UK-EU Relations
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Before I start, I will say that, while the timing was eventually agreed in the usual channels, it does not really do for your Lordships’ House to hear a Statement seven days after it was given in another place. This House is Parliament, too, and the clear constitutional principle is that if, for their own advantage, the Executive—any Executive—wish to use Parliament as a platform for their policies, their Ministers must, without equivocation, be promptly and fully accountable to both Houses. We may not agree about policies, but Parliament requires prompt answers and a seven-day wait is not good enough for this House and should not become the standard. I must make clear to the House that that is nothing whatever to do with the noble Baroness opposite, who is always open and available to the House.
The Prime Minister is very fond of words beginning with “re”: reset, review, relaunch—what ever happened to that?—and now we are actually hearing “reshuffle”. Those of us on this side remember those dread briefings in the press and we have every sympathy with those on the Front Bench opposite, who try hard to serve this House and who are now reading this kind of spin themselves. I do not get very often to the Dispatch Box now, so let me say, as Leader of the Opposition and on behalf of the Opposition, how much we appreciate noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite in the difficult job that they do.
I shall start on one point of agreement. This House is absolutely united in wanting good relations with our European friends and allies. It was in fact our Government who organised the summit of European leaders at Blenheim Palace in July that the Prime Minister spun as his reset idea. The purpose of that summit was precisely to consider the challenges of illegal immigration and security that face our whole continent—welcome discussions that were carried on in Brussels. So, obviously, we have no quarrel with co-operation or sharing ideas.
However, on illegal immigration, were any specific undertakings secured in Brussels to combat this criminal trade? Did perhaps the Prime Minister meet Prime Minister Meloni and ask her about her initiatives to process would-be migrants offshore? Or rather, did he perhaps give Giorgia Meloni a copy of a lecture by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and warn Italy not to try to make her own laws? Will the noble Baroness guarantee that the reset will not result in any return to EU legal frameworks, such as jurisdiction of the ECJ in UK immigration or security policies?
We hear a lot in this Chamber, not least from the Leader, about the need to follow every dot and comma of the Labour manifesto. The Labour manifesto said:
“There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement”.
No freedom of movement: that is pretty clear. So can the noble Baroness clear up the conflicting statements about a new youth mobility agreement, as desirable as many may see that? Did the Home Secretary speak for the Government when she ruled that out?
On trade, can the Government deny that they are considering rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention on rules of origin? If not, how would this stand with their stated commitment to make a clean break from EU trade structures? Will the Government support amendments to the product metrology Bill in your Lordships’ House next week that would block powers to introduce dynamic alignment of regulations with the EU. If not, why not?
We support international co-operation on security. Now, I may be an old man, but on our continent I think that is called NATO. So does the noble Baroness agree that the UK’s defence commitments must be made through NATO, the world’s foremost security alliance, not through ad hoc European arrangements that risk compromising our interests that may or may not have been discussed in Brussels?
Specifically on security, did the Prime Minister discuss co-operation with the EU in the Indian Ocean against the Chinese challenge? Only last week, Russia announced an agreement to open a new naval base in Sudan. France has two naval bases in the Indian Ocean, in Mayotte and Réunion. Both of those are sovereign French territory—EU territory. When the UN suggested that France should give them up, France simply vetoed the resolution. That is what I call “ruthless pragmatism”. So will the Government scrap their foolish plan to give up the Chagos Islands and enter into full-throated security co-operation in the Indian Ocean with our allies, including France, as part of the EU? They might even be able to put the money saved on the deal into building new ships and creating British jobs.
The Statement says the PM told the EU to
“step up and project strength”.
What on earth did he mean by that? Did the langoustines jump from the plates as he pounded the table? President Trump says he wants to see 5% of GDP spent on defence. What percentage target on defence did the PM tell the EU would constitute “stepping up and projecting strength”? Will the noble Baroness please tell us?
We are and remain steadfast across this House in supporting the brave people of Ukraine, and I am glad that was reaffirmed in Brussels. There can be no peace without the consent of Ukraine. Yesterday, though, the US indicated that it did not envisage a practical place for membership of NATO for Ukraine. Can the noble Baroness tell us the UK’s Government’s reaction to that, please? It is important that we should know.
