Trade Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and Charlie Elphicke

3rd reading: House of Commons & Report stage: House of Commons
Tuesday 17th July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

I will be brief. The Trade Bill is of course the latest part of the Brexit fantasy built on the illusion that the trade we lose from the EU will be made up by the US and, in particular in this Bill, by the continuation, without any change, of the existing 14% of our trade with third countries. We know from Donald Trump that we cannot rely on the US. This is about whether we can rely on the 70 countries and 40 agreements to deliver the 14% of our trade in the same way, and the simple fact is that, rather than negotiating as team EU, any country now looking to negotiate against the UK alone is bound to want a new agreement, because we are a much weaker party.

That is why, in speaking to new clause 16, I simply ask that MPs have information about the countries that ask for changes in those agreements. The current Minister and previous Ministers have claimed that no one is asking for any changes, but we already know that both Chile and South Korea are asking for such changes. This is about transparency and scrutiny.

As it stands, the Trade Bill gives Ministers the power to amend domestic law to match any new trading arrangements, so we are talking about Ministers having the right, behind closed doors, to change standards, to change tariffs, to change human rights, to enable visas, to change environmental protections, to undermine public health and to change workers’ rights. [Interruption.] There is a bit of heckling, but the reality is that in bilateral trade agreements if Ministers decide there will be different standards, rights and protections, that may be permitted without the scrutiny of this House. Indeed, tribunals and mechanisms like the investor-state dispute system could be introduced behind closed doors. All new clause 16 says is that there should be scrutiny of that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Ind)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Geraint Davies]

There is no time for me to give way. All I am asking with my simple amendment is that we have the power to know in advance when people ask for concessions. The Government should accept the amendment, because they claim that nobody is asking for any changes and that it is business as usual. If they deny the amendment, they will just be illustrating that, behind closed doors and under the cloak of darkness, we could see our protections and rights undermined.

Diesel Vehicle Scrappage Scheme

Debate between Geraint Davies and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 19th April 2017 Westminster Hall

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on securing this important debate. It was fascinating to listen to the speech by the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar), who set out in pithy terms the policy issues concerned with this matter. I draw attention to my declarations in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Also, I chair the all-party group for fair fuel.

Pollution is a serious problem, but it is important that we look at the science and the statistics and do not go around the place scaremongering. We must not allow the people who for a long time have not been in favour of cars to find another excuse to attack motorists and to seek to visit extra taxes upon them. So when we look at the serious problem of NOx we need to look at what has happened to pollution over the past decade and beyond, because it is revealing that NOx pollution levels have halved in the past decade. They have gone from 1.6 million tonnes in 2005 to 0.9 million tonnes in 2015.

Particulates are also down. Between 1990 and 2015 the most harmful particulate emissions reduced by 47% in the UK and PM10 fell by 51%. I think we should spend a little less time beating ourselves up and a little more time congratulating ourselves and our nation on the advances we have made. Much has been done, but there is much yet to do, and I want to address what we need to do next.

[Geraint Davies]

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the associated data, he will find that from 2010 to 2017 there was a levelling off and a gradual increase in particulates and NOx.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman always looks on the positive side of things. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs figures show that there has been a levelling off, but they are still hugely down. The hon. Gentleman should try to be more of a glass half full sort of person and look at the progress that has been made. He has promoted the Clean Air Bill, which, from the way he talks about it, will attack motorists, diesels and cars. However, let us look at the scale of the problem in the round. Let us look at the science rather than the rhetoric. Let us look at the numbers. What percentage of nitrogen oxide pollution in London comes from diesel cars? The Labour Mayor of London proposes to try to fleece motorists out of £20 every time they visit the city. According to the London Assembly Environment Committee’s report, the percentage is 11%. Separate figures from Transport for London indicate 12% from the diesel car. Some 750,000 diesel cars in London produce that amount.

Why has there not been any focus on the other 90% of the problem? The risk is that we only attack the motorists who thought they were doing the right thing when they bought the cars, because they were advised to do so. They were advised that it was a clean, environment-friendly thing to do. We are at risk of unfairly targeting and demonising those people, and of ignoring the other 90% of the problem. If we focus on 10% of the problem, we risk not looking at the other 90%. So what is in that 90% that needs to be in the air quality plans? I hope the hon. Gentleman will talk about that when he discusses his Bill and will look at the science and statistics and not just go after the poor motorists, many of whom live in his constituency. Let us look at where the problem comes from.

