Debates between Viscount Trenchard and Lord Hannay of Chiswick during the 2017-2019 Parliament

Wed 6th Mar 2019
Trade Bill
Lords Chamber

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Mon 26th Feb 2018
European Union (Withdrawal) Bill
Lords Chamber

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords

Trade Bill

Debate between Viscount Trenchard and Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I just want to correct the noble Viscount. We have been a member of the customs union with the European Community since 1972—rather more than 20 years.

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I do not disagree with the noble Lord—but the point I was making is that in the period since 1998 goods exports to the EU have grown by only 0.2% per year, or 3.7% over those 20 years, reaching £164 billion in 2017. However, the UK’s goods exports to countries outside the EU customs union have grown in the same period by 3.3% a year—over 60% in total—to £175 billion. So the customs union has not been quite as marvellous for this country as noble Lords opposite suggest. I very much hope that the Government will stick to their policy of leaving on a basis whereby we will have our own independent trade policy, which will enable us to do more trade and enter into trade agreements with the economically faster-growing parts of the world.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Viscount Trenchard and Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Does the noble Viscount not understand that if we participate from outside the European Union, instead of getting more back than we put in we will get exactly the same back as we put in?

Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard
- Hansard - -

I hear what the noble Lord says but I am not sure whether that follows at all. As far as the Horizon 2020 programme is concerned, presumably our contribution would still be assessed and valued in the same way that it is now. The deservability of the programmes for which we seek support would also be considered on the same basis as now, so I do not see why it should make any difference. But overall, we will have a considerable amount more money to spend, not less, because we will not be making the very large net contributions to the European Union budget that we make at present.

Brexit: Deal or No Deal (European Union Committee Report)

Debate between Viscount Trenchard and Lord Hannay of Chiswick
Tuesday 16th January 2018

(6 years, 10 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Viscount Trenchard Portrait Viscount Trenchard (Con)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick. Although I find his wit and eloquence most persuasive, I am afraid that I do not agree with much of the substance of what he said. Rather, I agree more with my noble friend Lord Ridley. I also can easily conceive of a deal that would be worse for this country than no deal. I believe that Mr Barnier has even talked about some examples of a worse deal.

I take issue also with the point about German industry, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and others. The trade union representative on the supervisory board of Rolls-Royce’s German subsidiary expressed great concern that the German Government would not put enough pressure on the EU to reach a sensible trade deal with the UK to provide continued good access to the UK market.

The report’s conclusion that the Government should review the options for securing a time-limited extension of the UK’s EU membership is flawed. It plays into the hands of the EU negotiators, who wish us to continue to pay inexorably increasing contributions and eventually to agree to a deal under which we are bound to maintain full alignment with EU regulations. The report exaggerates the damage that will be done to our economy if there is no deal and understates the potential upside of recovering our freedom to set our own rules, besides the obvious financial savings. Take financial services: we would have introduced much of the new post-financial crisis regulation anyway, but not all of it. AIFMD has undoubtedly cost the City a number of jobs and substantial earnings. Why do we never hear about the cost in jobs and tax revenue that the City would have earned if we had not been overruled almost every time we disagreed with a proposed EU directive or regulation?

New European regulation in recent years has arguably been more about harmonisation and centralisation of control than anything else.

Lord Hannay of Chiswick Portrait Lord Hannay of Chiswick
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I should be most grateful if the noble Viscount would tell me whether he was familiar with the fact that the first banking regulation passed after the single market was enacted was passed with the great help of the British Commissioner, the late Lord Brittan, and the Council, and involved voting down the Germans.