Middle East

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Daniel Kawczynski

Monday 30th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Daniel Kawczynski]

Very much so. When one travels throughout the middle east, time and again people highlight the fact that they see us as an impartial and honourable interlocutor and as people who can facilitate dialogue to try to dissipate some of the tension in the region.

We recently saw the extraordinary strength of British diplomacy, particularly over the nuclear agreement with Iran. If we cast our minds back to the extraordinary tensions with that country—by the way, during our visit we spent time at the British embassy, which had previously been trashed by students—we can see the great accomplishment of that painstaking British diplomacy. I pay tribute to our Foreign Secretary for playing a substantial role in the agreement. It shows what British diplomacy can achieve. I therefore do not believe that it is naive or unrealistic to expect that the United Kingdom could and ought to be trying to secure better dialogue between Saudi Arabia and Iran.

It is, however, essential that the Government are probed on strategy and planning in the run-up to a potential bombing of Syria. I spent quite a lot of time on that delegation to the middle east with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). He wrote an article in The Mail on Sunday yesterday outlining the case against bombing in Syria, and he is the only one among the entire Conservative parliamentary party who voted against the bombing campaign in Libya. That was an extremely courageous thing to do—to ignore the rest of the Conservative parliamentary party and go into the opposite Lobby. I pay tribute to him—he is a former soldier—for the tremendous courage that he displayed at that time.

I recall from those deliberations how the Opposition, the Liberal Democrats and the Government all rushed to support the bombing of Gaddafi. It was a highly emotional time for us. He promised to instigate a bloodbath in Benghazi and, as has been said, we wanted to do something so we sanctioned the bombing of his military capability. Getting rid of a dictator is easy. What is more challenging is the planning that has to take place in order to ensure that the country is then administered properly, and that those important seeds of a democratic society are allowed to germinate before we pass on responsibility to local politicians.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for making an exceedingly insightful point. Does he share my concern that when it comes to Syria and the bombing of ISIS within Syria, our relationship with Russia must be very carefully managed to ensure that we do not end up with a conflict that we are not looking for, particularly in the reconstruction?

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I very much agree, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I will refer to Syria later in my speech, if I have time.

The lack of planning for boots on the ground in Libya has led so tragically to the continued instability in that country and the civil war that is raging there. The Minister will know about those difficulties, particularly the fact that ISIS has managed to take root in certain parts of the country. Indeed, some reports have identified ISIS in Libya as being the most radical and cruel in the region. One question that I want to pose is this: why at this moment do we want to bomb ISIS in Syria, but not in Libya?

The bar has to be raised that much higher, given the difficulties in Libya, to ensure that, for those of us who support the Government on the issue, adequate time is spent on the Floor of the House and some of the difficult questions that Ministers might not want to hear are asked, so that the Government are better prepared in Syria than they were in Libya.

Of all the interventions I heard at that time, the one made by my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), who now chairs the Defence Committee, was the most prescient. He challenged the figure of 70,000 moderates with whom we could work. It is extremely important that the Government listen to him and debate where that figure came from and of what those forces consist.

UK Trade & Investment

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Daniel Kawczynski

Thursday 12th September 2013 Westminster Hall

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that a lot of equipment that the Gaddafi regime had has got across the border into Mali and other countries. We are deviating slightly from the subject of the debate, but I will say that most of that equipment is Russian. I am not sure what proportion is western-supplied arms.

I pay tribute to Mr Richard Paniguian, head of the UKTI Defence and Security Organisation, which is the military security part of UKTI. DSO is populated by people who have been in the armed services. They understand the products and are passionate about them and their work. If UKTI generally can understand how DSO operates and replicate the passion, energy, enthusiasm and calibre of the staff, we will be motoring further ahead.

I shall say a few things about British defence exports because I, for one, am not embarrassed that the United Kingdom exports security—it is extremely important for our country. Many hon. Members have in their constituencies, as do I, defence operators and contractors, firms on which many jobs and a lot of this country’s prosperity depend. The UK has some of the most rigorous export licensing procedures in the world. It considers each application on a case-by-case basis, taking into account, among other factors, the precise nature of the equipment and the identity and track record of the recipient. Her Majesty’s Government do not—and will not—issue licences if they judge that the proposed export would provoke or prolong internal conflicts, or if there is a clear risk that it might be used aggressively against another country or to facilitate internal repression. When circumstances change or new information comes to light, we can and do revoke licences if the export is no longer consistent with the criteria.