The answer is that 8% comes from rail: ageing trains chuffing up fumes at Paddington. Some 14% comes from non-road mobile machinery: generators on building sites. The system does not seem to allow plugging them into the main grid, which would be the obvious thing to do, so we have to have diesel generators. Why has action not been taken on that? Why have we not heard about that from the medical and the green lobby who want to target the motorist? We ought to hear about that. We ought to look at the diggers that do not have the filters that they should have, that do not have the same quality. We ought to clean up our building sites. We ought to look to do that, because if it is important, it is important across the board.

We need to look at non-domestic and domestic gas—gas central heating systems produce nitrogen oxide. So do Transport for London’s buses—10% of nitrogen oxide in London comes from buses, which the right hon. Member for Warley mentioned.

It is very important that we do not demonise diesel drivers and that this is not seen as an opportunity for Labour Mayors and Labour councils up and down the land to fleece motorists with more taxes—many have set out such plans. As the right hon. Member for Warley pointed out, in many cases that would hurt the poorest, who have been priced out of cities, and would be unfair. We should make sure that we have an across-the-board plan to deal with a problem that affects everyone; we should focus not on the 10% but on the 100%. It is my plea that we treat motorists fairly—that we treat ourselves fairly. We should treat the whole problem and all of the pollution. That is how we will have the best chance of making sure we have cleaner air, a cleaner country, cleaner cities and a cleaner nation, for our sake, and the sake of our children.

Budget Resolutions

Debate between Geraint Davies and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke]

It is absolutely fascinating, is it not? One moment, the Labour party and the trade unions say, “Isn’t it outrageous? We have got to stop the gig economy”, and the next moment they say, “Isn’t it outrageous? We have got to make sure we protect the self-employed.” There is no intellectual coherence in today’s Labour party. It is completely and utterly unfit for government.

Let me turn to the matter of Brexit. In my constituency of Dover last summer we had a taster of what will come if we are not ready. We saw queues of traffic all the way down the motorways, and some say that that was a tea party compared with what will happen if we are not ready. That is why I am making the case again today for more and faster investment in lorry parks off the M20, for widening and strengthening the M20, for dualling the A2 and for the lower Thames crossing. We need the infrastructure in the channel ports as well to make sure that we are ready on day one.

I know that there are Labour Members who look forward to that day, and who like to warn about it and, frankly, feast on it. I take a different view. We need to be ready and prepared so that the worst does not happen. That is why I call for investment to be brought forward, for the lower Thames crossing to be built quickly, and for us to get on with it. We should make an investment in the port of Dover that is similar to, and greater than, that which we have most graciously made in Calais in recent years. It is time we put Britain, and Britain’s border, at the forefront of our policy.

In addition, we need to be ready on day one if we do not get a deal. I hope that we will get a deal in two years’ time. I hope that the Commission will negotiate in good faith. So far, the way in which it has gone about dealing with legally non-existent liabilities makes me think that it will not necessarily do so. Even if we get a deal from the Commission, the European Parliament has to vote for it, and the European Parliament is in an even worse emotional place than the European Commission. After that, a qualified majority vote of the 27 will be required.

I hope that we will manage to do the deal, and I believe that this Government’s Prime Minister is the only leader who could possibly deliver such a deal, but it may be that we do not manage that in two years’ time, because on top of that we will have the French and German election cycles. We have to be ready if the European Union is unable to do a deal. Although we are ready and able, the European Union will not necessarily be, and if that is the case, we must make sure that we can maintain a seamless flow of trade. That is why I am also looking with industry experts at how to manage a seamless flow of traffic through Dover and Calais—we have very good relations with France and the French authorities at Calais—and how we can make that work.

It is important that Members from all parts of the House are heavily invested in making that work, because it needs to work for all of us. It will not be much good for Scottish Members if we have a queue at Dover, because they will not be able to get Scottish whisky out of the country by road at any great pace. It will not be very good for the northern powerhouse if it cannot get the things it needs to power itself. The midlands engine will conk out if it cannot get the components it needs at pace. That is why we all need to be invested in making sure that the channel ports continue to work. I will set out detailed proposals and ideas about what we can do, and we need to debate the matter to make sure that we are ready on day one. This matters to all of us in England, Scotland, Wales and the whole of the United Kingdom, and it matters to Ireland as well. We are all in this together, and we need it to work for the good of us all.

