Middle East and North Africa
Lord Mitchell Excerpts(9 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, I am a Zionist. I am a Zionist because I believe that, after 2,000 years of exile and 2,000 years of persecution, the Jewish people deserve a homeland of their own and that homeland should be within the biblical land of Israel. I am a Zionist because I believe that in Israel the Jewish people have found fulfilment as a nation. They have turned the desert into orchards, they lead the world in science for the benefit of mankind and they have become one of the world’s centres of 21st-century technology. Most of all, I am a Zionist because Israel today vibrantly maintains its founders’ dream of becoming a fully functioning democracy for all its people, in a region where the rule of law and equality is at a premium. Life for many Israeli Arabs is not all that it should be, but it is undeniable that they have an equal opportunity to vote, to go wherever they choose, to study at any university and to work in any capacity. They are fully fledged Israeli citizens. This is not an apartheid state.
I support the state of Israel because history has cruelly demonstrated that, at any time or in any place, Jews live in peril. France today is one example, but so too are countries in eastern Europe and South America. Israel is the final refuge for Jews being persecuted in the outside world. Indeed, if there had been an Israel in the 1930s the story would have been different and infinitely happier. So, come what may, I and most Jews remain proud supporters of Israel.
However, in saying all this, I am not saying “Israel, right or wrong”. The Naqba was a catastrophe for the Palestinian people, and we Jews should admit it. The occupation of the West Bank is a stain. In my view, the building of settlements is wrong. The road blocks, the pass controls and the goading are all intolerable. For me as a supporter of Israel, they are hard to stomach. If history has taught us anything, you humiliate a people at your peril. Many Israelis yearn for a two-state solution but, in truth, some do not. I am sad to say that this includes many members of Israel’s current Government. I certainly support a Palestinian state, but not quite yet. It must be negotiated with both the Palestinians and with Israel.
Pain me though it does to say this, I agree with Maureen Lipman in today’s Times, who says that Labour and Ed Miliband have got it wrong. When Israel was formed its main enemies were its neighbours: Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon and the other Arab states. Those countries were sworn to its destruction. Today this has changed. There has been an enduring peace with Egypt and with Jordan. Syria is a basket case, and Saudi Arabia in its calmer moments realises that it has more in common with Israel than against it.
Today’s warfare in Israel’s proximity is asymmetric. The rules are different. It is sometimes forgotten that in 2005, Israel unilaterally and surprisingly withdrew from Gaza, but within two years Hamas had routed the PA and begun its reign of terror. Hamas could have built a thriving Gaza. It could have used cement and steel to build a new state within a state, but instead it chose to dig tunnels and build rockets. Hamas has fired rockets at Israel ever since it took control, and never more so than in this most recent terrible summer. Think of it: how would we have reacted if, during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the IRA—based in the Republic of Ireland—had fired tens of thousands of rockets at Belfast, Liverpool, or maybe even at London? Would we have stood back? Of course we would not. We would have retaliated with force of arms and we would not have hesitated to put boots on the ground.
Hamas is a vicious terrorist organisation, and is proscribed not only by ourselves but also by the United States, the EU, Canada, Australia and many Middle Eastern countries. It thrives on terror and hatred. Its charter is quite clear: it seeks to destroy Israel. It is joined at the hip with ISIS. They have the same objectives, the same manic obsession with destroying anything that stands in their way, and the same desire to see an Islamic caliphate throughout the Middle East. In the recent conflict it was interesting to see who in the Middle East supported Hamas: Turkey did, as did Qatar and Iran. It is even more interesting to see who did not. Egypt hates Hamas, and there was not a word of criticism of Israel from the UAE, with the exception of Qatar, or from Jordan or Saudi Arabia.
So when we see demonstrations in the streets of London which are pro-Hamas with a nasty element of anti-Semitism thrown in, it beggars belief. When I see my good friend the Member of Parliament Luciana Berger receive death threats from anti-Semitic Twitter trolls for her position on Israel, it shows where all this can lead. I ask this question: if the demonstrators are so concerned about countries that commit crimes against humanity, why do they not demonstrate against countries which make no secret of their barbarism?
More than 200,000 people have been killed in Syria. Have there been marches in London against the Assad regime, or any protests outside the Syrian embassy? None. This summer the Russians have behaved appallingly. They have grabbed Crimea for their own. We have seen Putin’s goons down a civilian airliner for no other reason than it happened to be in the sky. Has there been an apology? None. Are there protests outside the Russian embassy? None. Around the world atrocities are being committed and we all wring our hands and do precious little, but when Israel alone defends herself, everybody goes ballistic. At best it can be called hypocrisy, and at worst it is called something else.
