Commonwealth in 2020

Debate between James Duddridge and Richard Graham

Monday 9th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham]

The Minister will remember that a year ago, he and I sat down together and discussed a project, which is now known as CP4G—the Commonwealth Partnership for Good—between the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the Westminster Foundation for Democracy and other partners. As he knows, that partnership has been put together. Its focus is on trying to help youth, women, LGBT and those with disabilities into parliamentary democracy. Does he agree that this helps to answer some of the questions asked by the Opposition, and that it is proving successful?

[James Duddridge]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. It has been a very successful programme, which drills down into specific countries rather than being about generalities, and gives covering fire to discuss problematic issues in those countries under the guise of discussing a whole number of matters.

A number of colleagues and the Labour Front Benchers mentioned the issue of Commonwealth veterans. I have listened very carefully to those comments, and I will be seeking a discussion with the Minister for Defence People and Veterans, who is now separate from the Ministry of Defence and from the Home Office. I was asked to have a meeting with him, and I think that is the right way forward. There is also the issue of the veterans of the second world war. I have not yet received parliamentary questions on that, although I understand that there have been historical questions. I am more than happy to review those questions and to respond to further such questions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) was introduced incorrectly, I think, as a new Member of Parliament, so competent and lucid was he. However, I will never ever be able to listen to the phrase “blue rosette on a donkey” or “blue rosette on a monkey” without hearing the example from Bracknell of a blue rosette on a dog turd. I do not thank my hon. Friend for that analogy. I think he is a very modest man—we heard later in an intervention of his service in the Falkland Islands—and a very sensible man from the Logistics Corps who praised in advance the logistics of this House, which serve us all incredibly well.

The hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) pointed out that we have served together a number of times in debates on this issue and will continue to do so. I look forward to working with my Scottish colleagues and will be visiting the joint headquarters of the Department for International Development next week in East Kilbride.

My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) has been an advocate for all things overseas territories and dependencies. I cannot promise him an outcome, but the trajectory of travel is to work closer and closer with the overseas territories and Crown dependencies. He raised a very good point about the flags, and he asked me not to take them down tomorrow. I can confirm that I will not take them down tomorrow, and that I will consult Government protocol to find out why they cannot stay up for longer, so that we can celebrate the Commonwealth over a longer period. I know that he has been passionate about flags, and that he has had a big flag raised at the other end of this building, and I am keen to support the celebrations further.

We had an excellent speech from the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe). I am not sure what it says about her parents—they spent all that time on Nevis, an island state of 11,000 people, without meeting and then they nipped over to Leicester and suddenly they were together. I am minded to say that there must be something in the water, or perhaps it is the Pukka Pies that she was advocating in her speech. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to wish Keith Vaz a happy retirement from politics and thank him for his service on the Commonwealth parliamentary executive, among his other achievements. I will now also always think of Leicester East as the minorities that make up the majority; that is rather a lovely way of describing an eclectic and interesting constituency.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) explained to me the rivalry between New Zealand and Australia, and I welcome his putting on record that my brother is now an Australian. He also talked of coastal states and small states, and climate change—an issue that we will follow closely as part of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting and COP26.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) thanked me for being the comeback kid and for putting the C back into the Commonwealth. I did wonder what he was talking about, and then I realised that the C stood for Commonwealth. I thank him for his experience and passion, and for setting up his all-party group.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) talked eloquently of historic bonds and mentioned the trade benefits from the Commonwealth post EU. My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alicia Kearns) talked about us coming together as equals in a tour de force of speech. I thought she was going to break the convention of not interrupting a maiden speech; she was writhing in her seat in anger at references by the hon. Member for Leicester East to Pukka Pies, because she maintains that Melton Mowbray pork pies that are the best pies in the whole Commonwealth.

This has been an excellent debate, and I hope it is an annual one. With that, I do not intend to detain the House further.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the Commonwealth in 2020.

Exiting the European Union and Global Trade

Debate between James Duddridge and Richard Graham

Thursday 6th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lincoln (Ms Lee). I congratulate her on her passionate maiden speech. Many of us will also remember her predecessor fondly.

