European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Mark Prisk

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

No. I have not spoken for as long as the Secretary of State and I do not intend to, but 80 Members wish to speak, so I will make some progress.

Our universities and colleges represent one of the greatest exports that our country has: education, which contributes hugely to our economy, not just through fees but through the industrial spin-offs from our world-leading research. That depends on our bringing top brains from all over the globe, and encouraging them to see the UK as their intellectual home. However, the bogus colleges scandal, and the way in which we have treated students whose colleges are closed down or go into receivership, has been a disgrace. They are victims of fraud because our system of certification has been so poor, but we treat them as if they were the criminals. They are given just 60 days to find another college, often in the middle of an academic year, and then to pay another full year’s fees before they are classed as illegal overstayers. No wonder students from key future trading partners in China and India are now turning to Australia, Canada and the US as their first choices for higher education and research. [Interruption.]

The Under-Secretary of State for International Trade, the hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), asks why I am running down our education service. If he had listened carefully, he would have heard me talk about our world-leading research and our top-quality universities. What I ran down was the incompetent administration of the certification of bogus colleges, and the incompetent administration of the immigration rules thereafter.

[Mr Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)]

Give way.

[Barry Gardiner]

The hon. Gentleman may not have noticed, but I did give way.

Students should never have been part of our net migration figures, and immigration should be proclaimed loudly by every Member to be an important and hugely beneficial resource for our economy. Yes, free movement of people will end when we leave the EU, because it is a function of the treaties of the EU, but that does not mean that we should not operate a system of immigration controls with the EU that allows broad and reciprocal access to all our citizens in a way that maximises the benefits to all our economies. That is what our businesses need: access to skills.

For all that, however, some businesses are willing to accept the Prime Minister’s deal. They have expressed grudging acceptance of it, and some have even written to their Members of Parliament asking them to support it. Well, there is the proof that “Project Fear” works both ways. The Government are holding a gun to business’s head with the threat of no deal, and, given this Hobson’s choice, some have been blackmailed into acquiescing in the Prime Minister’s proposal. I am sure that their acquiescence will have been cemented by the cheery words of the Secretary of State this morning, when he advised the nation that he did not regard no deal as “national suicide”, and that, although he grudgingly accepted that it would “damage our economy”, he thought that it was “survivable”—and this from the man who once said that a trade deal with the EU would be

“the easiest in human history”.

It is so good that the Secretary of State and the Chancellor are sharing the debate. I had some little hope that the Chancellor might have sat with him and taken him through the economic analyses. With no change in migration, no deal would see the UK’s GDP 7.7% lower than it would otherwise be. According to the estimates of the Office for Budget Responsibility, that is £164 billion if translated into the current fiscal year. With zero net EEA worker inflows, no deal would see the UK’s GDP 9.3%, or £198 billion, lower than otherwise. That is a heck of a lot of Brexit buses for the NHS: 565.

Unfortunately, during the first part of the debate, the Secretary of State told the House effectively to ignore all the Chancellor’s carefully prepared scenarios and analyses. Back in December, he said:

“It is not realistic to expect that there would be no potential shift, if necessary, in Government fiscal policy, or in the Bank of England’s monetary policy, or changes to what the Government will be able to do on tariffs. We have to be realistic and try to understand what those things are. To try to confuse forecasts and scenarios, intentionally or otherwise, is not helpful to the debate. ”—[Official Report, 6 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 1203-4.]

Trade Bill (Fourth sitting)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Mark Prisk

Committee Debate: 4th sitting: House of Commons
Thursday 25th January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Barry Gardiner]

Mr Davies, I have long admired this Minister’s chutzpah. The chutzpah of somebody to say, “Although I, as the Government, have completely abrogated my responsibility to get this Bill right, and you the Opposition have decided to fulfil my role for me, to try to put it right and get the stuff in place, if we passed your amendments we would not have consulted on them”! What complete, spurious nonsense. Let us have a grown-up debate, because that is not one; it really is not. It trivialises the work of this Committee and the important work that Government must do in scrutinising our future framework for trade negotiations. Mr Davies, I will calm down and try to get back to the essence of what we are doing here.

[Mr Prisk]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to lower my blood pressure after the Minister’s intervention.

[Mr Prisk]

I will do my best, but he may not take that view when he calms down and the blood pressure starts to ebb. My understanding on Second Reading and in earlier debates was that the crux of Labour Members’ worries—on this Committee and in the House generally—was that the Bill’s problem is that it reaches far too wide. Why, then, propose amendments that extend its remit even further? Do the Opposition want a narrow or a wide Bill, and if it is too wide, why extend it?

