UK-US Trade and Tariffs
Debate between Steve Barclay and Jonathan Reynolds(1 day, 10 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s question. He is right that this is a substantial change in US policy. It is important that, even if we do not agree with some of the decisions made and the thinking that underpins them, we recognise where they come from. Indeed, they were part of the US presidential campaign, so we have been able to prepare the ground for our conversations.
My hon. Friend asked about international co-operation. We are strongly involved with the WTO, and particularly supported the re-election of Dr Ngozi as its director-general. It is important to remember that despite the problems the multilateral system faces, it is still the basis on which the vast majority of trade around the world takes place. We will continue to play a constructive role in relation to the WTO, and any multilateral organisation, where that serves our interests.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
What was missing from the Secretary of State’s statement, and from his reply to both Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople, was the Government’s estimate of the cost of the tariffs, particularly in the context of the Chancellor’s fiscal headroom. Will the Secretary of State update the House on that specifically?
Jonathan Reynolds
As a former Treasury Minister, the right hon. Gentleman will know the kind of work that goes on to make sure that such assessments are made. The announcement came late last night; it is only last night and this morning that we have had the chance to respond to it. He will also appreciate that the impact on the UK is about not just the direct relationship between the US and the UK, but what happens in the wider global trading system. How other countries choose to react to the US announcements will be the determining factor for the impact on the UK, and we do not know that at this stage.
I promise to keep the House updated, and to update the right hon. Gentleman personally, if he wishes, at any stage on our work to assess the impact on the UK. For all Members of Parliament, this should be a time for reassurance, for calm heads and for giving clear information to British business on how we will navigate these difficult times. That is the correct message to send out from Parliament.
European Union (Withdrawal) Acts
Debate between Steve Barclay and Jonathan Reynolds(5 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Surely the crucial point of this new deal is that it offers Great Britain a fairly hard Brexit in order to facilitate trade agreements with countries for which European standards are incompatible. An economy cannot be a European-style economy and a US-style economy at the same time. The Secretary of State is not giving us an economic assessment to tell us what jobs and industries will grow on the back of this deal and what goods and services will be cheaper to compensate for loss of aerospace, automotive, financial services and so much more. He cannot tell us that today.
Stephen Barclay
The hon. Gentleman really should listen to business leaders like Sir Stuart Rose who says that we should get this deal done; to the Bank of England Governor, who says that this will be a boost to our economy; and to the many business leaders who want an end to this uncertainty. We cannot simply keep debating the same issues in a House that has said no to everything and refused to say yes to anything.
Amendment of the Law
Debate between Steve Barclay and Jonathan Reynolds(14 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
First, further to a number of the speeches from Labour Members, including the hon. Members for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk) and for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), who I am pleased to see are still in the Chamber, I shall first suggest that the difference between the parties is less than is claimed. Secondly, I shall highlight the fact that significant waste remains, and that waste cannot be cut too fast or too deeply. Thirdly, I shall highlight the disconnect between the House’s responsibility for setting a Budget and debating it, and the information available for effective scrutiny.
Is the gap between the parties as wide as Opposition Members claim? All parties would have spent beyond their means in this Parliament. The Office for Budget Responsibility says that under the coalition, national debt will be £1.31 trillion at the end of this Parliament. Had Labour remained in office, national debt would have been £1.38 trillion. A difference of £62 billion is not insignificant, but to put that in context, it is less than we will be spending in a year on debt interest by the end of the Parliament. It is therefore not credible to say, as a number of hon. Members have done, that public services will be put at risk. After all, the Government will spend £700 billion a year, which is 40% of gross domestic product—more, in fact, than Tony Blair was spending when he left office.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that point? Does he not recognise that one crucial difference is the configuration of spending under Tony Blair? That spending went mainly on services, but under this Government, the money will be spent on massive unemployment.
Stephen Barclay
Had the hon. Gentleman bothered to be here for the whole debate he would have heard some of the points made by my colleagues, including the fact that £42 billion is being spent on debt interest this year alone.
The hon. Gentleman is quite right to ask where the money is going, which brings me to my second point: waste in spending. The focus is often on top salaries in the public sector, but in Cambridgeshire there is one station manager, or a more senior officer, for every four full-time firefighters, one police sergeant for every four constables, one inspector for every three sergeants, and one chief inspector or above for every inspector. There has been huge inflation in management costs.
Opposition Members may chunter, but let us look at what many of those managers do. The Ministry of Justice asked local authority youth offending teams to collect more than 3,000 bits of data on process, and yet outcomes were still not measured, so the YOTs still cannot say which prevention schemes work. There has been an inflation of management salaries, but often the same people are paid for the same performance. The chief fire officer of Cambridge earns £190,000—£60,000 more than the chief constable—and has three deputies on £150,000, £140,000 and £130,000 each. Perhaps Opposition Members were marching on Saturday to protect such salaries, but we need to look at productivity, and at what we get in return for those salaries and that inflation in management spend.