UK Trade: Aviation

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I thank Mr Speaker for granting me this debate on the importance of aviation to UK trade and to the future of our nation’s economy more generally. Let me start by declaring my interest as the founder and current chair of the all-party parliamentary group for the future of aviation.

I believe that aviation is a strategic enabler of the kind of export-led, high-growth economy that Members on both sides of the House want to see. Research being prepared by Manchester Airports Group and WPI Economics, of which I have been given advance sight, shows not only the potential for the UK to become a services sector superpower but the way in which we, as an island trading nation, are disproportionately reliant on aviation in comparison with similar economies. My argument this afternoon is that we should recognise that the UK aviation network—the third largest in the world—is a vital asset and a key component in the economy that we are seeking to build further, and that we therefore need the right kind of supportive policy environment to help it to flourish. That includes leaning into the benefits and opportunities on offer from decarbonising aviation for the sake of environmental protection, going faster and further than other countries precisely because of how much we have to gain economically from the sector, including the great British exporting businesses that rely on aviation for their own success.

Figures published recently by the Office for National Statistics show a 63% real-terms growth in the export of services in the 14 years to the end of 2023. As for goods, the UK air freight contribution across all sectors of the economy is more than £87 billion.

Against that backdrop and given that the UK is already the second largest exporter of services after the United States, respected think-tanks such as the Resolution Foundation are saying that the path to transformative economic growth for the country lies in its becoming a services sector superpower, and striking up new services trade agreements with countries such as Singapore, Japan and Australia.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

The World Bank recently conducted a survey in which it looked at the future of world trade. It said that services were the area in which trade was mostly likely to grow and that Britain was very well placed to take advantage of that, especially in the light of all the trade deals that we are doing.

[Henry Smith]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. The United Kingdom has a strong record of being a services economy, and we could go still further now that we have left the European Union and are realising those trade deals, both trans-Pacific and involving other parts of the globe.

The UK should be selling more high-value services in areas such as banking and architecture, in which we have a competitive advantage, to boost productivity and tax revenues and raise the trend rate of growth. In the light of that, Manchester Airports Group has commissioned WPI Economics to study the export growth potential of key sectors such as technology and financial and professional services, in which—as my hon. Friend has just pointed out—we clearly have great strengths. Given the UK’s status as an island trading nation and our distance from some of the key export markets that we need to target, the research is also exploring the importance of aviation and international connectivity to the growth and trade prospects of British businesses in those sectors. The research findings will be published later this month and its publication will be marked by an event here in Parliament, but I am pleased to be able to share a few of the key headlines with the House today.

The sectors in the economy that are most reliant on air travel, from real estate to finance and insurance, create or induce some £1.5 trillion of gross value added—or economic contribution—for the United Kingdom. Key growth sectors of vital importance to the economy and reliant on air travel, such as financial services, creative industries and real estate, are projected to grow by 54%, 25% and 54% respectively in the period to 2033. In 2023 the UK was ranked fourth out of 132 countries in the global innovation index, and the researchers have found that innovation and international connectivity are positively correlated. If the UK wants to grow an innovation-based economy with a concentration of knowledge-intensive industries, it must maintain and grow its direct connections with the outside world. The UK has been ranked fourth in the global knowledge index—the global economy would lose almost 1% of GDP were the UK not to send business travellers abroad—and in respect of the total value of exports, adding more than £900 billion to the British economy and supporting hundreds of thousands of UK businesses.

Having more direct flights from the UK regions to international destinations could help to boost investment, trade, tourism and education opportunities as local businesses seek to leverage the additional connectivity at their disposal. In the north of England, for example, that could play a supportive role in the Government’s levelling-up policy. As for London and south-east England, Gatwick airport’s northern runway proposals would support more long-haul services, enabling increased volumes of cargo and services trade to and from key destinations such as north America, the middle east and Asia. London’s Heathrow airport accounted for more than £200 billion in UK trade passing through in 2022, delivering a positive trade balance of more than £300 billion.

Businesses in these sectors have been interviewed and have set out the role that international connectivity plays, and will continue to play, across a range of key activities: securing investment, clinching deals, building, maintaining and inspecting global supply chains, and promoting knowledge transfer. If we accept that business travel and a healthy, growing aviation sector are preconditions for the type of services-led economic growth that experts say the country should be going after, we need to be clear-eyed about the No. 1 strategic challenge that it faces, namely the achievement of net zero in carbon emissions by 2050 that is the Government’s ambition.