On AI, which is material to our security, the UK attended the summit convened by President Macron this month but refused to sign the declaration. Britain followed the United States and Vice-President Vance. We think the Government are right to preserve our freedom of action, but can the noble Baroness tell the House why the UK declined to sign the declaration?
The Statement is silent on fish. When we left the EU, there was a temporary arrangement to allow EU fishermen to adjust to changed circumstances. The brave fishing folk of the UK now expect full rights and full access to our own waters. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that they will get those fair deserts, or will fishing communities be treated in the same way as farming ones?
Finally, where will ruthless pragmatism place us in a battle, which we hope will not occur, between the EU and US on tariffs? Does the reset include co-ordinating policy on tariffs with the European Union or does it not? Will the noble Baroness please tell us?
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is an unexpected pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. He mentioned that he is infrequently at the Dispatch Box these days. That may explain why he perhaps took a little longer. If I go over the 10 minutes for Front-Bench questions, I hope the Minister will understand why.
Noble Lords
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
No, it is 10 minutes normally for questions and 10 minutes for the answers.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
It is 20 in total, including the answers. Anyway, we are all vehemently agreeing that it is 20 minutes in total. The convention I was always taught was that it is about 10 minutes for Front-Bench questions, and the response is about 10 minutes. I will carry on.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
I am now being told that I am time-wasting and that I have to speak up. I have never been told in your Lordships’ House that I need to speak up.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that bringing a Statement a week after it was given is not acceptable. In particular, the world has already changed so much in a week that the musings that have come from Washington, from Donald Trump and his Cabinet Ministers, raise serious concerns about Ukraine, which were discussed this morning. These Benches may agree with the Conservatives that NATO matters, but at the moment the people who are putting Ukraine at risk and not supporting Ukraine are our American allies in NATO. If they are not supporting Ukraine, we need to work far more closely with our European allies to make sure there is no agreement on the future of Ukraine without Ukraine, the UK and other European voices. Does the Minister agree?
Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I find that some aspects of the Statement might be welcome. Having co-operation and meetings is desirable. If we want to rebuild our relations with Europe, we need to have regular meetings. The Ministers, Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty, have had regular bilateral and multilateral meetings with our European partners. I declare an interest, wearing my academic hat: I am currently doing some work on the UK’s bilateral relations with the EU generally and with Germany in particular. The feedback we get is that these meetings are well-received by European partners, but what are they leading to?
As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we have a reset. We have been told we are not having a rewind, but what does that actually mean? There is little detail in the Statement and a brief reference to the meeting Minister Thomas-Symonds had with Maroš Šefčovič. It is almost impossible to scrutinise what is going on to hold the Government to account. Could the Minister perhaps talk to her colleagues in the other place to see whether a little more detail could be forthcoming? What does the reset mean?
Finally, if we are having a reset and ruthless pragmatism, could the Minister tell us what is meant by “ruthless pragmatism”? Under the new Labour Government, essentially, the approach was promiscuous bilateralism—to have bilateral relationships with as many European partners as possible in order to achieve effectively short-term goals. When the UK got what it wanted, it disappeared; reciprocity was absent. Do His Majesty’s Government understand the importance of reciprocity if we are to rebuild our relationships with Europe? Can ruthless pragmatism include an understanding of that? Does it also include the need to compromise—for example, with movement on a youth mobility scheme, which is not the same as free movement?
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for their comments. They raised a number of important issues, which I will attempt to address in the time remaining.
As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said last week, on 3 February
“the Prime Minister attended an informal retreat with the 27 EU leaders and Presidents von der Leyen and Costa. This marked a clear step forward for this Government’s reset of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He is the first British Prime Minister to join a meeting of European Council members since the UK left the EU”.
At the informal retreat, the Prime Minister
“discussed the common threats that the UK and the EU face, and the value that closer UK-EU co-operation on security and defence could bring. These were points that he also discussed earlier in the day, when he met the Secretary-General of NATO”.
The Prime Minister clearly outlined
“a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, including cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. He called on Europe to step up and project strength, to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put it in the strongest possible position this year”.
In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True, our support for Ukraine is unequivocal.
The Prime Minister also set out a strong case for European security and defence, an ambitious UK-EU security partnership and a deeper role for Europe within NATO. Our reset priorities are to protect the security and safety of UK nationals and the wider collective security of Europe, and to support growth through removing barriers to trade. Shortly after the retreat, we announced that the UK will welcome the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission to the UK for the first UK-EU summit, which will take place on Monday 19 May.
