Finance Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for returning me to the subject matter before us, and no doubt you are, too, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The Office for Budget Responsibility forecast in the June 2010 Budget stated that the cuts in the corporation tax rate would more than offset the reduction in investment allowances such that the

“cost of capital for new investment is lower for all non-financial companies, and the rate of return from the existing capital stock is higher”.

That very important point could easily be missed from this debate. However, we also recognise that in the current economic climate, businesses face particular challenges. Having got the corporation tax rate down significantly, making a temporary boost to support and encourage increased investment was both appropriate and desirable. That is why we introduced a temporary generous increase in the annual investment allowance at the 2013 Budget, and we have gone on to double its generosity a year later.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Would the Minister like corporation tax to come down below 20%, if possible? Is that ever envisaged?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, which I could spend some time discussing. Some challenges are involved in reducing corporation tax below 20% in terms of ensuring that such a tax cut is well focused in encouraging increased investment. He will be aware of some of the difficulties that occurred when the previous Government temporarily introduced a 0% corporation tax rate for smaller businesses; that resulted in quite a lot of tax-motivated incorporation. I will not detain the House for long on this point, so I will just say that some issues would need to be addressed in respect of that.

What would certainly be damaging would be to reverse the considerable progress we have made on reducing corporation tax. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) placed great emphasis on providing certainty for businesses, and I would agree on that, but what we have done in reducing the corporation tax rate from 28% to 21%, and then to 20% as of next April, has undoubtedly helped the UK’s competitiveness position. One could quote survey after survey demonstrating that the UK is now viewed much more favourably as a place in which to do business because of our corporate tax regime, and it would be damaging were we to reverse this. Labour is on the record as wanting to put corporation tax back up to 21%. That would be the first increase, as a revenue raiser, in corporation tax since the 1960s, and we have heard a significant hint this week that Labour may even increase it to 26%.

Finance Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), who spoke with great authority, drawing as he did on his experiences as a trade union official before he was a Member of Parliament. I will, if I may, draw on some of my own experiences of working with small businesses. In that regard, I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for missing the beginning of her comments. I thought that she spoke persuasively and eloquently about some of the issues and about the policy that the Government have introduced. She had me persuaded all the way, until she referred to the spare room subsidy as a tax. It is just not a tax, and it is such a shame when bad slogans happen to good people because all the persuasion power of their speeches is lost. The rest of her speech raised some important points.

We should put the new clause into context. The Government have an extraordinary long-term economic plan that is delivering improvements to the economic lives of my constituents in Bedford and Kempston. It impacts on their ability to find work and get into work. It also raises their average weekly earnings, which is a major concern for many people. It is good to see the plan starting to bear fruit.

Perhaps now is not a good time for an ordinary Tory Back-Bench Member to criticise the Government, but if my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me, I will do so. We are looking here at a policy in search of a problem; we are not really looking at something that will have a dramatic impact on the well-being of our businesses or our employees. I am open to being persuaded by the Minister. He usually persuades me and I am sure that he will do so today, but perhaps I could go through some of my experiences from when I was in business relating to two parts of our debate.

On the one hand, we have employee and workers’ rights and, on the other, we have employee shareholdings. The approach seems to be to conflate those two issues into one policy and I am not sure whether that will ultimately prove to be wise. In my experience as an employer, although employees’ issues in employment sometimes concerned the extent of employee rights, red tape and regulation often led to far more concerns about the impact of government on the business. In addition, the problem was not necessarily the rights per se but the complexity of the regulations. For a small business, just understanding the regulations to comply with them causes problems. I am not sure that the problem was specifically the rights that were given to employees. Is the objective in this case to reduce the complexity of regulation for businesses through the use of the combination of employee shareholdings, or is there some other objective?

The hon. Member for Islwyn mentioned some of the issues when companies give shares to employees. For a large part of my life, I have worked with technology businesses and the provision of shares was a norm for business. It was a way in which many companies could afford to start, to grow and to prosper. In those circumstances, people were given shares not because of their employee rights but as an incentive either to reward effort or to encourage effort to promote the success of the company. It was also a matter of the trade-off of rewards. Many small companies did not want to use the cash they got from investors to pay high or market rates to their employees and wished to defer that by providing people with the opportunity to have shares to share in the ultimate long-term success of the business. That is a tremendously powerful model for many sectors, not just the technology sector but other sectors of our economy, in that people are willing to trade off immediate returns for long-term rewards.

When we consider other ways to think about compensation, which will, I think, be a growing issue over the next five years, we must consider how to encourage people to defer some of their compensation until later in their lives. I can understand how the promotion of employee shareholding helps with short and long-term rewards, but my concern is that combining that with employee rights means that clarity might be lost. Rather than being given a positive impression about why we are encouraging employees to become shareholders, people will instead ask whether there is a catch. It should be absolutely clear that there is no catch when people are being offered shares. This is clearly an issue of deferring compensation from period x to period y.

I am concerned that, as I have said, this is perhaps a policy in search of a problem. As with so much that Government do, we will see unintended consequences. If the new clause is targeted at small businesses, we must remember that the Government have other options at their disposal. Just a week or two ago, the Centre for Policy Studies produced some very positive policies about abolishing corporation tax for very small businesses and abolishing capital gains tax for investors. To my mind, that would have more of an impact on encouraging more entrepreneurial businesses. We have recently seen news about the merger of national insurance and income tax, which would alleviate some of the burdens and complexity for business in managing employees.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

When I visit small businesses in my constituency, I am sometimes quite shocked that, say, one person out of 10—a large proportion of the staff—has to spend all his or her time dealing with regulations and sorting out the problems they cause rather than getting on with making money.

