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.
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?
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.
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?