This Government have been clear that we are not hitting rewind on Brexit; we are hitting reset. As we made clear in our manifesto, we are not undoing Brexit. We are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, but we are looking to make Brexit work in a way even the leader of the Opposition has made clear that the previous Government failed to do. This is the spirit that we are taking into discussions with the EU as we approach the summit and beyond. This is not a zero-sum game, but a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting.
In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord True, on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, we are always looking at ways to reduce barriers to trade, within our clear red lines. Having a smooth trading relationship with European partners is essential to driving growth at home. This is one of the options we are open to looking at to reduce barriers. It is right and responsible that we are looking at it to determine what is in the UK’s national interest. However, we do not currently have plans to join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention.
On the question of youth mobility, as I made clear during the recent debate on this in your Lordships’ House, this Government recognise the value of schemes which give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures and work or study elsewhere. However, in response to the noble Lord’s point with regard to a prospective scheme on youth mobility in the EU, the Government have been clear that we do not have any plans for youth mobility schemes. However, we will look at any proposals from the EU on this and a range of other issues.
If I do not get the opportunity to respond to the other points that have been raised I will write. On AI, as we develop our approach to regulating AI, we recognise the need to engage with a range of international partners. This includes engaging with the EU, which is a key science and technology partner, as well as working alongside the EU and other partners in the G7, the OECD, the UN and other international fora. We take a very close interest, as noble Lords will be clear is appropriate, in how our largest trading partners are regulating in similar areas. We have regular exchanges with the EU on regulatory developments.
On Chagos, as noble Lords will be aware, the British Indian Ocean Territory deal is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK national security. This deal will protect the base on Diego Garcia and cement a UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come. It is a bit of a stretch to raise this in a debate on the EU reset, but I hope the noble Lord will be content with my response.
On the timing of this Statement, as the noble Lord opposite knows, Statements are scheduled and agreed through the usual channels. As the noble Lord will also know, the Opposition are requesting that every Statement is repeated in this House, which is creating pressures on scheduling. I understand from the Chief Whip that work is ongoing to improve this after the recess.
In conclusion, the Prime Minister made the point in Brussels that the world is very different from that in 2016 and even from that in 2024. A number of noble Lords have noted that the world is changing even on a week-by-week basis. In this time of uncertainty, this Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make our people safer and more prosperous. That is at the core of our national interest and will contribute to this Government’s ambitious plan for change. It is through a new partnership between the UK and the EU that we will deliver for the people of the United Kingdom and for people across the continent.
Europe: Youth Mobility
Baroness Smith of Newnham Excerpts(4 weeks ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate towards the end of this debate. Like other noble Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for introducing what is clearly a timely debate. As my noble friend Lady Featherstone has pointed out, there have been debates in the other place initiated by our honourable friends James MacCleary MP, who had a Private Member’s Bill about youth mobility, and Sarah Olney, the Member for Richmond Park, who had a debate on exactly the same topic yesterday.
On these Benches, we have a very clear sense that youth mobility matters. Unlike perhaps the other Benches, we are also absolutely united in believing that youth mobility matters as a way of strengthening our relations with our European partners. I am very glad that I am not having to summate either from the Official Opposition Front Bench or the Government Front Bench, because I suspect that both are a little more constrained by their party lines and in some cases by the fact that their Back Benches are so completely at odds over how far they believe youth mobility should be part of a wider package—or not.
It is always the convention to congratulate a new Peer on their maiden speech. As others have done today, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Moraes. His maiden speech was quite different from so many. It was not self-aggrandising in any way; it was one of the most humble speeches but one that also made very clear the important role that he played in the European Parliament and the role that he is going to play in your Lordships’ House. Not only is the noble Lord very welcome but his maiden speech is also one that we will all remember.
Youth mobility is hugely important but was dramatically reduced for young people when we left the European Union. The right reverend Prelate is right that today is not the day to rehearse the rights and wrongs of Brexit, but it is the time to think about what we can do to enhance the opportunities for our young people. I think I will be unique this afternoon in declaring an interest. Unlike my namesake, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, I clearly would not fit into any youth mobility scheme. I note that even the youngest Member of your Lordships’ House would be pushing it to participate in any proposed youth mobility scheme by the time His Majesty’s Government get around to agreeing to the idea if the cap is going to be the age of 30. My interests lie in the fact that I am a professor at Cambridge University and a non-executive director of BIMM University Limited, so I have higher education interests which obviously link to the mobility of young people.