Wales Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mrs James]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it is not true that I am opposed to the list system. I think it is excellent and that it gives an opportunity to all parties. It is fair and gives a voice to parties that may not otherwise have had a voice in the Assembly. What I oppose is placing candidates at the top of the list so that if they lose in one system they have the chance to win in another. I am not criticising the system; all I am saying is that dual candidacy is not acceptable.

For an individual who is already standing as a candidate on a constituency list to have an opportunity for a second bite of the cherry is political carpetbagging—that’s all it is, pure and simple—and therefore unacceptable.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does that mean that the hon. Lady is in favour of a complete list system or an individual candidacy system? What she really seems to be against is mixing them up, so which of them does she support?

[Mrs James]

I support having both first-past-the-post and regional Assembly Members. They add a great deal to the Assembly and, as I have already said, the system is fairer and proves that people who stand for smaller parties get a voice. That cannot be opposed, but I am opposed to people standing on both lists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Paul Silk has done the politics of consensus a great service. The commissioners, from all four parties, sometimes had to make compromises but arrived at an agreed report on two occasions. That is a mark of Paul Silk’s chairmanship and the quality of those commissioners.

Of course, my right hon. Friend is a Conservative Secretary of State—

[Bob Stewart]

A very good one.

[Mr Mark Williams]

Indeed—he is a very good Secretary of State on many issues.

I remind my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) that this is a coalition Government and it is a Liberal Democrat achievement that we have got this far with this Bill. Last week I was at a book launch, as was the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), to celebrate the life of the late Emlyn Hooson—one of my hon. Friend’s illustrious predecessors—who on St David’s day in 1968 put forward a Parliament for Wales Bill that did not get very far. It is a mark of his work and that of many others from other political parties that we have reached this point today, albeit crystallised by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 9th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

This tax policy increases the opportunity for choice. Many mothers and fathers want to stay at home and do not want to go have to go out to work. I appreciate that the financial implications of the policy are small but, none the less, the policy says, “We value you and your role in society if you want to stay at home.”

If we are serious about finding effective solutions to community breakdown and to the poverty that blights parts of Britain characterised by family breakdown, educational failure, economic dependence, indebtedness and addictions, supporting marriage is one way to do so. The public support that, contrary to the view of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck), who is no longer in her place—[Interruption.] I apologise. She is in the Chamber, but in a different place. I endeavoured to intervene on her because, according to a YouGov poll, 85% of people support giving financial recognition to married couples through the tax system, and 83% of the public think that tackling family breakdown is important. Even more starkly, according to the Centre for Social Justice, half of lone mothers think it is important that children grow up with a father.

Yes, the proposal will cost the Exchequer—I believe the shadow Minister said it will cost some £550 million—but that is dwarfed by the cost of family breakdown which, in 2012, had risen to some £44 billion. It is estimated by the Relationships Foundation to have an equivalent cost to the UK taxpayer of £1,470 a year each. Of course, that figure is still rising—currently £46 billion and increasing.

Support for marriage, therefore, simply cannot be dismissed as giving money to those who are already comfortable. As we have heard, this proposal will disproportionately benefit those on the lower half of the income scale, but it is much more than that. It is a matter of social justice. Supporting marriage is progressive. It is the right thing to do, not only for individuals but for the beneficial public consequences it promotes. If arrangements have beneficial public consequences, such as good environmental conduct or saving for one’s pension, it is established practice that such public benefits are recognised by the tax system. So it should be with marriage.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is there any provision that would mean that people who have been together as a family—a man and a woman, with children—for a certain period of time, say five years, would be able to count in the same way as being married to get the tax break? The benefits would then be almost the same, would they not?

[Fiona Bruce]

The benefits that are proposed in this clause are for married couples. That is the way in which our society recognises a permanent and lifelong commitment that is intended by the parties.

Of course I would like to see more, but I welcome this positive start. I would like to see a department for families, a dedicated family policy across government and greater investment in relationship education for young people, both in school and later for those embarking on relationships or contemplating having a family. In the meantime, I fully support this proposal. It will encourage marriage and sends out an important signal that, for the first time in a long time from the Government, marriage is valued in our society—something the last Government never did. It places Britain in the position of recognising marriage in the tax system, whereas we were the only country in Europe not to do so. Is it any coincidence that the UK has one of the highest levels of family breakdown in Europe? We have to do what we can to change that, and this is one way. As the Prime Minister said, this change will provide support. Our support for families and marriage puts us on the side of a progressive politics and on the side of change that says, “We can stop social decline, we can fix our broken society and we can make this country a better place to live for everyone.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will come to that. In discussions I have had with banks they say that they want to lend and have the resources to do so, but some of the schemes have not necessarily encouraged people to come forward and have not been as successful as they might have wished. I have also heard the criticism from some banks, not all, that perhaps another levy or a different approach to the bankers bonus tax would have implications for capitalisation of the banks and so on. However, when we look at the scale of some of the bonus pots, it is difficult to make the argument that the money will not be there. The money appears to be there in some instances for excessive remuneration and bonuses, rather than other schemes.

