Trade, Exports, Innovation and Productivity

Kwasi Kwarteng Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Let me begin by conveying apologies from the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle), who is in Brussels today meeting members of the European Commission and the European Parliament to discuss, in fact, many of the issues that we are discussing here today.

In her speech, the Minister indulged in something of a history lesson about what happened in 2010. I fought that election as a candidate for the first time, and I well remember making the case that in 2010 we faced half the levels of unemployment, repossessions and business failures that we had faced during the comparable Tory recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. The Labour Government had a record of protecting jobs, businesses and people’s homes. The economy was recovering in May 2010, when the coalition took office, but that recovery was choked off by the Chancellor’s emergency Budget in June. I am afraid that ever since then, as other Members have pointed out and as we know from the figures that were discussed earlier, the recovery has been the slowest on record. That is the true record of this Government when it comes to the economy. The Conservatives blew the growth that was steadily happening when they came to power as part of a coalition.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some quite bold statements, but how do those statements tally with the fact that Britain is now the fastest-growing country in the OECD?

[Bill Esterson]

Of course, after the slowest recovery on record, growth is going to be the fastest in the world at some point, is it not? That comes as no surprise.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I am glad that we have moved on from me being wrong to me merely overstating the case—we are making progress. I repeat: in the depth of a crisis such as this, we will move on from unsustainable debt by moving towards export-led growth. That is what some of the countries that suffered worst in the recession and from the crisis with the euro have done. We have not even begun to do that, and if we do only one thing today and persuade Government Members that that is the case, we might have made progress.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting points. Does he recognise that those countries have had far more severe fiscal consolidations that we have had in Britain?

[George Kerevan]

I do—that was my point. However, Italy, Spain and Ireland have still managed to double their exports, which is the one thing that the Chancellor said he wanted to do but has not yet even begun.

Why has the Chancellor not been able to rebalance the economy? What has gone wrong? In truth, although previous Chancellors began this, under this Chancellor Britain has a taxation system that favours investment in physical property, rather than long-term investment in manufacturing. It has continued to have a banking and financial system that prioritises gambling—to use an extreme word—money, and foreign exchange markets, rather than supporting manufacturing and innovation.

Let me give Members an example that goes to the heart of the matter. Britain’s premier engineering company is Rolls-Royce, a company we would need to rely on as our flagship if we were to rebalance the economy towards manufacturing and exports. Let us look at the tragic history of Rolls-Royce in the past two years. Just over a year ago, Rolls-Royce sold off its gas turbine business to Siemens for £1 billion. Gas turbines, by the way, are the third largest export sector in UK manufacturing. What did Rolls-Royce do with the £1 billion? Did it invest it in a new wave of innovation? Did it invest it in new technology? Did it do more research? No. The nature of the fiscal taxation system, reinforced by cuts to corporation tax, meant it was easier for Rolls-Royce management to use that £1 billion to buy back its shares.

I am not in favour of raising corporation tax—I think fiscal incentives are good for industry—but the Chancellor continued to cut corporation tax when he knew that most of the money from many companies would actually go on share buy-backs. Rolls-Royce, by dint of buying back its own shares, pushed its share price to something like £10 in the early part of last year. Where is the share price now? It is half that. Our premier engineering company is now in a disastrous commercial state. In fact, the halving of the share price means that the shareholder value of the £1 billion it received from selling off its key turbine business to Siemens has been wiped out.

Meanwhile, the market has caught up with Rolls-Royce. Its key sales of engines for large, wide-bodied jets have started to dry up. The market has moved on to new jet engines for narrower-bodied jets. The Americans are cleaning up because they had the product ready to go into that market. Rolls-Royce is now in serious trouble. In fact, there is now talk in the City of it being taken over.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Kerevan]

I could not agree more that what is clearly missing from the UK industrial structure is those medium-sized Mittelstand companies that export and create a value chain, and instead we have a dumbbell shape, with a small number of very large companies and a large number of small companies. One of the reasons we have been unable to do that is because as companies grow to a certain level, they have consistently needed to sell out, usually to foreign ownership, in order to raise capital.

That brings me to another issue—I shall not be long, Madam Deputy Speaker—which the hon. Member for Bedford raised when he referred to the current account deficit. We have normally been able to fill the current account deficit, even though on a smaller basis, thanks to the financial remits coming in from assets owned by British companies or British citizens abroad outweighing the money from assets owned by foreign concerns leaving the UK. What has changed dramatically since 2010 under the auspices of the Government is the balance between the ownership of assets in the UK and the remit of funds abroad, and UK assets owned abroad and money coming back here. The total value of British-owned overseas assets since 2010 has slipped down to about £1.2 trillion. In that period, the value of UK assets held by foreigners has soared, from £1 trillion to £1.4 trillion. In other words, we are now a net debtor nation. What we own abroad is less than what is owned here, so the net outflow of money will mean in the balance that we cannot cover our current account deficit.

