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.