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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.