and details of legislative agreements are naturally subject to the course of more detailed negotiations that are taking place. We look forward to working with Parliament on the exact arrangements for scrutiny of the legislation as negotiations continue.

Noble Lords will appreciate that we cannot talk about the European Union and our relationships with it without touching on the Windsor Framework—something I feel somewhat informed about by many Members of your Lordships’ House. I enjoy being educated about this issue. I reiterate that we are committed to implementing the Windsor Framework in good faith and protecting the UK internal market. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Murphy for his comprehensive review of the Windsor Framework and thank him for reminding us of the impact on Northern Ireland. I reassure him that I hope we will act speedily on the SPS agreement and the other recommendations in his report.

The insights provided by my noble friend are the direct result of his personal investment in the process and his extensive outreach to groups and individuals across the board. While the issues around making this work are incredibly charged in Northern Ireland and here, all noble Lords, especially the noble Lords, Lord Dodds and Lord Empey, have constructively engaged to make sure that we can get a way through.

I move to some of the specifics raised. The noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, asked me about the UK cohesion payments to the EU. We accept the principle that, when the UK participates in an EU instrument, programme or other activity, we should make a fair financial contribution to its budget to cover the costs of our participation. In December, the European Commission set out a proposal to the European Council to open negotiations with the UK on the financial contribution of the UK towards reducing economic and social disparities between regions of the union. This does not represent a proposal by the Government and the details of any contribution would be subject to negotiation.

My noble friend Lady Ashton and others touched on law enforcement and judicial co-operation. The summit package aims to strengthen our law enforcement and judicial co-operation capabilities, making our streets safer and ensuring that criminals are brought to justice. It will support our police officers and help enhance our intelligence and investigative capabilities against murderers, rapists and drug smugglers, including via facial imagery. It will also help ensure that investigations are equipped with the full facts of a suspect’s criminal history and that those are fully utilised to protect UK citizens from harm.

The noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked about the second-generation Schengen Information System, SIS II. At the May 2025 UK-EU summit, we were pleased to agree a package which enabled further work to be undertaken with the EU to strengthen our law enforcement through new data exchange capabilities. The Government committed in their manifesto to ensure access to real-time intelligence. While at the UK-EU summit it was not possible to secure references to real-time, reciprocal alert sharing for border security and law enforcement processes, the summit represented an opportunity to further strengthen our capabilities, co-operation and relationship.

Many Members of your Lordships’ House, but specifically the noble Lord, Lord Jay, touched on defence spending—a subject that I, as an honorary captain of the Royal Navy, am particularly exercised about too. As the PM said in his Munich speech:

“To meet the wider threat, it is clear that we are going to have to spend more faster”.


We have shown our collective intent in this regard with the historic agreement to increase spending to 5% on security and defence. Noble Lords have had and will continue to have the opportunity to discuss that with my noble friend Lord Coaker on many future occasions.

On the White Paper—a genuine issue raised by the noble Lords, Lord Jackson of Peterborough and Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finn—the Government’s manifesto on which we were elected was clear on our approach to resetting relations with the EU, including negotiating an SPS agreement to prevent unnecessary border checks and to help reduce pressure on prices. At the UK-EU summit in May last year, the Prime Minister announced a new strategic partnership with the EU, underpinned by the common understanding. The common understanding sets out an agenda in writing for strength and co-operation with the EU across safety, security and economic prosperity.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Warwick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, rightly asked about AI. We have had a number of good discussions with the EU on AI, including through the committees established under the trade and co-operation agreement, and are now in discussions with our EU partners about how we take forward further collaboration on AI and other digital issues. If the noble Baroness will indulge me, I will write to her on the specific questions at the end of her speech.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about training for civil servants. The FCDO has a dedicated team leading work to build Europe capability across government. We are keeping our learning offer under regular review to ensure that we are partnering and influencing the EU and European allies in the most effective way.