[Barry Gardiner]

A plausible case. Elements of the Bill go far too wide, including the Henry VIII powers, which we will come on to later. We believe that the way in which the Government have sought to use Henry VIII powers in this legislation is too wide and unacceptable. The hon. Gentleman is right: that was one of the subjects of debate in our Second Reading deliberations. One other key criticism made by many Labour Members in that debate was that the Bill not only did the few things that it did badly, but failed entirely to do the one thing that it should have done properly. That is, to quote the Queen’s Speech policy paper, to

“put in place the essential and necessary legislative framework to allow the UK to operate its own independent trade policy upon exit from the European Union.”

There are many deficiencies in the Bill. Some relate to the widening of powers that it gives to Government, whereas others relate to the narrowness of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

I am pointing out to the Minister, in response to his earlier remarks, the reason I voted for CRAGA then. I think I am right in saying that while his party voted against CRAGA, which it is now relying upon so heavily—there is an irony there—he did not turn up for the vote. I turned up for the vote and I voted for it, but because it was subject to all the scrutiny procedures that were already in place from the EU. The situation has changed.

[Mr Prisk]

I have listened very carefully to the six stages of assessment. I do not have a problem with the principle that there should be a thorough process, but the amendments and new clauses ignore one tiny detail: next March, we leave the European Union. All business representatives, particularly of businesses in my constituency, have said that they need to know what happens on 1 April. How will it be possible for any of these existing trade agreements, which is what the Bill is about, to be transferred across under his proposal? How many years will businesses have to wait?

[Barry Gardiner]

In fact, they would not have to wait. I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman and I know he speaks with real experience in these matters, having been a trade Minister. I ask him to look at what we have proposed: we have tried to introduce the bifurcation at a high level in the legislation. We have put the proposals in at that point. Of course, they would have an impact on all the new free trade agreements. We are trying to ensure that for new free trade agreements, this is the proper process of scrutiny that will come into place. On the corresponding agreements—where the EU already has an agreement—there will be a streamlined procedure, but one that is still subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny, particularly where those agreements have been substantially amended.

Let me conclude this section of my remarks by repeating that we have tabled the amendments and new clauses to establish a procedure for new free trade agreements that do not correspond to any prior EU agreement—that is the point I just made to the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford. I was struck by how forcefully the representatives of business made the case to the Committee in our final oral evidence session on 23 January that there needs to be substantially greater consultation on the new trade agreements that the Government are negotiating, which correspond to prior EU agreements. Wherever those EU agreements are modified to incorporate new obligations, those obligations must be highlighted and presented to Parliament, to business and to the country as a whole, for proper debate, proper scrutiny and proper accountability. We will precisely return to the issue of scrutiny for these new replacement UK agreements as we go through the rest of the Bill.

Trade Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Mark Prisk

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Mr Prisk]

My concern is not with the follow-on scrutiny of events that happened, but more the idea that somehow Parliament should require our existing teams in negotiations to seek approval before they start those conversations. That is my concern, but I will not delay the Committee any longer.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q You were talking about the way in which other countries do the preparation of mandate and scrutiny of the process of creating a trade agreement. I wonder whether perhaps Nick Ashton-Hart could talk about the system in Australia and how the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties does it—or perhaps the system in Germany. Could one of you talk about that?

Nick Ashton-Hart: I would also say on the point about when terms of reference are set and whether our ambassadors need permission before they go and talk, I worked with most of our trading partners in Geneva and dozens of other countries. There are a lot of commonalities in how legislatures interact with Trade Ministries. Generally, the Trade Ministry will say, “We want to achieve these objectives over the course of this Parliament or this year,” and that is done in consultation with the relevant parliamentary Committees.

Ambassadors explore ideas with countries all the time; they do not need a mandate to do that. When it becomes clear that there is interest in formalising something, a process goes on in the capital to say, “Okay, what is our net benefit to be achieved?” To do a deal of any configuration with country X, the economics teams in the Ministry would go away and say, “Where is the net trade-generative agreement here? What sectors would we have to include? What likely trade-offs would we have to do with the other side?”

But that process would generally be informed by a consultation with the stakeholders in the industrial sectors that have most to gain or lose, the unions in those sectors and the like, so that before you even get into a negotiation, you know where your benefits lie, you have your stakeholders signed up to what you are trying to achieve and the other side knows that you have those things.

As I pointed out in my comments, the reason why you see so many leaks in trade negotiations is that it is in the interest of one party or another to put pressure on the other in their capital. Leaks do not happen by accident; they are deliberate.