Recently, I had to defend the Prime Minister on the radio when he went to the United Arab Emirates and many people criticised him for trying to sell them some Typhoon jets. It would be the height of irresponsibility if the United Kingdom did not collaborate with our Gulf allies—sound, strategic allies such as the United Arab Emirates—to ensure that they had the capability to defend themselves against a belligerent neighbour who might attack them at any time. If countries such as the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia did not have British planes with which to try to pre-empt naked aggression against them from Iran or others, we would see increasing instability in the region.

You will be pleased to hear, Mr Betts, that I am coming towards the end of my speech, but let me just raise one or two remaining points. My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), accompanied me on the delegation to Gibraltar, and I want to make a point that he wanted to make about the British Council. The United Kingdom has a global British Council network. Its work is very good, but we do not see it providing any information on UKTI. How is the Minister’s Department collaborating with the British Council, utilising its extraordinary network, to ensure that as well as sharing information about British language courses and all the other good things that it does, it communicates about UKTI and British commercial links?

I wish to talk very briefly about the European Union. The Prime Minister hopes to renegotiate various aspects of our position with the European Union, and I hope that one of those aspects will be how we go about international trading agreements. The first thing that happened to me when I was elected in 2005 was that I was sent to the World Trade Organisation talks in Hong Kong. The other two Members of Parliament with me were the hon. Gentleman who is now the Speaker and Lord Mandelson who, as Trade Commissioner, was representing the whole European Union. I found that very frustrating, because the United Kingdom did not have a voice. The UK was represented by Lord Mandelson, who was representing all 27 nations, but different countries mean different things to other countries—for example, Gibraltar and New Zealand are far more important to us than to Poland. I very much hope that there can be some movement on individual countries being able somehow to negotiate with countries of long standing, so that there is no one-size-fits-all criterion for the whole European Union.

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for a good review of UKTI and how it reports to Parliament and to the Government. Does he share my view that if we want to be a great global trading nation once again, rebalancing our exports further afield than the EU will mean that even some of the arguments about being too dependent on the EU will begin to evaporate? If we increase our trade with the rest of the world to 90%, leaving only 10% with the EU—not reducing the amount but the percentage—all of a sudden some of the concerns that people may have about our EU relationships will begin to ebb away.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I cannot thank my hon. Friend enough for that intervention, because it brings me to the exact point that I want to make. I was admonished by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), on the Floor of the House for suggesting that at 47%—I may be wrong about that figure—the proportion of our exports that currently goes to the European Union is too high. I indicated that I wanted more of our trade to be with the outside world, particularly with the emerging countries. He took that almost as though I was somehow being disrespectful or did not understand the importance of the European Union to us, which, quite frankly, is a very outdated perspective.

The European Union will of course diminish in importance during our lifetimes—certainly during those of our children—to the extent that it will not account for half of our overseas exports, as rapidly emerging markets such as Brazil increase. The traffic is going one way. I completely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie).

I will end now with an example that relates to the Department for International Development. My last plea to the Minister is: what is his Department doing to work with DFID to ensure that more British products are sent overseas as part of the aid package? I will never forget that, when I served on it, the International Development Committee visited a village on the Ethiopian-Kenyan border and saw a water irrigation project. I met all the village elders, who told me through a translator, “Mr Kawczynski, we would like to thank you and the people of France for everything you are doing for us.” I said, “France! We’re British. What do you mean, France?” Of course, the non-governmental organisation hired by DIFD was French, all the equipment was French, Japanese or Chinese, and the people on the ground had no idea that the aid was British. Clare Short had stripped the British branding from the goods, but I am glad that there is now a British flag on our aid products.

What work is the Minister doing to ensure that, at every opportunity, DFID utilises British products—whether jeeps, water sanitation equipment or anything else? Even if the British product is 5% or 7% more expensive than its Chinese or French equivalent, let us do a cost-benefit analysis to understand the ramifications for the economy and jobs. We must ensure that, whenever we can, a Department such as DFID does everything possible to help British SMEs. I hope that hon. Members have recognised my passion for exports, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I do not intend to detain people too long, but given the passion, energy and skill that my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) has put into the report on UKTI and its very good recommendations, I want to say a few words in support of what he has been doing. I also want to echo some of the comments made today by the trade envoys and others.

