UK-EU Relations

Statement

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Thursday 6 February.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the UK’s relationship with the EU. On Monday, in Brussels, the Prime Minister attended an informal retreat with the 27 EU leaders and Presidents von der Leyen and Costa. This marked a clear step forward for this Government’s reset of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He is the first British Prime Minister to join a meeting of European Council members since the UK left the EU. The Prime Minister discussed the common threats that the UK and the EU face, and the value that closer UK-EU co-operation on security and defence could bring. These were points that he also discussed earlier in the day, when he met the Secretary-General of NATO.

With the EU’s 27 leaders, the Prime Minister outlined a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, including cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. He called on Europe to step up and project strength, to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put it in the strongest possible position this year. He set out a strong case for European security and defence: an ambitious UK-EU security partnership; a deeper role for Europe within NATO; the continued importance of small groups such as the Joint Expeditionary Force; together with a continent-wide increase in defence investment. The Prime Minister was clear that the UK would play its full part in European defence and was ready to work together with the EU.

On Tuesday, we announced that the UK will welcome the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission to the UK for the first UK-EU leaders’ summit, which will take place on Monday 19 May. This first summit will provide an opportunity to further strengthen the relationship between the UK and the EU, for the benefit of all our people.

On Tuesday, I attended the UK-EU forum in Brussels to discuss the shared challenges and opportunities facing the UK and the EU, opposite my EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič. I made the case that this Government will be guided by what I am calling ‘ruthless pragmatism’ —working in the UK’s national interest to make people across the UK safer, more secure and more prosperous. The Government’s position is that it is in the British national interest to improve our economic, safety and security relationships with our nearest neighbours. We reject the ideological approach of the past and will take a hard-headed assessment of the British national interest.

As the Leader of the Opposition recently said:

‘We announced that we would leave the European Union before we had a plan for growth outside the EU’.

She said:

‘Those mistakes were made because we told people what they wanted to hear first and then tried to work it out later’.

This Government will end that chaotic, dogmatic decision-making. We should be guided by the principle of mutual benefit, finding collaborative solutions to our common problems. We should be open-minded to proposals that deliver better outcomes for the British people, within the manifesto on which this Government were elected.

This Government have been clear that we are not hitting rewind. We are not undoing Brexit and we are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, but we are looking to make Brexit work in a ruthlessly pragmatic way. That is the spirit that we are taking into the discussions with the EU—not a zero-sum game, but a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting. Yesterday I met my EU counterpart, Maroš Šefčovič, and discussed how we can best work together to enhance co-operation in areas of mutual benefit. We are committed to staying in regular contact as we progress this work.

This Government were elected on a mandate to increase national security through strong borders, to increase people’s safety and to increase prosperity through growth. Our European friends have mutual interest in those priorities. It is those priorities that form the three pillars of the reset in our relationship: security, safety and prosperity. I am pleased to say that on all three of those issues we are making progress and that work is happening right across government, from the Prime Minister to the Chancellor at the Eurogroup and the Foreign Secretary at the Foreign Affairs Council.

There have been nearly 70 direct engagements between UK Ministers and their EU counterparts since we came into government, and we look forward to many more, including at the upcoming UK-EU summit. Some people make the false argument that we need to choose either America or Europe, but for this Government the UK’s national interest is paramount and demands that we work with both.

The Prime Minister made the point on Monday evening that the world today is very different from that in 2016, and even in 2024. In this time of change, this Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make people safer and more prosperous. That is the core of our national interest, and I commend this Statement to the House”.