[Mr Prisk]

I think we are familiar with that!

Nick Ashton-Hart: You are familiar with how that dynamic works. It is no different in trade negotiations.

What I have described is pretty much a common process everywhere in the world, and it is not accidental; it is because the political economy demands that you have the backing, as a negotiator, at home when you are sitting across the table from your counterparties and that they know that you have that. They can watch your processes of consent and agreement and evaluate where your weaknesses are—where there are buttons they can push, but also where you are likely to need support. People know that you have to get to a sustainable deal also, and sometimes you have to do a concession at the right time to solve a problem in a domestic constituency for your counterparty, provided that it is in your interest to do so.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Prisk]

Q You are happy that the authority is sufficiently independent at this point?

Tony Burke: As it stands, but we do not see the transparency that we would like to see, and we also have a view about what appears to be an ability for the Minister to appoint people. We believe that working people and companies should have an opportunity to have a say, and also for trade unions to bring a case. This is important. We have learned from America. We have worked closely with the steelworkers’ union in the United States. They as a trade union in America do bring cases to protect their members in steel, rubber, paper making and industries like that.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Mr Ashton-Bell, can I pick up on something you said because I noticed that you were nodding when Mr Burke was saying that. You said you struggled to understand how we could get the best deal without engaging every part of society in the debate. You also posed the question of who makes the fundamental decision. Do you therefore agree with Mr Burke that it would be helpful to have, in the nine places available on the TRA, statutory representatives perhaps of small business, the trade unions and producers? At the moment, the Bill has it as a blank sheet for those nine spaces, and nobody is really quite clear who might be appointed. Perhaps you could all comment on that, starting with Mr Ashton-Bell.

James Ashton-Bell: My organisation does not have a defined position on that blank sheet of paper you have just described, but to follow your rationale, and consistent with what I have said so far, bigger organisations do not have a monopoly on understanding how trade impacts the economy. In anything where you are making choices about trade and how it will impact the wider economy, you should have a wide and balanced group of people advising Government, or an independent authority, about how to make those choices. That means, indeed, that small business are very much equal to big business, and workers also, because workers are just as impacted as the businesses themselves.

Chris Southworth: I just want to clarify my point. It is exactly the same: the representation is a critical point. An independent body, yes, but there must be representation within that independent body to represent all the important voices, which includes all those here, but I would also include NGOs and civil society, who have equal interest in the implications of trade. They must be at the table and that has to be in everyone’s interest, including business—big, small and medium.

Martin McTague: Barry, it will not come as a massive surprise to you that, yes, I do agree that small business should be a serious voice on this. It is nice to know that James supports me. That is a welcome change. [Interruption.] It is something that we have clearly got unanimity on.

Trade Bill (Second sitting)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Mark Prisk

Committee Debate: 2nd sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 23rd January 2018 Public Bill Committees

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Given that there is this renegotiation going on, do you feel that those countries might seek to use the occasion as a means of bettering the current agreement in some way? Or would they feel—if they are being told, “You will not get a trade agreement unless you do this quickly”—that they are being bullied into doing it against their will?

Professor Winters: By and large, countries find it very difficult to resist the offer of tariff-free access to a market. If they were put in a position where they were told it was the equivalent of the EPA or nothing indefinitely, my guess is that most would shrug and accept the EPA, but given one quarter of a chance, they would want to talk to us about a more reasonable and satisfactory—and in the end more efficient—process of market access.

[Mr Prisk]

Q Professor Winters, we have before us in part 2 a broad legal framework for a future remedies authority. In your view, is it robust enough? If not, what should we be thinking about amending?

Professor Winters: The Trade Remedies Authority is something we clearly need. Without seeing a lot more details about exactly how it operated, I would not want to say whether it is robust, but I would like to emphasise three things about it. One is, I understand, Government policy; I think the others are not.

The so-called lesser duty rule is important for safeguards and anti-dumping. That is essentially the rule that says the duty you put on goods that are allegedly dumped is the lower of the amount of dumping—the dumping or injury margin—required to make good the British industry. That is a good rule to have.

The two things I am less clear are there at the moment are, first, a very strong degree of transparency. Its operations need to be, with the exception of commercial confidence, pretty much out in the open. The second is that experience through decades in nearly every country suggests that these trade remedies are captured by producer interests. They are complex, they are triggered by the producers complaining that they cannot manage or that they are being cheated, and the whole process essentially favours them.

The really important thing is that, exactly like the House of Commons, you need an opposition. I would urge that we try to supplement the Trade Remedies Authority with an officially sanctioned and resourced group to represent the consumer interest, to do the analysis and actually have the right of audience at the TRA to make the case.

