Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

Given his experience, the hon. Gentleman must surely consider the growth of the car industry in Coventry, and in the west midlands as a whole, to be as strong as any growth that he has seen in his career. We are exporting cars at a rate at which we have not exported them since the early 1970s. Of course we want to see more business investment and more exports, but what we are seeing now is a rebalancing of the economy. The private sector is growing, and the number of jobs is increasing throughout the country—and that includes the west midlands, an area in which the number of jobs fell during the boom.

Incidentally, given his business experience, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not support for one moment the proposals announced by the shadow Chancellor over the past week.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

T7. In south Essex, £1.5 billion is being invested at London Gateway, £500 million is on the table for a new power station, £180 million is being invested at Lakeside, and the regeneration of Basildon town centre is about to begin. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those inward investments in my area indicate that our long-term economic plan is working, leading to rising growth and falling unemployment for the benefit of my constituents?

[Mr Osborne]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I congratulate him on the work that he has done to bring that investment into his constituency, and to create jobs and opportunities for the people whom he represents. It is important for us to send a message to the world that we are open for business and open to investment, and because we are doing that, we are now a go-to destination for world investment. Can my hon. Friend imagine the impact on jobs and investment in his constituency if we adopted the Labour party’s approach?

Autumn Statement

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I have been with my hon. Friend to one of his train stations in Gillingham. He has campaigned assiduously on behalf of the hard-working people he represents for help on train fares, and I am delighted that his persistence and campaigning for the people he represents have paid off today.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement and congratulate him on his steadfastness in not listening to the voices, inside and outside this place, that said there was an alternative route to our recovery. Does he believe it would be irresponsible to duck our responsibilities to clear up the mess of the previous Government and leave it to our children and grandchildren to do?

[Mr Osborne]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. We need a responsible recovery. We need to help not just this generation, but the next one. Whether we are talking about providing opportunities for young people to get training and skills and get on in life, abolishing the jobs tax for the young people or, above all, dealing with the debts that the people who created those debts were not prepared to deal with, this is all about being on the side of young people.

Women and the Cost of Living

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Nicky Morgan]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady, whom I regard as a good neighbourly MP in so many ways, is scaremongering. People have to pay the fee only if they actually go to a tribunal, and there are many stages before that in an employment claim.

Let me talk about women and the workplace. As I said, we want to see not only more women in the workplace, but more women rising to the top of their workplaces. I am delighted that the Minister for Women and Equalities is on the Benches today, as she has been doing so much work to promote women in the workplace. I was also delighted to see Fiona Woolf, the second ever female Lord Mayor of London, coming into post earlier this month. I am sure that she will be an excellent role model for women in the City of London. But we need to do what we can to help more women to reach these senior positions and play an even more prominent role in our recovery. As many hon. Members will know, last month we published a Government action plan specifically designed to help women start out, get on and stay on in our workplaces by taking steps on things such as training, skills and flexible working.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

There is no doubt that we have been through a very difficult time, and that will have affected both sexes—men and women alike. Is not growth the best way out of a lot of these problems? Is it not irresponsible of a Government not to tackle the problems they are presented with, leaving them to be tackled by our children and our grandchildren?

[Nicky Morgan]

My hon. Friend is, of course, right about that. The best way to address living standards is by dealing with the economic crisis, so that families can find work in a growing economy. He is absolutely right to say that it is not fair to burden future generations with debt, which is why this Government have taken the tough actions they have.

I shall now discuss child care. For any mothers and fathers to succeed in the workplace, we need to have the right policy in place to support them. The Labour party is right to draw attention to the importance of parental leave and child care, but let me remind the Opposition that we were the Government who recognised the current system of leave and pay for parents as being not only old-fashioned and inflexible, but as playing a role in reinforcing the idea that women are the primary carers of children. Our new system will give real choice to families, and, from 2015, will allow working parents to share leave once the mother feels ready to end her maternity leave.

I remind the Opposition that we were the party that made sweeping changes on flexible leave and that they were the party that presided over child-care costs rising to the second highest level in the developed world. We are working hard to address that and to make child care more affordable for parents across the United Kingdom. A recent survey showed that 2012-13 was the second successive year in which the price of full day care and nurseries stayed flat in real terms

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

It is regrettable that Labour likes to portray women as always victims. It is important that this Government see women for what they are—people with all sorts of different ambitions, different needs, different aspirations and so on. It is impossible to define what women want, other than to say that they want to be able to choose and not to be punished for their own choices. Choosing to stay at home and raise children; to work part time and use informal child care; to use nurseries or childminders; to have a stunning career running a FTSE 100 company, or as a pop star or a brain surgeon; to retire early or volunteer for a charity; to care for elderly relatives or disabled children; to be a teacher or, yes, even a politician—what women want is utterly varied, and I am proud of the way that this Government have made efforts to create choice and opportunity for women.

