Brexit: Preparations

Debate between Lord Callanan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Tuesday 8th October 2019

(5 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

Apparently there was a mix up in communications, but I am happy to answer the noble Baroness’s question. She made a good point in the first part of it: of course, we have to have good and friendly relations with European Union countries, both under the aegis of intergovernmental relations with the EU and bilaterally, and we are ramping up co-operation in embassies in order to do that. The reality is that there has to be a deal, whether that happens before our exit on 31 October or afterwards; it is not possible for us not to have a deal in our relations with the European Union. I totally agree with the noble Baroness on that point.

I cannot respond to all off-the-record briefings that appear on social media and elsewhere.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

In his Statement, my noble friend said that one of the opportunities of exit would be having our own seat at the World Trade Organization. What changes in policy does he expect to adopt as a result of us sitting alone at that table? Given the demise of the Trade Bill, how will Parliament and business be able to contribute to that important policy in future?

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

My noble friend makes a good point. We will want to be international champions for free trade, which is under threat in some parts of the world. The Trade Bill has not yet reached its demise; it is currently suspended and I hope there will be an opportunity to bring it back. On the more general point, we will want to consult closely with Parliament on our future trade relations.

Brexit: No-deal Tariff Schedules

Debate between Lord Callanan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Monday 7th October 2019

(5 years ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

I think the noble Lord is a Question behind. That is on the previous Question; on this Question we are talking about the tariff regimes.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

As my noble friend knows, I have been concerned all along about the tariff schedule. As has been said, business and consumer interests need to know what charges will be levied if we have no deal. I know that there are some concerns about the detail in some sectors, so I am very glad to hear that the SIs are on their way. I hope that business will have been listened to by the new Government.

My concern is actually a longer term one, which I raised with my noble friend the Leader. Assuming that we go down the road of free trade agreements, as has been promised, there has to be an incentive for countries to agree to them. We might be talking, for example, about an FTA with the EU, which sends us so much more in the way of goods than we send it, or about Canada or Japan, which would do very well out of the temporary schedule published in March. When I was a business executive, I was involved in a successful EU FTA with Korea and a failed one with India. I know how difficult it is if you do not have strong levers and protections that the other side wants lifted. How are we going to win in these difficult circumstances?

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

I thank my noble friend for her question. She speaks with great knowledge in this area. I remind her that the announcement, when it comes, is a temporary tariff regime lasting for up to one year. We will still have considerable levers over the countries that she mentions because we can revise it in the future if they are not interested in a free trade agreement. We are a free trading nation and we want to have tariffs as low as possible on a mutual basis, but we retain the levers because they will want long-term certainty for their businesses.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 (Consequential Modifications and Repeals and Revocations) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Debate between Lord Callanan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Monday 4th March 2019

(5 years, 8 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

I am not sure that I accept my noble friend’s statement that there was an omission. However, as this is quite a technical matter, perhaps it would be better if we went away and looked at it in detail, and I will write to her about it.

My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe asked me about the total figures for statutory instruments so far. The laying of SIs allows Parliament to fulfil its essential scrutiny role and to go through the various steps required. We remain confident that the necessary legislation to fulfil a functioning statute book will be passed by exit day. The current totals are as follows. More than 470 EU exit SIs have been laid to date. They account for over 75% of the SIs that we anticipate will be required by exit day, and over 260 of them have now gone through the various processes and have been made. Good progress has been made and we remain confident that the required SIs will be laid in time for exit day. I think that I have dealt with all the queries that were raised.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am very grateful for the helpful reply that my noble friend gave on the subject of the Joint Committee and the institutional arrangements. It is good news that thought is being given to how to make these work well after exit day. Perhaps, at leisure, he could look at the questions that I asked about consultation and impact assessments. I do not think that he quite replied to them and it would be helpful to know where the Government stand.

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

I shall of course be very happy to do that. I know that my noble friend, quite rightly, takes a close interest in these matters, so I shall be very happy to look at that further and to write to her about it.