I was surprised by one of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, about free movement by the back door and how the European youth experience scheme could be regarded as such. To reassure her, the youth mobility arrangements are clearly not freedom of movement. They are based on strict control; they are subject to a visa requirement, capped and time limited. We already have agreements with 13 other countries, and no one has suggested that we have freedom of movement with them. Any scheme will be subject to an allotted number of places, and we have made it clear that this will be in line with the UK’s existing schemes with countries such as Australia and New Zealand. They will have limits on numbers and length of stay and will be subject to a visa application so that we can decide—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I evidently did not make myself clear. I did not say that the Government want free movement inwards, but, as I understand it, are asking for British citizens who go under the youth experience scheme to the continent to be able to move freely between different EU member states. That is free movement inside the EU for Brits, but it is not reciprocal, because we are only one country.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The scheme will have a cap and quota both ways. On fisheries, I will write to the noble Baroness about her specific point because I am aware that I am out of time.

There are a couple of important final points, if your Lordships’ House will indulge me. The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, may enjoy the comments of the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, in yesterday’s Telegraph about how the European Union feels about next steps. I advise him to read her op-ed. The noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and the noble Lord, Lord Barrow, asked me about European Union membership for Ukraine. That is a matter for EU members, and we are no longer one. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about the date of the next summit. We are in discussions with the EU on timings, but it will be this year.

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, for his suggestions in the defence space and, most importantly, for referencing one of my personal political heroes, Denis Healey. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, spoke about wider engagement across Europe with European politicians. I think it is fair to say that the Prime Minister has actively sought to engage in this space and to make sure that we have solid relationships. He has also been a strong advocate, at least throughout the time I have known him, for making sure that we all as parliamentarians engage with our sister parties across the European Union and beyond.

The noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, asked me about Erasmus beyond 2027. The scheme does not yet exist, which is why we have joined year one. We will review after year one whether we will have further issues. I will write to him on group passports. On the youth experience scheme, I cannot comment on the details of ongoing negotiations, but I am sure we will be discussing it at great length in your Lordships’ House when I can.

The Government remain committed to strengthening our strategic partnership with the European Union and delivering real results for the people of the UK while sticking to the red lines set out in our manifesto. As the committee notes in its report, strengthening the UK-EU strategic partnership is an ongoing process. The summit in 2025 was the first in a series of annual summits and, as the Prime Minister set out in his speech at the Munich Security Conference recently, we must look at what more we can do with the EU. I reassure noble Lords that although I understand that we have many different views in your Lordships’ House, I think the one thing that we all agree on, especially in such a volatile world, is that having positive relationships with our neighbours is a very good idea.

Crime and Policing Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 2nd February 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I would be grateful for clarification—

[Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)]

Order—that was an intervention.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

I have two questions for the noble and learned Baroness. Why does the noble and learned Baroness think 50 countries have found this not to be a problem? Abortion is decriminalised in virtually every country that has had abortion legislation since the 1967 Act. So, I am wondering why the noble and learned Baroness thinks that is a problem. My second question is: why does the noble and learned Baroness think that adding further complications, which the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, would, would make this any better?

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

You cannot have two interventions.

I do not know the answer to the first question. I have not looked at what goes on in other jurisdictions; I do not know how well it works or whether it works. Secondly, it seems to me that there should be a lot of changes to the way this is all dealt with. If the police investigated the man as well as the woman, one would hope they would not pursue their investigations.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, I am speaking to my amendment—

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords—

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

My Lords, it is Committee. Everyone can have a turn, as long as they stick to the speaking limits, so perhaps we could just take it around the Committee.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I would just be grateful, and I will be brief, to get a clarification—

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

Before the Government Whip sits down, could he please remind the Committee that interventions have to be brief and cannot go on into speeches? Can he also remind the Committee that those who have put their names to these amendments should be heard prior to those who have not?

[Lord Katz (Lab)]

First, there are no points of order in our self-regulating House. Secondly, the noble Baroness makes the point about interventions very ably. Thirdly, as I said, there is time for everyone in Committee to both move their amendments and speak to other amendments, so I suggest we just take it in a reasonable order. I will leave it to the Committee to decide who speaks next.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I will be brief—I would just be grateful for a clarification. I strongly believe in women’s rights, including reproductive rights, and I do not want women in distress subjected to criminal investigation, if at all avoidable. But I am struggling to understand why Clause 191 is considered not to amend the Abortion Act, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, among others, asserts. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Foster, said it would be “toothless” if Clause 191 is agreed.