Gaza
Lord Mitchell Excerpts(9 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Warsi
My noble friend makes an important point. This is a matter that has border connotations. The discussion that we are currently having with Iran about its nuclear ambitions and its wish to be part of the international family will also involve discussions with it in relation to its support for terrorist organisations.
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, we have had 2008, 2012 and 2014, and no doubt when this little incident finishes there will be a 2016 and a 2018. It is very clear that action needs to be taken to solve this problem once and for all. We all have to make a distinction: this is not a Palestinian issue per se; it is also a Hamas issue, and Hamas is a terrorist organisation as every member of NATO would agree. Does the Minister agree that we have to continue making the differentiation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas as a terrorist organisation?
Baroness Warsi
The noble Lord will of course be aware that one of the challenges to the Middle East peace process has always been about making sure that the partners for peace on both sides are those who represent everybody—that is, part of the Israeli state and of the Palestinian people. That is why the Government felt that the technocratic Government who were committed to the quartet principles were a step in the right direction and provided an opportunity for real discussions to take place. We sincerely hope that the current matter is de-escalated and that we get to a point of ceasefire so that we can get back to the negotiating table.
Queen’s Speech
Lord Mitchell Excerpts(10 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell (Lab)
My Lords, I was going to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, who I see is just leaving his place. As he will hear, my speech is indeed on my iPad but I promise him that I will try to interact with the Chamber as I am giving it. Anyhow, as an ageing geek, I have to show my younger colleagues that I am still cool.
Your Lordships’ House is always at its best when it is fortunate to hear outstanding maiden speeches. To have heard two in one day from two giants in their field, such as the noble Lord, Lord Bamford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, is a very special treat.
This evening I want to talk about a huge British business success story—or I was going to before the screen went blank; it is how you react under fire that matters. It is a story which in fact started under the previous Government and has flourished under this one, and it concerns an industry with which I have been personally associated for nearly 50 years. I refer, of course, to the digital economy.
When I started all those years ago, it was all about massive computers costing hundreds of thousands of pounds. Input was by way of punch cards or paper tape and storage was on massive disks and whirring tape drives. It has changed just a tad. I remember reading a book in the 1990s on the projected winners and losers in the data processing industry, as it was then called. The only names it got right were IBM and Hewlett-Packard. Not included were Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook and Twitter. Most of them did not even exist. Google, the third-largest company in the world by capitalisation, is only 16 years old. Has there ever been such a dramatic structural change in such a massive industry?
The UK—which, to be honest, used to be a small participator—has now become a major player in the new digital economy. For evidence we can do no better than to look here in London and, in particular, at Tech City in Shoreditch. Of all the new jobs in London, 27% are in the tech and digital sector; 600,000 people in London work in this sector. Between 2009 and 2012, the number of digital tech companies in London grew from 50,000 to 88,000—a growth of 76%. Tech City took hold during the Labour Government and it has blossomed during this Government. It was not planned by government; it was not financed by government; it simply happened.
Throughout the UK, the digital economy is also world-beating. It has a value of £121 billion, which is equal to 8.3% of GDP. It is expected to grow at a rate of 11% per annum. Over the next five years it will employ more than 500,000 new entrants. On the consumer side, the UK is the number one user of e-commerce in the world. In the Government Digital Service, set up under this Government, we have an online service that any country would be proud of. This may sound strange coming from these Benches, but I believe that this Government have done a good job in promoting entrepreneurial drive in this digital tech sector. Certainly if we on this side win the next general election, we will continue that good work.
My biggest criticism is to do with broadband, and I am sure that if the Minister were here—which he is not—he would be able to comment on this. Many infrastructure projects are being contemplated: HS2, Crossrail 2, new motorways, new stations, new runways and so on. It is all good stuff and it all helps to ensure that the UK is fully equipped for the 21st century. However, I do not hear enough about broadband and mobile connectivity. Of course the broadband project rolls forward, but it is ponderous, and it does little for those living in rural communities. On a recent visit to Norwich I was staggered to hear about the snail-pace broadband that they have and the mobile phone connections that in many areas are non-existent.
It took only a brief meeting with the Minister responsible, Ed Vaizey, for me to understand the problem. There was no sense of urgency about a situation that is very critical. Can somebody please explain to me why a project with such infrastructure implications is located in the DCMS? What does it know about rolling out mega projects? As exciting as the digital revolution may be, there really are some dangers from the misuse of technology in general and the internet in particular. Online payday lending is just one such danger. Noble Lords will know that I have campaigned to control online payday loan companies. Yesterday I introduced a Private Member’s Bill that will ban TV advertising of payday loan advertisements before the 9 pm watershed. I hope that I will have the House’s support on it.
