It is wise for India to go for greater energy efficiency'

Q&A: Richard Lambert, director general, Confederation of British Industry
September 24, 2009

RICHARD LAMBERT, director general, Confederation of British Industry and former editor of the Financial Times worries that protectionist measures taken by leading G20 nations are not a good sign for the discussions that will continue in Pittsburgh, USA, later this week. He commends India’s recent stand on issues like climate change, in an interview with S Kalyana Ramanathan. Excerpts:


Despite the repeated commitments made at the earlier meetings, most members of the G20 continue to execute protectionist measures to safeguard their own interests. Your comments?
I agree there have been some lamentable moves by the developed economies in the recent past, which run counter to what they have said at the G20 meetings, like the US move on the tyres (against China).

Wouldn’t that raise the question of the relevance of the G20 itself, when major developed nations are reeling under the strain of the current recession?
The question is where would we be if the G20 did not exist. If the G20 was not there, would things be worse? I think the answer is yes. If you look at what has happened in the last year to 18 months, we see protectionist measures have taken place. But these add to a modest share in the global GDP, like 1 per cent. But if you look at the time of the great depression in the 1930s, at the end of the very first year, protectionist measures were adding up to 10 per cent of the global GDP. Compared to what might have happened if the G20 did not exist, its a good story.

You had earlier commented on the signs of recovery in developed countries like the US and Germany. What’s your take on the emerging economies?
I am not up to speed on the Bric countries generally. But my perception of China is that it will reach its growth target for this year. It is very heavily driven by the stimulus. China will need global and fiscal stimulus to continue to grow. For India, the numbers look promising, but we have to see what the bad weather (drought) is going to do the the economy. I haven’t seen the numbers on that.

Is it fair on the part of developed nations to press India to reduce carbon emission if it needs financial support from the west, when India is not a major polluter, relatively speaking?
I don’t think it is a fair summary of the position. If you look at the European Union, it has committed to make massive cuts in greenhouse gas emission in 30 years. The US is debating its approach to cut emission. We hope it will arrive at a position in time for the Copenhagen meet (in December). The greenhouse gas emission per head in India is very low,a quarter of what they are in UK. But there are a billion Indians (laughs). I think Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is making wise comments on the need for greater energy efficiency and for India to find ways of cutting emission in a efficient way when the demand for energy is going to grow.

Britain puts up more barriers for non-European workers

S Kalyana Ramanathan / London September 08, 2009

The British government today accepted the month-old recommendations of the Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) to provide better access to jobs for local workers before allowing non-European workers to tap work opportunities here.

This comes just two days after it promised, with other industrialised nations at the G-20 finance ministers’ meet, to go easy on protectionist policies.

The Home Office, in a statement here today, said the government has accepted the MAC recommendations to tighten the rules controlling migrant skilled workers taking jobs in the UK under the government’s points system. Job openings in the UK will be advertised for four weeks for local workers, before considering a non-European worker for the same position.

“This will mean that from next year, all jobs must be advertised to British workers in Jobcentre Plus for four weeks, extended from two weeks, before companies can seek to employ individuals from outside Europe. This will ensure that British workers are not only first in line for jobs but also now have more time in which to apply,” the Home Office communication said.

The government will also extend the qualifying period for all those overseas workers who want to transfer to work at the UK base of their company: they must have worked for their company for at least a year prior to the move, rather than the present six months.

The minimum annual salary that will allow an individual to qualify as a skilled worker and be eligible to work in the UK will also rise from £17,000 to £20,000.

Home Secretary Alan Johnson said: “The introduction of the points-based system has radically improved our ability to respond quickly to changing economic circumstances. We have now accepted all of the Migration Advisory Committee’s recommendations and we will continue to work with them to make sure that we use the flexibility in the points-based system to the best advantage of society and the economy. These changes will ensure that businesses can recruit the skilled foreign workers the economy needs, but not at the expense of British workers, nor as a cheaper alternative to investing in the skills of the existing workforce.”

A total of 16 recommendations were put forward by the MAC, all of which will now be put in place to ensure the points-based system does more to support UK workers, while continuing to facilitate the levels of trade, travel, and study that benefits the UK.

This new policy that favours local workers comes in the wake of rising unemployment that has now reached a record high level of 2.5 million. Further, a general election is due by the middle of next year, with the ruling Labour government expected to fight hard to stay in power.

India, along with other Bric economies — Brazil, Russia and China — have not spared any opportunity, including the G-20 platform, to remind the US and the UK that it expects the developed countries to go easy on protectionist trade policies and provide higher quota and voting powers in the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. G-20 countries had agreed to this view in its communique issued on Saturday.