If I have understood it properly, people other than the pregnant woman concerned would still be committing a criminal offence if they gave any kind of assistance. That is why it is considered that the Abortion Act 1967 is not in fact amended. The noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, referred to repealed abortion offences, so we seem to be relying on the fact that only the woman herself would be regarded as decriminalised. I am not generally happy about decriminalisation, such as in relation to drugs. I prefer dotting the “i”s and crossing the “t”s and having legalisation—or not.

Have I understood that correctly? Maybe it is only when we come to the Minister that I will get full clarification as to whether or not we are amending the Abortion Act 1967, which I broadly support, even though it is a compromise. I have never supported the simple but simplistic “a woman’s right to choose”, because there are other considerations. I support the Abortion Act as a compromise on a difficult subject, as I think many people do, but I seek clarification that the Abortion Act is not being amended and that we would simply decriminalise the woman concerned while supposedly leaving the rest of the Abortion Act as it is.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

What our amendment does is disapply the Abortion Act so far as the mother and late-term abortions are concerned.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Then I am not terribly attracted by the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham. I am rather more attracted by that of the noble Lord, Lord Verdirame, although I have heard the criticisms of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about that.

[Lord Pannick (CB)]

Can I assist the noble Baroness? Clause 191 is perfectly clear in that no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy. It simply does not affect the criminal offences that are committed by any person, whether a doctor or otherwise, who assists a woman. There are precedents for that distinction in the Suicide Act 1961. The act of suicide is lawful, but it is unlawful to assist.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

I do grasp that point, although I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for assisting me. In a broader sense, can it be relied on that Clause 191 would not have a wash effect over the Abortion Act 1967, which has been subjected to various attempts at amendment but has largely held the course since 1967? I understand all the very good reasons for it, but how we can be sure that this decriminalisation of the woman concerned would not ultimately lead to an amendment of the Abortion Act 1967.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Verdirame has explained, my noble friend Lady Wolf cannot be here today, so I will pick up some of her points in this intervention as she is not here to make them herself. If we want to change the law, many say that Clause 191 will improve the situation for women’s bodily autonomy. I am all for that, but only after a considered debate, which we had in the past when we amended the Abortion Act 1967 to bring it into conformity with changing medical science and social attitudes. It is not as though we are stuck in aspic. This Bill is not the place to do so, as the breadth of amendments that this clause has attracted demonstrates.

I will concentrate mainly on the Covid-era regulations which permitted the obtaining of pills by post at any point of gestation, whereas previously, later stages required face-to-face consultation between the pregnant woman and doctors under the Abortion Act. This may have been necessary during lockdown, and it is a failure on the part of the then Government not to have contemplated a review after lockdown ended. As things stand, Clause 191 will facilitate changes where decriminalisation of late-stage and full-term abortions may well create additional dangers to women’s health, as pointed out at Second Reading by numerous noble Lords. It will also open the door to coerce women to seek late-term abortions against their own wishes. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, is not in her seat, but I think that is the point that she was trying to get to in her intervention.

If there is no sanction in law, what reason can one give a controlling partner who insists that it is perfectly permissible in law? Decriminalisation suggests that there is nothing to prevent the woman from aborting late-term through the convenience of pills by post, virtually no questions asked. So you have the perverse effect that, alongside the certainty of greater autonomy for women, we may well see the risk of coercive control and deception. I am sure that is not what the movers of this amendment in the other place sought.

My noble friend Lady Wolf made the point that while home-based abortions have become common, they normally use two drugs in the form of pills: mifepristone, which blocks progesterone, needed in pregnancy, but does not kill the foetus; and misoprostol, which basically causes cramping, bleeding and the emptying of the uterus. If taken early in pregnancy, the result is the same as an early miscarriage, in effect, and in England and Wales it is allowable for abortions up to 10 weeks of gestation.