George Peretz: If I may add to that, of course the trade remedies provisions are spread across this Bill and the customs Bill. If one looks at the customs Bill to find out where the appeal mechanism is—as a barrister, my first thoughts go to what the appropriate appeal mechanism is—all you find is a power of the Secretary of State to make appropriate regulations.

It is my personal view that that is somewhat unsatisfactory. There are a number of important questions that arise about appeals, one of which is very important, and that is what the appropriate standard of review is. Is it a merits review, which enables a specialist appeal court to correct the decision maker on questions of fact as well as questions of law, or is it simply a judicial review mechanism, where all the court is doing is saying, “Is this a reasonable decision, whether it is right or wrong?”? It is a very important decision to make and it seems to me that that is one that ought to be made by Parliament in primary legislation and not by the Secretary of State or the Executive in a statutory instrument. That is a decision for you.

The appeals mechanism is important. I said slightly flippantly that it was because I am a barrister, but it is the experience of all regulatory processes that what actually happens at the regulatory stage is often very conditioned and influenced by the form of an appeal. Any sensible regulator will, during the process, have their eye on what the appeal route is, who can appeal and what the level of scrutiny of their decision is going to be.

If you have a very robust form of appeal mechanism, which is open to both parties— the complaining industry but also a range of interest groups whose interests might be affected by the imposition of duty—and if they are allowed routes to appeal that will encourage the regulator, in this case the TRA, to take robust decisions. That is robust in the sense of fully reasoned decisions that will sustain detailed scrutiny, to ensure that all parties are properly heard so that they are fully aware of where the objections to what they are proposing to do are and can properly evaluate them. You get better decision making out of all of that.

I sent the secretary to this Committee a copy of a briefing paper I did for the UK Trade Forum website, which is there if any of you want to read it. It expands a bit on that point but I would emphasise the appeal mechanism. There are other issues about the trade remedies. I have probably spoken for long enough but if people have other questions they could ask about them.

Michael Clancy: I read your blog; it is very good. The other thing that I would say is that the tenure should be made more independent by having term limits. That is quite important in reinforcing independence and impartiality. We have had experience in Scotland of the whole system of judicial appointments being reworked for temporary sheriffs because they did not have a stated term and were subject to the whim of the appointing Ministers. That would be my addition to this discussion.

George Peretz: The provisions for the appointment of members of the Trade Remedies Authority are very similar to the provisions for appointments to the Competition and Markets Authority, which as anyone who has watched the press this morning knows takes very important decisions about the economy. There is a difference with the Trade Remedies Authority, and the argument why you might need a more constraining set of rules governing whom the Secretary of State might appoint. At the moment the Secretary of State appoints the majority and the rest are staff members. There may be an argument for a more constraining set of rules, particularly if the Trade Remedies Authority is—as the customs Bill contemplates—itself given the remit of applying a wide range of economic interest tests as the trade remedies body. That means that even if the TRA accepts that there is a legal basis for opposing a trade remedy, then as a matter of economic interest to the UK it is able to say, “We are not going to do so here because, for example, the consumer interest outweighs the interest of the particular producers affected.”

That seems to me to be a political position: it is balancing the interests of jobs in a particular area of the country against the interests of consumers across the country, to put it crudely. If the TRA is, as the customs Bill contemplates, itself going to be taking that kind of decision, then there is a case for saying that its composition ought to be balanced by statute and that it ought to reflect a variety of different perspectives. In that sense its role is much more political than that of the Competition and Markets Authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

[Mr Prisk]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Prisk]

Q Is that specifically the national interest?

Tom Reynolds: There are really four points. The public interest test and the economic interest test is of concern because, as Gareth has already pointed out, the lack of detail means it could operate in any number of ways. Our fear is that it might include an over-simplistic cost-benefit analysis that appears very seductive in its indication that the benefit for producers may be outweighed by the damage to the consumers, when it does not show the full story and perhaps the long-term impact to the consumer that removal of a competitive environment for domestic producers creates if the trade remedies are insufficient to keep production here in the UK.

A big concern for ceramics—the country of concern that is dumping into the European Union at the moment is China—is how you calculate the dumping margin in instances where the domestic price cannot be used because it is subject to such state distortion. That detail is crucial to the effectiveness of the trade remedies system.

There are other issues, such as the lesser duty rule—it was touched on earlier. For the proper operation of the lesser duty rule, we would need to see the detail and how you calculate injury. That is crucial. Pushing all of this into the long grass just adds a lot of uncertainty and concern for producers.