As the UK is disproportionately reliant on aviation to support growth, given its status as an island nation, we should lean into the economic benefits available from its decarbonisation, going further and faster than other countries. The key technology to decarbonise aviation in the medium term is SAF, or sustainable aviation fuels, which can reduce lifecycle emissions by 70% in comparison with conventional jet fuel. The choice for this country is between importing SAF from other countries to decarbonise UK aviation and reach net zero by 2050 and investing in our own domestic sector, which provides a secure, home-grown supply of low-carbon jet fuel to build resilience into the economy and generate thousands of skilled jobs in the process. If we end up importing SAF, we will be at the mercy of volatile international energy markets and, in the event of global scarcity of supply, it will push up airfares, which in turn will push up the cost of doing business for precisely those companies identified in the research I referred to—companies that UK business needs to be travelling and exporting more to grow our economy.

It has to be said that last week the Government made a very positive announcement about measures concerning SAF. First, they are enshrining a sustainable aviation fuel mandate, which means that 10% of all jet fuel needs to come from low-carbon fuels by 2030. Secondly, they are consulting on a revenue certainty mechanism, which could help to incentivise and encourage the building of SAF plants and infrastructure here in the UK. However, a wider package of policy support is needed to create the right environment for this industry to take off, and for the UK to become a global leader. For example, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ waste hierarchy needs to be amended to secure domestic—or “black bin bag”—waste as a viable feedstock or input into making sustainable aviation fuels.

Using household waste to make green jet fuel is not just important because of the way it protects and helps to sustain a strategic enabler in aviation; research from transport sustainability experts ICF shows that using such waste to make SAF, instead of its current use in incineration to produce electricity, would help cut UK carbon emissions too. Indeed, the reduction in carbon emissions would be at least five times greater, not least because nearly half of all electricity in the UK already comes from renewable sources—again, thanks to the great strides that have been made over the last decade by this Government.

A cross-departmental plan is needed across Whitehall to recognise aviation’s role in our make-up as an island trading nation, and in the type of economy we need to grow to become even more competitive. My suggestion to the Minister is that the Department for Business and Trade has a critical role to play in this plan because of the sector’s role in underpinning the success of services exports on which this country’s future prosperity relies.

The UK does not have to choose between growing our economy through international travel, or travelling less and protecting our environment. By innovating and being global leaders in new sustainable aviation fuels technology, we can increase our services and goods sectors, and be at the forefront of new green technologies. We have some iconic British brands that have already demonstrated this. Last November I experienced the first transatlantic flight to use 100% sustainable aviation fuel when Virgin Atlantic, headquartered in my constituency, flew from London Heathrow to John F. Kennedy airport in New York, powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 1000 engines using sustainable aviation fuels. I believe that we should be optimistic about our future economy and our environmental protection, with Britain a global leader in both.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

May I pay tribute to my hon. Friend? He has been an extremely persistent advocate of the aerospace industry and Gatwick in all the years I have served with him in Parliament. I am sure that if, after he retires, he goes through all the meetings in his diaries that he had about aviation, his life will whizz past him, because he not only always stands up for the industry, but thinks very carefully about where it needs to go if it is to continue its success, grow and deliver the prosperity that our country needs.

I agree with my hon. Friend that, having gone through covid, many of us wondered whether the aviation industry would bounce back as quickly as it has done. I noticed that Heathrow said the other day that it was busier than it has ever been. The last time I went to Gatwick, I got the same impression—it really is back on four cylinders now.

We are very good at aviation. It is probably one of the legacies of the second world war, when a large amount of our GDP went into fighters, bombers and technology. Post war, we have always punched above our weight in aviation. I was surprised the other day when I saw some figures from the Treasury that showed that half of all airliners sold across the world in an average year have wings made in Wales—of course, Airbus has half the world market. They are very good wings, and they provide some very good jobs. We still have Rolls-Royce punching above its weight and producing innovative engines, many of which are designed to run on new fuels. It means that the company is going to be a major player in future years.

I do not think we will ever have a hub airport in the same way that others do. I have one observation for the Department for Business and Trade: some of the express railways to our airports go very slowly, and more investment in the links between central London and the airports would help the sector substantially. There is a great opportunity there. We have some really good airports circling London, and we have some very good regional airports, including Manchester and others. We have Bournemouth airport in Hurn, which is in the local authority of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. All the airports generate lots of jobs and opportunities, and there is a world of great competition out there. Many other countries are putting in runways and terminals. They see the advantages of investing in aviation, and we have to keep up with them and continue to punch above our weight.