Like that of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, my life was very much changed by the opportunity to travel when I was young. In my case, I went on a French exchange. It was exactly the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, described; many of us will have been to other countries on school exchanges. In those days, you did not get just a five-year passport for a child or a 10-year passport for an adult; you could have a one-year, temporary, paper passport. As I was so anxious about going, that is what I asked for—aged 14—just in case I did not really like being abroad or I felt that it was a bit too much and never wanted to go again. However, I found that going to another European country was empowering, and I am still close to the family that I exchanged with. It was an opportunity to learn modern foreign languages in a way that people find so much harder in the 2020s. Like other noble Lords, I think that we should consider ensuring that we have as many opportunities as possible for young people—ideally those between 18 and 30, as well as school groups and other individuals—to go to other European countries without going through excessive bureaucratic procedures.
A formal youth mobility scheme is clearly desirable. What it would look like is open for negotiation. We have heard today some anxiety that what the European Commission seems to be proposing might have too many constraints. However, surely the purpose of a negotiation is that each side says, “This is our starting point”, and then at a certain point, you find a compromise. The fact that the European Commission has put forward some ideas is clearly welcome.
What is less welcome—indeed, it is rather worrying—is the fact that His Majesty’s Government have been talking about a reset with the European Union. At one level, it sounds wonderful: that we need to rebuild our relations and trust. However, it leaves me, leading from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, having to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Frost. He talked about the reset being rather vague and said that, at the moment, we have no idea what it means. We know that the Foreign Secretary has been talking about closer co-operation in security and defence. If we listen to what is being said in Brussels or Berlin, there is clearly also an interest in the sense that, if the United Kingdom wants to build up a security and defence relationship with the European Union, youth mobility might be seen as part of a quid pro quo.
We understand that the Minister will not give us a running commentary and that she will clearly have been told that she has to read out the standard memo: that we are not going back into the customs union or the single market, and we are not rejoining the European Union—all the things that noble Lords know that Front-Bench Ministers are told to say. The mantra seems to be inevitable, almost regardless of the question. I do not expect her to say any of that, but can she say whether His Majesty’s Government are open to thinking about youth mobility? Will they listen to the calls from her noble friend Lord Moraes, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Llanfaes, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and others about the importance of youth mobility for our young people? As my noble friend Lady Featherstone pointed out, for UK citizens, the opportunity to study, to work and to travel is hugely important.
One of the words that has come up in this debate is “reciprocity”, but that is one of the things that is missing from the Turing scheme. However effective the scheme might be for outward mobility, what we lack is the idea that students will come back and study in the UK. We heard from certain noble Lords, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, that there may be a concern about migration figures. However, a youth mobility scheme is not about migration. This is time-limited, and if we are to be part of a negotiation, numbers could be limited, too. There are all sorts of ways in which a youth mobility scheme could be reciprocal. That would have benefits not just for our young people but for soft power.
Indeed, at Oral Questions this morning, if I noted correctly what the Minister said, she agreed that a youth mobility scheme is not a return to free movement. If that is indeed the Government’s position—the Minister is nodding—can she give us some hope that the Government might be open to a mobility scheme? It would strengthen UK soft power—like, I suspect, many noble Lords, I had not heard about the new soft power council that the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, told us about. If the Government are concerned about soft power, exchanges are one of the ways to help that. International higher education is one aspect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Malvern, pointed out the other day, in response to a question from me—except my question was not about international higher education, it was much more about exchanges.
What we have seen in the past is that international higher education, but also places such as Sandhurst or the Royal College of Defence Studies, gives the opportunity for people to come temporarily and they go back to their home countries with a better understanding of the United Kingdom, very often having exchanged with future leaders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, said, today’s young people are tomorrow’s leaders. Engaging in reciprocal exchanges gives our young people the opportunity to make contacts that will mean that we are better able to work with our partners, whether they are across the channel or the Atlantic, in the future.
There are many reasons why youth mobility is an important issue that should be considered on its own merits, in addition to being viewed as something that will help us foster stronger relations with the European Union. Does the Minister agree?