Brexit: Statutory Instruments

Debate between Lord Callanan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Thursday 10th January 2019

(5 years, 9 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

The organisation of business in the House is a matter for my noble friend the Chief Whip and for the usual channels. I am sure they will, as they always do, work collaboratively and co-operatively to ensure there is sufficient time for the proper scrutiny of all the appropriate legislation.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I have taken a lot of interest in the SI process and most of these SIs are needed, whether we have a deal or not, to bring EU law into UK law. We should support that process whatever our views in today’s bigger debate.

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

I thank my noble friend for her constructive comments. The reality is that we are leaving the European Union. That decision was made by the referendum and by Parliament. We happen to believe that we should do it with a functioning statute book.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Callanan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Monday 18th June 2018

(6 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I give my strong support to government Amendment 4B in its unamended form and to Amendments 4C, 4D and 4E, and I encourage others to do so, if necessary. Throughout the passage of the Bill I have been concerned about serious mistakes that might creep on to the statute book if statutory instruments made under the Act are not published and consulted on. Proposed new paragraph 5CB(2) responds well to those concerns with, 28 days in advance, publication of the drafts of any instruments making changes to provisions enacted under Section 2(2), which has been the parent of much UK law over the last 45 years.

If I have understood correctly, there is cause to celebrate and to thank the Minister for this change and for the other scrutiny changes. They will allow all relevant stakeholders, whether they are consumers, trade unions or from business, or indeed from other countries, to review such drafts and help the Government to address any concerns and correct any errors of the kind that we all want to avoid as EU rules are carried over into UK law on Brexit day.

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

First, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for his comments and for his support, which I think I detected, for the Government’s amendments. I am also very grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has taken a close interest in this matter. It is a very technical but important matter, and I know that she has engaged on it with Ministers and officials. She brings the benefit of her experience in government and we are grateful for her contributions.

As I said in opening the debate on this Motion, the government amendments are the final thread in the tapestry of protection woven by the Bill. On Report, we addressed protected EU regulations and treaty rights, and now we are adding, as requested, an enhanced procedure to protect the legislation implementing directives. Most importantly, the government amendments deliver the procedure and the protection that underlies it. I therefore commend them to noble Lords.

Brexit: Immigration

Debate between Lord Callanan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Thursday 29th March 2018

(6 years, 7 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

Yes. Freedom of movement will continue during the implementation period subject to a registration system.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, following on from that, will the White Paper look ahead at the infrastructure implications of continued immigration for GPs, schools and all of our infrastructure across the UK?

Lord Callanan Portrait Lord Callanan
- Hansard - -

My noble friend makes a good point. That is one of the key questions that will need to be answered in designing and implementing the new system. I am sure the White Paper will take that fully into account. However, we will want to hear views and comments from all interested parties.

Roads: Congestion

Debate between Lord Callanan and Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Tuesday 5th September 2017

(7 years, 1 month ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reduce inconvenience to individuals, and the losses to the economy, caused by pinch-points and congestion on roads.

Lord Callanan Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Lord Callanan) (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the Government are delivering a £23 billion programme of investment in England’s roads to improve journeys, reduce congestion and boost economic growth. The Government are also developing plans for future investment and have announced the proposed creation of a major road network that will see a share of the national road fund, funded by vehicle excise duty, given to local authorities to improve their major A-road networks.

Baroness Neville-Rolfe Portrait Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I travelled quite extensively in Britain this summer, and I learned at first hand that serious traffic problems are not confined to major roads or big cities like ours: they are all too common right across the country. As King Edward VIII said, “Something must be done”. Indeed, a perusal of the Department for Transport’s report is not wholly reassuring, showing more interest in the large projects than in these important smaller frustrations. Will the Minister kindly undertake to publish an analysis of such pinch-points, noting the authorities responsible —to which he referred—for putting them right, the plans for tackling them and, most important of all, the forecast completion dates?