[Geraint Davies]

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman, but does he not agree that after we trigger article 50, it will be for the other EU 27 member states to decide among themselves what is good for them and to stop other people leaving the EU? If we hold the line on migration, we will not be in the single market or the customs union, and that will be it. The people deserve a final say on the exit package, because that is not what they voted for.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman has long had a strong position on the matter. He knows as well as I do that people of this nation, whether he likes it or not, voted for an end to unchecked migration and an end to the billions of pounds for Brussels bureaucrats and to the payments to Brussels. Frankly, the vote meant that we would not be able to stay in the single market, because that aim was not compatible with the single market. Equally, it was clear that we would have to leave the customs union if we were to have a successful Department for International Trade. I am simply saying that if on day one no free trade deal has been agreed, we need to be ready to play our part. I believe that we can, should and must be, and I am setting out how we can help to deliver that for the good of this nation.

Finally, let me talk about motoring. I welcome the fact that we have had a freeze in fuel duty for more than seven years. I am proud of the work that has been done by the all-party group for fair fuel for motorists and hauliers, which I chair. My predecessor chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney), worked very hard on the matter. The freeze is great, because it means drivers spend £130 less. That is a good thing for the hard-working classes of modern Britain who travel by road, and as I said 90% of all journeys are by road.

It is important that we are fair and just to the owners of diesel cars. I hear people say, “We have got to put more taxes on the drivers of these cars,” but let us not forget that after Kyoto people were encouraged to buy such cars by the previous Government. It is right that we support those people to get replacement cars, if a replacement is necessary. It would be wrong to demonise them. We must make the right decisions. I think that we should increase the tax on gas guzzlers, but it is important that we are sensitive and careful.

We must also look at the statistics, which are clear. In London, diesel cars are 10% of the problem. We do not hear about polluting planes, which are also 10% of the problem. We do not hear about dirty diggers and construction sites, which are more than 10% of the problem. We do not hear about clapped-out London buses, which are 10% of the problem, or about ageing trains chuffing up fumes at various mainline stations, which are getting on for 10% of the problem. We need to look across the whole piece, rather than just picking 10% and saying, “Let’s bully these people and ignore the rest.” We need to deal with it holistically for the benefit of everyone, so that we all get fresher and cleaner air and can breathe more easily.

We need to invest more in roads to ease congestion, not to allow congestion to increase. It is very important to look beyond the strategic road network to the wider road network around the country. Regional bottlenecks and the problems of congestion across the country cost the country and the economy money. The air pollution problem also costs the country money. If we keep traffic flowing smoothly, we can reduce pollution. If we invest in the modern technology of the future—electric cars—we will reduce pollution. If we treat motorists fairly and encourage them to make the right decisions, we will reduce pollution. We can have a very positive future for motoring. Modern technology, modern vehicles, reduced pollution and effective roads will make our economy more successful and productive, and enable our children to have a better future in terms of economic prosperity and health.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies]

They need to pay lots more, not a bit more. Of course some of the very rich are paying more, but that is because they are getting richer and richer on massive pay awards. They are earning so much more than anyone else, and the situation is getting out of control

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I will not give way to the rover from Dover, thank you very much. He is known as the Dover soul. [Laughter.] Obviously, that was the highlight of my speech.

Finally, I wish to comment on the rabbits that have been pulled out of the hat. Today, we were told, “Oh, there will be no VAT increases.” Is the Prime Minister going to commit himself to that in his five-year plan? A couple of days ago, we heard that another £46 billion was being spent on various railway connections in the north. There seems to be a desperate attempt to make things up on the hoof.

I do not necessarily disagree with this devolution of economic and service power to the north—to Manchester. We did that in Wales, but it was done on the back of an Act of Parliament and a referendum. In their haste to generate higher ratings at the polls, the Government are doing anything, including undermining the constitution and the economic balance and fragmenting the NHS in the process. Their recent track record, therefore, has not been impressive. The future looks bleak. I very much hope that we can focus on increasing growth. We should consider tuition fees, a cast-iron promise to stay in the EU, which is so important for inward investment, and procurement. The reality is that when it comes to procurement we should look at favouring, if we can, small British companies that pay British tax—corporation tax and income tax—rather than giving the work to foreign companies that do not pay our tax and do not contribute towards growth.

