COP 26

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Callanan

Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Callanan (Con)]

I have not seen the article to which the noble Baroness refers. It will probably come as a shock to her that I am not responsible for New Mexico; that is part of the United States’ commitment. All we can be responsible for are our own emissions and our own policies. We are striving to reduce our fossil fuel production and use in the UK, but it is a gradual phase-out. Rather than using imported LNG from the likes of the areas she mentioned, it makes more sense to use our own domestic production during that transition period.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, do the Government consult with any of the many serious scientists who say that net zero is a colossal mistake?

European Union: Trading Arrangements

Debate between Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Callanan

Thursday 30th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to offer the European Union a new treaty, subject to World Trade Organization jurisdiction, which would continue the United Kingdom’s existing trading arrangements with the European Union.

[The Minister of State, Department for Exiting the European Union (Lord Callanan) (Con)]

My Lords, the Prime Minister’s deal set out in the political declaration the framework for a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement with the EU. We will of course leave the EU tomorrow, and we will then begin discussions on securing a new relationship.

[Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but I would have thought that the Government may need something like this if the going gets rough in the forthcoming trade negotiations. For the record, will the Government confirm their recent Written Answer saying that, if we end up trading on normal WTO terms, EU exporters will pay us some us some £14 billion per annum in new tariffs whereas ours will pay Brussels only some £6 billion —an annual profit to us of some £8 billion per annum? Would this offer not therefore be generous to the EU and, if accepted, get rid of the Irish border problem, the need for much of Operation Yellowhammer and masses of lengthy trade negotiations? Would that not be cheap at the price?

[Lord Callanan]

I thank the noble Lord for his interest in these matters, but the whole point of a free trade agreement is that it is an improvement on WTO terms. The reason that many nations around the world want to adopt them is that people do not want to get into paying tariffs and quotas, which are an impediment to free trade. We are confident, given the agreement and the political declaration, that we can reach an ambitious free trade agreement with the EU before the end of the implementation period, and that is exactly what we will be doing.