I welcome my hon. Friend’s work and the passion with which the Conservative-led coalition Government, particularly in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, have been pursuing the export and economic growth agendas. We all want economic growth, which comes from two places. It comes internally by reducing taxation, improving competitiveness and removing regulation—a good stab is being made at that—but it also comes from trade, exports and inward investment from abroad. His report highlights that we perhaps require a bit more focus on UKTI’s role in bringing about the economic growth and competitiveness that we all want.

We all want Britain to be a great global trading nation, and if that is to be our position in, say, 10, 15 or 20 years’ time, we must up our game on exports. At the moment, we still have a negative balance of payments. That is improving, and the Government have done good work in that area, but the balance of payments is still negative. In a period when we have a weaker currency than previously, exports should be growing at a far faster rate.

UKTI must play its role, and it has a primary function on exports. As chairman of the all-party group on space, it is clear to me that Britain has amazing industries in our space, science and engineering sectors, particularly in robotics. We often talk about the magnificent, double-digit economic growth in China and some of the emerging economies, but our own economy has a major area in which economic growth has outpaced many of those nations. We have seen double-digit economic growth in the space sector and related industries for the past 10 years, so we do not need to look to China; we can look to our own nation to work out which elements of what we do here are exportable. The space sector and the products and services therein, of course, are eminently exportable.

[Sir Roger Gale in the Chair]

We also export our education system, our universities and academic institutions and our research. We punch above our weight on research—we have 1% of the world’s population and 12% of citations and Nobel prizes. The Open university is a great example of a British export to the rest of the world. Again, both BIS and immigration officials can play a role in both the ease with which visas are handed out and the way in which we advertise our wares abroad. Tourism, of course, is another area that could be classed as an export—tourism imports money into our country, at least.

UKTI also has a major role in inward investment. There has been an interesting political narrative over the past decade or so. We have been a little shy and embarrassed about wealth creation. When companies make massive profits and when wealthy people come to invest in Britain, we are all a bit concerned and not quite sure whether it is a good thing or whether we should be nervous or concerned. Unless we love wealth creation and unless we love and welcome people who have the cash to invest in our businesses, we will not go very far very fast because, as we know, the banks here do not yet have money available. Despite the good work of the funding for lending scheme, there is still not sufficient cash available for UK SMEs and exporting companies to produce their wares and make their way.

We must ensure that UKTI is working to attract foreign investors to Britain. Part of what I like about the report, and about a lot of the background work on it, is that the report recognises that it might be a good idea at some point for UKTI to have some accountability. For a region, an area, a country or a district, UKTI should answer the question, “How much foreign investment have you attracted into this area over X or Y period?” Several Members have asked questions along those lines to up the ante and to ensure that Ministers are aware that this would be an important way to focus the minds of those at UKTI on delivering results. They do some great work in facilitating meetings at overseas trade shows, working with DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and supporting Ministers, but the spotlight would focus sharply on the outputs for inward investment if UKTI consistently answered the question how much direct foreign investment it has seen or facilitated within a region.

My one other general point is on the balance of trade between the EU and the rest of the world. In many ways I understand the Foreign Secretary’s response to the suggestion that we should somehow minimise our trade with the EU, if that is how he heard the question—I say that to him in a good mood. I am certain that he, the coalition Government and all of us would like to see a massive boost in trade with the rest of the world, and with the EU, too. If there were a massive boost in trade with the rest of the world—the BRIC countries and elsewhere—the proportion of our trade with the EU would naturally reduce. Why is that a good thing? Because the rest of the world is growing a lot faster than the EU at the moment and because overall trade would be increased, preferably disproportionately, to the rest of the world.