I thank my hon. Friend for what he has done for aviation. I look forward to hearing what the Minister is going to say in response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Syms Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Quin]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises that, given what is going on in the world at the moment and the pressures on household incomes, what every person in this country wants is high-quality public services but delivered as effectively and efficiently as possible. He is wrong to assume that just because we have x number of people we need to always keep x number of people. There are innovations we can do, which are common in the private sector, such as the use of digital networks and of AI to support strong delivery of public services. None of these should be ignored or forgotten about as a way of delivering high-quality public services on an efficient and effective basis.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

In the summer, there was a number of stories about downgrading the fast-track process for recruiting civil servants. I have always believed we need the best and brightest in the civil service to deliver first-class services. Is that Government policy, or have they had any thoughts about this, because the system has served us very well over many years?

[Jeremy Quin]

The Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that there is always a path into the civil service for people who are high quality; we need really good, high-quality civil servants. That is absolutely our priority. I spoke earlier about apprentices, and my hon. Friend raises an important point regarding fast track. I can assure him we will make certain there are routes into the civil service for the high-quality public servants we all need to deliver high-quality public services.

Public Health

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 1st December 2020 Commons Chamber

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

I said to the Prime Minister earlier that my area has seen a drop in the seven-day average of 55%, yet we emerge from the national restrictions in tier 2 having entered them in tier 1, so we could be forgiven for asking, “How so?” In truth, I cannot answer that one. MPs were not consulted about that decision and, according to our county and our director of public health, nor were they. That begs the question, how will that change ahead of the 16 December review point, and what exactly needs to happen among the five stated data points outlined in the Secretary of State’s written statement last Thursday to get us down to tier 1 in very short order? I am hopeful.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

It is obvious that consultation with local government leaders and MPs has been woeful.

[Steve Brine]

Woeful? It has been non-existent in many instances. I am not reassured to hear that that has been happening across the border in Dorset as well; I am not surprised.

I need to hear from the Government how this will change in the next two weeks and, to echo the calls in this respect today from many speakers on both sides of the House, I need to see a much more localised approach rather than a regional approach. My constituents are perfectly capable of knowing where they live, be that Winchester, Alresford or Chandler’s Ford in the Eastleigh borough, and of course we would go into that arrangement with our eyes wide open. We would know full well that it could work in our favour if our rate went down, every bit as much as it could work against us if the rate went up. My message to Ministers is: “Please treat us as grown-ups. Involve us in your decision-making, because by that route, you might just find that we are able to help build some consent and compliance with whatever it is that is decided.”

The reality is that for many of us, tomorrow will feel a lot like today—working from home, bans on meeting friends and family, and many other restrictions on our lives—but for many of my bars, pubs and restaurants, not so much. They are in a terrible place. I know from talking to some of them in the last 24 hours that it is not the substantial meal point that is killing them; it is the fact that tier 2 prevents any household mixing indoors. They can open, but the trade just is not there, and because they are in tier 2, the financial support is not there either. It is the worst of all worlds.

We are told that that very household mixing is where the danger lies. To quote the Prime Minister in his letter to MPs on Saturday:

“It would not take much loosening for the transmission rate to rise again”.

So why on earth—no matter how much I understand the desire not to be the modern puritans, and no matter how much I want a normal Christmas this year—are we relaxing the rules for five days at Christmas? To echo a phrase—I am sorry to say this—would that not be to trip on the last barbed wire and blow it just as the cavalry, in the form of the vaccine, comes into view? My hunch is that many people will have already decided for themselves to avoid seeing family and grandchildren over Christmas this year. Frankly, I salute their good sense in doing so.

The record shows that I did not vote for lockdown 2.0 on 2 November. Nothing that has happened since has told me that I made the wrong decision then. The tiered system, while not perfect, for some of the reasons I have outlined, is far better than a national lockdown, which, for the record—I am bored with saying it—was never a lockdown. But we are not just recreating the tiered system here this evening, because schedule 4 of the tiers regulations lists exactly where each area falls. That makes it very hard for me to support them this evening.

In closing, I will just say this. Let us just get these vaccines over the line. The MHRA is tough and will do its job as it should, but let us get them over the line and get them rolled out with the sort of British efficiency that we are supposed to be good at. Then—guess what?—the annus horribilis of 2020 will go away and these Hobson’s choices that we are being forced to make will go away as well.