This debate is at the heart of the challenge for us all in this Parliament, for although leaving the EU is by no means the only task before us—many of our constituents may have a clearer focus on seeing their local school and hospital well-funded, and their own standard of living gradually increasing—if we lose our access and tariff-free trade with the EU and fail to grow our global business enough to compensate, much else is at risk, because business generates, directly and indirectly, 75% of the total tax revenue that funds vital services. That also means that there is a particular responsibility on all of us here who voted against leaving the EU not to sit back in our chairs and say, “I told you it would be a disaster”, but rather to do our best in making sure that the process works and succeeds because jobs, the economy and, ultimately, the lives of our constituents are at stake. But if I ask remainers to be pragmatic in seeking the opportunities and not overplaying the risks, I would also ask leavers to be pragmatic in their approach. Let me give one example.

The Prime Minister did not commit us in her Lancaster House speech to a position on the customs union. She said that

“I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe…Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member…or remain a signatory to some elements…I have an open mind…It is not the means that matter, but the ends.”

So the Secretary of State was right earlier to focus on prosperity as his guiding light. What works best for business is what will be best for us, because it is business that has delivered the 2.9 million new jobs since 2010—more than all the other 27 EU nations put together.

Today we should all rejoice that exports are up sharply and inward investment is at record highs from 2016’s results. It is a far cry from the prediction made by some of 800,000 unemployed, a deep recession, and real economic hardship by now. But nor should we be complacent, for the figures show a strong surplus of exports and services but a continued deficit in traded goods. In a year of significant currency depreciation, that means we have to do much more. This implies success in retaining the more than 40% of our trade with the EU, and success, too, in exporting to high-growth markets.

As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on China, let me touch on China, and south-east Asia.

[James Duddridge]

I compliment my hon. Friend on his work as chair of the all-party group and in facilitating greater knowledge of Hong Kong. I urge him to touch on the trading relationships between mainland China and Hong Kong, and how the latter can be seen as setting the pace for the former.

[Richard Graham]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I am not going to talk too much today about the differences between, and indeed the closeness of, Hong Kong and China.

Our exports to China doubled between 2010 and 2016, but they are very dependent on the success of a handful of companies, especially Jaguar Land Rover. What holds us back, and where we have to make much greater progress, is market access. With an excellent new director general of trade and investment in Beijing, recruited from industry, I hope that Ministers will drive real progress in this strategic partnership to deliver greater access for British services, in particular.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill (First sitting)

Debate between James Duddridge and Richard Graham

Committee Debate: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 6th December 2016 Public Bill Committees

[James Duddridge]

That makes an awful lot of sense.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Q Over the years since the inception of the Commonwealth Development Corporation in 1948, the Government’s approach to it has fluctuated considerably. In the 1980s it was doing, on a smaller scale, broadly what Graham and Diana are now doing—direct investment—but then there was pressure to separate out and effectively privatise the private equity or venture capital element of it. With 0.7% of GNI going to DFID, you can take a longer, more strategic approach to the CDC, but the effective tensions, potential tensions, between ODA objectives, taxpayer return on equity and pursuing aid goals but not investing in things that might be done by the private sector otherwise, remain and arguably will be more in the public eye as the CDC expands. How will you balance those, and what is the longer-term strategy, in your view, for the future of the CDC?

Rory Stewart: It is a very good question. You are absolutely right: since 1948, the CDC has been through changes. I think that is because it was a very bold and imaginative move by the Attlee Government. It was a very unusual thing at the time; indeed, it was the first DFI. And from the moment that they were invented, DFIs have had to tread a thin line between two quite different things: a private sector modality—a desire to generate a commercial return—and a public developmental objective. A lot of the shifts you mention are about the pendulum swinging back and forth between these two types of objective.

Looking at the history of CDC, there have been times, in the 1980s for example, when CDC made a lot of very bold, risky investments in high development impact and lost money. It did not succeed in making money. There have been other times, under other leaderships—and this was true in the period criticised by the NAO, in the 2000s—when they went to the other extreme. We had a situation in which, during that period, CDC managed to generate £1.5 billion of profit—profit for the UK taxpayer, profit that is put back into the CDC and reinvested, but they were very high rates of return, largely achieved through the fund of funds strategy.