We all know that times have never been tougher economically. Austerity has limited our ability just to keep spending, but it has not stopped the Government’s desire to reform, and to support women in their own choices. There is no escape from the appalling mess that Britain was in in 2010, but the Government have been committed to raising the tax-free allowance for the lowest paid to £10,000 per annum by 2014. In spite of being almost half the work force, women are by far the lowest earners, so keeping more of their income is vital for them. Freezing fuel duty and council tax has helped all families through these tough times. But above all, dealing with the deficit has been and should be the key goal.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend talks about the deficit. Does she think it is responsible for a Government not to tackle that and to pass it on to our children and grandchildren so that they have to deal with the problem?

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and I was coming on to say that our deficit is not some airy-fairy statistic; it is the debt that is growing from it that is the biggest threat to our children and grandchildren. If we do not sort it out in our lifetime, it will wreck their future. That matters not just to loving mums, but to loving dads and loving grandparents. The Opposition must stop making light of it. It is real; it is there; it has to be dealt with.

Unemployment rose by 29% for women under Labour. Now there are more women in employment than ever before. The unemployment rate for women has fallen to 7%. At all levels we are helping women to build and develop successful businesses. The Women’s Business Council, set up in 2012, is taking many different actions, including providing business grants and mentors to female entrepreneurs. We are promoting business to girls in school and providing student enterprise loans. In the boardroom, under this Government female representation has risen from 12.2% to 17.3% in three years. We have a long way to go, but it is real progress in what women want.

Women and men are working parents. We have just had a debate on child care, and our policies to support the cost of child care through tax breaks, as well as a raft of measures to encourage new childminders to professionalise the nursery work force and to give parents the confidence that they are getting quality child care as well as helping with the cost of it, are vital.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

A few weeks ago I was listening to “The Morning Show” on Radio Nottingham. They were discussing whether people felt better off now that the economy is growing again. A mum rang in. She was working but finding it a real struggle to make ends meet. She admitted that sometimes, in order to get by, she had to ask her son if she could borrow some money from his piggy bank. That is just one story—an anecdote—but I think that it says a lot about life under this Government. Government Members talk about intergenerational fairness. What is fair about a mum having to borrow money from her child to manage until her next payday?

Of course, it is not just one mother who is struggling to get by; millions of women are, and not just in Nottingham, but up and down the country. It is not just women who are struggling, because families up and down the country are facing a cost of living crisis, but it is women who are being hit hardest of all, through cuts in public services, cut in public sector jobs, cuts in the real value of their wages and cuts in the social security benefits they rely on. It is women who are unable to access or afford care for their children or disabled or frail relatives, who are being denied adequate support when they experience domestic abuse, who are losing good jobs in the public services and who are unable to cope with longer waits for the social security benefits they have earned.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

The hon. Lady talks about responsibility. Does she think that it was responsible for the previous Government to borrow £1 of every £4 they spent? Is that not one reason for the problems we now face?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I am not going to take any lectures from Government Members who have doubled the amount of debt in this country.

Of the £14 billion the Government are taking from people’s pockets to pay down the deficit through changes in tax, benefits, pay and pensions since the general election, £11 billion is from women, even though they still earn less and own less than men. More than 40 years after Labour’s Equal Pay Act 1970 outlawed paying women less than men for the same work, women still face a lifetime of earning less. For every £1 a man takes home, a women takes home just 85p.

Under this Government, the situation is likely to get worse. The cuts mean that women are losing employment in the public sector, but they are not getting comparable jobs in the private sector. The Women’s Budget Group analysis shows the following: although unemployment across the whole UK has fallen by 0.6% for men, it has increased by 0.8% for women; the number of women who are unemployed has increased by nearly 15% to over 1 million, the highest level for a generation; and long-term unemployment has increased eight times faster for women than for men. For older women aged over 50, the situation is even worse: unemployment is up by 42,000—more than a third—since the general election, while for older men it has fallen. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Gloria De Piero) said, unemployment rates are particularly high among black and ethnic minority women.