The pills are advertised as simple to use and as creating early miscarriages with bleeding and perhaps some bits of tissue. So the descriptions are reassuring and encouraging. However, the reality may be very different and life-threatening to the woman, who, whatever her reasons for wishing to terminate the pregnancy, may not appreciate the complications. Pills by post do not require further safeguards than those put into place by the 1967 Act other than a phone or virtual call, which is the least satisfactory method of ascertaining stress, emotional distress or, indeed, coercive pressure.

I want to share with the Committee some examples of emotional pressure. Noble Lords may be aware of the case of Stuart Worby in December 2024. I am grateful to the prosecuting counsel, Edmund Vickers KC of Red Lion Chambers, for giving me some background information to this case. I should add, before I say anything further, that the victim is subject to lifelong anonymity.

In December 2024 the judge summed up the details of the case. A central aspect was that the victim married the defendant after the commencement of the pregnancy. He wished to terminate the pregnancy, but she wished to keep her baby, with or without him. He set about securing the termination without her knowledge and used a female friend to obtain abortive drugs from an online private clinic. The judge pointed out that he must have known that this was dangerous for his wife, as he knew she was many weeks past the time limit to use the drugs safely.

When Mr Worby received the drugs, he first added mifepristone to food and drink. The next day he told the victim that he wanted to try something sexually new in bed, which involved blindfolding her and tying her up. The real purpose was to insert the second type of medication, misoprostol, into her vagina. Shortly after he had done that, she became unwell, and the next day she suffered a miscarriage, losing the baby that she so badly yearned for. The judge’s remarks explained that the offence of administering poison to bring about a miscarriage was made more serious by Mr Worby’s prolonged research and planning over many weeks, by his involving others, by bringing about a miscarriage, and by the devastating effect it had on his then wife’s dream of having a child.

This sorry tale attempts to demonstrate that it is not only, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, the woman who may wish to terminate her pregnancy or the unborn child. There is a further factor here: the partner, the husband or other members of the family who may seek coercion.

Office for National Statistics

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 10th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, Ministers are clear that we expect people to be in the office 60% of the time, at least. The new ONS leadership is working with unions to resolve this dispute. One of the issues that was highlighted in both the Lievesley and Devereux reviews was culture. It is very hard to effect cultural change if people are not in the office.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, what progress have the Government made in implementing the report of the Sullivan review, which recommended collection of data by sex?

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

My Lords, the Sullivan review has been published and has been shared with all relevant government departments to ensure that it informs their thinking.

Northern Ireland Protocol Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 31st October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)]

I shall speak very briefly because this amendment gives rise to many of the same debates that we have already had this evening. We have tabled Amendments 12 and 15, which would prevent

“the delegated powers in Clause 9 from being used unless a draft of the instrument, a report of a relevant consultation exercise, and an appropriate economic impact assessment have been laid before Parliament.”

The Government say that Clause 9 is needed because the policy is not yet developed. We are worried about this, so these amendments would act as a safeguard by preventing the power being used unless the conditions in the amendment are met. We think Northern Ireland businesses would be better served if our amendment were to be accepted, notwithstanding all our previous comments on our approach to the Bill more generally. Businesses were telling us—I am sure other noble Lords have heard the same—that they want and need stability, predictability and security. I do not think this will be delivered by the Bill; it comes only through negotiation. We must amend the Bill; it is what we are here to do this evening. We have made this suggestion because we think it would be particularly helpful to the business community to have more of a say and to get more clarity from the Government on what they might intend to do.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I support these two amendments, but they are not even contesting the making of regulations or asking for substance or content; they just require a process for making the regulations. As my noble friend Lord Purvis said in the debate on the previous group, there is nothing in the Bill on consultation. Assuming that Clause 9 remains—which we hope it does not—this amendment is trying to put some meat on the bones that should probably already exist. The Government said in the delegated powers memorandum that the regulations under this clause would

“need to reflect the results of consultation with businesses”.

The problem is that this clause provides for no such consultation. Our Delegated Powers Committee commented:

“This is the frankest admission by the Government that policy is so embryonic that it has not yet been consulted on.”