There are also dangers to employment. Let us look just at the retail sector. Last Christmas, 20% of all retail sales were online; it was a massive increase on the year before. Retail employs 3 million people. If this online trend continues—and it will—there will be massive redundancies on our high streets. We have already seen the demise of HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster, each one of them outflanked by rapid technological advance. What is true of retail is also true of banks. They, too, are under threat by new online competitors. Our response must be to anticipate these dangers. Our people need to be taught digital skills at every level.
I shall end my remarks on the subject of privacy. Snowden has shown us just how exposed we all are. The European Court of Justice opined two weeks ago that we all have the right to be forgotten. If you have an up-to-date iPhone, then every location you have visited is recorded on that phone—when you arrived there and when you left. If anybody would like me to show them, I can do so. Who gave them permission to store this very private information without our explicit permission? Do they have access to it? They say not, but can we be sure?
The next big thing in the digital world is wearable technology—devices on our wrists which can store data about our health. These data can be sent to our doctors but perhaps also to our insurance companies, and to who else? Protection should be in place to ensure that only people whom we personally authorise are allowed to have access to such sensitive information.
In five days’ time we will be celebrating the 799th anniversary of the Magna Carta—the contract which began the process of our civil rights. Maybe for the 800th anniversary, next year, we should have a digital Magna Carta that guarantees all of us protection from all unauthorised snooping into our private lives.
Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises
Lord Mitchell Excerpts(10 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, I was a member of this Select Committee when it began its hearings. I was getting myself all fired up to contribute to a subject that means a great deal to me when the rug was pulled from under my feet. On my giddy elevation to the Front Bench, I was ordered to stand down from the committee. Of course, I had no option—the rules are the rules—but I was sad to leave.
That said, it is with great pleasure that I welcome the opportunity today to debate Roads to Success. What a tour de force it is: forensic, totally focused and clearly written. Throughout its pages the very clear fingerprints of its chair, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, are distinctly visible. From these Benches, I congratulate him and his colleagues on producing it. I have two reservations, which I would have pushed had I been on the committee. First, the digital revolution is barely addressed. Secondly, I am not convinced that it reaches out to the new, young entrepreneurs—those who dress in T-shirts and jeans, and are for ever plugged in to their music. That apart, I am much heartened by its contents.
I very much hope that the report will attract the attention it deserves within government but somehow I doubt it. The truth is that Select Committee reports produced by your Lordships’ House get scant attention in the corridors of Whitehall. I have had the honour to sit on several Select Committees. On each occasion, noble Lords are chosen to serve and have impeccable backgrounds, the witnesses are grilled and the clerks and advisers are of the highest calibre. The reports produced, just like this one, are outstanding—but what happens? They disappear into the bowels of the relevant department and eventually the Government produce their answer, just as they did for this report. It is always the same. It is obfuscatory, avoids the recommendations and sends the report back to Parliament with the clear intention of kicking it into the long grass. This is not an attack on the parties opposite. It also happened when we were in government. So often Ministers and their civil servants regard our Select Committee reports as a pain to be endured and they treat us accordingly. This is my second rant in your Lordships’ House today. Enough is enough—it is time to stop. This high horse will be ridden no more.
When I was in my 20s—light years ago—I remember an advertisement in Piccadilly Circus. The noble Lord referred to, “Export or die”. I remember, “Either exports go up or Britain goes down”. As I remember it, there was a little flashing Union Jack underneath it—nothing new there. Low exports and low productivity have been the bugbears of our post-war economic performance. Small businesses are critical to our economy; everybody is agreed on that. They employ 60% of our workforce and—a hugely important point—they are the route back into employment for many of our long-term unemployed.
Much of our time is spent looking for ways to support the UK’s small businesses; encouraging them to export is a good way of doing this. New research from the Enterprise Research Centre shows a clear correlation between exporting and growth in businesses of all sizes, and we have touched on that this evening. EU companies that export grow twice as fast as companies that do not, and internationally focused SMEs are three times more likely to introduce an innovative product. My view is that it is in the mindset of a management that is interested in new projects and developing in all areas, not just exporting.