Early Parliamentary General Election Bill

Robert Syms Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons
Tuesday 29th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Vaizey]

I have to say, Mr Speaker, that the minute you rose I realised the error I had made in speaking injudiciously and inaccurately. From now on, I will take a forensic approach. The point I was going to make was that I support the call for an election. It is quite right that we try to break the deadlock that exists in Parliament by having an election as soon as possible. I am also mindful—I have listened to every word you have said in this Chamber, Mr Speaker—that I am not going to speak about any of the amendments. All I will say is that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised important points and the amendments, if they are called, will also raise important points.

There are important debates to be had in this Chamber about the shape and form of elections. I am open to the idea, for example, of 16-year-olds voting. I am open to the idea of our European friends who live here and contribute their taxes voting. In particular, I take on board the point the hon. Lady made about money and lies. We know that in a digital age the propaganda pumped out on tech platforms will be a huge issue in this election and in future elections. When this House returns after the election, I hope that that will be one of the issues that is addressed.

Many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), who made an excellent speech, have focused on the fact that people in the country are yearning for us to talk about something other than Brexit and about the issues that matter to them. I am extremely fortunate to represent the wonderful constituency of Wantage and Didcot, which contributes an enormous amount to the British economy. It is a centre for scientific research, space companies and life sciences, and it has a Formula 1 team, Williams Formula 1. Understandably, the constituency voted to remain because those companies rely on the expertise of a workforce who are spread throughout Europe and who are able to come to this country to work. It is clear, therefore, that when we have this election—and we must have it—Brexit and the issues that emerge from it will be an important factor in the debate.

It is also right that when we call this election—I am speaking in support of the Bill—people should have the chance to debate issues such as who provides the best stewardship of the economy, healthcare and education as well as the importance of culture and the creative industries in our society, a subject very close to my heart.

I echo what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said—I hope this is in order, Mr Speaker—about the tone of any forthcoming general election campaign. You will be pleased to know that the insight I am about to deliver represents the conclusion of my remarks. When you quite rightly ruled me out of order for saying that I was going to make a pro-remain speech when in fact I am making a pro-election speech, the point I wanted to make was that, with a little bit of Brexit inside me—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for St Albans has perked up. Obviously, I do not want to be part of a European superstate. I often say to my remain friends that if at any point the European Union told us, “You can stay in the European Union only if you join the single currency,” I would be the first to man the barricades and call for Brexit—even, dare I say it, a no-deal Brexit.

What was left behind after the referendum, and what I hope we get back if we call an election, is an understanding of the role of this incredible institution of Parliament. We know that the people voted to leave the European Union, but the paranoid hard-right Brexiteers decided that any version of Brexit apart from their own would somehow snatch away their hard-won victory. However, you know, Mr Speaker, that the role of this place, as the Chamber of a representative democracy, is to take that instruction and to interpret it as best we can.

My rebellious streak emerged when a hard-line Brexit was proposed—the proposal to leave the customs union and the single market while maintaining an open border in Ireland is an impossible circle to square—and there were attacks on our judges, who were called “enemies of the people” for interpreting the law; attacks on business, which pays taxes and employs people; attacks on our civil servants, who worked day and night to deliver the instructions of their political masters; and, dare I say it, Mr Speaker, attacks on you for allowing us in this Chamber to have our say on important matters. What really drove me mad was the attempt by some people in this House to own the result of the referendum and say, to echo the words of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley, “My way or the highway,” trashing in the process every single institution that they purported to be campaigning for when they campaigned for Brexit. That is utterly shameful. I hope they realise that everyone in this House has done their best to deliver on the referendum result.

It is not our fault that there was a hung Parliament. We can blame various people for the reason that we came back with a hung Parliament—[Interruption.] No, I blame the politicians. I blame the person who was leading our party at the last election when we could have come back with a majority, and this party can perhaps reflect on how long it took to react. Nobody knows how this election will turn out. I have simply taken a consistent position—as I have watched the carnage and the wreckage, and the ratcheting up of the rhetoric to “traitor” and “treason”—and said, “We should respect the referendum result, but we should leave with a deal.”

I do not know whether you and I will ever meet again in our respective positions, Mr Speaker. I simply want to say to you, as one man of average height—to echo my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)—but of substantial girth: thank you for everything that you have done to stand up for the rights of this Chamber. Thank you as well to all my colleagues, who I look forward to seeing on the election beat, reasonably exchanging sensible and intelligent views on the best way forward—

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Vaizey]

I hope you do not mind if I take a small intervention, Mr Speaker.

[Sir Robert Syms]

It will be a small intervention, Mr Speaker. I do not wholly agree with my right hon. Friend, but this place would be poorer if he were not a Member of a future Parliament. I hope that he gets the Whip back and we can hear more brilliant speeches about science and all the other things that he has championed in this place.

