Baroness Lawlor (Con)

My Lords, it is always a challenge to follow a bishop, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is no exception. The Prime Minister says that a central aim of the new legislative programme is to strengthen security, the economy, energy and defence. The country is to be put at the heart of Europe to remove the barriers to growth under a European partnership Bill. European alliances are to be rebuilt, the Armed Forces strengthened and the UK is, he says, to stand strong with NATO. Noble Lords have referred today to the link between a strong economy and strong defence, to which I add a strong, tough diplomacy. The UK is a sovereign state, a member of the G7, historically a global trader and a staunch upholder of competitive markets and free trade, for which trade treaties remain, as the Minister reminded us this morning, a vital tool in the armoury of international relations. Sadly, this does not seem to have been followed up by this Government. In rebuilding alliances, the very costly one in, one out deal with France last August has resulted in the removal, by the end of April, of 605 people who arrived illegally on small boats, with France sending 581 people. It seems there is a lot of money for the current deal: £500 million, plus the £162 million top-up for the deport and detain scheme. Can the Minister let us know how this deal will make more value and whether it can be toughened up for this country? In respect of the wider EU, for this Government it seems there is no EU demand that is too much, no cost too high and no deal too punitive. Even Sir Keir Starmer’s three modest reset proposals—on mutual recognition of professional qualifications, an end to restrictions on UK touring artists, and a modest veterinary agreement—have all failed. The first two have got nowhere, so far, and instead of an agreement on the third we have a fully blown SPS deal, which is what the EU demanded, including long-term access to UK fisheries. There is also a negotiation in progress to open the borders of this country to tens of millions of the EU’s young people under 30. The EU has not shown the slightest flicker of willingness to consider the suggestion, proposed by David Lammy, of a financial services agreement based on mutual recognition of equivalent standards. Worse, trade with Britain’s global partners will suffer, as they signed up to trade with the UK under its own laws. Each party, as in the CPTPP deal, is to trade on the basis of mutual recognition of standards, scientifically assessed and with conformity assessment bodies, and without the uncertainties produced by dynamic alignment with EU law. As Professor David Collins has explained, this could leave the UK open to legal challenge internationally from trade partners. This week, the International Agreements Committee heard from a former chief trade negotiation adviser at the DBT. He said that the UK should look to the growing economies of Asia and the Middle East, including the GCC countries, and continue to work with the US on whatever opportunities presented themselves. Agreements are possible; the US remains our biggest single trade partner and, as the official added, the current Administration want to go where we want to go, for we share many similar aims in trade, but that cannot be expected from a future Democrat regime. Why should a country be held up by the slowest ship in the convoy rather than embrace its role as a global leader of free markets, competitive global trade and the rule of the common law, itself the most significant export?