Compensation costs for the mis-selling of payment protection insurance—the PPI scandal—have now reached £22 billion, an astonishing sum, with Lloyds alone incurring compensation costs not far short of £10 billion. Significant fines have been imposed on Barclays, RBS, Lloyds and Deutsche Bank for attempts to rig LIBOR, doing huge damage to the banks’ credibility and showing how important it is to change the culture and behaviour. That change has been much talked about, but has yet to be delivered entirely.

I am not trying to bash the bankers, as it is sometimes portrayed. I well understand the difficulties faced by front-line staff in the banks—the people in the lower tiers of the management system. They operated in and had to comply with the prevailing culture, and were set particular targets and given sales incentives. When we look back at that approach, we can begin to pinpoint the move away from the notion that the bank was there to look after people’s money, both individual depositors and local businesses, towards the retail culture, in which the emphasis was on selling and making profits without, in some instances, due care and attention to fiscal responsibilities and duties to the customer. I hope that changes brought about by recent legislation will see an end to that culture. Many of the banks are talking about that, and it will understandably take time, but we need the nudges, the pressures and the reminders, not just from the regulators, but through public opinion. Unless a watchful eye is kept on the banks, the change in culture will not necessarily succeed.

Despite having racked up billions of pounds in fines, several of the big banks still proposed significantly higher bonuses for 2013—the latest year for which figures are available—than for the previous year. They went up 10% to £2.4 billion at Barclays; up 8% at Lloyds to £395 million; and up 6% at HSBC to £2.3 billion. RBS, which is 81% owned by the taxpayer, has also announced a bonus pool of £588 million this year. I know that some of the banks claim that their overall bonus pool is coming down, but for the ordinary person in the street the figures are more than they would ever hope to win in a lottery in their wildest dreams, never mind expect to earn in the course of a year. They also find it astonishing that the banks might seek to breach the EU cap on bankers bonuses. It is difficult to understand why people who are paid in excess of £1 million, and have a range of other benefits, seek bonuses of twice their annual salary.

[Bob Stewart]

One consequence of bonus payments is that the Treasury, presumably, gets 40% of them, which is a bonus for the Exchequer. Or have I got that wrong?

[Cathy Jamieson]

I will come on to that point, and on to corporation tax, when I speak in more detail about why we want a review of the bank levy. I hope Government Members understand why we think it is important to have a review and to consider the implications. I started by saying that we are taking a relatively mild-mannered approach, with no demand, as is sometimes made, for something to happen immediately. We are saying, “Let’s look at the figures, let’s look at the implications, let’s look at what can be done in the round, and let’s have the Government do that work and bring it back for further discussion.”

To go back to the hon. Gentleman’s point, the figures compiled by the Labour party suggest that the cut to the 50p tax rate saw an estimated 2,714 bankers who earn more than £800,000 share a £98.5 million windfall—an average tax cut of £36,300 each. I just make that point in relation to the notion that the Treasury will somehow get the yield from that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

Once again, I am grateful for that intervention. That is one in a long list of political issues on which the First Minister and his Cabinet members say one thing in Cardiff while Welsh Labour MPs operate completely differently down here. The proof of the pudding will, of course, be the Westminster Labour party manifesto. We will see what influence the First Minister has over that, but the manner in which he has been completely bullied by the shadow Secretary of State, who now supports a lockstep on income tax powers, seems to show that the balance of power is quite firmly here in London.

[Bob Stewart]

The hon. Gentleman has referred to Cardiff airport. Is there another airport in Wales to which air passenger duty applies?

[Jonathan Edwards]

Cardiff is the only international airport. We are talking about APD relief on long-haul flights, and it would apply primarily to Cardiff, but I imagine that the Welsh Government would have ambitions to redevelop other airports in Wales—[Interruption.] If they had the ambition, they would want to improve those airports.

As I was saying, public opinion clearly supports the devolution of the tax to Wales. Only yesterday, the Western Mail published the results of a survey that showed that 78% of respondents supported the devolution of APD. On this, as with so many other issues, the powers that be in Westminster are at odds with what the people of Wales demand. In response to that poll, the Welsh Labour Government said:

“We will continue to put forward the strong case for it”—

APD—

“to be devolved in the hope the UK Government will eventually listen to us and the overwhelming majority of the Welsh public who support this move, as reflected in this poll”.

A day after the poll, we have an opportunity in the Finance Bill to achieve that objective, but where is the Labour party?

I am glad that, since Cardiff airport has been brought into public ownership, new management has driven up passenger numbers by 9%. That is a crucial point—the national airport of Wales is publicly owned. I agree with that, as the airport is an essential part of Welsh national infrastructure, but Labour MPs from Wales are not here to ensure that something that is publicly owned by the people of Wales has the best chance of succeeding in the long term.

The devolution of APD could help to ensure the long-term future of the airport and draw passengers away from congested airports in the south-east of England—something I am sure many MPs and their constituents in and around the south-east of England would welcome. I therefore look forward, perhaps somewhat over-excitedly, to some of those MPs joining us in the Aye Lobby. I am similarly amazed that the Secretary of State for Wales is not pushing for the devolution of APD at the highest level, as it would provide us with the ability to develop the Welsh economy, which should be one of his core objectives.

The hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) is not in his usual place, which is slightly strange, considering that the airport is in his constituency. The livelihood of many of his constituents depends on the vitality of the airport, as well as the aircraft engineering industry that has grown around it, and they will be dismayed to learn that their MP does not support measures that could give the airport a competitive advantage. I should like to make reference in passing to the difficulties that engineering companies operating from the St Athan airbase, which is close to the international airport, face as a result of the management of that airfield by the Ministry of Defence.