[Mr Vaizey]

I am very grateful; my hon. Friend has been a wonderful colleague to me over many years. This place at its best is one of the best places to be—and at its worst, it is absolutely awful.

European Union (Withdrawal) Act

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 12th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

Would hon. Members just wait for a second? That new approach will start with the withdrawal agreement Bill. If the deal passes tonight, notice of presentation will be given tomorrow and the Bill will be introduced on Thursday. As we discuss that Bill, we can debate how exactly we will ensure that this Parliament has the full say that it deserves.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I thank the Prime Minister for giving way. Given that the clock is ticking, millions of people working in businesses up and down this country want the most certain outcome, and voting for this deal today is the best way of delivering that. Voting the deal down will lead to more uncertainty. None of us knows where we are going to end up, so I, for one, will be supporting the Government and the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

I thank my hon. Friend. He has made a very important point. The only certain thing about rejecting this deal tonight is that it increases uncertainty. Businesses and individuals want certainty.

Overseas Electors Bill: Money

Robert Syms Excerpts

Money resolution: House of Commons
Tuesday 16th October 2018 Commons Chamber

[Chloe Smith]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his question, but I will return to the finance matters in front of us.

I will explain why the amendment to the money resolution is unrealistic. The figure in the proposal, £10,000 per annum, is just 1% of the estimated cost of implementing the Bill. We have published a detailed impact assessment, which I am sure hon. Members will have read, and it outlines how much we expect the measures to cost. I am not backward in coming forward about the amount: we think it will cost £1 million per annum over 10 years. I will put that into context in a moment and explain why we think it is an appropriate figure.

If any Bill becomes law, it should be properly funded, so that is the starting point.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

In my time in the House, Oppositions have normally criticised a lack of money for private Members’ Bills to carry out their objectives. It is highly unusual to try to limit the money to £10,000. When was the last time an Opposition did this?

[Chloe Smith]

As I understand it—you might know this better than I do, Mr Deputy Speaker—it was 1912; it was over a century ago.

Pairing

Robert Syms Excerpts

Monday 23rd July 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Lidington]

I think that after the general debate on the matter there will need to be, at some stage in the not too distant future, a substantive motion on which the House can take a view. Important questions were raised in the Procedure Committee report—for example, about the exclusion from a general proposal for proxy voting while on maternity, paternity or adoption leave of particular categories of Division in the House. The Committee discussed various approaches to how a proxy vote might operate in practice. The House needs to consider those things, as well as the points about the potential for bereavement leave or carer’s leave that other hon. Members on both sides of the House have raised.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

We know that the system actually works pretty well. The Minister has given the figures that show that occasionally, for a variety of reasons, pairs get broken. In those cases, an apology is required, very quickly, and we had an apology from the two individuals in question that should settle the matter. The reality, though, is that this is the worst system except for all the alternatives.

[Mr Lidington]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head.

Oral Answers to Questions

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 10th January 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let us have a bit of order for a Dorset knight: Sir Robert Syms.

[Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

T2. One of the Minister’s new responsibilities is the important negotiations with the devolved Assemblies and Parliament. When will my right hon. Friend undertake meetings for those important discussions on the future of our country?

Debate on the Address

Robert Syms Excerpts

Wednesday 4th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Andrew Miller (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)]

I am grateful for being called to speak. It is 22 years since I first addressed the House on the first day of debate on the Gracious Speech. It struck me that it would be a good idea to look back at that speech to see what has changed on this planet since. Interestingly, some phrases recurred today, which should be of serious concern to us all.

In 1992, the John Major Government said that they required

“full Iraqi compliance with Security Council resolutions”,

and that they would

“work for a peaceful settlement in Yugoslavia”

and

“support moves to bring lasting peace to the middle east.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 1992; Vol. 537, c. 7.]

Those were matters of profound importance and there has been some good news since then, but it is possible to compare it to today’s Queen Speech, which noted:

“My ministers will strive to improve the humanitarian situation in Syria, to reduce violence and promote a political settlement. It will work for a successful transition in Afghanistan, and will work towards a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran.”

Major issues still affect the middle east in particular. As this is the last time that I will address the House in a debate on the Queen’s Speech, it is worth putting down a marker that, even after that long period, we still have to look at this intensely difficult area of the world. None of us from any party should either shirk our responsibilities in addressing some of the challenges or pretend that we can ignore them.

The second and obvious point relates to budgetary discipline. In 1992, the Government said that they would

“promote sound finance and budgetary discipline.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 1992; Vol. 537, c. 7-8.]