Some jobs have been created in the private sector, but overall 63% of them went to men and only 37% to women. For women who are still working in the public sector, while wages have been frozen, at least progress was being made year on year to close the gender pay gap, with the difference between the hourly pay rates for men and women narrowing from 18.2% to 14.2% in recent years. There has been no comparable reduction in the private sector, where women earn, on average, 25.1% less per hour than men. As the Fawcett Society warns:

“Unless the government takes urgent action, women will lose their precarious footing in the workforce. We face a labour market characterised by persistent and rising levels of women’s unemployment, shrinking pay levels for women and a widening of the gender pay gap.”

Even the recent return to growth will not necessarily help if the Government do not act. Professor Diane Elson of the Women’s Budget Group says:

“Our big concern is that…women are going to be so far behind they will not be able to catch up.”

Is there any reason to hope the Government are listening and will act? Not if recent announcements are anything to go by. The Tories’ Free Enterprise Group wants to extend VAT—a deeply regressive tax that hits the poorest hardest—to essentials such as food, children’s clothes and bus fares. The Lib Dems tell us that the answer is to increase the income tax threshold. The Deputy Prime Minister claims that that will help those on low incomes, but any gain will be far outweighed by the Government’s tax rises and unfair changes to tax credits—and of course the very poorest will not benefit at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sheila Gilmore]

The hon. Lady has told the House that the path onwards involves more raising of tax thresholds, regardless of who will or will not benefit from that. A further rise in tax thresholds, however, will do absolutely nothing for many who already earn below that level, particularly women who are part-time workers. How will that further generosity—which, as I have said, benefits more those whose earnings are in the upper brackets—be paid for? On the basis of the past three and a half years, presumably it will be paid for by yet more cuts to benefits and services that help a lot of women.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I will not give way again.

In future—assuming, of course, that universal credit ever materialises, which is far from certain at the moment—low-paid people will benefit even less as the tax threshold increases. Universal credit will be calculated on net, rather than gross earnings. Therefore, if a taxpayer who claims universal credit receives a tax cut of £100, they will automatically lose £65 of benefits. The lowest paid taxpayers are going to suffer more, and a solution would be to commit to increase the amount someone can earn before universal credit payments are reduced every time tax thresholds go up. Those who advocate the solution for low-paid workers have told us time and again that the reason for raising tax thresholds is not to benefit everyone but to benefit low-paid workers. However, it will not benefit those workers to anything like that extent—indeed, for many of them probably not at all.

We are constantly being told that we have to make tough choices—the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), who wanted to intervene, has constantly risen to speak about the need to deal with the deficit. Choices are being made in the way the Government are proceeding, including the choice to give those generous tax cuts and wanting to continue to do so, but that does not sound like a terribly tough choice for some people to make.

There are other uses for the money if it is available. We could give a tax break to businesses that agree to pay the living wage, which would benefit women in particular. We could increase help with child care costs now. Child care tax credits were cut from 80% to 70% by the coalition. I know the Government say that they will restore that for recipients of universal credit when—if—it comes in, and the new child care tax relief starts in 2015. Why not now, however, especially with universal credit receding somewhere over the horizon? Further to that, the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission suggests that the Government should reallocate the 2013 Budget funding for child care tax relief from higher rate tax payers to those on universal credit. That would be over and above existing plans—this is a recent report from the commission—to help those who want to work and need help with child care.

Gingerbread, which will obviously advocate on behalf of families with one parent, 90% of whom are women, has made proposals for improving universal credit that would make work pay and encourage the progression through employment that is desired by us all. The old 16-hour rule that Government parties tend to dismiss was to ensure that going back to work really improved people’s situation, rather than the mini-jobs that, frankly, leave people poor.

Gingerbread has suggested that we increase the amount a claimant can earn before universal credit starts to be withdrawn, and reduce the rate at which benefits are reduced—the taper rate. Those proposals cost money, but if money is available—clearly it is for those who advocate another increase in the basic tax threshold—I urge the Government to consider measures such as those advocated by Gingerbread genuinely to help the lowest earners improve their position.

One point I completely refute is the suggestion that if we say that life under this Government is hard for many women, we are calling women victims. Far from being victims, women are struggling to bring up their children despite the difficulties that they face. It is completely wrong to suggest that we are therefore painting them as victims—far from it.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), a former colleague on the Work and Pensions Committee, who is one of the most diligent attendees in the Chamber. However, I shall disagree vehemently with her and demolish a number of the arguments that are inherent in today’s motion. I urge all hon. Members to vote against it at 7 o’clock.