12:12:00

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for repeating the Statement. Before I start, I will say that, while the timing was eventually agreed in the usual channels, it does not really do for your Lordships’ House to hear a Statement seven days after it was given in another place. This House is Parliament, too, and the clear constitutional principle is that if, for their own advantage, the Executive—any Executive—wish to use Parliament as a platform for their policies, their Ministers must, without equivocation, be promptly and fully accountable to both Houses. We may not agree about policies, but Parliament requires prompt answers and a seven-day wait is not good enough for this House and should not become the standard. I must make clear to the House that that is nothing whatever to do with the noble Baroness opposite, who is always open and available to the House. The Prime Minister is very fond of words beginning with “re”: reset, review, relaunch—what ever happened to that?—and now we are actually hearing “reshuffle”. Those of us on this side remember those dread briefings in the press and we have every sympathy with those on the Front Bench opposite, who try hard to serve this House and who are now reading this kind of spin themselves. I do not get very often to the Dispatch Box now, so let me say, as Leader of the Opposition and on behalf of the Opposition, how much we appreciate noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite in the difficult job that they do. I shall start on one point of agreement. This House is absolutely united in wanting good relations with our European friends and allies. It was in fact our Government who organised the summit of European leaders at Blenheim Palace in July that the Prime Minister spun as his reset idea. The purpose of that summit was precisely to consider the challenges of illegal immigration and security that face our whole continent—welcome discussions that were carried on in Brussels. So, obviously, we have no quarrel with co-operation or sharing ideas. However, on illegal immigration, were any specific undertakings secured in Brussels to combat this criminal trade? Did perhaps the Prime Minister meet Prime Minister Meloni and ask her about her initiatives to process would-be migrants offshore? Or rather, did he perhaps give Giorgia Meloni a copy of a lecture by the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General and warn Italy not to try to make her own laws? Will the noble Baroness guarantee that the reset will not result in any return to EU legal frameworks, such as jurisdiction of the ECJ in UK immigration or security policies? We hear a lot in this Chamber, not least from the Leader, about the need to follow every dot and comma of the Labour manifesto. The Labour manifesto said: “There will be no return to the single market, the customs union, or freedom of movement”. No freedom of movement: that is pretty clear. So can the noble Baroness clear up the conflicting statements about a new youth mobility agreement, as desirable as many may see that? Did the Home Secretary speak for the Government when she ruled that out? On trade, can the Government deny that they are considering rejoining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention on rules of origin? If not, how would this stand with their stated commitment to make a clean break from EU trade structures? Will the Government support amendments to the product metrology Bill in your Lordships’ House next week that would block powers to introduce dynamic alignment of regulations with the EU. If not, why not? We support international co-operation on security. Now, I may be an old man, but on our continent I think that is called NATO. So does the noble Baroness agree that the UK’s defence commitments must be made through NATO, the world’s foremost security alliance, not through ad hoc European arrangements that risk compromising our interests that may or may not have been discussed in Brussels? Specifically on security, did the Prime Minister discuss co-operation with the EU in the Indian Ocean against the Chinese challenge? Only last week, Russia announced an agreement to open a new naval base in Sudan. France has two naval bases in the Indian Ocean, in Mayotte and Réunion. Both of those are sovereign French territory—EU territory. When the UN suggested that France should give them up, France simply vetoed the resolution. That is what I call “ruthless pragmatism”. So will the Government scrap their foolish plan to give up the Chagos Islands and enter into full-throated security co-operation in the Indian Ocean with our allies, including France, as part of the EU? They might even be able to put the money saved on the deal into building new ships and creating British jobs. The Statement says the PM told the EU to “step up and project strength”. What on earth did he mean by that? Did the langoustines jump from the plates as he pounded the table? President Trump says he wants to see 5% of GDP spent on defence. What percentage target on defence did the PM tell the EU would constitute “stepping up and projecting strength”? Will the noble Baroness please tell us? We are and remain steadfast across this House in supporting the brave people of Ukraine, and I am glad that was reaffirmed in Brussels. There can be no peace without the consent of Ukraine. Yesterday, though, the US indicated that it did not envisage a practical place for membership of NATO for Ukraine. Can the noble Baroness tell us the UK’s Government’s reaction to that, please? It is important that we should know. On AI, which is material to our security, the UK attended the summit convened by President Macron this month but refused to sign the declaration. Britain followed the United States and Vice-President Vance. We think the Government are right to preserve our freedom of action, but can the noble Baroness tell the House why the UK declined to sign the declaration? The Statement is silent on fish. When we left the EU, there was a temporary arrangement to allow EU fishermen to adjust to changed circumstances. The brave fishing folk of the UK now expect full rights and full access to our own waters. Will the noble Baroness assure the House that they will get those fair deserts, or will fishing communities be treated in the same way as farming ones? Finally, where will ruthless pragmatism place us in a battle, which we hope will not occur, between the EU and US on tariffs? Does the reset include co-ordinating policy on tariffs with the European Union or does it not? Will the noble Baroness please tell us?

My Lords, it is an unexpected pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord True. He mentioned that he is infrequently at the Dispatch Box these days. That may explain why he perhaps took a little longer. If I go over the 10 minutes for Front-Bench questions, I hope the Minister will understand why.

It is 20 minutes.

No, it is 10 minutes normally for questions and 10 minutes for the answers.

It is 20.

It is 20 in total, including the answers. Anyway, we are all vehemently agreeing that it is 20 minutes in total. The convention I was always taught was that it is about 10 minutes for Front-Bench questions, and the response is about 10 minutes. I will carry on.