We have some great connections across the world. My father is from Ghana, although I was born and raised here. Ghana is the gateway to Africa, and it uses the English language and has a similar legal system and attitude to life. There are all sorts of opportunities in such Commonwealth countries, with which we have a natural affinity without the language barrier that many of us here have been hesitant to breach in the past. Therefore, even in our relationship with the European Union and the judgment that we shall make in the referendum, UKTI has a bearing. If it does its job well, we as a nation will feel much more confident in making bold decisions.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

My hon. Friend made a point about Ghana and his family coming from there, so he obviously has a great interest in and understanding of that country. I was born in Warsaw, Poland, and speak Polish fluently, but at no stage has UKTI asked me for any advice about Poland or to take part in any projects involving Poland. Does he agree that UKTI should better understand the interests of Members of Parliament, specifically in such countries, and utilise us more?

[Adam Afriyie]

That is absolutely right. With the trade envoys, for UKTI to focus on MPs who might have natural connections or affinities with countries with which we want to trade would be a good step forward. I therefore welcome my hon. Friend’s important work on the middle east and north Africa council, which connects nations and makes for a more natural route to follow.

As others have pointed out, we have a wonderful brand here in Britain. I am MP for Windsor, where we have a royal presence. The British brand abroad is exceptionally strong, and sometimes it can be frustrating when one is abroad, whether on parliamentary, family or business trips, and one realises that the British brand is not being displayed that well and is not that easily accessible. There is good work to be done in raising our profile abroad, and UKTI has a role to play.

The report is excellent, and I hope that the Government will take the time to respond carefully to each recommendation. Not all of them may be successful, but the direction of travel in each is absolutely right. There might not be a separate agency, for example, but there could be autonomy within the existing structure. Complicated matrix reporting might not continue, but it could be adjusted to make UKTI more accountable to Parliament and more directly visible to Ministers.

I welcome the report, and I hope that the Government will go through its recommendations carefully, although I appreciate that we will have a general response today. For me, inward investment is key. We do not have the cash in our British banks, so let us get it from those who have it elsewhere in the world, to boost our economy here. They will do that with good cheer and good will if we let them recognise that we value and like the fact that they have created wealth and are prepared to spend it here. If we want the UK to be back on top, UKTI must up its game and play its part. I very much welcome the report and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham for securing the debate.

Parliamentary Standards Act 2009

Debate between Adam Afriyie and Daniel Kawczynski

Thursday 15th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House approves the recommendations of the First Report from the Members’ Expenses Committee on the Operation of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009, HC 1484.

It is a pleasure to open the debate. I do not intend to detain the House for too long, as there has been a lot of debate on this subject. I welcome this opportunity from the Backbench Business Committee to present the findings of our very thorough and carefully conducted review of the Parliamentary Standards Act 2009. The Committee on Members’ Expenses was tasked with reviewing the operation of the Act to work out what were its aims—what was intended by Parliament—and whether those aims were being fulfilled, and to make any recommendations that were felt necessary.

I am delighted that the House has the opportunity to debate this issue and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support and input during the process of constructing the report. I thank in particular my fellow members on the Committee. We worked very hard in very busy circumstances to try to put together a report that truly reflected the evidence we received. Hon. Members will be aware that in many cases when one is on a Committee one has to pull back one’s personal preferences to ensure that what is delivered is fair and balanced and truly reflects the evidence and information provided. I thank the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee for making it possible to bring these issues to the House in a non-confrontational environment in which we can talk about matters that relate to the House and, primarily, to Back Benchers. This is a good forum in which to do that.

The party leaders and the House in general deserve some recognition for the initiation and passing of the Parliamentary Standards Act in 2009 and the amending Act in 2010. The House clearly decided to get rid of the old discredited system, to have independent regulation of Members’ expenses and to have that level of remuneration set independently. It also decided clearly that it wanted there to be more accountability for that body and these things than there had been in the past. I thank in particular the former Leader of the House, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), for stating very clearly what the intentions of the Act were prior to its enactment in 2009. I thank also the shadow Leader of the House at that time, the current Leader of the House and the former shadow Leader of the House in the current Parliament for being entirely consistent in their presentation of the aims and objectives behind the legislation and for being persistent in trying to ensure that those aims and objectives were met.