Today, we rightly focus closely on the many important recommendations made in the report. However, we should also look at ways to encourage innovation in British companies, given this strong link between companies that innovate and those that export. The latest EU figures suggest that the UK is currently 32nd out 35 countries when it comes to innovative products and processes, and 25% of UK SMEs are innovative, compared with the EU average of 34%. Recent figures from the Big Innovation Centre, which works with government, higher education and industry, illustrates how the difficulties of getting finance stifle innovation.
More than one in three innovative firms looking for finance in the period 2010-12 received none of the credit that they wanted. There is no shortage of statistics to support the diagnosis that the lack of support from our financial institutions harms businesses in the UK. We know about this, it is discussed almost every day in your Lordships’ House and it is a big problem that we have in this country. The report shows that the three-month average rates of lending to small businesses have been negative since August 2011. Looking at the Bank of England figures, I also count only three individual months over that period when net lending to small businesses has been positive.
The lack of small business lending harms innovation and exports. We need a laser-like focus on improving access to credit for these companies. The Government’s expansion of Funding for Lending this April was a positive step, but it is clear that to resolve the market failure at the core of this issue, we need to be more radical and look at structural change. Many noble Lords will no doubt have shared my surprise on reading that between March 2011 and August 2012, UK enterprise finance helped 31 companies, of which 21 were SMEs. Noble Lords could be forgiven for thinking that a couple of zeroes had fallen off these numbers.
This cannot be enough. Will the Minister please tell us whether there are any plans to co-ordinate the activities of UK enterprise finance and the Business Bank? The case study within the report of Alderley plc, the engineering business that felt that it was being harmed by credit decisions being made in London rather than regionally, is compelling. It is a scenario that we often hear about and was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Graffham, in your Lordships’ House yesterday. The end of relationship banking has harmed small businesses, which find that instead of local bank managers who understand them and can use judgment about whether they should have credit, decisions are now made on a centralised basis, which is often also computerised. Ticking the boxes is not the way to proceed.
I also agree with the committee’s recommendation that more attention should be paid to SMEs when the Government draw up trade agreements. The EU-US trade negotiations are critical and I would like the Minister to update the House on how these talks are proceeding. I am by any assessment a serial entrepreneur; my businesses were in IT services. To me, overseas activities were always crucial. Our customers were international, how could we provide a service if we were not international too?
Of course, you actually have to like abroad. You need a feeling for other people’s culture. My language skills are halting, but I forced myself to learn enough German to be able to stand up and make presentations in Frankfurt. Whether they understood me is another question, but they were too polite to say. Today, new technologies such as Google Translate are coming to the rescue, but nothing—nothing—replaces being with your customers and being able to talk to them.
I have to say that doing business in other countries is really good fun. It is testing, of course, but if you roll up your sleeves and are prepared to catch early planes and attempt to speak your customers’ languages, it really pays off. I have also found that taking just a little time to brush up on another country’s politics—what is the story of the day—and even talking about football works a treat.
I really enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. I feel that I have a soulmate in him, although I have to say that when he started on the subject of speed dating, I began to keep my distance. I agree. There are many lifestyle companies out there, many of them are static and we must not confuse them with the small and medium-sized companies that are dedicated to growth.
I was disappointed that the report barely touched on the digital revolution. When I give speeches, I highlight how the world is changing and the speed of that change. If businessmen are not having sleepless nights about digital changes—if they believe that the digital revolution does not concern them and that it is just a passing phase—they are in for the chop. Ask Jessops, HMV or Blockbuster video—many more will follow them. Competitors in every country are obsessed by changes in the digital revolution, and we should be too.
My final point is about young entrepreneurs. If I were a young tech city entrepreneur, I doubt that UKTI would have much appeal to me. It is too uncool by half. Does UKTI have a branch in Shoreditch or on the Cambridge Science Park? That is where the action is. Its people need to take off their ties, get themselves personal iPads and drink skinny lattes, just like everyone else there. They need advisers in their 20s, not in their 50s.
In summary, this is an outstanding report. Despite my pessimism, I hope that the Government take serious note of its contents. One day soon, I hope that the lights in Piccadilly will read, “British exports up yet again”.
Antarctica: Centenary of Scott Expedition
Lord Mitchell Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, on securing this important and timely debate, and all noble Lords who have taken part this afternoon. The debate is relevant on two counts: first: our pride in celebrating Scott’s centenary; and secondly, by way of contrast, our deep concern, which has been expressed today, over the proposed imminent organisational changes at BAS.
No Briton can be indifferent to the exploits of our great explorers who went to the polar regions a hundred years ago. Captain Scott’s mission to be the first man to reach the South Pole has captivated us ever since. Similarly, we remain enthralled by the heroic exploits of Ernest Shackleton. Polar exploration still fills us with awe. Both missions failed in their principal objective. Nevertheless, they both captured the very essence of our nation: gritty determination overcoming all the odds and, above all, never giving up.