The new clause effectively seeks to give Wales an essential tool to support and provide jobs locally in south Wales and the wider Welsh economy. The financial powers recommended by the Commission on Devolution in Wales are needed as soon as possible as a spur to jobs and growth in Wales. The Westminster Government, in the Wales Bill, have cherry-picked the recommendations and omitted the devolution of APD as well as other proposals. The powers included in the Bill may not be implemented until well into the second half of the decade, provided that no more roadblocks are put in place by other parties. Every month that passes without the devolution of those powers, the Welsh economy languishes even longer at the bottom of the economic league table of the nations and regions of the UK, with job and economic prospects diminished, hopes and dreams dashed, and lives stalled.

Plaid Cymru has made jobs and the economy its absolute priority, which is why we have again tabled an amendment on air passenger duty. We want to create a modern and prosperous Wales and, unlike our political opponents, we have little faith in London government of whatever colour achieving that ambition. That is why we want Wales to have the tools to get on with the job without delay. Diolch yn fawr.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I wish to avoid running the risk of repeating myself, but I make the point that I made earlier: the devolution of APD within Great Britain would create unfortunate market distortions. As we said in our November 2013 response to the Silk commission, we are not convinced of the case for devolving air passenger duty to Wales, given the potential effects across the country as a whole. In the case of Scotland, the distortive effects across the country as a whole are harder to diagnose, given that it has more major airports with significant route connectivity. Our opinion remains that this requires careful evaluation if we are to be confident of its potential effects, so I ask hon. Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Bob Stewart]

Is it the Government’s intention to continue the trend of reducing air passenger duty across the country?

[Mr Gauke]

What I would say to my hon. Friend is that we have set out in the Budget and in the Bill significant changes that we think fix the problem we inherited from the previous Government.

My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to turn to clauses 72 to 74. Ahead of our rates reform, clause 72 fulfils the commitment given in Budget 2013 on the rates of duty for 2014-15. This respects the air travel industry’s point that tickets are often sold a considerable time in advance of travel. The industry needs up to a year’s forward rates certainty to have sufficient time to prepare its accounting systems and set pricing ahead of advance ticket sales. The rates contained in clause 72 have therefore been anticipated by the industry.

Finance (No. 2) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 1st April 2014 Commons Chamber

[David Rutley]

That is a good question and I thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to respond. Of course I speak to members of the public in Macclesfield and outside my constituency, too.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It’s a great place.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend says, from a sedentary position, that it is a great place.

These are, of course, challenging times, but things are improving. The reason for having a Budget that is useful and important for business is that it is through business and the private sector that we create jobs to enable people to take care of their needs and those of their families. The hon. Lady will know—as will, no doubt, Mr Deputy Speaker, although he cannot comment—that under the Labour Government 100,000 public sector jobs were created in the north-west over a period when net new jobs in the private sector came to approximately 18,000. Surely, that is completely unsustainable.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley]

I did: absolutely. In fact, as Hansard will record, I referred to “the extraordinary deficit” that had been created by the Labour Government.

A budget surplus is now in our sights. We are likely to see it in 2018-19. According to the International Monetary Fund—which is often quoted by Labour Members—the UK is achieving a larger reduction in both the headline and the structural deficits than any other major advanced economy in the world. Unemployment is falling, growth is up, and we have a record number of businesses and a strengthening culture of entrepreneurialism and self-employment. Those are clear results from a Government with a clear sense of direction.

This Bill will doubtless be remembered for years to come for the great work that it is doing to help to promote the interests of savers and pensioners through the reforms that it introduces in clauses 39 to 43, which we will debate in Committee.

[Bob Stewart]

I think my hon. Friend will agree with me that the Bill will also be remembered because, apparently, it gives £700 more to everyone in the country.

[David Rutley]

Certainly, very important steps are being taken, such as raising personal allowances, which will help all our constituents who are facing challenging times. However, there are also measures in the Bill that will help businesses to create more work and more wealth, and help us to achieve greater growth and prosperity.

Returning to clauses 39 to 43, the Chancellor has championed the consumer’s right to take decisions in accordance with their own life circumstances, over and above the procrustean desires of the state. Much has been said about these reforms, and no doubt plenty more will be said in the days and years ahead, but I want to focus today on how other clauses in the Bill are equally supportive of consumers by bolstering competition and lowering barriers to entry for British enterprise—clause 10, on capital allowances, clause 6, on corporation tax, and clause 73, on air passenger duty, to name but a few. Encouraging new entrants—those first-time entrepreneurs, employers and exporters—is vital in increasing choice for consumers and in keeping established businesses on their toes and responsive to their customers. This Government have slashed barriers to entry through deregulation initiatives—an ongoing process that I have been involved with on the Deregulation Bill Committee—and there is also the red tape challenge and the one-in, two-out regulatory arrangements. These are important steps in creating much-needed supply-side reforms.

I hope to contribute further on the Finance Bill Committee—if I can catch the Whip’s eye—because the barriers to small new businesses, new employers and new exporters have been kept far too high in the previous decade or more. We need to get on and finish the job and create a real enterprise pathway. There is little point in trying to address the problem of firms that are too big to fail if we do not also seek to address that of new businesses that are too small to succeed against barriers to entry that have been in place for far too long. This Bill helps us to take significant strides forward. In the words of the British Chambers of Commerce:

“By making a better business environment his top priority, the Chancellor has recognised that successful and confident companies are the key to transforming Britain’s growing economic recovery into one that is felt in homes and on high streets.”