They obviously did not succeed, because there is still apparently a need to

“strengthen the economy and provide stability and security”.

That phrase constantly occurs in every Queen’s Speech, irrespective of the Government for whom it is delivered. That is clearly a matter of great importance, especially as we move towards the next general election, because it will be the determining factor in whether the Government can persuade the electorate that they have succeeded.

Contrary to some of the figures that one hears bandied around in the Chamber, the experience of my constituents is markedly different, and many of them simply do not believe the Government figures. A gentleman came to my surgery last weekend to complain that he could not get on to a training course that is available to the vast majority of unemployed people in my constituency. He is not entitled to receive any benefits because of his wife’s earnings, which means that he is not counted as unemployed. He profoundly feels that he is unemployed, and that he has been badly let down by this Government. Many people in that situation—either in such cases, or because their income is based on zero-hours contracts and low-wage jobs—are really struggling, and they simply do not believe the figures presented by the Government.

The third area that I want, perhaps slightly teasingly, to draw to the attention of the Conservative party—there now appear to be only Members from one party on the Government Benches—is the question of Europe. Today’s Queen’s Speech says:

“My government will work to promote reform in the European Union, including a stronger role for member states and national parliaments.”

I remind Conservative Members that the Queen’s Speech in 1992 stated that the Government would

“lay before Parliament the treaty of Maastricht and introduce a Bill to implement it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 May 1992; Vol. 537, c. 8.]

Of course, that Bill was very controversial. You will remember, Madam Deputy Speaker, that we spent many a late night in the Chamber—sitting until the early hours of the morning for weeks at a time—while the Government drove it through. To pretend that the Bill and the treaty that it incorporated did not have an impact on the relationship we now have with Europe is simply to ignore history. At least one historian, my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden), is on the Opposition Front Bench today, and I am sure that he could draw to our attention other examples of how what was said in previous debates has been conveniently forgotten. In several areas, there are similarities—as well as some profound contradictions—in what the Government have said.

It is a pity that the mover of the Loyal Address, the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), is not in the Chamber. I know her constituency extremely well, having lived and worked in the Portsmouth area until the 1970s. I remember one of her slightly eccentric predecessors Brigadier Terence H. Clarke, who was the first person in the Conservative party with whom I came into conflict. He was succeeded by Frank Judd, now Lord Judd in the House of Lords, and then by Syd Rapson and Sarah McCarthy-Fry, so the seat has had some strong representatives over the years. The hon. Lady gave us some of the background to the issues that are having an impact on her own city, of which everyone who has an association with Portsmouth is proud. Obviously, the naval ones are hugely important in the context of my opening remarks about international security issues. I also happen to agree with her about the success in rescuing Pompey football club from a bunch of cowboys and getting it into the hands of decent people, but that is perhaps another story.

I want to touch on some other areas. I first want to refer to the section in the Queen’s Speech about cutting bureaucracy and enabling small businesses to access finance. During the last Parliament, I chaired the Regulatory Reform Committee, which did a huge amount of work then, and some work has been done in this Parliament. This matter has a huge impact on the well-being of small businesses. The warning note that I want to send to the Government is that they should not, for goodness’ sake, come back to us with some mixed-up Bill that seeks to diminish employment rights in small businesses. That is not the solution to the problem.

Yes, there are ways in which the bureaucracy impacting on small businesses can be improved dramatically and, cross-departmentally, the Government need to take into account a lot of considerations to ensure that such improvements have an effect. For example, it always seems to me to be pretty daft that a small business that perhaps employs only a handful of people might find itself regulated by four or five agencies under different Departments, with no joining-up between one and another. If that is the kind of regulatory reform impacting on small businesses that the Government want to introduce, fine; if, on the other hand, they mean removing rights that involve the necessary protection of workers—both in terms of employment rights and health and safety conditions—they will certainly not have the support of Labour Members.

Some bits are obviously missing from the Queen’s Speech. There has just been an interesting exchange on hydraulic fracturing. Given where the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) lives, she understandably has real difficulties with HS2. Of course, if HS2 were two miles below her constituency, she would not be raising such issues. We need to get across to the public some important points about the development of what is called unconventional oil and gas, rather than allow emotive arguments to dominate.

