Business of the House

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Mel Stride

Thursday 11th July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

Likewise, I thank the hon. Gentleman for the very constructive meeting we had recently. I reiterate what I said to him then: my door remains entirely open at any time that he wishes to raise any matter with me. I have noted his cheeky bid for a debate on 25 July, on the very important matter of women’s mental health, and his suggestion of a debate on immigration, particularly the right to remain. I will consider those.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House note concerns about legislation that affects the lives of many people going through this House without adequate parliamentary time for scrutiny? We have seen examples this week. Will he comment on the progress of the Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill? The Bill’s Second Reading took place in only a short time. Line-by-line consideration in Committee took about 47 minutes. This is a piece of primary legislation potentially affecting the lives of millions. Will he ensure that there is proper parliamentary time for scrutiny in the Bill’s remaining stages?

[Mel Stride]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. She and I have discussed that Bill. She makes reference to the time in which it went through Committee. There was an evidence session as part of its Committee stage. Time is also available for the tabling of amendments and further debate on Report but, if she would like to make any further points to me outside of this questions session, I would be happy to discuss those.

Business of the House

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Mel Stride

Thursday 27th June 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Lady raises a very important issue. Cancer is one of the key targets that the national health service has in terms of getting survival rates up, and they are at historically high levels. A lot of progress has been made in that respect. She also raises the equally important issue of prevention and early diagnosis rather than dealing with problems later on. That is central to the national health service plan that has been brought in on the back of the record cash funding that we are now putting in.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Early-day motion 2453 has very quickly gained substantial support from 47 MPs to date.

[That this House welcomes the establishment by the UN General Assembly of the UN International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief on 22 August each year; is deeply concerned that acts of violence based on religion or belief are increasing all over the world and often flourish with impunity; notes the concerning findings of the interim report of the Bishop of Truro's Independent Review for the Foreign Secretary of FCO Support for Persecuted Christians; recognises the dire situation of religious minorities in many parts of the world; calls on the Government to mark the International Day Commemorating the Victims of Acts of Violence Based on Religion or Belief and use the initiative to develop and implement a comprehensive action plan, across Departments to address religious persecution whenever and wherever it occurs; and further calls on the Government to use all its diplomatic powers to combat religious persecution around the world and bring impunity for such atrocities to an end.]

The EDM welcomes the establishment by the UN of an international day commemorating the victims of violence based on religion or belief. Will the Leader of the House also welcome it and consider how this annual day could be appropriately recognised by this House, bearing in mind that it will fall during our recess on 22 August?

[Mel Stride]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I know that she is, rightly, deeply passionate about that matter, and we have discussed it personally on a number of occasions. The Government are entirely committed, and rightly so, to freedom of religion and belief and to promoting respect between people of different religions and beliefs. I wonder whether this would be a good subject for an Adjournment debate. However, as she pointed out, the event to which she refers falls within the recess. I do not have a ready answer to that conundrum, but I would be happy to discuss with her later what options there might be, if that is of use.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Mel Stride

Tuesday 6th November 2018 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T2. Four thousand current and former employees of Roadchef, many of whom are elderly, including some 150 who worked at Sandbach services, will be pleased that there has been success in their campaign for money that they are entitled to from HMRC, but can Ministers provide an assurance from HMRC that there will be no tax payable on these moneys going in or out of the Roadchef employee benefit trust?

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mel Stride)]

I obviously cannot comment on the specific case of the Sandbach services employees, but I assure my hon. Friend that I have looked extensively at this matter and consulted various Members across both sides of the House. I am satisfied that HMRC in general has conducted itself appropriately over this whole issue, but I am happy to meet her to discuss the specific point that she raised.

General Matters

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Mel Stride

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to address the issue of increasing the flexibility of labour markets, and the effect that it can have on small business growth. In doing so, I pay tribute to the many actions this Government have taken to encourage businesses, particularly small businesses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s huge achievement in maintaining our triple A credit rating status is worthy of note, thus keeping interest rates low, which has assisted businesses up and down the country to invest. Also important is the continuing reduction in corporation tax levels, which I think most businesses feel is most welcome.

When it comes to labour market flexibility, and particularly supply-side flexibility, we might usefully view it through the prism of one of the great macro-economic conundrums this country faces: on the one hand, we have reductions in unemployment and increases in employment, yet on the other hand, we have the apparently contradictory information that growth has been negative over the last three quarters. Some of that could be due to the fact that gross domestic product has been underestimated over that time, which would be consistent with the history of these circumstances when recessions are typically estimated at the time to be more severe than they are subsequently assessed as being. That certainly happened in 1990-91—three years later, economists decided that the recession had been 40% less deep than it had been estimated at that particular time.

Declining unemployment is probably due to increases in part-time employment, but also to the extremely positive action taken by Ministers and the Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, which has encouraged people off welfare and into work. There is one other reason why the employment figures might appear to trump the growth figures—our extremely flexible labour markets, which are due, in turn, to the supply-side flexibility introduced in the 1980s. Ironically, there are probably many thousands of people up and down this country who owe their current livelihood to the courage Margaret Thatcher had in the 1980s to improve the supply side of our economy.