In 2004, I chaired an investigation on behalf of your Lordships’ House into science and treaties. We decided to visit the British base at Rothera because the base is one of the few places on earth that is owned by no one and is governed by international treaty. I was accompanied by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble—and indefatigable—Lord, Lord Oxburgh. I do not know whether it is possible to go native in a land without natives, but I went native. For all of us, it changed our lives. Certainly for me, it was the trip of a lifetime, and I think about it often. I can top the story told by the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert: we had gin and tonics with ice that was 800,000 years old.
There are three aspects that I would like to address—the science, the base itself and the geopolitical aspects—but I cannot start without addressing the proposed merger. Management by spreadsheet is a process beloved of all accountants, but it is a process that studiously avoids good will or what those accountants would call soft assets. Any creative person will tell you that once the suits get involved, the very heart goes out of the project. The British Antarctic Survey is a national treasure in a way that neither NERC nor NOC could ever be. BAS carries on in the spirit of Scott and Shackleton. To subsume BAS, to gut it, to leave it out unloved on some organisational limb would be a supreme act of folly. Only the spreadsheets could come to that conclusion. I listened to the forceful words of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, but what NERC has done so far hardly gives hope for the future, and to my noble friend Lord Lea I say please keep the oil companies away from Antarctica. I think I speak for the whole House, except for the noble Lord, Lord Willis, in saying that we are against this merger, and I hope that NERC is listening.
My first and very direct question to the Minister is this: will she please tell us what is planned for BAS and can she assure us that its prominence and independence will be maintained? Our planet is under threat, primarily from global warming. We know it to be so, but there are many who reject the fact that global warming is manmade. Those people are powerful, and they have a great deal of influence. They are not just the evangelicals in the United States or the mega energy companies; we even have some of them in your Lordships’ House. The only way we can refute them is by science-based evidence.
BAS has a history of alerting the world to such global dangers. It is to the forefront of protecting the earth because it is at the vanguard of global scientific research. The discovery of the ozone layer and its depletion was a major BAS discovery. The awareness that that created about the potential dangers to our environment led to untold benefits for our natural environment. BAS’s ongoing work is world-class. Despite its relatively small size, it is at the summit in the number of scientific papers and citations it produces. Its principal work is studying the effects of seawater warming, the retreating ice shelves and the changes in marine, animal and plant behaviour as well as co-operating with our international partners to measure the dangers to our planet. Can we seriously contemplate downgrading this influential institution by merging it into irrelevance?
Unless you have visited the BAS base, it is very hard to convey how special and unique the place really is. From what I hear, several of the key people involved in this proposed takeover have not even been there. Because it is so remote, and because it is also so dangerous, the people who work there are a special breed. There are scientists, of course, but there is also the full complement of support staff and others. With only one or two ships visiting a year, the base has to be self-sufficient. It has everything necessary—doctors, plumbers, pilots and cooks—but what struck me most of all is that they are all part of an interdisciplinary scientific family. Support staff assist the scientists, scientists wash the dishes, and everyone pitches in.
The base brings out the best of people, but this does not happen by chance. It happens through excellent management and charismatic leadership—at least that was the situation when we were there, but from what they tell me, it is less the case.
In addition to my own thoughts on this matter, I would like to add a few words of my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland of Asthal—previously the Attorney-General—who, while Minister responsible for the Overseas Territories, visited the Antarctic with BAS. Sadly she cannot be here today. She said, “I was much impressed by the excellent quality and importance of the science carried out by BAS. While the famous BAS paper by Farman and his colleagues on the discovery of the ozone hole remains by a long way the most cited research paper in the history of Antarctic science, BAS continues to be a world leader in such topics as the exploration of ice cores. However, it is in the area of environment and conservation, in addition to curiosity-driven discoveries, that BAS provides a special expertise relied upon by the British Government in its role as a consultative party of the Antarctic treaty system. The deliberations and decisions of the Antarctic treaty consultative meetings need to be based on evidence and facts. BAS scientists are acknowledged leaders in the field, providing the UK with a powerful base for maintaining its interests and influence. Yet despite BAS’s front-ranking science and achievement, it was the egalitarian coherence and tight integration that left the most lasting impression. I also want to remind their Lordships of the geopolitical sensitivities of the South Atlantic, in which—for decades—the BAS presence has been the primary means by which the UK expresses its ongoing interests. To risk sending the slightest signal that could be interpreted as a weakening of UK resolve or an inability through austerity to maintain such a presence risks consequences of an historic nature. Far better to maintain and strengthen BAS in its current successful form for the benefits of science”.