The committee’s comment on Clause 5 is also pertinent and relevant:

“Ministers are said to need flexibility, but the reality is that policy has not yet been formulated … the Government could have formulated their policy, consulted on it, refined it (if necessary) and then brought forward legislation with the details filled in. This would have facilitated meaningful parliamentary debate.”


Yet, the Delegated Powers Committee went on,

“Parliament is being presented with a major Bill on the subject. Legislation has preceded policy development rather than vice versa”.

I think I may be repeating what my noble friend has already quoted.

Amendment 15 therefore contains reasonable and sensible conditions for a draft of any proposed SI—for a report on consultations with business and an economic assessment to be laid. I suggest that the Government will, or ought to, have some difficulty in finding arguments to resist these amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I want to bring the focus back to Article 2. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, said that this Bill is modest but the problem is that the law of unintended consequences could come into play here.

My noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed coined the phrase “Rumsfeld clauses”. I do not want to detract from his trademark on that phrase—he will kill me—but, as concerns Article 2, the Bill shows some evidence of having been written on the back of an envelope. Concerns about human rights and equality have been at the heart of the conflict in Northern Ireland, so those concerns were central to the Good Friday agreement.

Thus Article 2 of the protocol, ensuring a non-diminution of the wide range of rights set out in the Good Friday agreement, is a key clause. However, there are worrying implications of the Bill for human rights and equality protections, which are in danger of being overlooked. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland point out that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill make no reference to any consideration having been given to compliance with Article 2 of the protocol. Those two commissions have previously recommended that this should be the case regarding all relevant legislation. I understand that the Leader of the House of Commons, the right honourable Penny Mordaunt, is talking about draft guidance to Bill teams on this matter. This is in response to concerns that have been raised for quite a few months now by various committees, such as the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Women and Equalities Committee in the other place, the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I have the pleasure to sit, and our own Northern Ireland Protocol Sub-Committee. They have all raised concerns about compliance with Article 2 of the protocol.

The Government gave assurances about their commitment to Article 2, and it is true that this article gets a degree of protection under the Bill; for instance, that Clause 15 does not permit Ministers to make regulations defining Article 2 among “excluded provisions”. However, even Clause 15 needs completion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, pointed out. The logic of protection of Article 2 is far from fully reflected in other clauses of the Bill. Hence these amendments—and I support all those tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, not just the two I have co-signed—propose a strengthening of Clauses 9, 10, 13 to 15 and 20.

This Government do not like the European Court of Justice, but its role is essential at various points in relation to Article 2. That article includes a commitment to keep pace with EU laws, as the noble Baroness pointed out, with EU law developments falling within the scope of the six equality directives listed in Annexe 1 to the protocol. As these directives are updated or replaced under the normal process of EU legislation, the UK Government are committed to ensuring that domestic legislation in Northern Ireland reflects any substantive enhancements in relevant protections. There are also other relevant EU laws beyond the six equality directives that underpin rights in the Good Friday agreement, such as the victims’ directive, the parental leave directive, and the pregnant workers’ directive.

The Government are committed to ensuring that there will be no diminution of protections as contained in relevant EU law on 31 December 2020. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland have acquired additional powers to oversee the Government’s commitment under Article 2. However, it is essential that Clause 20, which removes the binding nature of judgments of the European Court of Justice, is amended to ensure that the dynamic alignments—the keeping pace—guaranteed under the protocol for citizens’ rights in Northern Ireland can be delivered. The same applies to Clause 13.

The UK-EU joint committee supervises the implementation of the withdrawal agreement, but where there is a dispute regarding the interpretation of EU law which the joint committee or the arbitration panel cannot resolve, then under Article 174 of the withdrawal agreement, the ECJ must be asked to give a binding interpretation. This needs to be recognised and incorporated in Clause 13.

I mentioned Clause 15. The remaining problem there is that it does not prevent Article 14(c) of the protocol, which provides for the UK-EU specialised committee to consider matters brought to its attention by the two commissions in Northern Ireland—human rights and equalities—from becoming excluded provision by sort of oversight. The same applies to the lack of protection of the protocol’s Article 15, which provides for a joint consultative working group on the effective operation of Article 2.