Why, then, as I would argue, do we need to go further in reducing supply-side rigidities if our labour markets are so flexible as they stand? The reason is that we are competing in an internationally competitive global marketplace in which our future competitors are not going to be simply the likes of France and Germany, as we will increasingly be bumping shoulders with the likes of China and India, which have extremely flexible labour markets indeed.

If we are to improve labour market flexibility, it will have at least two effects on business. One is that it will make it easier for them to transact business; the second is that it will send a very positive message to businesses that the Government are very serious about supporting entrepreneurship and business. That will be particularly important, given that this country currently suffers from a lack of business confidence. UK plc is sitting on some £750 billion-worth of cash, which is not being released to invest in jobs and growth simply because it lacks the confidence to do so.

I think we should take some further action, and I strongly believe in the comments made by the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses to the effect that we should look at the area of employment-protected leave of absence or maternity and paternity leave, and particularly at how it affects small businesses and micro-businesses.

Let me clarify, first, that I strongly believe in and adhere to the principle of employment rights. It is quite right and proper in a civilised society that companies and Governments should be helpful to women at their time of child birth and beyond. It is also an important tool of policy for ensuring that we increase and improve the engagement of women within the work force. That is my starting point, but I believe that our balance has become out of balance: it is now too much in favour of rights and there is too little emphasis on the onerous provisions that apply to businesses.

Last year, I asked the Library to prepare a comparative grid to show the levels of various maternity rights across various countries in the world. It is certainly the case that we are not the most generous, but we are among the most generous. In Australia, for example, the entitlement is to 18 weeks; in Greece, it is to 17 weeks; in India, it is 12 weeks—but in the United Kingdom, it is 52 weeks. Let us consider the problem that that may cause an employer in the United Kingdom, particularly a small employer whose business consists of, say, between six and 12 people. A key member of staff, such as a senior manager or director, is able to be absent from the workplace for more than a year—over 52 weeks. The employer must then make a contribution to maternity pay, and, in some circumstances, continue to provide a company car and a mobile telephone and pay for any membership of clubs or organisations that may have been granted as a work-related benefit.

Moreover, the absent employee will have been accruing holiday leave, and it is entirely possible that, at the end of the 52 weeks, the business will have to pay in full for the employee to be absent for a further month, or even two months. Any options agreements or share incentive schemes will continue as normal, although the employee may not be present to make any contribution to the success of the business. The employer will also continue to pay in full any pension contributions that have previously applied.

Huge uncertainty is caused by the fact that employees do not have to inform their employers whether they will be returning to the workplace until the period of absence is well under way. It is quite conceivable that, in a company with six to 12 employees, a senior individual who has been absent from the workplace will not inform the employer until the 11th hour—after an absence of at least a year—that he or she will not be coming back.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

We should also bear it in mind that replacing expertise does not involve like-for-like funding. Acquiring a locum can be very expensive for a small business, and as a result the owner of the business often ends up doing two jobs throughout the period of the employee’s absence.

[Mel Stride]

That is an extremely important point. One of the problems with excessively onerous employment rights of this nature is that they build up a fair amount of resentment among existing members of the work force who are often expected to work longer hours or, indeed, to change the pattern of their work in order to accommodate the person who is absent.

In no way do I wish to attack the notion of rights of this kind. I think that they are very important, for the reasons that I have given, but I hope that the Government will look closely at the balance in how they operate, particularly in the case of micro-businesses employing 10 people or fewer.

Finance Bill

Debate between Fiona Bruce and Mel Stride

Tuesday 28th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Fiona Bruce]

No, I am going to continue now, because I have given way so many times that, as has been pointed out, it has interrupted the flow of my speech.

Family breakdown is an incredibly important challenge for the Government. The cost in human terms, especially in terms of children failing to fulfil their potential, is far too high. Although most single parents do a fantastic job in very difficult circumstances, and deserve support as they do so, the evidence is that on average, the children of married parents do better on significant measures such as educational attainment, health, likelihood of getting into trouble with the law, and alcohol and drug abuse.

The crucial thing to understand about British family breakdown is that the key is not only divorce, but the break-up of cohabiting relationships, which are far less stable than marriage. The CSJ report states:

“While marriage accounts for 54 per cent of births, the failure of marriages—ie divorce—accounts for only 20 per cent of break-ups and 14 per cent of the costs of family breakdown, among all families with children under five. Unmarried families account for 80 per cent of the break-ups and 86 per cent of the costs.”

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful case. Does she agree that Conservative Members are not denigrating forms of family other than those that involve marriage, but saying that we believe that marriage makes for a powerful start in life for children, and leads to better social outcomes on average?

[Fiona Bruce]

I agree with my hon. Friend in that respect—nor are Conservatives seeking to take away the support that we give to other family groups such as single parents. We are saying that there should be a tangible affirmation of the very important relationship of marriage.

A child born to cohabiting parents has nearly a one in two chance of living in a single-parent family by the time they reach the age of five, but a child born to married parents has only a one in 12 chance of finding themselves in that situation at that age.