It is the economics of strong, long-term measures for long-term growth.

Pub Companies

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Susan Elan Jones]

I fear I might also have to go to a Welsh pub to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) teach us folk singing, but I would be delighted to come to the hon. Lady’s constituency as well.

We were last here debating this matter on 9 January last year, when many of us genuinely felt reassured by the Government’s promises to introduce a statutory code and independent adjudicator, which we all concluded were needed, and I am extremely heartened that today, having doggedly pursued this issue, my hon. Friend the shadow Minister has offered the possibility of a proper cross-party agreement in order to get the Bill on the statute book. The Secretary of State said earlier that it all depended on the legislative timetable, but we know the paucity of business on that timetable. It would be easy for the Bill to pass, and I hope it does.

It was clear that an industry regulator was needed when we debated this last year and that the Government had to take action, and so they still do. We are not waiting for Godot; we are waiting for Government. One year on, and a good deal longer since the House first spoke out, many of us are disappointed that no progress or change has been made. Of course, any regulator must be created carefully, but the Government’s sluggish action is nothing short of a tragedy in many communities. As Members will know, the Government’s response to their own consultation on pub company reform is now four months overdue.

Society changes fast, and it is more than 20 years since the former Prime Minister John Major evoked those oh so quintessentially British images that not even UKIP councillors could complain about: of cricket, warm beer, and spinsters cycling—preferably having kept to soft drinks before doing so. The pub has been in decline for many different reasons, not least the revolting practice of what I believe is called pre-loading, which was mentioned earlier, but it is not about which Government did what. Figures from organisations such as the Campaign for Real Ale demonstrate the scale and pace of the decline, in a situation where we could effect positive change. With 26 pubs closing every week, a few hundred must have closed in the four months in which we have been waiting for the consultation on pub company reform. That is deeply concerning.

I am concerned about why the Government have failed to act. As Members will know, if a Bill is to be introduced before the general election, the Government must put it in this Queen’s Speech. With every month of stalling, it becomes less and less likely that a Bill will be passed this Parliament. We are losing hundreds of pubs a year, which adds up to hundreds of businesses and job losses. With hard-working families already struggling to makes ends meet, that will only add to the melting pot being created within our local communities. By the Government’s own admission this time last year, our local pubs are struggling. We know that. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills was correct when he said that these small businesses were under a great deal of pressure.

In my own constituency, I am delighted to have seen creditable examples of communities coming together to fight for change, but often that has happened in opposition to the tied system, not because of it. I have been hugely impressed by a group from the village of Minera. Faced with a pub that had closed, local people came together, raised the money and reopened a much-loved pub that is now a welcoming hub within that beautiful mountainous community. Tyn y Capel pub is an excellent example of a truly community-owned and run pub. Local people have bought shares and are managing the enterprise, but financially, for all their success in the community, it is touch and go. It is not possible to run the pub full time; still less is it possible to have full-time paid staff—much of the time, it is staffed by volunteers, with only a temporary residue of paid staff.

We need more Tyn y Capels, but we need an environment in which pubs can survive. Thousands of pubs have closed in the last four years, and hundreds more are being sold every year, and with each closure, a family, an individual or a community lose their business, livelihood or a vital connection to their community.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Pubcos seem to be cutting off their nose to spite their face. I just do not understand. If they charge too much for rent and beer, their tenants will go out of business and it will not work. The only way for pubcos to survive is if they reduce their prices so that more pubs survive. It makes sense. Even without legislation, that is good economics and good business. Why are they not doing that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffiths]

I think that you would become apoplectic, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I were to wax lyrical on why pubs are closing. We all know that it is due to changing social demographics, to the fact that people are spending more time at home, to the drink-driving laws and to the supermarkets. There are many reasons—[Interruption.] And, yes, the smoking ban. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) gesticulates as though he is puffing on a cigarette. I completely agree with him on that point. The previous Government introduced the smoking ban and, at a stroke, closed thousands of wet-trade pubs without putting in place any support for the pubs or the industry. He has pointed out another unintended consequence of legislation. It was a good idea that we stopped smoking in pubs—they have a nicer environment as a result—but the unintended consequence was that many of them closed.

The danger is that we repeat those mistakes in the proposed regulation. We would not expect McDonald’s franchisees to be able to sell Kentucky Fried Chicken products because they thought there would be more profit in doing so. Why, then, should we want a Marston’s pub to be forced to sell other people’s beer as a result of the proposed regulation?

[Bob Stewart]

Would it not help licensees if Marston’s could reduce the price of its beer to a market level? Would that not make their pubs more sustainable? Reducing the price of beer in that way would help a heck of a lot, without the need for any intervention.

[Andrew Griffiths]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for his support for our cross-party campaign to reduce beer duty. That campaign did a lot to help publicans, and I hope I will be able to call on his support again as we move forward.

Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sajid Javid]

If the hon. Lady will allow me, I will answer her questions when I consider the amendment she mentions.

There is a growing evidence base, including lessons from other countries, that a cap on costs is the right way forward for consumers. That is why the Government tabled an amendment in the other place to require the FCA to impose a cap on the cost of high-cost credit and short-term loans—not just an interest rate cap but a cap on all fees and charges, including default charges and roll-overs.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend have any idea what level of cap there might be on such charges?