Now, we are using this piece of primary legislation, this discussion of the Committee and also the UK aid strategy and the CDC strategy being undertaken at the end of this year, to provide a much tighter definition of the key characteristics that take us forward. That is, philosophically, that the DFIs work when you get that balance right. The balance is right where the private sector element gives you the commercial discipline to make sure the investments you are making are genuinely sustainable, that they are going to keep those jobs and deliver revenue to the Government and value for money for the taxpayer. However, that has to be balanced with the public objective, which is the ability to make very patient long-term investment, to take a certain degree of risk and to pursue developmental impact. That is why we have put out this grid where, on the X axis and Y axis, we measure with every single investment how much capital is available, how hard the business environment is, how low the GDP capture is on both axes and whether the sector is likely to create jobs. That is also why we brought in Harvard University last year to review this and why we are now going through a 15-year longitudinal study to try and establish this.

I think we are getting better at this, but your warning, Mr Graham, is a good one and everything we are doing in our strategy, our metrics and our measurement is to ensure that we are not back in a world where this pendulum is swinging back and forwards all the while.

Small Charitable Donations and Childcare Payments Bill

Debate between James Duddridge and Richard Graham

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Programme motion: House of Commons
Tuesday 11th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Duddridge]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that some charities are struggling and that there is a constant shift in funding. I remind Southend charities not to believe all the doom and gloom that was talked pre-Brexit. We are still growing strongly; we are the strongest-growing economy in the G7. Rather than squirreling away money for the rainy day that might come, we should encourage people to spend, enjoy and donate some of that money to charities. The Bill’s measures should allow more of such money to come back to charities.

In common with previous speakers, I should like to mention a charity with which I was involved, although I did not start it up. I was appointed by a charity known as the Bulldog Trust, which is based just down the road from here. Its website said that it was a philanthropy organisation. I thought that it was no good for me because I do not have any significant cash to give to it—it would certainly be a £20 donation from me rather than a £20 million donation—but what this charity does is to link up people who have a skill and want to use it within a charitable organisation. That sent me to the Grow Movement, which at that time was a charity operating in Uganda, Rwanda and Malawi.

I mention that example because I am a little unclear about what happens when a charity such as the Grow Movement is UK based but international. Of the trustees, I think I was the only one domiciled in the UK; it has an international virtual board. We need to make sure that small sums, wherever they might come from, can go to such organisations. At one time it was inconceivable that someone would send a few quid from France or the United States, but now, because of the way the internet is set up, when we purchase something we are quite often asked to “click here” to enable an extra £2 to go to a charity. I urge the Minister to review the position and ensure that charities like the Grow Movement can benefit from this and future legislation.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a series of good points about the impact that the Bill could have on small charities. He has mentioned several in Southend, and I suspect that all of us could mention others in our own constituencies. Is he aware that the inability to reclaim through texts is a possible issue for some of those charities, and does he think that the Minister should reflect on that when winding up the debate? May I also ask what he thinks might be the impact on charities such as scouts groups that sometimes, for example, raise funds using buckets outside supermarkets. Under the new provisions, I think that they will be able to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman is doing a Whip’s job, and I do not mind that, but what we cannot have is the making of speeches rather than interventions. I want to try to help everyone, but I cannot allow myself and the Chamber to be tested by a speech rather than an intervention.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Graham]

Contrary to what has been suggested, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is not a bob-a-job contribution. Does my hon. Friend agree that this could also be incredibly helpful to armed forces cadets and other charities? I am thinking particularly of those who help people to pack items that they have bought in shops. Small amounts of money will often be collected in buckets to go to small causes, and the Minister has just confirmed that that will be covered.

[James Duddridge]

Another point is that charitable giving then begins to be inculcated in young people in particular. Their small donations, to both small and big charities, bring them into the system. Certainly, when I see someone under the age of 16 collecting for poppies or Help for Heroes, I feel that the future of the country is in safe hands.

