Trade, Exports, Innovation and Productivity

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

A good, competitive tax rate is vital. Global firms consider a dashboard of different metrics—including tax rates, regulation, flexibility in labour laws and capital allowances—in a holistic manner in order to decide where they are going to put their capital investment, the returns on which they might not get back for 10, 20 or 30 years. It is important not only that we have stability, but that we make sure that, if a particular firm is putting in investment, we address what the Government are doing. Other countries recognise that and ensure that there is a partnership, but I am worried that we do not have that.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

I will give way to a fellow Select Committee Chairman.

[Neil Carmichael]

It is an honour to participate in this debate. The hon. Gentleman’s Select Committee and mine are doing a joint inquiry on productivity and it will focus on skills. Does he agree that, given the fact that more than 50% of foreign direct investment comes via the European Union, there is a really strong case to remain in the EU to encourage even more FDI in the future?

[Mr Wright]

That is incredibly important. Firms make investment decisions not just because of the UK domestic market, but because they see the UK as a springboard into the largest consumer marketplace—500 million consumers—on earth. Japanese firms such as Nissan and Hitachi are not just here for the domestic market; they are here because we are a springboard into the whole European market. We risk that at our peril.

Trade performance is a good barometer of economic health at both the macro and micro levels. At a macro level, a buoyant trade performance contributes to economic growth and helps to provide a surplus on the country’s current account. As the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) mentioned, the motion cites a

“trade deficit in goods of £123 billion in 2014”.

However, in that year, the current account deficit widened to 5.1% of national income, which was its largest in post-war history. For much of the past 30 or 40 years, the trade deficit has been offset by investment income from overseas. However, and most ominously, net primary income derived from assets abroad has fallen from 3.3% of GDP to 0.1% in 2014. The Minister should outline the Government’s view about that because they have been quiet about this crucial economic issue.

At a micro level, exporting is positive, especially for firms, and it is good for the wider economy and society, too. Evidence suggests that an exporting business tends to be successful, sustainable and socially aware. Such a company tends to employ more workers and to offer better wages than an equivalent non-exporting company. Companies that export have been shown to be more productive and to invest more in research and development. There is a strong link between exporting and innovation. More often than not, a business with a desire to export overseas has the discipline, ambition and entrepreneurial flourish to develop new products and services that will better serve new export markets. Such companies will be sensitive and responsive to customer wishes, which is always the hallmark of a successful business. There can be a virtuous circle for exporting businesses whereby they become exposed to new demands, fresh ideas and increased competition, which in turn makes them more productive and outward looking, and better disposed towards thinking about new products and improved profitability.

On average, according to the British Chambers of Commerce, businesses that export grow 20% more than those that do not. We need to encourage such activity much more because far too few excellent British firms providing great goods and services that could be offered throughout the world export. Only one in five British firms do so, whereas the average figure for the EU is one in four.

The motion refers to the UK’s “poor export performance”, but with the greatest respect to the Scottish National party, I would go further. I think that our trade performance over the past 30 years or so has been dire and woeful. It has declined markedly over that period with no genuine prospect of improvement. The UK accounted for one in 10 of the world’s exports in 1950, but now the figure is less than 3%. Of course, with the development of emerging economies, it was inevitable that there would be a relative decline in the market share of UK goods and services, but not at the rate that we have unfortunately experienced. Given the forecast that world trade will expand by $250 trillion by 2050, there should be a co-ordinated effort—in the House, across the country and in government—to ensure that we capture as much as possible of the growth in the world economy for British firms.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

We can consider that when hon. Members debate new clause 25. We had considerable debate about it in Committee. The question now is: what is the purpose of the green investment bank? Is it to ensure that we can kick-start innovative technologies that cannot have market buy-in, or is it a question of ensuring that the targets set out in the 2008 Act are met? There is a conflict there, which we considered in Committee at some length. I think that there is potential to consider nuclear, certainly in respect of the nuclear supply chain and ensuring that we can achieve these objectives. I am keen to hear the debate on this matter in the next few moments. It is important to probe the Government on whether this is an appropriate avenue for the bank to invest in.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

I shall give way to two eminent members of the Public Bill Committee, but I must bear in mind the fact that we do not have time to debate these issues at length.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that generous introduction. I am glad I stood up when I did. The danger of the shadow Minister’s speech so far is that he is focusing on energy, where, of course, a green investment bank should be considering many other technologies and many issues other than energy. That is one of the problems with new clause 22.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Wright]

My firm policy commitment is to ensure that we have the green investment bank borrowing as soon as possible, as a stimulus to growth. We were mindful of amendments that we tabled in Committee about that, but we also have to consider the appalling financial mess that the Government are dealing with in respect of increased borrowing. Borrowing was going down prior to the general election, but now it is going up. We do not know what the circumstances will be in 2015, so we need to ensure that there can be certainty, based on the imperative to have the green investment bank borrowing from the capital markets as soon as possible while being mindful of the need for rigour and discipline in the public finances.

[Neil Carmichael]

Is it not possible that the green investment bank can encourage other private organisations and banks to step in and start contributing to the green economy, as that is really what this is all about? It is about providing the right confidence, on the basis of a framework of some certainty, which the Minister has asked for and the Government are giving.