[Sajid Javid]

My hon. Friend asks a reasonable question that I am sure many Members would be concerned about. The cap should be set by the FCA at a level designed to protect consumers. I hope that when I go on to talk about the process, that will give him a bit more definition regarding his concerns.

National Insurance Contributions Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Dinenage]

My hon. Friend makes a key point. The fact that the measure is open to charities and social enterprises, as well as businesses, is really important. That is another step in the right direction by the Government to make it easier for small firms and charities to take on new employees. This is not just about business; the head of policy and research at the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Karl Wilding, says that the idea is

“a very positive thing…To a small organisation, £2,000 is a lot of money.”

He is absolutely right. When I set up my business at the age of 19, £2,000 would have been a massive incentive to take the big step of hiring my first member of staff.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) spoke powerfully about her experiences of starting up a business. As she said, taking on that first member of staff is a really big moment—a huge decision. It is a massive responsibility; the person hiring becomes responsible for someone’s income, livelihood and wages.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

And their family.

[Caroline Dinenage]

And their family. I am pleased that the Bill makes that moment so much more likely. There are many statistics that show how great an impact the change will have. We have heard some amazingly powerful statistics this afternoon; for example, over a year, employers with fewer than 10 employees will have their national insurance contribution bill cut by 80%. However, it is easy to get bogged down in figures. What does the Bill mean for charities and small businesses up and down the country? It means that the small-time cupcake seller who works out of their kitchen and wants to expand, but is not sure that they can afford to, is now £2,000 more likely to give a young person their first foot on the jobs ladder. It means that the mechanic who needs another pair of hands to deal with a recent increase in demand can take someone on and pay them up to £22,000 without having to pay any jobs tax. It means that the Government are continuing to deliver exactly the kind of policies that have, so far, created 1.4 million private sector jobs and put the country on the path to prosperity.

There are so many ways in which the Government have helped small businesses to flourish. Locally, I have been involved in a really successful regional growth fund bid—a partnership between The News, which is our local newspaper, and the Solent local enterprise partnership. The Bridging the Gap scheme is a pot of money that new start-ups and small firms can bid for to help grow their business and create jobs. I recently visited three of the Bridging the Gap success stories in my constituency, including Kev Jones and Son, an independent convenience store at the heart of the community, which is, you will be interested to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, the go-to shop for your Christmas meat hamper. The people there had very ambitious plans to expand. With a little bit of extra money, they were able to bring those plans forward, and they have now doubled their floor space and created some of the new jobs the area so desperately needs. These are exactly the kinds of businesses that we will be supporting through this Bill. That is absolutely the right thing to do, because they are not just the backbone of our economy but the lifeblood of our communities. The Bill is a key part of the wider programme to make Britain the most small-business-friendly environment in Europe.

By cutting Labour’s deficit, the Government have secured record low interest rates for hard-working families and small businesses across the country. From April 2015, corporation tax will be cut to 20%—the lowest in the G20. As a result of the Government’s policies, the UK recently topped KPMG’s list of the most competitive countries in which to do business, beating Switzerland, the USA and France for the first time ever. This hard work is getting results. The latest figures from the Office for National Statistics showed strong growth of 0.8% for the third quarter of 2013. That proves that the only way to create real prosperity and to raise living standards is not through quick-fix gimmicks but through straightforward solutions: backing businesses to create growth, cutting taxes to boost growth, and supporting hard-working people.

Labour Members have presented this as being somehow their idea. That appears to show brass neck of almost biblical proportions. Anyone who ran a business under the previous Labour Government, as I did for 13 years, will know that we were shackled by endless amounts of bureaucracy as the country fell deeper into debt and slipped down the international competitive league tables. We cannot escape the fact that they got it very badly wrong on the economy as well. They said we would lose 1 million jobs. Instead, we have seen the creation of 1 million net jobs—three in the private sector for every one lost in the public sector. Because this Government have cut taxes, slashed red tape and unleashed innovation, we have seen record levels of small business creation and employment. I am confident that the Government will continue to deliver the right policies.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

It is an honour and a privilege to follow the impassioned speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith).

I was fortunate enough to secure an Adjournment debate last week. The good news was that it was on the subject of supporting first-time employers, but the bad news was that I secured the 2.30 pm on a Friday afternoon slot, which is not always prime time in Parliament. I am therefore pleased to be able to return to the subject and debate it further in the presence of a few other colleagues.

The good news is that over the past decade the number of people who work for themselves has increased to 4.2 million, or 14% of all those in employment—up from 12% at the start of the century. They are taking the chance to be their own boss and often embracing new technologies to enable that. Record numbers of people are working for themselves. As I have said, that is good news, but it would be even better if more of the self-employed, one-person businesses and sole traders took the step from being first-time entrepreneurs to being first-time employers. That is why I support the new employment allowance: it is a huge step forward.

Entrepreneurialism is a culture that spreads. Once a person is in it, they live it. They go native, as they say, and embrace risk-taking. Significantly, entrepreneurs are more likely than established businesses to take on workers from the ranks of the unemployed or the non-active, who often find the formalised application processes, let alone the working practices, of large firms restrictive. Established companies may tend to value the ability to adhere to existing processes and systems above the creativity, dynamism and individual flair that smaller businesses help to stimulate. Doing more to encourage the smallest firms to take on staff, particularly a first member of staff, has to be a step in the right direction.

Despite siren warnings from the unions and others that self-employed jobs are not proper jobs, there is clear evidence that the self-employed and those employed by them in the smallest companies enjoy better industrial relations. Data from the most recent workplace employment relations survey suggest that 67% of employees in the small and medium-sized enterprise sector strongly agree that managers treat them fairly, compared with 53% of those who work in large firms.