I, too, would now like to address the geopolitical aspects of BAS. The bases in Antarctica are located in a part of the world which is very sensitive to our national interest. The Falklands and the southern islands are still in play, as they were in 1982. Oil and fish are both resources which are prized by other nations and it is not surprising that the politicians in Buenos Aires are watching our every move. As Einstein said:
“Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”.
We are on the verge of doing just that: taking an insane decision by ineptitude that could cause us much pain. Any downgrade of the BAS bases on the peninsula would be interpreted as weakness, just as it was in 1982.
I am told that the Prime Minister and other members of the National Security Council gave a very clear directive: that BAS was not to be touched and not to be downgraded in any way. Therefore, I ask the Minister: is this true? I hope it is true, because it would be the correct decision. From what I hear, however, this directive is being ignored. Again, is the Minister aware of this and is this true?
We are talking about matters of national security, where vital decisions have been taken in Downing Street. We cannot allow them to be overruled by the spreadsheets in Swindon. We have a national treasure which is doing vital work to protect the planet; but we also have an outpost that represents our commitment to the South Atlantic. Boots on the snow really matter. If we downgrade Rothera, we will never recover. The Foreign Secretary should make a very public statement committing his Government’s support for BAS. Otherwise, others will draw their own conclusions.
Finally, there are four words that buzz around my head and it is a question that I must ask the Minister: What would Maggie do?
UK Trade and Investment
Lord Mitchell Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Liddell has done us a great service in securing this debate. We must thank her for that as well as the very impressive speech that she has just made. The contribution made by speakers from all parties is tribute to the importance of SMEs in the national economy.
It is no surprise that my party fundamentally disagrees with this Government’s economic policy, most particularly their refusal to moderate austerity and revert to a growth-based strategy. Yesterday, George Osborne said that there is no alternative. Today, David Cameron says that the economy is slowly healing. However, this morning, the IMF says that our economy is contracting and today’s trade figures are appalling. I wonder what planet these people live on.
In the SME world which I inhabit, the effect of austerity has been devastating. Without credit, businessmen simply cannot expand their businesses and cannot employ more people. I had guessed that by this stage of the debate every aspect of what UKTI does would have been covered, so I am going to stay away from it, at least directly, and talk about other agencies which the Government have to promote SMEs. The Government have been almost manic in introducing new programmes supposedly to help SMEs, but the results have been somewhat anaemic. The fact is that announcing a programme is one thing, making it work is something else. Not surprisingly, the Government have chosen the high street banks to deliver many of their programmes. The suspicion is strong, however, that instead of befitting small and medium-sized business as intended, the banks are directing these funds either to the more highly profitable consumer sector or else towards bolstering their own balance sheets.
The business growth fund owes its genesis to Project Merlin, which as the Minister will know was an undertaking written in blood by the banks to benefit British industry. But what do we see? We see the fund in many instances investing in companies not by funding investment or cash flow but, perversely, by cashing out managers and shareholders. The word on the street is that the business growth fund is a total failure. I would like to hear the Minister’s view on this.
I come to the business finance partnership. This is a £1.2 billion pot, of which £700 million is supposedly committed to mid-sized companies. It aims to promote alternative and non-traditional channels of finance. I am told by people who are in the know that little has happened. There is also the regional growth fund. Out of £1.4 billion earmarked for this project, only £60 million has been received by business. “Glacial” is a word I used to describe the fund. The enterprise guarantee scheme is also a flagship project. Again, I would like to know how it is progressing. There is also the export enterprise finance guarantee scheme that was launched to fund exports and is directed at SMEs. It is all good stuff, but by June of this year it had allocated only £3 million—or so I am told.
One government initiative that I fully support is the seed enterprise investment scheme introduced by the Chancellor this time last year. I am contemplating investing in various start-up companies, using this structure. It is very tax efficient. However, it seems almost like a state secret. No one I know, and perhaps very few of your Lordships, has ever heard of it. Why has it not been marketed and why does it last for only one year? Schemes of this nature need time to bear fruit. Pulling up the project by its roots after one year to examine whether it is growing is hardly the way to develop a policy geared to providing new investment in new companies. We need business angels to help fund exciting businesses, particularly in my area, which is technology. Using the tax system to help angel investment is an excellent idea. I will make a plea to the Minister that may sound strange coming from a shadow Minister. The SEIS is a very good scheme. Please leave it in place, and please market the programme seriously so that more potential angels are attracted to invest.