The other amendments in this group raise similar and related issues. For reasons of time, I will not dwell on them. I am sure that noble Lords get the drift. One is left to conclude that there was either a lack of thorough preparation on the Bill—hence my quip about the back of an envelope—or a disturbingly cavalier disregard for Article 2 of the protocol. I am not sure which is worse. Neither is excusable, but I hope the Minister can tell me that the Government will take away especially all those excellent, very dense and precise questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. Quite honestly, what is in the Bill at the moment is not remotely satisfactory to honour and safeguard Article 2 of the protocol.

[Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)]

My Lords, these amendments relate to Article 2 of the protocol. However, it is clear that Articles 1 and 2 subject that protocol to the prior treaty, the Belfast agreement. That is the fundamental point that must not be overlooked. There is merit in examining in detail what, for instance, Article 2(1) says, because it lends weight to arguments that we have advanced on our side and that have been advanced very eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. Article 2(1) specifically places an act of duty on the UK Government. That duty is as follows:

“The United Kingdom shall ensure no diminution of rights, safeguards and equality of opportunity as set out in that part of the 1998 Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity results from its withdrawal from the Union”.


However, the operation of the protocol, as it is currently being operated and is designed to operate, is diminishing the rights set out in

“that part of the … Agreement entitled Rights, Safeguards and Equality of Opportunity”

and in the Belfast agreement, which sets out

“the right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

That applies right across the whole remit of lawmaking in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Up until 31 December 2020, the people of Northern Ireland were represented in all the lawmaking to which they were subject.

However, since then, more and more laws are being applied that have been developed by the European Union, in which Northern Ireland representatives have absolutely no representation whatever. It is helpful that we are looking at Article 2. The operation of the protocol is therefore actively diminishing the Belfast agreement’s

“right to pursue democratically national and political aspirations”.

People in Northern Ireland can currently not do that—by standing for election or electing someone to the relevant legislature, whether here at Westminster or at Stormont—because they cannot make any laws. They have no say in any laws to which the people of Northern Ireland are subject in over 300 areas, hence the need for the Bill, which will return lawmaking powers for goods destined for Northern Ireland to a legislature within the United Kingdom.

I have listened to the outrage—as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, described it very well—that has been expressed about the powers that will be taken by Ministers. However, there seems to be little or no outrage felt at all about the absolute lack of any democracy whatever when it comes to whole swathes of laws over the economy in Northern Ireland. Never mind giving the powers to Ministers, or bringing forward regulations or statutory instruments capable not of being amended but at least of some scrutiny in a United Kingdom legislature—these are laws being brought forward on a dynamic basis, aligning Northern Ireland to EU law, different from UK law in many cases, with no scrutiny, say, vote, or anything else by anyone elected in Northern Ireland.

Where is the outrage about that? Where are the fulsome expressions of how this is a travesty of democracy, the like of which has not been seen—I cannot count any kind of precedents for it. The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to the idea of a stool that has legs being cut off it. It reminds me of the description of the Belfast agreement as amended by the St Andrews agreement: a three-legged stool, with strands 1, 2 and 3; strand 1 being the internal affairs of Northern Ireland, the Assembly and so on; strand 2 being north-south; and strand 3 being east-west. When you interfere and cut the leg of the east-west relationship, which is what has happened as a result of the protocol, and you also interfere with the cross-community voting mechanisms of the Assembly itself in order to undermine any kind of unionist opposition to the protocol, you are cutting away at the legs of the Belfast agreement as amended by St Andrews. That is the reality, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, we need to focus on the fundamental problem, which is that the Belfast agreement is being undermined by the protocol. Until it is sorted out, there will not be proper functioning of that agreement.

Northern Ireland

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Caine (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, raises a number of very important points, many of which are subject to a legal case currently before the Court of Appeal in Belfast, so it would not be appropriate for me to comment in detail on a number of his points. He referred to Northern Ireland’s position within the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is very much a part of the United Kingdom, something which this Government strongly support and I personally passionately support.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, when will the Government prioritise getting a so-called SPS or veterinary agreement, which would remove a lot of the checks on food and agricultural products crossing from Great Britain into Northern Ireland? Are they not doing so because they want to keep open the option of allowing hormone-treated beef and chlorine-washed chickens into this country?