Furthermore, a survey by the TUC, no less, and YouGov has shown that a greater proportion of employees in small firms report the highest levels of job satisfaction, compared with employees in larger firms. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon has said, there is still a tendency in Whitehall to prefer to deal with larger companies and to underestimate the burdens on the smallest businesses when introducing uniform regulations. The new employment allowance, however, shows that this Government understand the importance of measures that, though uniform, are of greatest benefit to the smallest operators, and that is why they should be commended.

[Bob Stewart]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s last point. It is clear that if the boss of a business works closely with his first employee, industrial relations should be excellent and there should be no problems. That is the reason for the 67% satisfaction rate.

[David Rutley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. That is absolutely the case. This is about how we build good working relationships and a strong economic base through SMEs. That is far more sustainable than the approach adopted by the previous Government, which seemed to be underpinned by more and more public spending. That is completely unsustainable.

What a boost it will be for more of the growing army of the self-employed to become small employers. Indeed, if they all, or a vast proportion of them, took on one employee, that would make a huge dent—even bigger than the current one—in the unemployment figures. The number of self-employed people with no employees has increased, but the number of self-employed people with a small number of employees has not kept pace, and that is what the Bill seeks to address. In the past, the focus has been more on encouraging people to start up a business and less on taking the next step to becoming micro-employers. The Bill is an opportunity to further liberate the self-employed from barriers to growth and to nudge first-time entrepreneurs into becoming first-time employers. The prize is stronger, more sustainable economic growth.

Micro-businesses play an important role in Macclesfield, working in forums like Make it Macclesfield and the Poynton business forum. They make a huge contribution to strengthening the community and, at the same time, moving our economy forward by creating jobs.

Surveys and statistics abound to show that small businesses can be, and often are, job-creation machines. They also show that small businesses are more likely to employ the longer-term unemployed and those who may struggle to enter the job market as a result of a lack of formal qualifications or, indeed, their ethnic background. This is what the Federation of Small Businesses calls the “entrepreneurial pipeline” to what Professor Mark Hart calls “growth gazelles”. We need to encourage more growth gazelles. Essentially, this is about everyday entrepreneurs, street-level small businesses and office-share operators giving people a chance to work. Analysis by the FSB suggests that 74% of those who become self-employed and who have employees come from the self-employed who had no employee, and that a further 13% come from employees who had been working in micro-businesses. Clearly, there will be a multiplier effect once we get this right and start moving in the right direction.

The Government are absolutely right to introduce the new employment allowance. Slashing the cost of national insurance and taking many employees out of it completely will encourage more of the self-employed to become employers. However, this is not—and nor should it be—the only measure to increase the number of first-time employers. The Bill must be viewed in concert with the new enterprise allowance—for which Levi Roots is an ambassador for the Government—which seeks to encourage the longer-term unemployed into self-employment. The three-year moratorium on new regulations for small businesses is another important step in the right direction. I encourage Ministers at the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to view it as a rolling moratorium.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

I will say a few words in support of the Bill. Like all Government Members, I believe that this is an excellent measure that recognises that it is businesses of all sizes that create jobs in this country. People are now finding jobs in growing numbers. By reducing taxes on employment, we will make it more likely that businesses will employ more people. The strength of the recovery in the private sector underlines the growth in the economy as a whole. The Labour party predicted that growth would not come and that jobs would not be created. By reducing the cost of national insurance to employers, the Government are in this Bill taking another excellent step in the right direction.

I agree with the Exchequer Secretary that we should look at the Bill as one of a range of important measures that the Government are introducing to support the business community, and all those measures support each other. My hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) spoke of meeting young people under the age of 30 who had received StartUp loans from the Government to invest in starting their own businesses, which have had a great deal of success. The Bill will help businesses like those to get to the next stage on the path to growth and to go from being a start-up to employing a small number of people. There is an enormous appetite among people in this country to have a go at starting their own business. That is one of the most positive things to come out of the recession. We need policies that work with the grain of people’s entrepreneurial instincts and back them as they back themselves.

[Bob Stewart]

I have listened carefully to this debate. I have never run a small business; I have run a medium-sized business, but it was not my own. Would it not be a tremendous fillip to small businesses if HMRC was slightly more proactive when it saw a business making a clear mistake, and wrote to it saying, “It would be better if you did it this way”?

[Damian Collins]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The quality of the advice to businesses from all quarters is important. That echoes a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, who said that we all need to advocate the Government’s policies to ensure that businesses benefit from them.

Interest Rate Swap Derivatives

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Sir Gerald Howarth (Aldershot) (Con)]

I join everyone else in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb)—and also my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier), whose banking career was much more distinguished than my own—on initiating this debate. I hope that the message will go out to the British people, and particularly to small businesses, that Parliament understands their grievances and is prepared to be robust in addressing them. We look to the Government to be equally robust in their response to the debate.

I want to raise the specific case of Pacer Marine, a boat business that provides chandlery services and sells day boats, rigid inflatable boats and the like. It is located just 10 minutes from junction 4 of the M3, so if any of my right hon. and hon. Friends would like to take advantage of that business, they should please do so. The principals of the business, Dennis Davis and his son Kevin, are constituents of the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), but their business is located in my constituency. My right hon. Friend is as concerned about this matter as I am.