I shall start with some of the macroeconomic arguments and make the case that the way to destroy a country’s wealth, and to plunge people into many years of poverty, is to do what the previous Government did to the economy—create the largest recession for 60 years and the most significant banking crisis ever. I shall also outline the course of policy to follow for economic prosperity.

The secret of economic prosperity is not hard to find, but it is hard to achieve. The first ingredient is obviously a strong central bank maintaining sound monetary policy and a prudent Chancellor who maintains sound public finances. That is the framework that provides the environment in which businesses can invest, grow, export and create jobs. It is not politicians who create that wealth and those jobs, but we can damage the cost of living and the growth of businesses with bad monetary policies, high taxes, irresponsible borrowing, excessive regulation and the high interest rates that we saw under the previous Government.

The decision to make the Bank of England independent in 1997 was just about the only decision made by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) with which I agreed. The mandate to keep inflation at 2% has meant some predictability and stability from the inflationary ravages that we all remember from the Labour Governments of the 1970s. It is essential that the Governor of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, is able to unwind the current additional monetary stimulus that has been needed since the crash of 2008 without allowing any major deviation from that 2% target. Sound money will mean that the pound stays strong. Given the UK’s dependence on imported goods and fuel, a strong pound keeps our cost of living down.

The Government also need to play a part. The Chancellor has taken the tough and necessary steps to bring the public finances back into structural balance.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend talks about the Chancellor making tough decisions. Do you think it would be right to abandon the programme that we have adopted and to increase the amount of borrowing? Do you think that would be the right way for the country to move forward?

[Harriett Baldwin]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I do not think anything about these matters, although I am sure that the hon. Lady does.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I apologise, Mr Speaker.

[Harriett Baldwin]

Some Opposition Members think that the Chancellor has tightened too fast, but others might argue that he could have tightened faster. I say that he has been a Goldilocks Chancellor, and this has been a tightening at the pace at which job creation has been allowed to flourish. I also want to put on record that there has been no recession in this country since 2009. At all points in this fiscal responsibility, the Chancellor has looked for measures that have helped hard-working families keep their cost of living under control. He has helped councils freeze their council tax, he has raised the tax-free threshold for working people and he has avoided the 13p fuel duty increase that Labour had planned—

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

In Rotherham, unemployment among women is far too high. According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, 13.4% of economically active women in Rotherham are unemployed. That is significantly higher than the regional figure of 8.1% and the national figure of 7.3%. While there has been some fluctuation in this figure, it has averaged almost 15% across the lifespan of the current Government.

Unfortunately, these figures are symptomatic of a national trend. Female unemployment is at its highest for a generation. Over 1 million women in the UK are out of work, an increase of 82,000 under this Government. When we look at long-term female unemployment, the situation is much worse as it is rising eight times faster than for men. The number of women out of work for more than 12 months increased by 79,000 between May 2010 and August 2013, while the number of men out of work for more than 12 months increased by 10,000. The number of older women—those aged 50-plus—who are unemployed has increased by 42,000, which is up by more than a third, over the same period, while male unemployment in this age group has fallen by 15,000. Black minority ethnic women also have a disproportionately high level of unemployment than men.

Where women are finding employment, their pay continues to lag behind that for male colleagues. Changes to in-work benefit left many women in Rotherham struggling to earn a living, in sharp contrast to the Government’s oft-repeated aim of making work pay. Furthermore, the increase in the cost of living has left many women facing an extremely insecure existence, and an even bleaker future.

A constituent I met recently shared her experiences, which are no doubt repeated across the country. A single parent, she desperately wants to return to work, but the huge costs of child care and cuts to in-work benefits mean that it is simply untenable.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sarah Champion]

I am sorry, but I do not have the time.

My constituent is thus forced to choose between short-term, part-time and low-paid work or to stay at home. To make her situation worse, local amenities on which she relies are facing closure as a result of Government cuts to local authority budgets and to national programmes such as Sure Start.

I want to mention two other issues related to the increasing unemployment of women. The first is the lack of role models for young women. It is very noticeable that this Government have only four women in a Cabinet of 22. Only 23% of this Parliament’s Members are women, the vast majority of them being Labour MPs. When we look at chief executives and board membership, we see that this situation is, unfortunately, common. That is compounded by a lack of consistent careers advice in schools, and in some schools no careers advice at all, so how are young women meant to make informed career choices?

