Sterling

Debate between Earl of Courtown and Lord Tomlinson

Tuesday 3rd September 2019 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a good point. He talked about the link between productivity and employment, which throws up different statistics. That is why it is so important that the review of the ONS comes forward with a more accurate way to measure productivity.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

Can the Minister, or his department, justify the statement he has made twice that manufacturing productivity is rising three times faster than in the economy as a whole? Can he place a copy of the calculations on which that statement is based in the Library, so that we can all see whether it is fact or fiction?

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, I do not believe in uttering fiction from the Dispatch Box. I do not accept the noble Lord’s comment, but I will take it back to the department and ask for clarification on that figure.

Foreign Policy: Support for UK Businesses in Global Trade

Debate between Earl of Courtown and Lord Tomlinson

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, exports rose by 5.9% between 2015 and 2016 to £547 billion, reflecting increases in exports of both goods and services. In percentage terms, the largest increases in UK exports between 2015 and 2016 were to New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, Japan and Egypt. The UK’s five largest trading partners remain the US, Germany, the Netherlands, France and China.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister has twice referred to the progress made since the Prime Minister made her much-vaunted speech in Florence. Can he advise the House of two or three particular manifestations of this progress?

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, further progress is being made all the time on these negotiations. If I have any more information to give the noble Lord, I do not have it in my folder.

Europe: Renegotiation

Debate between Earl of Courtown and Lord Tomlinson

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, my noble friend raised two questions, and in the second he talked about ever-closer union. As he is aware, we want to halt this constant flow of powers to Brussels and part of that includes ensuring a stronger role for national parliaments. The concept of ever-closer union may be what some others want but it is not for us. We also need to ensure that subsidiarity is properly implemented.

The noble Lord also mentioned the legally binding nature of any renegotiations. We have on the table at present a substantial package of changes, including treaty change, which needs to be agreed before there is a British referendum. This is exactly what has happened in other countries and on other occasions. Agreement on the package must happen before the referendum, but we would never have got all 27 other parliaments to pass treaty change before the referendum. That is not in any way strange; it is how it is usually done, as in the case of the Croatian accession treaty and the ESM treaty. What matters is getting the substantial agreement. It will be difficult to get but it is not impossible. Indeed, it is eminently resolvable.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

Will the Minister cast his mind back to the Statement made by the Minister of State at the Foreign Office following the last European Council meeting? She outlined four main principles. What additional information are we given in this letter, compared with that given by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, in the Statement following the last European Council meeting? We were told that there would be substantial detail, yet as we get the Statement the covering letter says very clearly that,

“this letter is not to describe the precise means, or detailed legal proposals, for bringing the reforms we seek into effect”.

What is it supposed to do if it is not supposed to do that? We were promised by the Minister of State that we would get much more significant detail by the time we got the letter addressed to the President of the European Council. Can he tell us where—in either the Statement or the letter—that additional detail is?

[The Earl of Courtown]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks for more detail. As he obviously recognises, while renegotiation is still taking place we cannot give a running commentary on this issue. There are four objectives, which my noble friend mentioned briefly in the initial Statement, and more information has been given in the speech and letter by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. One is to protect the single market for Britain and others outside the eurozone in the form of a set of binding principles that guarantee fairness between the euro countries and non-euro countries. The second is to write competitiveness into the DNA of the whole European Union, including cutting the total burden on business. The third is to exempt Britain from ever-closer union and bolster national parliaments through legally binding and irreversible changes. Then the fourth is to tackle abuses of the right to free movement and to enable us to control migration from the EU. As soon as more information is available, and at a suitable moment, the House will no doubt be informed.

Diplomatic Missions: Parking Fines

Debate between Earl of Courtown and Lord Tomlinson

Wednesday 21st October 2015 Lords Chamber

[The Earl of Courtown]

Basically, My Lords, my noble friend asked about “inviolable”—I think “immune” is probably a better way of putting it—but this comes under the Vienna convention.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

Is the noble Earl aware that this has been an ongoing problem for well over 60 years? I remember that in the 1970s the Foreign Office analysed not only who owed what, but where the cars were parked. Is it still the case that the majority of these cars that are clamped, or which noble Lords recommend should be clamped, would create a traffic jam outside Harrods?

[The Earl of Courtown]

This problem has been going on for many years. I think that there is a particular problem at the moment with the congestion charge, as the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, where some overseas diplomatic missions consider that it is a tax as opposed to a charge.