[Mr Wright]

Absolutely, and that is why the hon. Gentleman will be supporting our amendment 77 and rejecting Government amendments 1 and 3.

If our economy has sectoral strengths, it is right, in an active industrial strategy, for the Government to be looking to maximise those strengths. They also need to seek to develop further capabilities, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, that could lead to greater investment, growth and employment opportunities here in the UK and, we hope, to the exporting, for commercial gain, of some of the work, expertise and capability here. We want economic benefits to flow to companies within the United Kingdom. That is not to defend protectionism, or to deny the need for competition and foreign direct investment, but to ensure that the Government, as part of a fundamental, active, industrial strategy, work with business to see how this country can gain and maintain market advantage.

[Neil Carmichael]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

I cannot resist giving way to the hon. Gentleman again, even though I am conscious of the time, because the manner in which he puts his hand up as if he needs to go to the toilet is so endearing.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It is important to understand the length and complexity of supply chains and that we do not tie ourselves down to thinking that the supply chain is just within Britain, as it goes further than that. We need appropriate co-operation from the supply chain in big operations. The Government are rightly focusing on supply chains more generally, but we need to bear that in mind.

[Mr Wright]

Absolutely. I think the hon. Gentleman can go to the toilet now. Recent research has concluded that capital expenditure costs for something as important and significant as offshore wind projects, in which my constituency could play a leading part, could fall by a third in the next decade if a greater proportion of the parts were made in the UK. We need to be mindful of that and the Government must work with business to enhance the supply chain possibilities, opportunities and capabilities in the UK. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman, with the greatest of respect, that that is not happening, largely because of policy uncertainty. That is what amendment 77 is designed to address.

Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright

Tuesday 16th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Wright]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that the House and the country has 28 April—workers memorial day—as a focus for remembering that people should not go to work and not come back, and that families should not be disrupted by death and injury at work. We need to pull together to ensure that health and safety is considered not as peripheral and a nice thing to have, but as central to our society and a productive economy.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will move on.

There are benefits to business from an effective and proportionate health and safety regime. As I mentioned, a safe and healthy work force can be a productive and effective work force. The Institution of Occupational Safety and Health estimates that, by having an effective health and safety regime, employers could save up to £7.8 billion, individuals could save up to £5.12 billion, and the economy, each and every year, could save up to £22.2 billion. It is important that health and safety is classed not as unnecessary and bureaucratic, but as conducive to good, effective and sustainable economic growth.

It is with those figures in mind that we should consider the merits of health and safety regulations and legislation, and the long-established premise of strict liability. As we know and as the Minister said, Professor Löfstedt reported in November last year. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), who speaks for the Opposition on health and safety, welcomed many aspects of Löfstedt’s review. As my right hon. Friend said, most of it was positive, sensible and evidence-based, which is not a phrase we have heard often in deliberations on the Bill, and reinforced the view that health and safety is not a burden.

Over a number of years, the Health and Safety Executive has undertaken simplification exercises, which had support from both trade unions and employers. There are 46% fewer regulations than 35 years ago, and there has been a 57% reduction in the number of forms used. There is a perception that firms, and particularly small firms, spend disproportionate time on health and safety to the detriment of business and growth, but the average business spends 20 hours and just over £350 a year on health and safety risk management and assessment, according to the Minister’s Department. Such activities therefore do not exactly take up a huge amount of businesses’ time.

UK Trade and Investment

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright

Thursday 15th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Mr Amess, what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship today, and may I also wish you a very happy 60th birthday in 11 days’ time?

[Neil Carmichael]

That is impossible.

[Mr Wright]

It is impossible that Mr Amess is 60.

I must however add a sour note, Mr Amess, that is directed at your good self. I attended business questions in the main Chamber today and I heard you say to the Leader of the House that Southend is the best seaside resort in the country, if not the world. I have to correct you and say that Hartlepool and Seaton Carew is actually the best seaside resort anywhere in the country.

This has been a great debate, and an important and interesting one. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) on securing such a significant and timely debate.

In many respects, I am very optimistic about Britain’s prospects in the next half-century. We have innovative, dynamic, competitive companies in sectors from which the world wants to buy goods and services, and in which we are world class. We have a tradition of open, fair and global trading, which we need to exploit a lot more, and the world economy will double by the year 2050. The rate of growth throughout the world in the next decade will be about 4% to 5%––much higher than in the last 30 years. We need to exploit that to Britain’s competitive advantage as much as possible.

I mentioned this point in a previous debate, but it is worth repeating; indeed, the hon. Member for South Thanet referred to it earlier: there is a ferociously competitive global economy out there. British firms must be as nimble as possible, but my additional point is that there is a premium for coming first in the 21st-century economy, and we need to ensure that Britain and British companies go first into the new and emerging markets.

Let me quote from the CBI’s excellent report, “Winning overseas”, which says:

“We are not alone in seeking growth through exports – other advanced economies are facing similar constraints and are looking to boost their export performance. We cannot spend another decade simply playing catch-up: we need to be bigger and bolder in our ambitions.”

