Hc 188 The Extractive Industries Hc 188

Extractive companies contribute directly to the UK in a number of ways. Both domestic companies and global companies listed in London contribute through taxes, dividends, licenses and the employment of British workers. The size of the UK's domestic extractive sector is well below its historical peak. However, the Government has expressed support for the enlargement of the UK's domestic extractive and the United Kingdom Trade and Investment is doing good work to promote the United Kingdom as a base for extractive companies to do business with the rest of the world. However, the extractive sector is not without controversy, particularly when one considers reports of poor practice around the world. The UK is at risk of being associated with some of the negative practices often reported alongside the sector. To counter this, more needs to be done to improve to social and environmental performance, transparency and reputations of the companies it hosts and both industry educational institutions and Government must promote and excite the next generation of extractive workers. This should be done by encouraging more British students to study STEM-related subjects, engage with industry to encourage and promote mining as a rewarding and exciting career and encourage large mining companies to support the UK as a base for mining through funding and resources.

The Government must commit to a 3 per cent target of GDP of research and development (R&D) spending by 2020 to ensure the UK doesn't lag behind international competitors. The BIS Committee finds that more than 30 years of under-investment in R&D has left the UK trailing countries such as the USA, Germany and France in science and innovation spending, threatening the opportunities for economic growth offered by the research excellence of the UK's world class university system. The Committee found the Catapult network has played a valuable role in harnessing the commercial benefits of science and innovation research. The Committee calls on the Government to back the recommendations of the recent Hauser Catapult review and expand the Catapult Network from the seven current centres to 20 by 2020 and 30 by 2030 and increase funding to Innovate UK. The Government needs to do more to bring businesses and universities together to realise the benefits of the cutting-edge research taking place across the country. The Committee recommends that the Government establish a respected and impartial way to measure and evaluate the success of its initiatives to increase R&D activity, such as by reintroduction of the R&D scoreboard. These measures, alongside an ambitious long-term vision for the innovation system, should be built into the forthcoming Science and Innovation strategy.

Helping British businesses to thrive and grow is vital to the UK's long-term economic prosperity. The Government's ambition is for the UK to be one of the best places in Europe to start, finance and grow a business. In order to facilitate this, the Government offers support to business in accessing finance, promoting exports, developing manufacturing and encouraging growth at a local level. The Committee's inquiry considered the wide range of support that is on offer, and in particular those support programmes run by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills. Access to finance is fundamental to the success of business of all sizes. However, the Committee heard varying evidence about the availability of finance, in particular for SMEs. Too many business still report that they find it difficult to get the financial support they need. By drawing on the British Business Bank's expertise, the Government should be able to develop a better understanding of the blockages in the system, why they occur, and whether changes in regulation or funding are needed to address them. The British Business bank also has a clear role to play in enhancing SME access to finance though clearly signposting the services available from alternative finance providers. In particular, it should develop a menu of alternative finance providers for each different area of financial support.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is an ambitious attempt by the European Union and the United States to deliver a comprehensive trade and investment treaty. Negotiations between the two are currently underway and the Government hopes that an agreement can be reached by the end of 2015. The trade deal may be beneficial to the UK and EU economies but TTIP is not universally supported and the level of financial benefit to the UK is open to question. The lack of detail available on the negotiations means that it is difficult to assess which is the more accurate argument. However, this should not excuse the quality of debate which we have, on occasion, observed by campaigners and lobbyists on both sides of the argument. Everyone involved in the debate on TTIP - campaigners,lobbyists, the UK Government and the European Commission - must ensure that an evidence-based approach is at the heart of any TTIP debate. One of the key concerns about TTIP is the proposal to include Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) provisions. These provisions - common in bilateral trade agreements - aim to protect foreign investors from illegal interference by the host government. However, campaigners have argued that such clauses could allow US healthcare investors to force the permanent privatisation of the NHS. Although this view has been rebutted repeatedly by the European Commission and the UK Government, until draft clauses are published, it will be difficult for them to convince those with concerns.

Sierra Leone and Liberia have made remarkable recoveries since their civil wars. Ban Ki Moon was in Freetown this month to bring an end to the UN Security mission and set the UN presence on a conventional development footing from 1st April 2014. In Liberia there has been a gradual drawdown of the peacekeeping mission which will approximately halve the UN military presence by 2015. However both countries remain fragile with high unemployment and concerns about corruption. The devastating Ebola outbreak in Sierra Leone and Liberia demonstrates the dangers of ignoring the least developed countries in the world. The weak state of the health system in both countries has greatly reduced the effectiveness of the response to Ebola. There is an alarming lack of capacity in the health system, including a shortage of skilled clinicians.The Committee have determined that the scale of the Ebola crisis now unfolding in Sierra Leone and Liberia, may well be connected to declining levels of international support for health system improvements in what remain two of the poorest and least developed countries in the world.