In the last year for which we have figures—2014—there was a bare surplus of £2 billion of positive foreign direct investment coming in versus money going out. That could go like snow off a dyke. That has led the Chancellor into what I think are dangerous grounds. Here we need to link up another aspect of financial wheeling and dealing in the UK with the need for manufacturing investment.

The fundamental way in which we have recently covered our current account deficit is via a huge inflow of money for buying up property in the UK and particularly in the City. Wealth investors have acquired about £100 billion-worth of property in London, using blind overseas companies in just the last six years. Since 2008, something like 28,000 individual purchases of homes, buildings and lands in the capital have been made by corporate structures registered in external tax havens. One in 10 properties in Westminster is owned by an offshore firm. We are funding our current trade deficit by allowing a vast influx of cash from offshore companies coming in to buy property here, yet in many cases we do not know the ownership or where the money has come from. The Chancellor has now developed into an art form the attempt to find ways to get money in to cover the current account deficit, and it is partly connected with his new cunning plan for China.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about inward investment and foreign capital acquiring assets. Is he proposing some form of capital control? Does he have any suggestions about how to meet the problem that he has identified?

[George Kerevan]

I might start by ensuring that we actually know who the beneficial owner is when anybody buys property in the UK. That might resolve part of the problem—we could find that some of the money coming in previously no longer continues because people do not want to reveal its source.

The Chancellor’s latest wheeze is to open the door to Chinese cash. China has no track record of building nuclear power plants, yet the Chancellor has offered massive subsidies over the next 20 years in the hope of encouraging Chinese state companies to invest in our nuclear power industry. So much for encouraging British manufacturing! I believe that the Chancellor’s cunning plan has little to do with energy security, and everything to do with getting China to cover Britain’s disastrous current account deficit. With Chinese money coming in, foreign currency will stay here and cover the deficit. Unfortunately, China is already eating into its capital reserves in a desperate bid to shore up its own currency and stop its rocky banks from imploding. What I think we are likely to see in the next five or six years is running out of the foreign currency to fill the trade gap, which will have big implications for interest rates and our trade surplus.

What we really need is an industrial policy, which my hon. Friends have mentioned, to revive domestic manufacturing. Instead, the Chancellor has slashed the budget for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills by 17% in the autumn statement. I chide the Minister on the fact that the budget for UK Trade & Investment is being cut over the next four years by £42 million. Yes, it is going up marginally this year, and if the Minister is selective in choosing which years to look to for the budget, she can pretend that there has been an increase. Over the four-year period, however, UKTI funding announced by the Chancellor in the autumn statement will go down by £42 million.

How can this Government pretend to support exports and promise to double them when they are cutting the budget of the very agency we rely on to liaise with our companies to assist our exports? The Chancellor promised to double exports, and he has form in making similar promises about eliminating the annual deficit—but he did not keep them. This Chancellor has no clothes; if he had, he would have had to import them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I am happy to announce, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I shall not speak for 24 minutes, unlike the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan). I am, however, very pleased to follow the hon. Gentleman, who made a very interesting speech. You will be glad to know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I did not agree with everything he said. I thought that some aspects of his speech were wrong. Although his points were made in the right spirit, some of his conclusions were wrong.

Let me begin by registering my own interest in the debate. My constituency is a hub of local business and private enterprise. Indeed, Staines was the No. 1 area for business start-ups last year, and we wish to continue that tradition and record of achievement.

During this interesting and important debate, a number of Members have spoken about the need for an industrial policy or strategy, without, in my view, spelling out the details of what such a strategy would be. Yes, it is true that we could be doing better with exports, and it is certainly true that we could be increasing, or trying to increase, our productivity; but the general remarks that Members have made have not been fleshed out with concrete proposals. I make one exception: my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) did come up with some concrete suggestions and interesting points about the Government’s role in UK Trade & Investment, and about the function of UKTI.

What I want to focus on, however, is the general economic context. The hon. Member for East Lothian said that, across the eurozone, the current account figures had improved. He suggested that that was largely a consequence of increased exports, but those of us who followed what went on in the eurozone will know that those countries had drastic fiscal consolidations, in the course of which they killed off domestic demand. They tipped their economies into recession, and, as everyone knows, if an economy is in recession, imports will fall considerably.

[Jeremy Quin]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, welcome the fact that 2 million extra jobs have been created in this country, whereas—as we heard from the hon. Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan)—there are record levels of youth unemployment elsewhere in the European Union?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I take that intervention in the spirit in which it was made. My hon. Friend makes a very good point.