The programmes introduced by the Government have been woeful in their level of success. For the most part they have been ill thought through and incompetently implemented. My advice to the Government is to think deeper about projects to help SMEs, to put much more effort into marketing them and, most of all, to give them time to develop.
Middle East: Recent Developments
Lord Mitchell Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that, as a member of the Jewish diaspora, I have absolutely no influence whatever over the settlers; nor would they ever listen to me.
I thank the Minister for what he had to say today. It was a tour de force on the situation in the Middle East, and as we come to the tail end of this debate, it has been very inspiring. The headlines today say it all: “Another massacre in Syria”. My notes say that 15,000 people have been killed in Syria; the Minister says that it is 17,000. When this butchery is over and the facts become known, none of us will be surprised to learn that the real number is significantly higher than that reported. Certainly President Bashar al-Assad will have managed to outdo his father when it comes to slaughtering his own people.
Last year we witnessed another massacre about to happen. The forces of Colonel Gadaffi were marching on Benghazi determined to liquidate that city. Thankfully, due to prompt and effective military intervention by our Government, together with France and the United States, this carnage was prevented. Two years ago people in Bahrain demonstrated against their Government. As my noble friend Lord Watson mentioned, young doctors who treated the wounded demonstrators were arrested and given long jail sentences. In Iran three years ago a general election was held. The Government ignored the result and massive protests occurred resulting in many deaths.
The Middle East has been on fire with revolution. This Arab spring is still burning, but the costs in human life have been massive. We have witnessed great hope but also great abuse of human life and human rights. When Arabs are slaughtering Arabs, should we not ask ourselves why this very evening there will be no protests outside the Syrian embassy in London? Why have there been no calls for Iranian universities to be boycotted? How was it that Bahrain was allowed to play host to Formula 1 motor racing? When such atrocities are taking place, where are the predictable protesters? Where is the Socialist Workers Party? Where is the Palestinian Solidarity Council? Where are the demands for further debates in Parliament? Where is the normal righteous indignation? When Israel transgresses, the whole world goes crazy. It takes only a minor incident on the West Bank or Gaza for the rent-a-mob crowd to be up in arms. Hypocrisy is the only word that comes to mind.
My noble friend Lady Blackstone referred to the FCO report, entitled Children in Military Custody, on the treatment of Palestinian children under Israeli military law. Where are similar reports about children in military custody in Iran, Syria, China, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, or any other despotic region we could mention? That will never happen. But in democratic Israel, even painful investigations are allowed to take place.
In 2007 I was chairman of an organisation called Weizmann UK and today I am proud to sit as a member of its executive council. Weizmann is not a university as such but a science institute working solely on basic science. It is a powerhouse in Israel providing one-third of the PhDs in science in that country. Three years ago it achieved its first Nobel prize. When there was much talk in this country of an academic boycott of Israeli universities, I took all the actions noble Lords might have expected. I spoke in your Lordships’ House, wrote letters to the press and mustered as much support as I could, and I think we won. Even though the calls for a boycott continue, the intensity is not as great. But for me it was not enough. I wanted to do something more to demonstrate that academic boycotts are not only wrong in principle but wrong in purpose. So I initiated a project called Making Connections, which has been a huge success.
We raised initial funding to enable Weizmann scientists and UK scientists to collaborate on frontline projects designed to advance scientific learning. Partnerships have been established with, among others, Cancer UK Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, UCL, Durham, Warwick and Imperial. Among the subjects in question are: motor driven transcription factors in injured nerves; switchable nanomaterials for catalysis and sensing; the electrical double layer in pure ionic liquid next to an electrified metal surface; and the interplay between algorithms and randomness. Noble Lords will get my drift. It is cutting edge science, with Israel and the UK in partnership, and the eventual winners being mankind itself.
There are, of course, other initiatives. The British and the Israeli Governments have entered into an agreement to promote closer understanding between universities in a whole host of subjects. My noble friend Lord Turnberg, who is in his place, and his wife Lady Turnberg, created the Dr Daniel Turnberg UK/Middle East Travel Fellowship in honour of their late son. Under this project, early-career biomedical researchers from Israel, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestine and the UK have worked together and obtained great results. One day, Arab students will go to Israel and vice versa.
Once upon a time, if you thought about Israel’s economy, you thought about oranges. Today Israel is about science and technology. It is a high-tech powerhouse. When it comes to cutting-edge research and development, it is second only to Silicon Valley. Nowhere in Europe even gets close. Technology fuels Israel’s economy. Last year it recorded GNP growth of 4.5%. Just like people in Singapore, Malaysia or China, Israelis look at you blankly when you talk about a double-dip recession.
