Lord Frost (Non-Afl)

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised the question of Europe, because it probably will not surprise those listening to learn that I intend to say a word about that, too. I intend to say a word about it not just because I am deeply interested in it but because the new Government, the Prime Minister and his Ministers do not seem to have said a huge amount about this subject, either in the Prime Minister’s Statement earlier this week or in PMQs. Policy has swung around a bit. We heard during the Makerfield by-election that the PM wants to rejoin, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, hopes that that will be the outcome of this rethink one day. Since then, the Government have retreated from it. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House yesterday said: “We are not going to rerun the argument on Brexit in the near future”.—[Official Report, 2/9/26; col. 180.] I suppose that leaves open the question of what “in the near future” actually means. There seems a degree of uncertainty. On the one hand, the Government are claiming, as we just heard, that Brexit caused damage, and the Prime Minister said that too. Yet, at the same time, they are using and talking up the benefits of leaving the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said yesterday, the Government are cutting VAT, which would not have been possible in the European Union, and the new Trade Minister, who gave an excellent maiden speech—I say that even though he is not in his place now—was out earlier this week celebrating accession to the CPTPP as a fantastic new opportunity for British business. Of course, none of that would be happening if we had not left the European Union. So, I am left a bit uncertain, I must admit, as to how the EU really fits into the hierarchy of priorities for the new Government. We have a new Minister in charge of the negotiations. What are we supposed to read into that? All this uncertainty means it is sometimes a little unclear what is meant by comments on the reset. For example, the PM said this week that the country needs a good deal for farming. What does that mean? I thought there already was a deal for farming—it was announced in the summit last year. Does that mean he is doubtful about this deal? Is he uncertain that some of the protections—the carve-outs—that are needed will be secured in the negotiations? We simply do not know any of this, and that is the problem. It is well beyond time for the Government to give a proper account of where things stand. The summit was over a year ago now, and each time there is an event or meeting in Brussels, it seems that the Government give away something, whether it is joining the ETS or the single electricity market. We learned this spring that concessions on student fees are in play, the nature of the youth mobility scheme, and so on. It is not clear what we are getting back from any of this. I can tell you from my experience that the much-vaunted eGate access has not yet been delivered. Perhaps other noble Lords have had the same experience this summer. Arguably, the situation for British travellers is worse than it was a year ago. The Government need to come clean about where things stand in this rather amateurish, Keystone Cops-style negotiation. We do not need a running commentary, but we do need a Statement on what the Government are trying to achieve. Will the Minister ask his ministerial colleagues to come to this House, or to the other place, and tell us what their approach to this negotiation is? What are they trying to do? Where are they trying to get to? Meanwhile, will the Government stop being pushed around and start standing up for the people and businesses of this country?