It is not right or fair to argue that our friends in the eurozone have succeeded where we have failed. Their success, in terms of the current account figures, is actually a measure of failure. It is a measure of the fact that their domestic demand was completely crushed by very tight fiscal consolidation measures. Notwithstanding the political rhetoric, we have avoided much of the very severe fiscal consolidation that those countries have experienced.

[Sammy Wilson]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that we have suffered partly because of that? Exports to Europe have fallen, while our growing economy has sucked in imports from the countries where domestic demand has been suppressed.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

That is an excellent point. It is clear that if domestic demand in those countries has been sharply contracting, their capacity and ability to buy our exports has diminished commensurably, and that has unquestionably made life much more difficult for our exporters. I believe, however, that when it comes to British exports and our trade missions, the most fundamental thing that any exporter or manufacturing concern will seek is a degree of economic stability in the home market, along with a degree of visibility and a degree of responsibility on the part of the Government to ensure that there is some economic stability, and that our problems are being dealt with in respect of such matters as fiscal consolidation and deficits.

Those who speak to businesses, as I do in my constituency and as I am sure many other Members do in theirs, will hear from them that, broadly, the Government’s policy, although not perfect, has been conducive to a degree of economic stability. Policies such as those on apprenticeships and the significant reduction in corporation tax have made life easier, or more attractive, for exporters and business-people in general. When we tackle a debate of this nature, it is very difficult to divorce the issues of trade, the current account and innovation from the general economic strategy the Government are pursuing. It is clear that although many challenges lie ahead a large section of people feel comfortable that the Government are taking the right approach to the economic management of this country. That is an important point to make at the beginning.

As I have noticed in this debate, we talk about abstract concepts such as exports and trade deficits as though we were living in the 1960s or earlier. This language evolved in a period when Britain was the industrial motor of the world—the factory of the world—and it was very much a Victorian model of the economy, which arguably persisted until 1939. But in the economy of 2016 it is very difficult to disaggregate exports in goods from exports in services and from hybrid exported products that are manufactured but have a degree of service element to them. The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) referred to the trade deficits of the 1960s which he had learned from his reading brought Governments down. Every day in the 1960s people looked at the trade figures; that was the big number. The model of the economy today, however, is completely different from that of 1967 or 1970, yet many of our debates are couched in the language, and reflect the concerns, of a bygone era. It has been almost 50 years since the 1967 devaluation and it is crazy for us to conduct this debate as if nothing has happened in the last 50 years.

We should consider the British economy—how wealth is created and distributed, the role of exports, the role of manufacturing. It is true that manufacturing has diminished, for instance, but I would argue that that is in large part a function of the evolving nature of the British economy. The economic history of Britain shows we have gone through lots of different phases. The phase of industry in which we manufactured huge amounts has gone, sadly.

The hon. Member for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) mentioned the steel industry and said how terrible it was that the Government had not subsidised and protected it. Wolfgang Eder is head of Worldsteel. Current capacity in Europe is about 200 million tonnes, and he says that for it to be sustainable it should be halved. There is overcapacity among European steelmakers. The idea that we can somehow subsidise things endlessly on an unproductive basis is simply wrong.

[Stephen Kinnock]

Nobody is asking for subsidies. The UK steel industry is asking for a level playing field. We are seeing the massive dumping of heavily subsidised Chinese steel—70% of Chinese steelmakers are state owned—dragging down the price of steel and crippling the British steel industry. This is not about subsidies but about smart regulation, proactive Government intervention and taking action and answering questions afterwards. I am seeking reassurances that the Government will not support China’s application for market economy status, because that would completely undermine any anti-dumping efforts. This is about proactive regulation and intervention, not subsidies.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, and he makes a good point about China’s export practices, but I was making the general point that the steel industry believes there is overcapacity in Europe. This is not a British but a European problem. No Government action in the world will push water uphill or militate against that broad trend.

I digress from my main point. This has been a helpful and interesting debate, but my main concern is that we are not taking into account the different nature of the British economy. In terms of the phraseology, the context of the debate, and the words in the motion, we are reflecting circumstances that have not existed for two generations.

[Hannah Bardell]

On the steel and indeed other manufacturing industries, does the hon. Gentleman not recognise there is a place for protecting high-end, highly skilled manufacturing, particularly in the steel industry, for which there is a clear market?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

There is always a case for Government supporting industry by setting the table, by setting the context—making sure the economic management is good and the regulation tolerable. I am reminded of the phrase of Adam Smith—I mention him not simply because he was Scottish but because he made some good points—about easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice. These are the things Governments can affect. It is difficult, however, for Governments directly to subsidise individual industries exposed to the vagaries of international markets and massive price fluctuations.

This has been a valuable debate with some very good speeches, but I suggest we think more about how the British economy has evolved, instead of using terms that date from the 1960s and before, when the structure of British industry was very different.