Cliff Stevenson: Because the Bill is simply setting up a framework for the TRA and not really having anything more substantive than that, there are only small points that you might look at, but there are some important points. For example, the composition of the members of the TRA is critical because trade remedies is a highly political area of policy where there are very different views. Some see trade remedies as purely protectionist and would abolish them completely, and some see trade remedies as an essential competition policy-type tool to correct multilateral distortions.

I am in the second group. I believe that, in the absence of multilateral competition rules, trade remedies are the only thing we have that allows state distortions and other unfair practices to be addressed. Within the EU, we do not need anti-dumping or anti-subsidies law because we have really good competition and state aid law.

What we want from this legislation—you have to see the two Bills together—is a coherent, robust system that could redress those problems. In terms of this Bill, the composition of the members is very important to look at because, if all the members thought trade remedies were protectionist, we would never get any trade remedies through—or all members might believe that trade remedies were essential. You would want to ensure that there is some balance in there.

There are some other smaller issues that could be significant. For example, regarding the provision that the TRA should report to Parliament annually, I think there could be a little bit more detail on what it might report on, so that, if the TRA was being biased one way or the other, by being obliged to provide certain statistics, such as number of cases opened, measures adopted and so on, it could be assessed.

[Barry Gardiner]

Q Picking up on your last point, Mr Stevenson, in the EU, the Commission is obliged to report to the European Parliament on trade events, so there would be an annual production of just such statistics. There is a lacuna in the Bill in that there is no provision to make such a report to Parliament and to aid parliamentary scrutiny on trade remedies in that way. Is that something that you and the trade remedies alliance would seek to redress? Would you like to see introduced in this Bill some way in which a report ought to be made—an annual report perhaps—to Parliament?

Cliff Stevenson: Yes, what would definitely be of importance is to have a substantial report submitted to Parliament on an annual basis. In the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, there is a provision on reporting. There is already a proposal for there to be an annual report. The EU anti-dumping regulation is quite specific about what the European Commission must report to the European Parliament in terms of the statistics it must provide. A little more detail ensuring that certain things were provided in this report would be useful.

Tom Reynolds: The question about Parliament’s ongoing role with the Trade Remedies Authority is an interesting one, but so is Parliament’s role in setting up the rules for the system. The point made by Jude Kirton-Darling earlier on about the level of involvement of MEPs in scrutinising and offering amendments on, for instance, the new anti-dumping methodology and the TDI modernisation, which was mentioned, has been integral in improving that legislation from the Commission’s original proposals. I would be more comfortable if there was a more rigorous approach for parliamentarians to get involved in the setting of the rules for the system as well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner]

Q I want to pursue what Mr Jones said. We have got away from the initial question of the sift Committee. You stressed the urgency of this and the need to try to get things through as quickly as possible, and you adopted an approach to delegated powers and Henry VIII powers of, “Well, maybe they’re necessary in the circumstances”. However, it was your organisation that recommended that there should be a sift Committee in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill. Would that not be an appropriate way of trying to say, “What we’re talking about here is a minor change to an existing agreement, but this is actually a major change”?

We are talking about 100 separate agreements between the EU and Switzerland alone, some of which include free movement of people. There are going to be some major changes, such as those we talked about with Turkey and the customs union, and with Norway, free movement of people and the four freedoms. Do you not think, given that you have already recommended a sift Committee in one form, that a similar sort of mechanism for trying to distinguish between what is and what is not vital, and what should have parliamentary scrutiny, is a sensible way to proceed?

Stephen Jones: Yes, sorry; forgive me for the lack of clarity. My reference was really to the existing provisions between the UK and the EU in relation to financial services. In my assessment, for the purposes of transition and of business services in financial services, the chances of change, and therefore of the need for sift, are zero. There just is not the time. In the context of other areas, where there is an assessment that change is possible, the sift Committee strikes me as a very sensible mechanism to prioritise and assess those changes and the degree of scrutiny that is required.

[Mr Prisk]

Q Mr Bain was very clear about the importance of continuity to business. Can I ask the chambers of commerce in particular, but also other witnesses, about that issue? Clearly, the Bill is about the continuity of existing arrangements. How important is that principle of continuity to your members?

Anastassia Beliakova: It is absolutely critical. Our members are operating on the assumption that during a transition period there will be continuity in our trading arrangements not just with the EU but with all the other markets with which we have a trade agreement of some sort. The working assumption is that they should not be making any changes currently or planning for significant changes in trading conditions in March 2019. Of course we are still waiting for greater clarity from the EU on this over the coming months, but I cannot stress enough that in the immediate future the continuity in our trading relationship with the EU during transition is critical. Our continuity, looking further ahead, with the other markets, is also something that our members want to count on.