In the area of information technology, Microsoft, Intel, Cisco and Motorola all have major development plants in Israel. Apple has just agreed to follow, and Israel will be a major partner in its development. At CERN in Switzerland, Israeli scientists have been at the forefront, and 11 of them have worked with colleagues to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson.
Using solar energy, Israelis are converting greenhouse gases into fuel. In medical research, they are dramatically improving the diagnosis of blood infection as well as using extreme cold to destroy diseased tissue. I love the fact that Israel was the only country to end the 20th century with more trees than it started it with.
I know Israel well and I have worked closely with its scientists. They love their subject and they love international collaboration. From time to time I have posed an out of the box and totally impossible question: “If you had the opportunity, how would you view working with scientists in neighbouring countries?”. Everyone I spoke to was very excited, but they knew it could never happen—yet it does happen. I saw it at CERN, where Israeli scientists were working with their Muslim equivalents. I saw it at Haifa University, where 20% of the students are Arab. I have seen it in Britain, where Jewish and Muslim students, often from Israel and Arab countries, simply get on with it. The science comes first; it is the politicians who get in the way.
I invite noble Lords to imagine Israelis and Arabs working on joint projects on subjects that matter to them, such as water, which other noble Lords mentioned. Crops could be developed that grow in saline water and all sorts of diseases could be prevented. The opportunities are many, but the political situation does not let it happen. It needs a breakthrough.
So I have an out of the box request for the Minister to think about. I am not sure that I will get an answer today, but perhaps he will mull it over. Just as I and many others have initiated bilateral scientific co-operation between British and Israeli universities, why does this country not go one step further? Why do we not have a three-way programme, with British, Israeli and Arab universities working together? We in Britain are in a prime position to do this. We have connections with all countries in the region. The Government could set up a fund so that UK universities could take the lead and promote three-way joint projects. It would not need massive publicity and it may not lead to peace, but it would certainly improve the climate. Fanciful? Perhaps. Impossible? Maybe. But in this world if you do not try, you get nowhere—and if it were to succeed, what a coup it would be.
Iran
Lord Mitchell Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mitchell
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Corbett for initiating this debate. I do not suppose that any of us are wildly happy about the WikiLeak revelations, but in some ways they throw into sharp relief the true views of the Arab states on Iran. Like many other noble Lords, I have always been surprised by what I have heard Arab diplomats and politicians say in private behind closed doors compared with what they say in public. When talking about the dangers to their countries, they look to the threat from the East—in other words, Iran—rather than to that from the West—that is, Israel. They have one language for the street and another for diplomacy. On Iran, the leaks quote the King of Saudi Arabia as saying that the head must be cut off the snake; the King of Bahrain as saying:
“The danger of letting it go on is greater than the danger of stopping it”;
and about Ahmadinejad that he is “unbalanced, even crazy”.
The Iranians, of course, deny that they are building a nuclear weapons capability; they say that they are building nuclear power plants. Iran is a poor country. Could someone please explain to me why, as one of the world’s largest producers of gas and oil, it should need to build nuclear generators? It is laughable. I see the Iranian situation as a car crash waiting to happen, and it is all in tortuous slow motion. For years, we have known that the Iranian regime is wholly bad. Ever since the revolution, it has been a force for evil in this world. It destabilises Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is our soldiers who pay the price. It set up a state within a state in southern Lebanon, such that Hezbollah today is a major threat to Israel, armed to the teeth with more rocketry than it had in 2006, despite the United Nations trying to prevent it. It finances and arms many organisations that we deem to be terrorists and which are threats to our security. Now it is in bed with the North Koreans, who it seems are to supply it with medium-range missiles capable of hitting western Europe: talk about a marriage made in hell.
I am a firm supporter of the state of Israel. To Israelis, a nuclear-armed Iran is an existential threat. It sees Tel Aviv as target number one. Ahmadinejad has stated on many occasions—and who are we to disbelieve him?—that the Holocaust never happened and that Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth. So the man both denies the Holocaust and, at the same time, plans for the next one. He plays for time, stringing us all along while he zigzags from side to side. We threaten him but we always back off. We indulge him, hoping that he and his state will change their tune, but they do not. We apply sanctions, which are soft and meaningless, but he ignores them. All the time, the centrifuges keep spinning—at least, they would were it not for the Stuxnet virus.
My conclusion is that nothing will stop Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons, except crippling sanctions, and these should be implemented before it is too late.