You are wasting more time.

Speak up!

I am now being told that I am time-wasting and that I have to speak up. I have never been told in your Lordships’ House that I need to speak up. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord True, that bringing a Statement a week after it was given is not acceptable. In particular, the world has already changed so much in a week that the musings that have come from Washington, from Donald Trump and his Cabinet Ministers, raise serious concerns about Ukraine, which were discussed this morning. These Benches may agree with the Conservatives that NATO matters, but at the moment the people who are putting Ukraine at risk and not supporting Ukraine are our American allies in NATO. If they are not supporting Ukraine, we need to work far more closely with our European allies to make sure there is no agreement on the future of Ukraine without Ukraine, the UK and other European voices. Does the Minister agree? Like the noble Lord, Lord True, I find that some aspects of the Statement might be welcome. Having co-operation and meetings is desirable. If we want to rebuild our relations with Europe, we need to have regular meetings. The Ministers, Nick Thomas-Symonds and Stephen Doughty, have had regular bilateral and multilateral meetings with our European partners. I declare an interest, wearing my academic hat: I am currently doing some work on the UK’s bilateral relations with the EU generally and with Germany in particular. The feedback we get is that these meetings are well-received by European partners, but what are they leading to? As the noble Lord, Lord True, said, we have a reset. We have been told we are not having a rewind, but what does that actually mean? There is little detail in the Statement and a brief reference to the meeting Minister Thomas-Symonds had with Maroš Šefčovič. It is almost impossible to scrutinise what is going on to hold the Government to account. Could the Minister perhaps talk to her colleagues in the other place to see whether a little more detail could be forthcoming? What does the reset mean? Finally, if we are having a reset and ruthless pragmatism, could the Minister tell us what is meant by “ruthless pragmatism”? Under the new Labour Government, essentially, the approach was promiscuous bilateralism—to have bilateral relationships with as many European partners as possible in order to achieve effectively short-term goals. When the UK got what it wanted, it disappeared; reciprocity was absent. Do His Majesty’s Government understand the importance of reciprocity if we are to rebuild our relationships with Europe? Can ruthless pragmatism include an understanding of that? Does it also include the need to compromise—for example, with movement on a youth mobility scheme, which is not the same as free movement?

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord True, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, for their comments. They raised a number of important issues, which I will attempt to address in the time remaining. As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said last week, on 3 February “the Prime Minister attended an informal retreat with the 27 EU leaders and Presidents von der Leyen and Costa. This marked a clear step forward for this Government’s reset of the UK’s relationship with the EU. He is the first British Prime Minister to join a meeting of European Council members since the UK left the EU”. At the informal retreat, the Prime Minister “discussed the common threats that the UK and the EU face, and the value that closer UK-EU co-operation on security and defence could bring. These were points that he also discussed earlier in the day, when he met the Secretary-General of NATO”. The Prime Minister clearly outlined “a number of steps to increase co-operation on shared threats, including cross-border crime and illegal migration, while delivering growth and security at home. He called on Europe to step up and project strength, to keep up the pressure on Putin, alongside sustained military support to Ukraine, to put it in the strongest possible position this year”. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord True, our support for Ukraine is unequivocal. The Prime Minister also set out a strong case for European security and defence, an ambitious UK-EU security partnership and a deeper role for Europe within NATO. Our reset priorities are to protect the security and safety of UK nationals and the wider collective security of Europe, and to support growth through removing barriers to trade. Shortly after the retreat, we announced that the UK will welcome the Presidents of the European Council and the European Commission to the UK for the first UK-EU summit, which will take place on Monday 19 May. This Government have been clear that we are not hitting rewind on Brexit; we are hitting reset. As we made clear in our manifesto, we are not undoing Brexit. We are not rejoining the single market or the customs union, but we are looking to make Brexit work in a way even the leader of the Opposition has made clear that the previous Government failed to do. This is the spirit that we are taking into discussions with the EU as we approach the summit and beyond. This is not a zero-sum game, but a win-win for both sides, with people across the UK and the EU benefiting. In response to the point from the noble Lord, Lord True, on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, we are always looking at ways to reduce barriers to trade, within our clear red lines. Having a smooth trading relationship with European partners is essential to driving growth at home. This is one of the options we are open to looking at to reduce barriers. It is right and responsible that we are looking at it to determine what is in the UK’s national interest. However, we do not currently have plans to join the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention. On the question of youth mobility, as I made clear during the recent debate on this in your Lordships’ House, this Government recognise the value of schemes which give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures and work or study elsewhere. However, in response to the noble Lord’s point with regard to a prospective scheme on youth mobility in the EU, the Government have been clear that we do not have any plans for youth mobility schemes. However, we will look at any proposals from the EU on this and a range of other issues. If I do not get the opportunity to respond to the other points that have been raised I will write. On AI, as we develop our approach to regulating AI, we recognise the need to engage with a range of international partners. This includes engaging with the EU, which is a key science and technology partner, as well as working alongside the EU and other partners in the G7, the OECD, the UN and other international fora. We take a very close interest, as noble Lords will be clear is appropriate, in how our largest trading partners are regulating in similar areas. We have regular exchanges with the EU on regulatory developments. On Chagos, as noble Lords will be aware, the British Indian Ocean Territory deal is rooted in a rational and hard-headed determination to protect UK national security. This deal will protect the base on Diego Garcia and cement a UK and US presence in the Indo-Pacific for generations to come. It is a bit of a stretch to raise this in a debate on the EU reset, but I hope the noble Lord will be content with my response. On the timing of this Statement, as the noble Lord opposite knows, Statements are scheduled and agreed through the usual channels. As the noble Lord will also know, the Opposition are requesting that every Statement is repeated in this House, which is creating pressures on scheduling. I understand from the Chief Whip that work is ongoing to improve this after the recess. In conclusion, the Prime Minister made the point in Brussels that the world is very different from that in 2016 and even from that in 2024. A number of noble Lords have noted that the world is changing even on a week-by-week basis. In this time of uncertainty, this Government are stepping up to build alliances in a bid to make our people safer and more prosperous. That is at the core of our national interest and will contribute to this Government’s ambitious plan for change. It is through a new partnership between the UK and the EU that we will deliver for the people of the United Kingdom and for people across the continent.