The report concludes by stating, very starkly:

“We are not being ambitious enough with our choice of markets and our decline in goods exports is unsustainable if we want to lead an export-orientated economic recovery.”

Exporting is incredibly important to the British economy, and not just in the simplistic and obvious sense that it generates revenue for our country, allowing us to pay our way in the world. All the evidence suggests that firms that export and that attract inward investment stimulate better research and development, productivity, innovation and hence competitiveness. The efficiency of our wider economy improves through exposure to new ideas and different ways of doing business. A paper from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills itself, entitled “International Trade and Investment - the Economic Rationale for Government Support”, states:

“export support is a highly cost effective means of generating additional business R&D, enabling firms to increase internal resources available for such investment, as a by-product of successfully helping them to gain access to new markets.”

It is clear that public money invested in export expansion and support reaps huge dividends for the businesses of this country, and it also improves the ongoing competitiveness and prosperity of our country. The CBI—I quote it again—states quite directly the challenge to us in this House as policy makers:

“Be clear about what the UK is trying to achieve and where its strengths lie in order to help UK business in the global marketplace. The UK must develop a strong brand that our exporters can leverage to their own advantage.”

I think that we would all agree with regard to that.

I am optimistic about the growing alignment between areas of UK competitive advantage and demand from emerging markets in the next decade or so. We have the rise of the global middle class, with about 1.8 billion middle-class people in the world. In the next few years, that is estimated to grow by 5 billion, so we are going to have a huge increase in people with more disposable income wanting to buy British goods and services. That will provide enormous opportunities for the UK in some of our real strengths: premium brand automotives, financial services, IT, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, creative industries and higher education.

I am optimistic, but we face challenges. It has been mentioned that we often have cultural and structural barriers to companies expanding their exports, or even starting to export in the first place. In terms of our cultural barriers, too many of our firms simply do not export. The key task of UKTI is to break down those cultural barriers as much as possible and identify the companies that could make a real success in exporting.

We export to a limited field of slow or no-growth countries. That point has been made by the hon. Member for The Cotswolds (Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and others. Some 65% to 70% of our exports go to the United States and the European Union. We need to ensure that the strategic focus of UKTI switches to high growth and emerging economies. The hon. Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) was firm about making sure that we were at the forefront of N11 economies—the next 11 high growth economies.

There is a cultural barrier. How on earth does a firm in Hartlepool or elsewhere, with no culture or experience in exporting whatever, get into the business of exploiting foreign opportunities? As the CBI states, getting a swimmer to attempt a different stroke is much easier than getting them into the pool in the first place. Firms happen to chance upon exporting opportunities, rather than making a determined effort. We heard about the micro-brewery that the hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned. It is right that the Government have an objective to double trade by 2015 with Brazil, China, Colombia, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Qatar, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, the UAE and Vietnam. As the CBI says:

“It is clear that the UK needs to re-orientate its trade towards high-growth markets in order to boost its performance.”

Those countries are where the high growth, emerging opportunities will arise.

Manufacturing and Engineering

Debate between Neil Carmichael and Iain Wright

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Westminster Hall

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my hon. Friend for his correction about the name of his seat. I was slightly confused about it, because I know it is getting a new name in the boundary review, and I was discussing that with him yesterday. I apologise for my misunderstanding.

My hon. Friend is right. The UTCs are important. I fully support that initiative and I know that Lord Baker has been pivotal—as, indeed, has Lord Adonis—in supporting those projects. We want more of them. In my constituency, I have been vigorously promoting the engineering centre in Stroud college. Funnily enough, there is another link there with the constituency of my hon. Friend because the college has merged with the one in Filton—and quite right too, because is a good strategic alliance. The point I want to make is that it is necessary for engineering to be promoted in organisations, including colleges.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I am enjoying the hon. Gentleman’s speech immensely and agree with much of it. What does he think about the decision of the Secretary of State for Education to downgrade the status of the engineering diploma? How will that help to promote engineering among young people?

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that interesting intervention. Alison Wolf’s report is clear on the need for proper training in STEM subjects before beginning to worry too much about qualifications. It is right that there should be qualifications in engineering—and those are available in Stroud—but, as I have said, the STEM subjects need to be rigorously promoted in schools and colleges. Alison Wolf made a strong case for taking that line, and I hope the Government will pursue it with rigour.

I want to return to the subject of ABB, which is a member of the Enhancing Value taskforce launched by the Council for Industry and Higher Education. A report is coming out in July on how to make the most of UK research. I hope that the Government will read it and draw lessons from it, if it contains significant lessons; judging by the quality of ABB, I am sure that it will.

No discussion of engineering and manufacturing can fail to include a mention of the European Union. It is critical that we should recognise—as the Prime Minister did yesterday, powerfully—that 40% of our exports go to Europe. We are attached to Europe through all the supply chains that I have mentioned, and we must recognise that, in relation to trade development, Europe is a powerful magnet for interests and a strong promoter of our interests globally. A key point that came up in The Economist this weekend is the need to ensure that small firms can become big firms. We must look carefully at how the European Union is regulated and remove any barriers that prevent a small firm from growing.