I perfectly understand the people of Chesham and Amersham’s concerns about the impact of the railway on their community if they get no direct benefit from it. On the other hand, as has happened in my area, if a pilot well is drilled a couple of miles below the land on which I live, it has no impact on my house or its value. In fact, some of the oldest fracturing operations in the United Kingdom, such as BP’s operations down at Wytch Farm in Dorset underneath some of the wealthiest landowners in the country—at Sandbanks and places such as that—have not exactly knocked value off their houses, have they? We need serious engagement with the public and must take the science to the public, rather than allowing the emotive arguments to dominate this incredibly complex debate.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The Wytch Farm oilfield, one of the largest onshore oilfields, is hardly noticed by anybody. It is well done and has no adverse impact on the Poole and south Dorset area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt) on her excellent proposing of the Loyal Address, and my neighbour, the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), on seconding it. We have had a good and interesting debate, and it is sad to reflect that, for a number of Members, this will be their last Queen’s Speech. A lot of very talented people will be retiring in 2015, and they have made excellent contributions to the quality and standard of debate in this House.

It was a remarkable Queen’s Speech, because it was the fifth of a coalition Government. If we go back to those dark and dim days of 2010, we will remember that the electorate did not elect a party with an overall majority. The arithmetic led to a coalition being formed, and many people doubted that it would last the course, or that it would be a cohesive Government who did what it said on the tin, which was to sort out this country’s economic difficulties. Four years later, we still have legislation to put through. We have an economy that is recovering and growing faster than those of most of our competitors, with many hundreds of thousands of jobs being created

The key point is not to look so much at the legislation, but to look at the fact that what the Government have to do, more than anything else, is to secure the economic recovery in what is a difficult economic environment throughout the world. We are not out of the clouds of the eurozone yet—there are still some problems there—and we still have many economic challenges. The Government, however, can be congratulated on undertaking the task and on what they have done over the past five years. There have been occasions when the statistics have not looked good or when clouds have appeared and people have suggested that the Government change their course, or that they are on the wrong course, but four years after the formation of the Government we are starting to see that they have been proved right.

No one pretends that coalition is easy; it requires people to make compromises. The coalition has done certain things that, as Conservatives, we have found difficult and, no doubt, there are also things that the Liberal Democrats have found difficult. The Prime Minister, when he formed his Government, said that we had to put politics to one side in the national interest. Our national economy, the wealth of our nation, and the jobs and prospects of our people are sometimes more important than our political spats. From that point of view, the Government have done not only a good job, but the right thing for our nation. They have put country before party, and they are beginning to deliver a brighter economic outlook.

I am not a great believer in legislation to solve problems, because if legislation solved problems, we would not have any of them. The general tenor of debate on a Queen’s Speech is to ask how many Bills there are—the more the better. People do not necessarily look at each individual Bill and measure whether it makes us richer or happier, or whatever. What always strikes me—rather amusingly in this House—is that we focus on legislation, but we do not focus so much on money. My background is in both business and local government, and on a number of occasions I have been sitting on council committees when some poor officer, who had made a mistake over £2,500 or £3,000 on a tender, was pulled apart because councillors were demanding answers. Yet in this Chamber and in our parliamentary system, we as a Parliament do not really control money in the same way as we would on a local authority.

The Gracious Speech says that

“estimates for the public services will be laid before you.”

We have the rather bizarre spectacle of having estimates days for debate, but we do not really debate the estimates; we debate sports centres in Wales or sheep farming, but we do not debate what has happened with the money. One of the most interesting things about the estimates is that they show how Government have moved money between Departments and how money has been vired in different directions. As a Parliament, if we are to be more effective, we ought to be focusing a lot more on how money is spent and whether we are getting value for money—what the Government are doing with our money—rather than necessarily focusing on the minutiae of legislation.

I welcome the measures that we do have in the Queen’s Speech. Simplifying national insurance for the self-employed is a good thing; the Government are clearly right to propose a modern slavery Bill; and the pensions reforms—we all have an interest, so I will declare an interest—are interesting and exciting.

I have a slight difficulty and concern about the recall Bill, however, as many Members will. On occasion, petitions are handed to me and, usually, I write to petitioners to say, “I got your petition.” It is not unusual to have people write or e-mail back to say, “I didn’t sign a petition.” If I ask whether they were outside Tesco on a Saturday morning, they might reply, “Oh, someone put something in front of me and I signed it to get rid of them.” I am afraid that a lot of people in our country will sign anything simply to get rid of someone in a shopping centre. If we have a threshold of only 10%, someone annoying outside Tesco could reach that fairly easily—in the Tesco in Branksome Park, Poole, for example. I have a few reservations about recall therefore, although I understand that there are issues of public confidence in legislators. I have a real worry about how that legislation will operate and what checks and balances it will include.

