King’s Speech

Baroness Ludford Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, like others, I wish to speak about EU partnership, and I very much agree with the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Gill. As my Lib Dem group leader, my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed, said yesterday,

“it is a strategic priority that we make real progress for a reunion with our close allies in the customs union and single market, and then EU membership, which remains our long-term objective”.—[Official Report, 13/5/26; col. 17.]

The reason for this clear and ambitious Liberal Democrat aspiration is that it makes sense for both our security and our economy, so it is very hard-headed.

On the geopolitical and security aspects to be debated next Thursday, I repeat my own view, for what it is worth, that Prime Minister Starmer has done a good job on Ukraine and in placing the UK as a firm member of a security partnership in Europe, with maybe a new European security council. Thank goodness for that, given the dangerous and unpredictable state of the world, as others, including my noble friend Lord Strasburger, pointed out.

But in trade and economic affairs, progress is pretty slow, while the need is pressing. It is absurd for some to say that voters have to be stuck with a decision made a decade ago. It is a striking example of where the boldness that dissatisfied Labour voices are calling for is missing. Labour’s red lines, including on free movement, are not in the national interest. Free movement in Europe, especially now, with more prosperous economies in central and eastern Europe than there were 20 years ago, means much lower immigration than we had under Conservative Governments. We have opened the door to immigration from around the world.

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that the Brexit damage dwarfs the tiny benefits of any post-Brexit trade deals. We are familiar with the figures: Brexit has reduced our GDP by up to 8%—between 4% and 8%—which means a loss per capita of £3,700 and around £90 billion in foregone tax revenue. This is a Brexit black hole.

As far as I know, there are no specific proposals in the Government’s plans for easing of trade in services, but perhaps the Minister could correct me if I am wrong.

My noble friend Lord Strasburger rightly stressed the overlooked importance of the creative arts sector bashed by Brexit. The topic of services is also raised by the Law Society, which points out that the reset has so far failed to produce any proposals for legally binding arrangements to address services trade, such as legal services, for which the EU is a £3 billion market for the UK. It wants action on business mobility as well as youth mobility, and mutual recognition of professional qualifications. I would be interested to know whether there is anything in the pipeline on these and whether there is any prospect of progress on civil judicial co-operation, improving access to justice and consumer protection for British and EU citizens. We also need progress on police and criminal co-operation, as my noble friend Lord Fox said in opening. Civil legal alignment is very relevant to the economic debate we are having today.

Top of the list for a new deal with the EU is the food and drink trade, with the mouth-twisting sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. This would represent a significant improvement in slimming Brexit red tape by removing routine physical checks and the burden of certification, documentation and registration. I heard the chief vet on the radio—I think it was this morning, but it was a bit early—pointing out the importance of tackling threats of diseases, such as swine fever, which this SPS agreement could provide because the UK would get access to EU databases and intelligence that will aid detection.

It will be important not only for UK-EU trade but also for trade, particularly in agrifood, within the UK, as it will align the rules in GB and Northern Ireland and help to address the hesitation we have heard about on the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee of GB firms to do business with those in Northern Ireland. The removal of the “Not for EU” label through the interaction of the Windsor Framework and an SPS agreement will also be very helpful. I applaud the work that the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, who spoke earlier, did in his important review, and I am glad that the Government have accepted its recommendations.

The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, referred earlier to the work in Intertrade UK of the noble Baroness, Lady Foster. I know from my membership with her of the Northern Ireland Scrutiny Committee how well qualified she is for that vital work. Last night, I attended a reception at the Irish embassy for Trade NI, which brings together retail, hospitality and manufacturing businesses. Its document points out that, while all economies have been impacted by inflation, Northern Ireland businesses have had to absorb higher post-Brexit trading and logistics costs linked to the Windsor Framework, particularly those importing goods from Great Britain. One of its priorities is to mitigate supply chain and post-Brexit cost pressures, including certification and logistics burdens. However, an SPS agreement will still leave the customs declarations and VAT requirements that all UK exporters to the EU have to contend with—hence the value of what the Lib Dems are calling for in the immediate, which is a customs union with the EU, which, as my noble friend Lord Fox stressed, could turbocharge growth.

I think I heard the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, refer earlier to upholding British standards. The EU partnership Bill will provide a mechanism for the UK to dynamically align with EU law sector by sector: not only those already being worked on but perhaps other future deals. The upside here is free-flowing, frictionless trade. The downside is that we will have to take our instructions by fax from Brussels without having a say. I think anyone who has ever been involved in EU legislative decision-making, whether as an MEP like me or in the Council of Ministers, will find that hard to swallow. Despite the fashionable claim of decision-shaping, any British influence in contributing thoughts and suggestions will be modest. As the saying goes, if you are not at the table, you are probably on the menu.

I will accept that, while the UK has to make a start somewhere in reversing the disaster of Brexit, this undemocratic lack of a voice cannot last long: nor can Henry VIII powers. But, while it lasts, we have to strengthen UK influence in EU bodies, boosting the role and capacity of UKMis, our mission in Brussels, and relations with the European Parliament and its committees, as well as with the Commission the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, with input from business and civil society. We need to think carefully about how Parliament will be involved in this process. The other place needs to think about its arrangements, because it currently does not even have a European Committee.

Derogatory remarks have been made about regulation, but the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, made an excellent point about the effectiveness of EU enforcement. The only reason we have the Thames Tideway “super sewer” is that, with a push from the European Parliament following a petition from me 20 years ago, the Commission took infringement action and the Court of Justice ruled. Compare that with the feeble performance of Ofwat and the Environment Agency in allowing ongoing sewage discharges.

The King’s Speech yesterday referred to maintenance of stability. I hope we are going to get stable government going forward that is able to carry through an ambitious programme of EU reset.