Pacer Marine moved in 2005. Mr Davis and his son had previously been renting premises, but they found a place to buy in Aldershot. They went to their bank for a normal commercial 25-year mortgage, but that was not available. Dennis Davis has described his discussions with NatWest:

“The bank were fairly aggressive from the start. Our 2 corporate managers came along to see us, then told us about the hedging/rate swap, and that they would only give us a ten year fixed mortgage with a further 5 years. We wanted a 20/25 year term. They charged us a greater rate than normal although we challenged them on it. The main reason for the hedge/swap was because, in their words, they said rates never go down. Well, as we all know now, they did. They then at another meeting introduced a third person who did the deed. Because of the position we were in we agreed to it, but we had always felt that we had been mugged.”

I have done an interest rate swap deal, so I know that they are extremely complex. One wonders what on earth the Royal Bank of Scotland was doing trying to present this sort of opportunity to a very small business.

The documentation provided by RBS is interesting. Part of the background it gave included this statement:

“Loan serviceability is tight…so there is a ‘condition of sanction’ that an interest rate management tool be put in place to protect you from variable base rate”.

Protecting interest rate liability is a perfectly sensible issue to discuss, but we should note that this was a condition of sanction. In a market update, the bank interestingly pointed to all the reasons why interest rates were unlikely to go down and more likely to go up, yet the memo acknowledged:

“There were mixed views from you on base: you saw the possibility of cuts of between half to 1%”.

The bank was recognising the concerns of the customer, but actually trying to make the case that the customer was likely to be wrong and that interest rates were more likely to go up so that the hedging proposal could be put to him.

The person involved was an employee of another part of RBS, so his interest was to make the most money for his unit by exploiting the uninitiated customer and flogging him business that he did not understand. I asked Mr Davis, “Why did you go into this? Did you consult a lawyer.” He responded by saying:

“We trusted the bank. Our business is boat chandlery, not financial wizardry. We thought we were getting the best advice from them. We never thought we would have to go to Peckham Market and deal with a bunch of Del Boys.”

That was how the people in the business felt about it.

Both my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey and I raised this issue with Stephen Hester in June 2012. Needless to say, we got some sort of reply from something called “Group Executive Office”, whoever those people are, but the matter remains unresolved to this day, notwithstanding the fact that when I visited my constituent at the end of August or the beginning of September, they were due to have a meeting with RBS to go through the process which, as many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, moves at a snail’s pace. Two months on, we are no further forward. This is an absolute disgrace. We have to be clear that although the banking system and the banking business are important to the prosperity of the United Kingdom, the banks have a lot to answer for.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I was really taken by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) said: perhaps the FCA should stop all repayments to banks until these problems are sorted out, certainly in specific cases. That might help the constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth).

[Sir Gerald Howarth]

Several measures have been suggested during the debate and I hope that the Government will respond to them. I hope, too, that the FCA will respond more robustly than it has up to now.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) mentioned a meeting with Mr Chris Sullivan. Interestingly, he wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey:

“As a Group, we are committed to the fair and timely treatment of our customers”—

what a fantastic and admirable sentiment!

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate you. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on opening the debate, and congratulate him and his Committee on all the work they have done.

In mythology, David felled Goliath. [Hon. Members: “It is in the Bible!”] It is in the Bible, but it is also slightly mythological. [Hon. Members: “It happened!”] If Members have absolute proof, that is fine. Anyway, I want to make a serious point. We have seen a banking sector that has used corporate lawyers and all its muscle and might to ensure that it can take on small businesses.

This is what small business is up against. People can call me cynical if they like, but much of this selling of swaps was going on in 2006 and 2007, when interest rates were 5.5%, but by 2009 they had dropped to 0.5%, and I believe that many of those banks knew that interest rates were going to fall. Why were they so keen to go out and get everybody tied up in these swaps? Under the terms of the swaps, the higher interest rate could probably be capped at around 6.9%, but if they started to fall below 4% or 3%, people immediately got clobbered for huge amounts of money. It was therefore very much in the banks’ interests to get people into these schemes. That is where I do actually say that what went on was criminal. That is why we expect our great Minister, along with the FCA, to do something about this. The fact that only 32 or 33 cases in the whole country have been dealt with is an absolute scandal.

[Bob Stewart]

My hon. Friend referred to the Bible. Does he agree that this would be called usury or robbery in the Bible?

Finance Bill

Bob Stewart Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Jack Dromey]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. This is not just about new build, where appropriate; it is also about retrofitting, about regeneration and about bringing empty homes back into use. It is also about recognising that the housing market and the problems associated with housing should not simply be seen through the prism of London and the south-east. Housing markets vary considerably nationwide.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I have listened very carefully and I understand the logic of what the hon. Gentleman has said. My only worry and concern is where we are going to get the money to invest in housing—investment in housing is a good thing. The hon. Gentleman suggested that we would get the money back, but we will not get it back quickly.

[Jack Dromey]

What is happening for certain is that the country is paying the price of failure, with £245 billion more being borrowed because of it. Ultimately, it comes down to this: it is a choice between paying for the costs of failure and investing for success. All the evidence shows in transmission times that investing in house building is the quickest way to get a sluggish economy moving. It would build badly needed homes for people to rent or buy; it would put building workers back to work; it would create apprenticeships and hope for the nearly 1 million young people out of work; it would progressively bring down the cost of housing benefit; and, ultimately, reduce borrowing rather than increase it. That is the choice that the Government and the country now face: do we invest public money for failure or invest it to build for success?