King’s Speech

Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, it will probably come as no great surprise to the House that I have a slightly different view about Europe from my noble friend Lord Jackson, who spoke a little while ago. As the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Europe, I can think of few questions more central to the prospects for economic growth in this country than the state of our relationship with the European Union and how we choose to take it forward. I am therefore pleased that the King’s Speech includes legislation to ease the passage of future negotiations with European partners. The European partnership Bill deserves some support, but it will require very careful scrutiny to ensure that it delivers positive outcomes without engendering fresh divisions on this clearly still sensitive area.

The European Union remains, by a considerable distance, our largest trading partner. In 2024, exports of goods and services to the EU were worth some £358 billion. However, analysis suggests that, as a result of our leaving the union, by 2025 our GDP per head was between 6% and 8% lower than it otherwise would have been, with business investment lower by something in the order of 12% to 18%. In financial services alone, more than 440 firms have moved part of their operations from the United Kingdom to the European Union, taking with them assets of roughly £900 billion. That is shocking, as these are jobs and economic opportunities that we simply cannot afford to lose at a moment when national growth has recently been so anaemic.

In that context, I very much welcome the announcement on Monday that the Government intend to place Britain once more at the heart of Europe, and I assume that the proposed legislation will be designed to help that. But the admittedly positive rhetoric of this Government can be no substitute for tangible progress on so many of the opportunities that arose from last year’s UK-EU summit, following the welcome reset in those relations achieved by Rishi Sunak with the Windsor Framework. We are still waiting to see tangible results on a youth experience scheme, on a full sanitary and phytosanitary agreement for our farmers and food producers, on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and on a proper resolution to the challenges currently facing our touring artists and musicians. There are references to these matters in the proposed legislation, but time moves on and the Government must move further and faster if British businesses are to feel any meaningful relief from the costs and bureaucracy with which they have been saddled post Brexit.

This will of course require compromise on both sides. We must be honest with ourselves and with the public about the trade-offs required and what closer co-operation might entail in practice. The agreements being negotiated on sanitary and phytosanitary measures, on the linking of our emissions trading schemes, and on participation in the EU’s internal electricity market will all, by common agreement of both sides and as accepted by the Government in their proposals, require a measure of dynamic alignment with relevant EU rules. That is in principle a sensible course, provided it is undertaken with due regard to this country’s regulatory autonomy and the proper authority of our Parliament.

Of course, if we wish to benefit from a new partnership with our European neighbours and the considerable economic advantages attached to this, we also have to be prepared to make a fair contribution to the relevant EU budgets, as the Norwegians and the Swiss have done for many decades. We should be honest and up front with the electorate on that. But, equally, the Commission and the member states must also demonstrate a positive and pragmatic approach, and show willing to offer exceptions to dynamic alignment rules where it is sensible to do so. Importantly, as the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, alluded to, they must make changes at their end to effect the deregulation and reform that the EU itself patently requires at this time.

There remains, however, the question of how this should all be done. Any proposals to align ourselves with the European Union by way of Henry VIII powers, without this House having a full and ongoing say, are in my view simply wrong in principle. As the Supreme Court set out in the Miller litigation, leaving the European Union required the consent of Parliament. It is therefore only right that what are in my view welcome attempts to move closer to Europe should also be subjected to the fullest parliamentary scrutiny, with proper respect for our sovereignty. To be fair, the new proposals suggest parliamentary scrutiny at all stages, but the Minister must, even at this early stage, give clear assurances that this will include all proposals and both primary and secondary legislation.

However, even as we pursue these important opportunities, there are other and more immediate routes by which we can co-operate with our European partners for significant economic gain. We should now explore them without waiting for more legislation. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership is one such route. The UK is already part of this expanding platform, representing some 15% of global GDP, and the prospect of the European Union itself acceding to that agreement could give considerable opportunities for us all. As Mark Carney, the Prime Minister of Canada, rightly observed at the World Economic Forum earlier this year, it is incumbent upon the middle powers to act together, and there could be no more obvious expression of that principle than for the EU and the CPTPP to draw closer. This would allow us to rebuild our relationship with our fellow European democracies while harnessing the dynamism of the Indo-Pacific, and it would signal a profound shift in the architecture of world trade towards the interests of the middle powers. The two blocs should be encouraged to streamline the unnecessarily cumbersome accession process, our own having taken some eight years, and to prioritise long-term prosperity.

We are now facing serious geopolitical challenges and, as recent events have made clear, the era in which we could rely completely on our closest partner across the Atlantic for support has patently been put in doubt. Our security and economic prosperity now lie more directly with Europe. It falls to this Government to make sure that the forthcoming UK-EU summit is more than simply another exercise in warm words and offers of legislation at some point in the future. We must deliver the substantive reset that British businesses, British workers and the UK’s national interests urgently require, and we must deliver it quickly.