Fire Services (London)

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Mark Prisk

Friday 2nd November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate and on speaking with a characteristic and heartfelt sense of why this issue is important and of the role of individual fire officers and services. Both he and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) alluded to the fact that fire and rescue services in London is a devolved matter. I am sure that the Mayor will take great interest in the issues raised in this debate, although I strongly reject the idea that there is a cynical or underhand approach to the way he deals with this issue. I was sorry that the hon. Lady started to turn this into a partisan debate, which it should not be, and we must look at these matters on behalf of all our constituents. Before responding to the specific issues raised, I wish to commend—as did the hon. Member for Brent North—the remarkable courage and bravery of the men and women who serve in the fire service in London and in my area of Hertfordshire. I met some of those people recently.

A number of issues have been raised, and I would like to look at the context of this debate and at the welcome reduction in incidents of fire. I will respond to the point about funding streams and answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions on how we can best secure a more effective and efficient service.

Thankfully, the context of this debate is one in which the number of injuries and fatalities is falling. That is due in part to the efforts of fire and rescue authorities, the impact of the Fire Kills campaign, and changes in modern technology. The past 10 years have seen a fall in the number of accidental fire deaths of 40% nationally. Ten years ago there were 310 accidental fire deaths in the home, but latest statistics show there were 187 fatalities in 2011-12. Numbers of non-fatal casualties in accidental fires in the home are also decreasing. In 2011-12 there were 6,335 non-fatal casualties, compared with 9,278 in 2001-02—a reduction of 30%. Those statistics are reflected in London where the number of accidental fire deaths in homes has fallen by 45% in the past 10 years, and attendance at incidents has reduced by 38%. Clearly, any deaths are to be regretted, but hon. Members across the House will accept that those figures are significantly better, and that they must have a substantial effect on the nature of the fire and rescue services that we need now and in the future. The financial context is that the Government inherited a record deficit from the previous Administration. To date, we have been able to cut that deficit by a quarter. That is an important part of the context of the debate.

Every bit of the public sector needs to play its part, but the Government recognise that fire and rescue is a front-line emergency service. That is why we have sought to give funding protection when we have been able to do so. For example, reductions have been back-loaded to give more time for long-term savings to minimise the impact on the quality and breadth of the service.

In the context of London, it is worth bearing in mind that the reductions applied to the fire and rescue services have been less than those applied to local government as a whole. London fire service has had its formula grant reduced by 3.3% in 2011-12, but the Greater London authority has had a reduction of 4.9%. This year, London fire has had a small increase of 0.2% compared with a GLA formula grant reduction of 5.9%.

Clearly, operational matters such as the deployment of firefighters should and must be determined at local level, and it is for each fire and rescue authority to determine the operational activity of its fire and rescue service. It does so through an integrated risk management plan, and it must do so in consultation with the local community.

The hon. Gentleman specifically raised the question of fire stations. I am very much aware that there is speculation about fire station closures. The Fire Brigades Union has, I believe, named 17 stations that it believes are earmarked for closure. As an experienced parliamentarian, the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot comment directly on speculation, and that fire station closures are rightly a matter for the Mayor of London, but I can advise hon. Members that any significant changes to the integrated risk management plan, such as closures, are subject to public consultation. That means that people will have the opportunity to make their voices heard.

[Barry Gardiner]

Will the Minister assure me that he will make representations to the Mayor that the computer modelling system that is being used should be independently audited? That would do a great deal to enhance public confidence in the proposals.

[Mr Prisk]

That is a slightly different matter from stations, and I will come to it in a moment.

I was talking about the speculation about the fire station closures. It is worth bearing it in mind that the London Fire Brigade has stated that it plans to build nine new fire stations—Dagenham, Leytonstone, Plaistow, Old Kent road and so on. Eight are being completely rebuilt on the existing sites, but one will be on a new site. It is important to bear it in mind that this is not simply a matter of closures, but a matter of deployment. That is an important local issue, and Ministers should not seek to overrule.

Let me turn to the future, which is an important part of the question. We have looked at how the grant system works, but the hon. Gentleman highlighted the new functions that the 2004 Act brought into play. It is important to bear in mind the balance of the debate. There are other funding streams. Funding for the new dimension capability, which addresses a number of the activities to which he referred, has increased by £9 million in two-year period from 2011 to 2013. That deals with some of the additional functions to which he referred, such as urban search and rescue, and the new operations of high-volume pumps. The Government have always had the stance that, should more be required, we will treat it as a new burden. That is an important point to bear in mind.