I intervened on the Minister to ask about deeming all donations tax-free. I am sympathetic to Her Majesty’s Opposition’s points about complexity. The points have been made well today, just as they were three years ago, as Opposition Front-Bench Members pointed out. The sooner we can get through all this complexity and decide that the basic rate of tax should come back from all moneys en bloc that are given to charities in small amounts, the better. I will say more about how we define “small amounts” later.

I shall turn now to the specifics of the Bill. Clause 2 deals with the meaning of the term “small donation”, and subsection (3) refers to the United Kingdom. However, clause 6, which deals with the extent of the Bill, refers to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Forgive me if I am being stupid, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that they amount to the same thing. I would be grateful if that provision could be amended, if only as a tidying-up exercise, or if the difference could be explained.

Draft Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2015

Debate between James Duddridge and Richard Graham

Monday 2nd November 2015 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2015.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gapes. The order was laid before the House on 12 October 2015. It gives authority for immunities, privileges, reliefs and exemptions to the new international organisation—the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank—under the International Organisations Act 1968. Before I go into the detail of the order, I will set out some context with a few words about the bank and its links with the Government’s prosperity objectives.

The fast-growing markets of the emerging economies are becoming increasingly important to global trade, to British businesses generally, and to our values in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom must, therefore, continue to play a significant role in developing the markets, as well as the global economy. Equally, we must expand into areas where we are economically under-represented. China is at the heart of some of that activity. The recent state visit by the Chinese President demonstrated the scale of the opportunities that lie in deeper co-operation between our two nations, and a key component of opportunity and growth in Asia is, and will continue to be, infrastructure. Satisfying that need is vital not only for driving growth but for increasing living standards across the region. It will benefit the whole global economy, creating new jobs, including for British business.

The UK has expertise in areas ranging from green investment, infrastructure and engineering to accountancy, finance and project management. Key to enabling effective support for infrastructure development in the region is ensuring that the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is well established as a high-quality and functioning international organisation, and that is why the UK has taken on such a strong role in supporting it. Our announcement in March of our desire to become a founding member was the first of any major western country. Germany, France and many others have now followed.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our early decision to become a member of the bank shows that our commitment to contributing to the economic development of more than 50 countries across Asia is strong? Does he also agree that that can only be good for British business in Asia, supports engagement with China, allows us to share our considerable experience across the region and is widely supported by business here?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Duddridge]

The bank has not been taken out of anyone’s control. The Chancellor has been close to this work, which is perhaps why it is a Treasury lead. I have not been involved, so I am not aware of specific candidates in the longer term. As Minister with responsibility for protocol, I have looked at the governance issue in relation to immunities, privileges, reliefs and exemptions and what that might mean for different individuals.

The question of shareholding gives me an opportunity to address the super-majority. China will have the largest share capital, which translates to a voter shareholding of 26.1%, so the hon. Gentleman is right in his assertion that there is a blocking super-majority. However, the combined shareholding of non-regional members is higher than the Chinese holding, at 26.7%. In relation to the Asian Development Bank, I understand that there is an ongoing discussion about a memorandum of understanding between the two banks.

The hon. Member for East Lothian raised some concerns about the Japanese, and subsequently the hon. Member for Nottingham North raised similar issues about the US position in relation to this bank. The US was initially sceptical but it would be fair to say that its tone has softened over recent months, particularly after the recent Chinese state visit. The US acknowledged the contribution that this new bank could make. It is very much not a zero-sum arrangement. This will be a beneficial addition to the piece.

[Richard Graham]

The Minister makes a number of important points about the governance of the new AIIB. Is there an opportunity for this new bank to be headquartered in Hong Kong, which has the advantage of Chinese sovereignty and the strong rule of law that might give it the credentials needed to play an important part in infrastructure developments across Asia?

[James Duddridge]

The point of the order is to lay the foundations for the bank to operate across our jurisdiction in the UK, rather than to draw reference to where it might have other headquarters or regional headquarters.