12:31:00

My Lords, we on these Benches note with interest the call from the noble Lord, Lord True, for a substantial increase in our defence spending—and no doubt for the higher taxes to pay for it. We also think that the correct adjective to describe the Government’s approach to the EU is not ruthless but timid. It is timid in defining a reset by the negatives of what we are not doing, rather than what we are doing. It is timid because we are not really investing in finding out what we require and what costs and benefits that would have. I want to ask the Minister: first, are we rebuilding the expertise in Whitehall, which we had abandoned in recent years, on how the EU works, on relations with the Commission and on the complications of regulations in the European Union, which we have to relate to and which I think a great many people now simply do not understand? Secondly, since we are clearly heading towards the sort of relationship that Switzerland has with the European Union—untidy, painful but necessary—are we spending a lot of time talking to the Swiss about the difficulties of their relations with the European Union? That is where we are likely to end up if this timid half-reset proceeds within the boundaries which the Government, frightened of the Daily Mail as they are, are about to pursue.

On whether the Government’s approach is timid, I note that if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, believes we are too timid and the noble Lord, Lord True, thinks we are potentially going too far, it is possible that we are getting the balance right. The Government are determined to reset the relationship with our European friends. The EU is the UK’s largest trading partner, and it would be irresponsible if this Government did not attempt to make sure we have good relations with the EU. This has been a priority of this Government. It is five years since the UK exited the EU, and we are determined to make sure that, with economic growth being the number one mission of this Government, boosting trade abroad, including with the EU, is absolutely essential to delivering a strong economy at home.

My Lords, the issue of Diego Garcia has been mentioned. What stage have His Majesty’s Government got to in agreeing with the Americans on the proposed arrangements? If they have agreed, have the Americans also agreed to make a contribution?

Did I understand correctly that the noble and gallant Lord’s question related to the deal on Chagos?

Yes.

With respect to your Lordships’ House, this is going so far from the issues covered within an EU-UK reset that I will refer the noble and gallant Lord back to the point I made during my first response, but I will ensure that the noble and gallant Lord gets that response in writing.

My Lords, can the Minister explain to us why we never seem to see the Attorney-General in this House? He is constantly telling us how important international law is; maybe he could explain why we have this obsession with not being involved in any way with European law? If we are going to reset our relations with Europe, we are going to find it very difficult to do so without accepting some form of adjudication, and that means some sort of sort of legal framework. Even the Norwegians managed to accept that. Could the Minister tell us exactly what the thinking is on how we can get a reset without any agreement on any legal structure to enforce it?