[Charlie Elphicke]

rose—

[Geraint Davies]

I will finally give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for being so generous in giving way to the rover from Dover. I gently point out that the reason why we cannot show a preference towards our own businesses in matters of procurement is to do with the European Union, which he loves so much.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Believe it or not, that discussion is outside the scope of the Budget resolutions. But given that the hon. Gentleman had just acquired a nickname—although I will not be addressing him as such—I decided to allow him to intervene. Mr Davies, I should be grateful if you returned to the Finance Bill.

Debate on the Address

Debate between Geraint Davies and Charlie Elphicke

Wednesday 9th May 2012 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to follow the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), who gave a particular view of economic theory and how to get economies growing. He will not be surprised to know that I completely disagree with most of his prescriptions.

[Geraint Davies]

I’m an economist and you’re not.

[Charlie Elphicke]

He is an economist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Charlie Elphicke]

My hon. Friend is right. One does not fix a debt crisis by borrowing more money—it makes no sense. It is the economics of the madhouse, because we would have more debt to service over the long term. It would take us longer to pay it, thereby mortgaging our children’s futures for longer, and interest rates would rise. Under the Government, interest rates have fallen, and that has done much to ensure that we have more money to invest in public services than would have been the case under the previous Government.

[Geraint Davies]

Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that, because we do not have growth, deficit projections have risen by £150 billion? Secondly, interest rates are the same as those inherited from Labour. Under the previous Tory Government, they were 15%. The hon. Gentleman’s comments are simply factually untrue.

[Charlie Elphicke]

The hon. Gentleman supposes that if the previous Government’s economic policies had continued, the markets would have played along, and the music would have kept playing. Greece, Ireland, Spain, Portugal and Italy are evidence against that. We are very lucky that we had a change of Government. We had a close shave, but we have managed so far, goodness willing, to escape the position into which we would otherwise have fallen. Without a shadow of a doubt, the previous Government would have taken us the way of Greece and we would have been plunged into serious economic chaos. We would not be talking about a technical double-dip recession, but a minus 5 or minus 6 double-dip recession, of the sort and on the scale that is happening in Greece. I hope that when the Office for National Statistics reviews the figures in a few months, we will see that we skirted recession, but were not in recession. Many of us feel that confidence is already rebuilding. From other surveys, many of us suspect that the ONS figures will be revised upwards, and we will find that we did not go into recession and that we may just be starting to recover.

I hope that that is the case, because our constituents have had and are having a difficult time trying to keep hold of their jobs, get a pay rise and pay their bills, which have been increasing ever faster. The Government’s policies, which focus on the economy like a laser beam, are right. We need a more flexible labour market—not a right-wing, “Let’s have the ability to hire and fire at will” policy. The OECD growth project investigated the matter at length and in detail and concluded that a flexible labour market was a key driver of economic growth. It identified another key driver as lower corporation taxes, which the Government are delivering. It also said that a certain and credible financial services and competition regulation regime, which we are rebuilding, was another key driver.

I think that the House accepts that the Financial Services Authority system—the tripartite regulation system—was an unmitigated disaster. The brainchild of the former Prime Minister and the shadow Chancellor, when it was put to the test, it was found entirely wanting. The Bank of England managed to save the secondary banking system and our general banking system in the 1970s, but this time, we had to have massive state-funded bail-outs, which cost the taxpayer a fortune. That need not and would not have happened had the FSA and the tripartite regulatory regime not been in place.

The OECD growth project is also clear that increased competition to promote enterprise and fair markets is also important. Promoting competition, free enterprise, fair markets and a level playing field for market entrants is vital. We have pro-growth policies on all those. I make no bones about the fact that I should like the Government to be more pro-growth to get the economy moving even quicker. I should like them to lever in more private investment sooner so that we can grow more quickly. However, I recognise that all government is a negotiation, and it is clearly a challenge in a coalition to have everything that we would like. From a Conservative point of view, I would like a more pro-growth policy so that we grow the economy even more quickly.