Given the time, I want to draw my remarks to a brief conclusion. It is true that funding reductions have been made to London’s fire services, but it is important that we see them in the context of a significant fall in fire deaths and casualties. In other words, demands on fire services are changing. That is why we believe that London’s fire service needs to respond. Although this is a devolved matter for the Mayor and local management, the Government are ready to help the service to manage change—I mentioned funding streams in that context. The very fact that the Government are providing those funding streams, and responding to the changes and challenges that face the brave men and women to whom the hon. Gentleman referred, are testimony to the constructive approach that we intend to take.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Trade and Investment

Debate between Barry Gardiner and Mark Prisk

Thursday 15th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Barry Gardiner]

I would that every debate I participated in shed as much light on the subject as this one appears to be doing, without my saying a word. My hon. Friend, who chairs the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, speaks with great knowledge on the subject and has pinpointed one of the key problems. It is a problem not simply for UKTI but for government as a whole. Government is keen to measure outputs, but reticent about measuring outcomes. That process transformation is required, as my hon. Friend’s Select Committee has pointed out.

While Germany and France bolster their economies with effective trading bodies, UKTI presents itself to those who use it as slack, unfocused, inefficient and even, in some cases, a deterrent to investors. Consider what Dr Wu Kegang, chief China adviser to the British Chambers of Commerce, told the BBC last year. He said that Chinese investors

“have no idea how to enter the British market. They don’t know how to build business channels inside the UK to promote their innovative brands and products”.

Global economic power is shifting from west to east and UKTI is failing to adjust adequately to the new reality. The UK is falling behind in investment in BRIC countries; inward foreign direct investment is dropping; and our global share of trade has slumped. Recently, the news has been dominated by the difficulties that British companies are facing in securing contracts over their foreign competitors. Just last month, BAE lost out to the French company, Dassault Aviation, for a contract with the Indian air force worth £7 billion to the UK economy. We cannot afford to lose, and we should not be losing, such a contract.

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I am concerned and want to ensure that we get the facts correct. The preferred bidder has been identified. We have not given up the fight. There is a lot more to do. We need to get that clear. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I want to make sure that it is known that we are not yet out of this fight.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am delighted that I was able to provoke the Minister’s intervention, because that is exactly the fighting talk that I wanted to hear. The hon. Member for South Thanet started by talking about your both being on the beaches, Mr Amess, and clearly the Minister is still fighting on them, so that is good.

This is a time when the UK should be taking every advantage afforded it to it. The difficulties created by recession and the crisis in the eurozone are considerable. That is why we need to expand our horizons, seeking new and innovative ways to attract investment and finding opportunities abroad. UKTI and British industry, generally, possess some remarkable advantages, many of which have been mentioned by the hon. Lady in her opening remarks. We enjoy significant cultural, historic and economic ties with many countries currently experiencing economic growth. London is the world’s financial capital, and we have a long and proud history of manufacturing.

With the right attitude, focus and know-how, UKTI can provide a firm footing for Britain to re-establish economic growth. As it stands, however, it is failing. The UK has lost market share in trade and investment. According to the Office for National Statistics, foreign companies invested £32 billion in the UK in 2010—a decrease of £16 billion from 2009. More significantly, because some people may challenge that on the basis of the recession, that was the lowest value since 2004. In 2010, outward foreign direct investment by UK companies decreased to £23 billion—the lowest FDI outflow in 16 years.

One might claim that recent events in the eurozone and the United States have impacted on such figures, but the statistics for the so-called BRICs are just as unimpressive. The United States remains the biggest recipient of outward UK investment. India, whose economic growth has topped 7% almost annually for the past 10 years, is down in 18th place, while China, the world’s largest economy, is 24th. Between now and 2030, GDP in the BRIC countries as a proportion of world GDP will increase by 40%, yet more than 65% of UK trade is done in north America and Europe. Indeed, British involvement with emerging economies has been waning. The UK dropped from seventh to fourth in the list of India’s largest export markets, but went down to 22nd place for imports from number three and now accounts for just 1% of all imports into India. We are the sixth largest manufacturing economy in the world, yet we represent just 1% of India’s imports. If that is not cause for shame and alarm, it should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Mark Prisk)]

Mr Amess, you are managing to overcome a difficult health condition, and we appreciate that. We are delighted to be under your guidance.