I welcome the infrastructure Bill, particularly because it will have an impact on the North sea, which has been a tremendous British success story. The North sea oil and gas fields were developed after the exploration in the 1960s and they have lasted far longer than people expected because of technology and free enterprise. We have to provide certainty with the tax regime and, as some of the fields are heading for decommissioning, we have to set a much better framework. The Wood review is vital in doing that, so I welcome the proposed Bill. I am sure that we can still squeeze a lot more profit out of the North sea sector.

I also appreciate the opportunities that fracking will provide. We have to make things as easy as possible, so that we can get the gas out of the ground, while also ensuring public confidence and that people do not feel that fracking will have an impact on their lives. As I said in an intervention, in Poole we have the Wytch Farm oilfield. In the 1960s and ’70s, when it was developed, there were concerns that it would have a major impact, but no one notices it now. Dorset county council, which dealt with many of the applications, did an excellent job of ensuring screening of the rigs. Occasionally, we see the odd flow off in the harbour, but it is extremely rare. The reality is that people should not be worried about this; it offers a tremendous national opportunity. If, as many hon. Members have said, we are to secure the recovery, use all our national assets and reduce dependency on imported energy, we have to use fracking and to use it as a revolution in the same dynamic way as the United States has done.

It is remarkable that we have got to the fifth Queen’s Speech of the coalition. There has been success on the economy, although I understand that it will take a while for living standards to return to where they were—a lot of people are still working hard and not earning the income that they might wish for. I am perfectly sure that if we persist with our economic policies, with inflation coming down and growth coming up, we will end up with people better off and having the opportunity to skill up and change jobs as the economy improves. It is important that we should continue with the mission, as set in 2010 by the Prime Minister, of nursing our country back to health and ensuring that it takes its place as a pre-eminent, industrial and prosperous country and as one of the best places in the world to live.

Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership

Robert Syms Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on introducing the debate, and on the manner in which he did so. I think it refreshing to have a debate about first principles and about how we might create future wealth, rather than about how we might spend it. We have learnt from history that trade—and free trade in particular—has enabled us all to make ourselves richer. We do not have to be convinced about how interdependent the world is when we observe that the tsunami in Japan caused shortages in one or two of our car factories. That demonstrates how important it is for our nation to undertake international trade.

We have been through a difficult economic time, comparable in many respects to the 1930s, but in terms of public policy, politicians in most western countries have acted in a very good way, and have kept their economies moving forward. On the whole, they have done a pretty good job of tackling what I think was a major difficulty in 2007-08. A few years ago, I should have said that the forces of protection would be far more on the march today than they have been. I think that that is because the vast majority of our fellow citizens and constituents now recognise the benefits of international trade. We have seen the success of Jaguar Land Rover, which has exported 80% of its output—£13.7 billion—much of it not only to the United States but to the far east. That shows how we are creating wealth and jobs, and how the British economy can benefit from trade.

[Julian Smith]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Syms]

I will not, because we are short of time.

There is a debate to be had about the European Union, and clearly Members have different views about it, but the key point is that it contains a major market consisting of more than 500 million people. I personally am glad that the EU is seeking trade agreements with the United States. I see nothing but benefit if we can simplify regulation, reduce barriers and increase trade.

Commentators often write off the United States as though it had had its time, but again and again it reinvents itself, with its Apples, its Googles and the fracking boom, which has had a material effect on energy prices. We are also seeing the repatriation of manufacturing jobs to the United States. I still think that the US has a very good future, and I think it vital for us, as a nation with a long history of campaigning for free trade within the European Union, to press our partners and colleagues to secure an agreement with it.

We have already heard today about the size of the combined economies of the European Union and the United States, which constitute well over 40% of the world’s GDP. If we can establish rules which will mean an increase in trade, we shall have an advantage outside that particular trade area, because other countries will have to confirm to some of the norms. It does not make sense that firms sometimes have to obtain a huge amount of authorisation for products in Washington, and then do the same across the European Union. That increases costs, especially the costs of medicines and pharmaceuticals.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that this country is tremendously good at services. In respect of general agreements on trade, what we have not been so good at is opening up markets for services. What we need to do is persuade our Government, and the EU, to push for far more inclusion and far more trade between nations in this area, because it is an area in which we as a country can do particularly well.

It is understandable that Opposition Members have worries, but I think that there is a great prize to be won. If we can boost our economic growth, this will be not a win-lose situation, but a win-win situation. Our country can be richer, our partners in the European Union can be richer, and the United States can be richer. I believe that if the world’s major trading blocs do more trade, world trade will be increased, and we will all benefit from that.