European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Report stage & Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords & Report: 1st sitting
Monday 20th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barwell (Con)]

My Lords, I had not planned to take part in this debate, but I wish to make three brief points. First, in response to my noble friend Lord Bowness, it is very clear what the Government seek to negotiate in this next phase of the negotiations; it is set out in the political declaration. For example, in relation to level playing field provisions, the political declaration goes into quite some detail about the kinds of level playing field provisions that will be required as part of the future trading relationship.

Where I certainly have sympathy with the proposers of this amendment is that, of course, it is important that Parliament has the ability to hold the Government to account as these negotiations progress, but there is no doubt at all in the other place that that will happen. If the Government do not voluntarily come forward after major moments in the negotiating process and offer a Statement, I suspect the Speaker in the other place will grant Urgent Questions; there will be accountability.

The arguments about setting out in detail the negotiating objectives in public and having them approved by Parliament are balanced on either side. There is a case to be made that getting broad-based parliamentary support for certain negotiating positions, beyond just the Government’s majority in the other place, may strengthen the hands of Ministers in those negotiations. It is certainly my experience that the Article 50 team on behalf of the European Union often referred to the fact that the European Council had endorsed the negotiating mandate it was pursuing, and that therefore its room for manoeuvre was limited. On the other hand—I think my noble friend Lord Bridges alluded to this—if at the outset both sides set out in detail what their positions are and there is no common ground, there is a danger of driving these negotiations into a bad place. Indeed, in my maiden speech in this place last week, my one lesson to the European Union from what happened in the first phase of these negotiations was that, while it may feel tempted to repeat the trick —it may feel that it worked well to set out its negotiating position in detail and that it got most of what it wanted —if it repeats that trick this time and in February publishes a detailed negotiating mandate that rules out lots of the options, there is a real danger that any possibility of a compromise will be eliminated.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

The noble Lord talked first about the amendment requiring Parliament to approve the negotiating objectives. I think that has changed; it is not in the current version at this stage but was in the Committee stage version.

Secondly, he said it is very clear what the objectives are because the political declaration sets out the level playing field provisions. The problem is that the Chancellor, in a very prominent interview at the weekend, completely threw that aside and said we will not have any level playing field provisions or converge at all; we will completely diverge. So what is the Government’s position? Is it what is in the political declaration or what the Chancellor has said? Surely the noble Lord can understand the puzzlement, the bewilderment—I am sure it shared by some on his Benches—as to what the Government’s policy is. This is why we want to see the colour of their money. What are the negotiating objectives? Are they what is in the political declaration or what the Chancellor is saying in an interview to the FT?

[Lord Barwell]

It is not for me to speak for the Government, not least because I do not sit on the Government Front Bench. Indeed, noble Lords who have followed the debate closely will know that I do not entirely agree with the position that the Chancellor set out; the previous Government believed that there was a case for aligning with certain EU rules and regulations. But, having said those things, I do not think that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done what the noble Baroness suggests. If one looks at the slides that the European Commission has published on the level playing field, one will see that, on the vast majority of issues, it is not suggesting that dynamic alignment is required; it is effectively asking for non-regression from existing commitments. There are some areas where there may well be a problem in the negotiation, particularly state aid—I read what it has said as looking for an ongoing commitment to align with EU state aid rules—but I certainly do not think the Chancellor has gone as far as the noble Baroness suggests.

I was interested in remarks that several of your Lordships made: the Chancellor’s comments to the FT came as no surprise to me at all. That has been the clear policy of this Government from the point at which they were formed.

Brexit: UK-Irish Relations

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Tuesday 5th September 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jay, for leading this important debate and in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, a speedy recovery. Like many people in Britain, I have a part-Irish heritage. I have not yet pursued an application for an Irish passport, to which I believe my mother’s birth in Dublin in principle entitles me, but I have not ruled it out. Therefore, even for me, let alone for people in Ireland and Northern Ireland, there is a personal dimension to the sundering of our common membership of the EU. That common membership reflected at a political level the cultural and personal family links that we in these islands enjoy.