The other key consideration in respect of why more women are unemployed has to do with their caring responsibilities and lack of Government support for them. For younger women that is likely to be child care, while for older women it is more likely to be care of their parents or their partners. The support for both those groups of women to enable them both to care and to work is being systematically chipped away. Not only is this bad for the women; it is also bad for the country economically. The ultimate irony is that of the £14.4 billion raised in 2014-15 through the additional net direct tax and benefit, pay and pension changes announced since the general election, £11.4 billion—or around 79%—is coming from women and £2.9 billion is coming from men.

House of Commons Library analysis shows that women will be hit four times harder by the new direct tax credit and benefit changes announced in December’s autumn statement, with women shouldering £867 million of the £1.1 billion raised. This situation is immoral and unfair, and it needs to change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Of course, under the previous Labour Government bonuses were four times the rate they were this year. I would also ask the hon. Gentleman whether Labour believes in reversing the 45p rate of income tax, because I am not sure what the answer is.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one way of tackling rising prices is to leave people with more of their own money in their pocket? Will he confirm that the 50% tax cut we have given to those on the minimum wage has done exactly that and shows that we are on the side of hard-working people?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we want to help living standards, we want to be able to cut taxes in a sustainable way. That is what we are managing to do.

Interest Rate Swap Derivatives

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier]

That is absolutely right. Part of the problem, however, is that the banks have an incentive not to get in touch with people, for obvious reasons. That relates to the second point I wish to develop. It is a technical point, but it is incredibly important in terms of why it is incentivising banks to delay technical redress for as long as they can, and it has implications for the financial stability of the banks.

We should not think of these things as stand-alone products, but should recognise them for what they are. They are not stand-alone products; there is another side of this trade. They are swaps for a reason, and it is important to understand what a swap is. Any one of our victims will have been persuaded to take out a contract with the bank that has the beneficial effect of capping interest rate payments at a certain level. That is a virtuous thing and we are all familiar with the financial planning behind the thought process, through things such as fixed-rate mortgages. But these are not fixed-rate mortgages; they are stand-alone products that relate to a loan, but are not part of that loan. Importantly, many people have paid off the loan but still have the outstanding liability on the swap. The quid pro quo of having a fixed cap on interest payments is the collar that has caused so many problems for our victims, whereby they have to pay a relatively high rate of interest in today’s terms. What is not fully understood is that this is not a simple contract with the bank, as it first appears. The bank is not taking a naked bet with its customers that, in the environment of falling interest rates, it has won. It is not receiving as profit the penalty in the increased premiums being paid in interest rates by the victim, because for a swap to actually be a swap, there is a matching trade with a third party on the other side. What the banks receive in higher interest rate payments they are paying to an opposing and third-party counterpart on the other side.

I shall now go into a bit more detail. Businesses may want to make sure that they do not pay too high an interest rate; that is why they are persuaded, rightly or wrongly, to take the swaps. However, an organisation such as a pension fund needs to guarantee its income should a severe drop in interest rates, such as we have seen, occur. It would want to take a position opposite that of the businesses, which are the victims.

The pension fund will forgo a rise in rates while winning the guaranteed floor rate that it will receive. For a business to have a rate cap at, say, 7%, it will guarantee to pay no less than 5%. For a pension fund to be guaranteed to receive a minimum payment of 5%, it would agree to receive no more than 7%. In that way, the business’s and pension fund’s interests are perfectly aligned in opposition.

As both the pension fund and business are clients of the bank, the bank does two simultaneous trades—one with the business, to cap and collar the rate payments, and the other with the pension fund, to collar and cap the interest rate receipts. The bank makes a small margin, but essentially its liability, if everything stands up, is perfectly and oppositely aligned. That is the symmetry of liability and the basis of the swap market.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his understandable explanation of the product. I will be honest—I am new to this issue, which constituents have brought to my attention. Is it possible to explain the issue to an individual in a phone call lasting one minute and 20 seconds? That, apparently, constitutes the contract between the bank and the client.

[Mark Garnier]

I will try to explain the issue as simply as I can now.