I am not going to give a blow-by-blow account of ongoing discussions. In relation to my noble and learned friend Lord Hermer’s presence, or otherwise, in your Lordships’ House, I see him pretty regularly. I have no idea where the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is when the Attorney-General is in your Lordships’ House; I would suggest, if the noble Lord wants him to answer questions, that he put appropriate Questions into the ballot.

My Lords, it is disappointing that there was no mention in the Statement referring to any discussion about the effect of Brexit on the arts and creative industries. When are the UK Government going to have that discussion with the EU, bearing in mind that the creative industries are hugely important to this country, as the Minister knows? The creative industries are waiting on this.

The Government are committed, as set out in our manifesto, to supporting our creative industries and our creative artists in touring and performing around Europe. I am happy to meet the noble Earl, and I will ensure that my DCMS office gets in touch with him. I am not going to give a description of where we are regarding ongoing discussions or a commentary on negotiations. We are clear, as I know the noble Earl is, that this could help deliver real benefits not just to artists in this country but to artists and venues from across the EU.

My Lords, Brussels has already set out its case that it wants to renegotiate the fishing arrangements. The Government will find that agriculture, fish and food is often the last hurdle in securing a trade deal. I am pleased that the Government are continuing to defend the decision to protect sand eels in order to protect puffins and kittiwakes, but the Government should be seeking to try and open up the export of foods, because the French Government are refusing to put in the necessary facilities in France and that is blocking the export of foods into that country.

On fisheries, the UK and EU share a commitment to protecting the marine environment through various international agreements. We do believe that, by working together on this and other food export issues, we can effectively deliver on our commitments in a way that supports the long-term sustainability and resilience of our fishing fleets, and that protects our food exports and imports in a way that benefits the UK in the trade position we will have going forward.

My Lords, in the reset talks to what extent are the Government taking account of two factors affecting Northern Ireland? First, with the current review being carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, into the workings of the Windsor Framework, how will that play into the discussions? Secondly, given the continuing lack of any support whatsoever in the unionist community for the current arrangements under the Windsor Framework, there is a breach of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. To what extent are the Government cognisant of those very fundamental points?

The noble Lord referenced the commissioning of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen to conduct an independent review of the Windsor Framework. This will report within six months. Looking ahead, we are committed to continuing to seek joint solutions with the EU to challenges that might arise in the future around the Windsor Framework. We are taking forward our commitments, as set out in the Safeguarding the Union Command Paper, including the implementation of the UK internal market system. For example, the Government announced the membership of the independent monitoring panel, and the chair of InterTrade UK.

My Lords, of the 70 direct engagements that UK Ministers have had with EU counterparts, which have included discussing or progressing a youth mobility scheme? The Minister touched on this earlier, but why will His Majesty’s Government not consider proactively proposing a new youth mobility scheme? As the Minister highlighted, there are many benefits to having such a scheme.

In response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord True, on this, the Government recognise the value of schemes that give young people the opportunity to experience different cultures and work or study elsewhere. We have the Turing scheme and, separate to that, the UK operates a number of bilateral youth mobility schemes with European countries such as Iceland and Andorra and with a number of our global partners. We do not have a proposal or plan for a youth mobility scheme, but we will look at any EU proposals on a range of issues. But, as I outlined in the debate we had on youth mobility in your Lordships’ House a couple of weeks ago, the EU has not yet come forward with definite proposals on this point.

My Lords, the Government have set out two of their objectives for this supposed reset: an agreement on SPS—agri-food—and some sort of agreement on the emissions trading scheme, with closer linkage between our scheme and the EU’s. In its negotiating document that was made public before Christmas, the EU said that agreements in those areas would be possible only if there were dynamic alignment in the application of EU law, jurisdiction of the Court of Justice and an EU enforcement mechanism. Will the Minister confirm that such terms will not be acceptable to the British Government in this reset? If she is not willing to give such a clear denial, should we not conclude that such terms could in fact be negotiated in this reset?

On the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, the Government are committed to pursuing an 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, and we have been clear that an SPS agreement could boost trade and deliver benefits on both sides.

My Lords, we had a useful debate on this subject a few days ago, and I noted very considerable agreement on the creative industries, as the noble Baroness mentioned. But I ask her one specific question: will this reset include an attempt to relieve the problems caused by cabotage, which are really sinking many touring proposals at the moment?

I restate that we are committed to addressing this. I will write to the noble Lord on his points.