The Government’s position paper rightly says that issues of identity go to the heart of divisions in Northern Ireland but, as the report points out, the loss of EU membership undermines the sense of an all-Ireland identity. It also undermines the enjoyment of multiple identities by many British and/or Irish and/or European people that many of us have been enabled to hold. As the noble Lord, Lord Bew, said, Brexit is indisputably disruptive for the island of Ireland. Indeed, it is arguably the most disruptive consequence of Brexit and, as other noble Lords have observed, it was shockingly neglected in the referendum. As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said, we are at best engaged in a damage limitation exercise. The advantage of shared EU engagement has been to allow a certain blurring of identities and allegiances in the supportive framework of a bigger European whole. It undoubtedly facilitated the Good Friday agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, and it helped to achieve that delicate equilibrium, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Jay. The noble Baroness, Lady O’Loan, spoke movingly of the achievement of peace and of the continuing divisions in Northern Ireland.

When I first went to work in Brussels 40 years ago this month as a stagiere in the jargon—an intern—I had a lot of Irish friends, and there was sometimes a slightly chippy, although cheerful, attitude to Brits. The ensuing decades have enabled the relationship to relax and mature so that, as the outgoing Irish ambassador Dan Mulhall said, it is the best ever. I was puzzled by the confirmation by the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, of something that my noble friend Lady Suttie mentioned: that some people are seriously suggesting that Ireland should follow the UK in exiting the EU. I find that really quite arrogant as well as totally unrealistic. The Republic of Ireland no longer clings to the UK’s coat-tails, and the idea suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, of a customs union between the UK and Ireland suffers from the same delusion that Ireland wants to sever itself from the EU. As the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, said, the UK does itself no favours by failing to recognise and respect the integrity of the EU.

There are many cart-and-horse problems on the movement of people and goods. For instance, the Government want an agreement on protecting and upholding the common travel area to be concluded at an early stage, while wider questions on the future operation of UK border and immigration controls on EEA nationals can be addressed only as part of the future relationship, and indeed once UK immigration policy, on which the Guardian appears to have obtained a leaked document today, is settled—so which comes first, the cart or the horse? As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, that issue is probably more soluble than the movement of goods.

The Government want to avoid a hard border, as we all do, but their dogmatic insistence on ruling out the customs union and the single market in the long term means that proposals that could charitably be described as innovative, less charitably as fantasy or pie in the sky, and by the Secretary of State himself—as we have had occasion to observe already today—as “blue-sky thinking” show no practical reality. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, they were “breathtakingly short” on detail. My noble friend Lady Suttie said there is a lot of “wishful thinking” and “crossed” fingers. We are no more enlightened, nine months after the report, on the concrete solution on the free movement of goods outside the customs union and the single market.

The Government expect, in regard to goods,

“waivers from security and safety declarations, and ensuring there is no requirement for product standards checks or intellectual property rights checks at the border”.

I have not worked out how that is meant to work outside a single market. The Government propose regulatory equivalence in the agri-food area and cite the Swiss example. But my understanding is that Switzerland simply adopts and applies the EU sanitary and phytosanitary regime. That would mean, presumably, having to keep up with it as it evolves, not statically adopting it on day one. Is that what the Government intend to do?

As the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, stressed, continued access to justice and home affairs co-operation, such as through the EU databases—the SIS II database particularly—and the ability to make use of the European arrest warrant, is vital to avoid undermining the fight against terrorism and crime. How will the Government avoid going back to government decisions as opposed to judicial decisions on extradition, which caused so many problems in the past? I think everyone has been glad it is judges who decide these things—it takes a lot of heat out of the situation. How are we going to manage in that area?

To conclude, all speakers in this debate—I am no exception—want to avoid rolling the clock back in Ireland. But the Government have so far not adequately supplied answers to how that can be done, certainly outside the customs union and the single market.