European Union: Court of Justice

Question

15:07:00

Asked by

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether, in seeking a “reset” of relations with the European Union, they have considered accepting a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union.

My Lords, there has been no change in the jurisdiction of European Court of Justice rulings in relation to the United Kingdom. We are clear that we will not be rejoining the single market or the customs union or re-establishing freedom of movement.

I am not sure whether I want to thank the Minister for her Answer or just note it. I am disappointed that the Attorney-General is not answering this Question, because it is fundamental: we say we will never leave the European Court of Human Rights but, if we are to have a reset of our relations with the European Union, surely we must have a dispute resolution procedure, and the dispute resolution procedure of the European communities is the Court of Justice of the European Union. So how can the Government reconcile their stated intention of resetting relations with the European Union with their other intention of not accepting any foreign judge being able to judge whether we are keeping our side of whatever bargains we strike?

I hate to disappoint the noble Lord that he had to have me and not the Attorney-General; if he would like to talk to the Attorney-General, he is more than welcome to join me in the Not-Content Lobby this afternoon. With regard to the Question, we are quite clear: we are not giving a running commentary on this. We will always act in the national interest to secure what is best for Britain, including British businesses and citizens, while keeping to the red lines that were clearly outlined in our manifesto.

My Lords, what role does the European Court of Justice have in overseeing the Windsor Framework agreement and what steps will the Government take to improve access to that court by the Northern Ireland Government and Northern Ireland citizens?

My Lords, the negotiated deal in the Windsor Framework and the update, Safeguarding the Union, had a very clear role. We are doing everything we can to deliver on Safeguarding the Union; as colleagues will know, I work regularly with noble Lords from Northern Ireland to do that, as do the rest of my colleagues on the Front Bench. With regard to the role of the ECJ and associated courts, those are not specifically relevant to this, but I will update the House if I am wrong.

My Lords, I wonder why any third country would sign a trade agreement with us as long as we have passed part of our regulation to the control of a body that is beyond us and may in the future make all manner of decisions that are not foreseeable today.

I thank the noble Lord for his question and obviously appreciate his expertise in this area. Let me be clear that we have left the European Union. We continue to engage with the European Union as our largest trade partner—it represents £823 billion-worth of trade across the piece—and we will continue to work in the best interests of our nation.

My Lords, does the Minister share my scepticism about the judges of the ECJ? One’s definition of independent judges is unsackability, expertise, fearlessness and long tenure. Many ECJ judges are not even lawyers: in their past careers they were administrators. Their salaries run to something like €300,000, with lots of allowances. They have tenure for only six years and it is then dependent on their Government to reappoint them. That does not shed good light on their independence, because they will be so dependent on the good will of their Government to continue claiming that huge salary.

There are times when I get all the easy questions. I thank the noble Baroness for her question, but I have to disagree. I would never criticise the independence of any judiciary.

My Lords, is the Minister grateful that the Opposition keep raising the problems that have been created since Brexit? Have any of them contacted her to apologise for the mess they left?

I thank my noble friend for his question. I think we did have an apology from the current leader of the Opposition who, on 16 January, said: “We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU”. I think that is probably the closest we will get to an apology.

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, if we signed up to the ECJ again, as was the case under the previous Government, we would be, to some extent, moving towards reversing the referendum of 2016? Will she also confirm who was in government when we signed up to the Single European Act, to Maastricht and to the growth and stability pact? Which Government forced us into the exchange rate mechanism, which led the then Chancellor, who is sat in his place today, to lose 20 billion quid without even going near a betting shop?

I thank my noble friend for his question. He will appreciate that I was slightly too young for some of those agreements. But I am very aware of my history and appreciate that it was colleagues now on the Opposition Benches. We are very clear about where we stand in our relationships with the European Union. We will work to ensure that businesses and consumers are protected and that the best possible deal for Britain is delivered, while we work closely with people we consider to be friends and allies.

My Lords, I wonder whether noble Lords will allow me to say something about the ECJ. I used to attend its hearings on a regular basis. I listened to many judgments, not all of which I agreed with, but I am rather dismayed to hear it criticised. In the days when I went, the judges—particularly the British judge, I have to say, but also the other judges—were excellent. They gave excellent judgments, many of which benefited women, particularly in this country—myself included.

I thank the noble and learned Baroness for her question and for all the work she has done historically.

My Lords, I regularly hear from the Conservative Benches the idea that the worst thing we could ever do is to accept some sort of alignment of regulation with the European Union. I do recall, just before the Maastricht treaty, a publication by Chatham House on the extent to which British regulations, under pressure from exporting businesses, by and large followed the American lead and accepted American extraterritorial jurisdiction. Does the Minister think that is what the Conservatives want us all to do?

Thankfully, I have the pleasure of speaking for the Government, not the Opposition. With regard to our actions, we will do everything to protect British consumers. I want to be clear with noble Lords that, when we talk about standards and engagement, this Government will not support a race to the bottom on those issues.

My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the trade and co-operation agreement set up a number of committees that should meet regularly, particularly to iron out some of the problems that there might be. How often do these committees meet and how signed up to them are this Government in making sure that there is a dispute resolution mechanism available along those lines?

I will write to the noble Baroness with the details of the meeting dates, because I do not have them to hand, but I reassure noble Lords that, since this Government came to power, we have had nearly 70 ministerial-level meetings with our opposite numbers. That is in addition to the day-to-day official conversations and I know, from the conversations that I have been party to with regard to the Windsor Framework, that those conversations are regular: in fact, daily. This is all part of how we reset relations with our closest trading partner.

My Lords, could the Minister update us on the Government’s intentions with regard to sanitary and phytosanitary standards? We know that the current arrangements impose a huge burden on the food industry, which is our largest manufacturing sector. If, as she says, the Government wish to do what is best for British business and British people, surely we should align our sanitary and phytosanitary standards with the European Union.

The Government, as we were clear in our manifesto, are committed to pursuing an SPS agreement that could reduce trade friction and bring benefits to both the UK and the EU. The UK and the EU are like-minded partners with similarly high standards. We have been clear that an SPS agreement could boost trade and deliver benefits on both sides. I hope that reassures the noble Lord.

My Lords, as part of the discussions on the reset, will my noble friend the Minister, along with her ministerial colleagues, ensure that discussions take place about reducing the democratic deficit that is felt in Northern Ireland, and that public representatives—namely, MLAs—will be able to have at least observer status on the large number of committees between the UK and the EU as part of the TCA?

I thank my noble friend for her question. If she is happy to discuss this further, I would be happy to have a meeting with her to discuss how we might make it work.