This debate has been informed and cosmopolitan. I take it on the basis of constructive criticism; that is how things should be. There has been an element of entente cordiale, certainly between one or two hon. Members present. It is refreshing to have had people who have been in business and who have been part of chambers. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and I worked on the issue in opposition, and he brings his own business experience to the area. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), whom I congratulate on securing this debate, also has her own expertise in the field, which was notable in her remarks. I will come on to some of them in a second. A number of other colleagues, to whom I will refer as I try to respond to the points raised, have shown both interest in and knowledge about the subject.

It is rather peculiar, as was highlighted by several hon. Members, that there was no debate at all in the previous Parliament. That is to be regretted. While my diary secretary will perhaps not want me to encourage too many such debates on a regular basis on behalf of the trade Minister, it has been demonstrated that this House has an important and positive contribution to make to an important part of our economy.

I am not the Minister responsible for trade, but I want to respond to a number of key points that have been raised, and I will personally ensure that the chief executive of UKTI will pick up on the specific points raised, and I will have a conversation with the noble Lord Green. I know that he takes such matters seriously, and I want to ensure that, while he is unable to be present, he can pick up the flavour and character of the comments, particularly those regarding the involvement of MPs, which several people have talked about. They are absolutely right, and I will address those points under the heading of the national export challenge. My hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) highlighted the need for MPs to engage positively, to be close to the business community in their area, district and chamber, and to be a good conduit. That is an important point. It alludes, in many ways, to the point that I will come on to about the broader role of chambers, which I know is of special interest to my noble Friend—sorry, my hon. Friend—the Member for The Cotswolds. [Laughter.] It has been a long afternoon. I anticipate such matters. Perhaps I should say “senator” in due course.

The Government have made it clear ever since the election that we have to rebalance the economy. Members have rightly pointed out that we cannot have an effective trade and investment organisation if we do not have the right balance in the economy. We have seen an improvement—20% year on year now—in car production in previous months, which demonstrates that if we get the overall investment and balance of the economy right, it will start to feed through into good trade figures. That is an important aspect. If we are to have sustainable growth, we need to rebalance the economy; it needs to be broader and more resilient. That will draw through on international trade and investment.

As Members have rightly said, we are a nation with a proud heritage of looking outwards to different markets and opportunities. It is vital that we rebuild our export capability and ensure that by improving the business environment here at home, whether through reforming the tax system, getting a skilled work force in, strengthening the role of innovation or cutting red tape, we not only enable our businesses to export but make Britain a far more attractive location for those who are looking for a place to invest. It is a virtuous circle in that regard, and an important one that we need to reflect on.

Hon. Members are right to say that there are good parts in the current situation and there are challenges. Companies in this country have to win new business—I will come on to markets in a moment—and to ensure that we get more businesses engaged in that process. It is worrying how small, compared with the German Mittelstand and other countries, is the proportion of small businesses that engage in export markets. As a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, said, we need to start to change the culture. It is not just about going to the traditional markets that we have always gone to in the past 10 or 20 years. We have to go to the fast-growing markets, not just in the east but in the south of the global economy—I can say that from our point on the globe. We have tended to overlook Africa. The Chinese have not been so short-sighted; they have always had a canny process about it. It is therefore important that we think beyond traditional trading partners.

In a sense, that returns me to the point about the use of the diaspora in this country, which was excellently made by the hon. Member for Brent North and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois). Those communities are here, and it is right to raise the question about how Whitehall, not just UKTI, engages those communities to strengthen our cultural and economic ties abroad, so that we make the best use of all the talent in our country. There is a big issue regarding what Whitehall does and how that works. Certainly, to someone who is a relative newcomer to Whitehall, that is important.

[Barry Gardiner]

I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which he is taking on board and synthesising the constructive criticisms that have been made.

Does the Minister agree that in taking groups of people out from this country, it is important that we take a complete supply chain to the prospective client country? Instead of simply taking out individual companies, we should look to put together supply chains that can meet the infrastructural, other developmental and business needs of that country, and show that within the UK, we can manage an entire supply chain for it.

[Mr Prisk]

Absolutely. One of the key elements of the Automotive Council road map we developed is demonstrating the depth, but also the gaps, in the supply chain, and our ability to recruit substantial prime investment. We are all familiar with the good news across the automotive sector. Part of the issue is then about how to strengthen tier 2, tier 3 and so on. That is why, when I go to the Paris motor show or the Berlin air show—as jolly and entertaining as it may sound to those who do not go, it is a very carefully worked programme—I talk to the key tier 2s and tier 3s, making it clear to them that not only do we have good indigenous businesses but we have growing markets for the components they generate, in which they may wish to invest. That supply chain thinking is very important.