I am realistic about what we can do, but I think that we are doing a lot, and as much as we can. I can look my constituents in the eye and say that we are trying to get the economy growing as quickly as possible, that we are focused on it and that nothing matters to us more than jobs and money.

It is real cheek for the Opposition to talk about youth unemployment, for two reasons. First, it rose massively under the previous Government. Although it has increased under this Government, it has done so at a much slower rate than in the previous Parliament. Secondly, when I knock on the doors in Dover and ask people what their key concern is, they reply, “Immigration and I want my kid to have a future.” They are furious that the open borders policy that the previous Government pursued means that their children are finding it harder to get a job.

Youth Unemployment and Bank Bonuses

Debate between Geraint Davies and Charlie Elphicke

Monday 23rd January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

At the centre of this debate is the question of what the optimum balance should be between growth and cuts, and in what time scale we should bring down the deficit. I contend that the debate should not be some sort of auction about who will cut what when; it should be about who has the most creative, realistic growth strategy, predicated on what has happened in the past. Let us look at the Labour party’s record, to which people have referred. Post-1997, we created 2 million more jobs. We replaced interest rates of 10% to 15% with very low rates, thanks to the independence of the Bank of England. With those jobs and those taxpayers, we doubled our investment in the health service and reduced debt. We have a fine record to build on.

In 2008, as we all know, there was a financial tsunami, generated by sub-prime debt in the United States. Our then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), got together with Barack Obama to ensure that we delivered a fiscal stimulus, and that there was not a depression. We had a shallow recession, and then fragile growth. Then the Tories arrived, and immediately announced 500,000 job cuts. Consumer confidence and demand were thrown out with the bathwater. Immediately, people in the public sector thought that they were going to lose their jobs, and would not spend money. People in the private sector stopped taking on employees, and we ended up with the deficit rising. The deficit forecast is now £158 billion above what it was; when Labour came in, the deficit forecast was falling. The question is what we should do to bring back confidence.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain whether he agrees with the shadow Chancellor, who said the other day,

“we are going to have keep all these cuts”?

[Geraint Davies]

I am not opposing having to make savings and cuts. I am saying that the key is growth. As a business man in Swansea said to me, “It would be no good laying off my workers and selling my tools if I was making a loss; I would need to grow my sales while making savings.” That is the focus. That is why there is a five-point plan focused on national insurance for the building industry, on VAT for extra consumption, and on taxing banker bonuses to generate jobs and infrastructure growth.

In addition, we need a credible growth strategy focused on the growth opportunities in the global economy, namely the emerging consumer markets in India, China and south America. What are we doing to re-engineer our financial markets, our modern manufacturing, and our services, so that they are tailored to those markets? What will we do about getting capital opportunities from surplus-rich countries such as China, or oil-rich countries, so that they invest in our infrastructure? What are we doing to skill ourselves up for future markets? Those questions do not seem to be being asked or answered tonight.

In Swansea, I am talking with prospective manufacturers from India about linking up with the university and providing a manufacturing base to build on the cutting-edge life science research taking place there. I am talking with possible investors about investing in manufacturing facilities. There are companies such as Tata near Swansea, which are already investing in the modern manufacturing of steel, which will have six layers and can create its own energy and heat, so there are new global opportunities. This debate has been completely focused on who will cut most, when. That is going nowhere. We cannot cut ourselves out of this economic problem. We have to grow, invest and reposition our industry.

European Union Bill

Debate between Geraint Davies and Charlie Elphicke

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

Underlying this entire debate about the European Union, sovereignty and the exact meaning of clause 18 is the fact that many Members of this House, myself included, would like to see a fundamental change in our relationship with the European Union. We would like to have a discussion about whether we control, or Europe controls, what happens in the regulation of the City, industry and business, and how we operate as a nation. There is an underlying desire on the part of many hon. Members to have a review of whether we should be part of the European Union at all. There is a desire to have a reworking of the Human Rights Act 1998 and a question mark as to whether it should be on the statute book at all—a concern that I share and that my constituents continually write to me about with a great level of invective.

[Geraint Davies]

In an earlier intervention, I mentioned the European systemic risk board, the European Securities and Markets Authority and the European Banking Authority. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a case for systemic regulation when there is systemic risk? An opt-out clause would put us all at greater risk, so it is not a one-way street.