My Lords, I concur with my noble friend the shadow Leader’s comments about the timeliness of accountability. In that context, given the limited opportunities for scrutiny and oversight of the Government’s EU policy, with the demise of the European Scrutiny Committee in the other place—in contrast to the forensic, detailed scrutiny of the previous Government’s negotiating policy in the run-up to our exit in 2021—will the Government now change or reverse their policy and publish an extensive strategy in terms of a negotiating mandate to be put to the European Union in the next few months, particularly on the specific point of the role of the European Court of Justice? On the second point—I am not sure the Minister answered it directly—will she give an unequivocal commitment to protect UK fishing rights, even under pressure from the Prime Minister’s good friend, President Macron, in the forthcoming negotiations?

On fishing rights, in approaching future access arrangements beyond 2026, our position is clear: we will continue to advocate for and support UK fishing communities while ensuring that we meet our shared international obligations. On the timing of the debate, I repeat what I said earlier: attempts will be made to improve timeliness after the Recess, but Statements are scheduled and agreed with the usual channels. On whether there should be a European committee, my understanding is that there is one. Arguably, given the dire need for a reset following the previous Government’s deteriorating relations with the EU, there should have been more scrutiny under the previous Government, not less.

My Lords, further to that answer, in the previous Parliament a number of White Papers were published by the Government of the day. One in February 2020 set out the approach to the negotiations on the TCA, and another one, I believe in July 2021, set out in some detail the approach to the renegotiation of the Northern Ireland protocol. Will the Government proceed in a similar manner and produce Command Papers that set out the approach to the negotiations? If so, when are we likely to see them?

I will write to the noble Lord on that point, but we are not planning to give a blow-by-blow ongoing position on where we are with negotiations. We are clear that we are resetting the relationship with our European friends, and this Government will continue to report back to Parliament, as per the Statement, so that there is the opportunity to debate this. But I note the noble Lord’s point, and I will write to him on that aspect.

My Lords, during the general election, Steve Reed, who is now the Government’s Environment Secretary, said that the Labour Party would, in government, “ban the commercial import of foie gras, where ducks and geese are aggressively force-fed”. Interestingly, this was also the Conservative Government’s policy pre Liz Truss, although it was never delivered. Yet, just this week, a Defra spokesperson, when asked about plans for a potential veterinary agreement with the EU, essentially responded, “No comment”. Can the Minister assure me that the Labour promise during the general election will be delivered in banning the commercial import of foie gras?

I have to say that I do not have that in my pack. I will write to the noble Baroness on that. I personally do not eat foie gras, and I know many noble Lords feel the same.

My Lords, hearing about promises at the general election, I am reminded of the clarion calls that came from the then Opposition about smashing the gangs and getting round the table with the French, as if it had not been done before. Can the Minister update us on what is actually happening on the ground? My understanding is that, in terms of the boats, sadly, the crossings are increasing.

The Government are meeting with four countries—France, Germany, Holland and Belgium—on those exact points.

My Lords, at present, Northern Ireland is sitting apart from the rest of the UK in relation to Europe. Will any future relationships and management processes that the UK might have with the European Union include Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, so we will all be back into one position again?

I refer the noble Lord to the independent review of the Windsor Framework, led by my noble friend Lord Murphy, which will report within six months. As somebody with family in Northern Ireland, I am very clear that it is absolutely part of the UK.

My Lords, returning to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, the French President has made it very clear that there can no reset of UK-EU relations unless fisheries are on the table. The Minister said that she would advocate for the rights of UK fishermen. Surely, this is very different from stating that there is going to be no reduction in their rights. Which is it?

We can split hairs around particular wording, but I am absolutely clear that the UK Government advocates for and supports UK fishing communities, while ensuring that we meet our shared international obligations. I stand by those words. That is the Government’s position.

My Lords, I commend the noble Baroness for what she said both on the pan-Euro-Mediterranean customs deal and on the youth mobility scheme. She essentially said, “It’s not something we’re asking for but, if the other side wants it badly enough, we might be prepared to discuss things”. This seems a very sensible line to take in any negotiations. If they want to put something valuable on the table, such as lifting the checks in Northern Ireland, we should be open to discussions. Why does the Minister not take the same line on the defence agreement? As one of two nuclear powers, we are by far the largest contributor to the defence of Europe. When it comes to putting stuff on the table, I can see why the EU wants us involved, but how on earth have we got ourselves into the position of being the demandeurs here?

I am quite proud of the position we are taking on defence in Europe. I am unclear why I should apologise for it. I refer noble Lords to the very clear message from the Defence Secretary, John Healey—including to our ally Ukraine—on our firm determination to ensure that our country is safe and also that we stand with our allies elsewhere in Europe.