Contrary to most media reports, the review that I present on behalf of the Committee is not particularly controversial. It is completely in keeping with the aims of the Act, as they were laid out. There are seven fairly clear aims about, for example, value for money, accountability, not deterring Members from making claims, being open about what is going on—the transparency side of things—and not creating a system that is unfair for Members who do not have independent means or who do not have families. We were very mindful of those objectives when we conducted the review and I highly recommend that hon. Members read the first section of the report, which runs through the history of payments to MPs. That section also runs through each of the Act’s aims and analyses the extent to which they are currently being met.

[Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has thanked various people. Will he accept my thanks and those of many colleagues for all the work he has put into this report? This is an extremely controversial matter and he has shown great leadership and sacrifice in doing all he has done.

[Adam Afriyie]

I thank my hon. Friend. If I could, I would probably flush up at this moment, but luckily hon. Members would not know if I had.

The objective of the review and its recommendations was to make sure that the aims of the Act, on which the majority of the House agreed, were being met in reality. Let me dispel a couple of the misleading ideas that are bouncing around about the report before I go through its recommendations so that the House is fully aware of what we might be accepting or putting over to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority a bit later.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Afriyie]

That point is echoed and very well made as a recommendation in the report. IPSA is taking some steps in that direction, and I hope that the report encourages it to move more quickly.

Let us remember that all the changes we made in 2009 were about improving the public’s confidence in this institution, but that cannot happen if the way information is published misleads people into believing something different. I am concerned in particular about the new intake of MPs, and at some point I will ask IPSA, “How many members of the new intake do we honestly think have been terribly devious and tried to cheat their expenses?” I think that the answer is zero. The robust systems in place indicate as much, but every eight weeks Members are lambasted in their local press for claiming something, so something is wrong with the way information is presented, and that is what the report tries to tackle.

[Daniel Kawczynski]

I very much hope that as part of my hon. Friend’s recommendations to IPSA he challenges it also to interact with our suppliers to lower the costs that we pay to some of them, such as Cellhire, which I personally think are extortionate. I very much hope also that IPSA will use bulk purchasing contracts in future to drive down our costs.

[Adam Afriyie]

The report also makes that recommendation, urging IPSA to continue in that direction and, as far as possible, like most other organisations, to do some central purchasing and secure some wholesale agreements, as it has with rail travel. It is stepping slowly in that direction, but we urge it to move a lot more quickly, so that our time and that of our staff can be spent on constituents rather than on unnecessary bureaucracy.

It is very hard to see anything controversial in our report; it is incredibly moderate, calm and analytical. It also asks that IPSA be more transparent and explain to the public—on its website, or in a letter to us—its existing system of supplements for London, for the outer London area and for mileage; explain its rationale for those items, which it has introduced, because the public need to know why it has done so; and then to show very clearly the methodology behind the calculation that enables it to arrive at its figures for those supplements. That would be a very useful exercise, because then people might see how the numbers are calculated and where they come from.

In the second part of recommendation 17, we say that if the system that IPSA has already introduced to London and the outer London area were rolled out—so we are not making a decision on it, but saying, “if it were rolled out”—let us ask a third party, not us or IPSA, to undertake a cost-benefit analysis to see whether it saves taxpayers money and provides them with value for money. Even if it does, and it may not, that is not good enough, however, so we recommend that a third party evaluate whether the system continues to meet the aims of the 2009 Act. Again, that is pretty uncontroversial: we simply, and perfectly reasonably, ask for information, and for an analysis and evaluation to be undertaken.

Recommendation 17(c) may have caused a little concern. During my discussions with the Leader of the House and others, there was some concern that it implies that Members should take control of the expenses system again and “decide” what IPSA does. May I just be absolutely clear, however, and ask Front Benchers to reflect on the fact that, if that were the argument, I have made it clear—including in the amendment that I attempted to table—that that is definitely not the intention? If a word is slightly out of place, I would just say that the report is not legislation but merely a set of recommendations, and I apologise on behalf of the Committee.

The recommendation states that, once the cost-benefit analysis has been completed and we are able to work out whether the taxpayer would get better value while accountability, transparency and everything else are maintained, the House should express its opinion, which I imagine would be in the form of a motion or an early-day motion, stating: “In the opinion of this House, we think this piece of work is jolly good and IPSA should think about it.” We would not be overruling IPSA—nothing of the sort; it would be another recommendation in a report, and that would be it.