Imagine a second-hand-car dealer. He may buy a dodgy motor on his own books and try to make as big a turn as he can, but he risks not getting his money back. Now imagine a car dealer with a valuable vintage car who aligns a seller and buyer at exactly the same time. He takes a turn with no risk at all, and that is how a swap behaves. Now imagine that, having lined up that trade, he takes the money from the buyer, so has a contractual agreement with them, and agrees a sale with the seller. However, on the way to deliver the car, he writes it off in a crash and is not insured. He still has liabilities on both sides—he still has to deliver a car to the buyer and has to pay the seller. That is the mess that the banks are in. They have caused themselves a massive car crash and have to look after the other side of the trade.

We are fully aware of the losses to the banks on the financial redress scheme—plus, obviously, the consequential loss scheme as well. We have heard about how much has been put aside, and there will be debate about whether that is the right amount or not. However, we have heard nothing yet about the value of the liability on the other side of the swap—the liability to institutions, most likely to be pension funds, that still needs to be honoured. That has implications for the stability of the banks and shows why it is important for banks to keep the redress scheme running for as long as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Tuesday 14th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

No, Gloucester is a long way from the north-east of England.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Q7. What fiscal steps he is taking to support private sector job creation.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

More than 1.25 million private sector jobs have been created since the first quarter of 2010. At the Budget, we took additional steps to support job creation—for example, by further reducing the rate of corporation tax to 20%, through a new employment allowance for national insurance to encourage every business to create jobs in this country and by extending the seed enterprise investment scheme to encourage start-up investment in the UK.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Will my right hon. Friend consider taking further measures? For example, the provision of cheap, easy-to-access finance remains an issue for many small and medium-sized enterprises. With more than 3 million SMEs in our country, will the Government consider creating their own easy-to-access, less risk-averse provision, which I think would seriously stimulate both growth and job creation?

[Danny Alexander]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important issue. We are all aware of the continuing difficulties of small firms in getting access to the finance they need. The business bank, which is being taken forward by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, is acting to address gaps in the financial offering for small firms. The funding for lending scheme is substantially expanding lending to small businesses, which is one of its objectives. The business finance partnership is investing £87 million through non-bank channels, such as peer-to-peer platforms, that can reach SMEs in a different way.

Economic Policy

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Monday 25th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

I do not comment on the level of sterling. The G7, which the UK chairs at the moment, issued a clear statement that we are not targeting an exchange rate and that the exchange rate flows from the economic policies that we pursue at home to improve our domestic economies.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that for the Labour party to have any fiscal credibility it should just say sorry—sorry for the debt, sorry for the deficit, and sorry for the pain it has caused my constituents?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend puts the point powerfully and until we hear that apology from the shadow Chancellor, frankly he will not have the credibility to offer an alternative.

Autumn Statement

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Wednesday 5th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

House building was at an all-time low under the Labour Government—the lowest, I think, since the 1920s or 1930s. That is what had happened. Of course, things such as problems in the mortgage market were created by the banking crisis and the financial crisis. The banking crisis happened, by the way, when the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was the City Minister. The funding for lending scheme is bringing mortgage costs down. The Firstbuy scheme helps with shared equity, and the new buy scheme is helping people who cannot afford their first deposit, so we have those schemes out there, helping to repair problems in the financial markets. We are also committing money for additional affordable homes and we are providing guarantees to social landlords to build not just social homes, but homes for the private rented sector. We are dealing with the problems that occurred when the hon. Gentleman’s party was in office.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement, and I would particularly like to welcome the fund that will allow good schools to expand. Can he tell us when that might be in place, as the need is more pressing in some areas than in others, particularly around Basildon, where I would like to see the Lee Chapel primary school expand rapidly?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful case for Basildon, its schools and the particular school he mentioned. I will make sure that the Education Secretary hears the argument he makes. The money is available over the next two years.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Tuesday 6th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Anyone would think that there was a completely different arrangement in 2010, but I am afraid that is not the case. The Government are working at an international level to ensure that multinationals pay the tax that is due, and that profits on their economic activity is paid where it occurs. We are also strengthening HMRC’s capacity in that area and giving it greater skills to tackle the issue. I would have thought the Labour party welcomed the progress we are making when compared with the lack of progress under the previous Government.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one way to stimulate additional growth is through better use of the prompt payment code? Will he join me in calling on businesses and public sector organisations to adopt that code and adhere to it?

[Danny Alexander]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend, and we have already raised that issue with central Government Departments. We will certainly reinforce that message. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has been advancing that as part of the reforms to public procurement, and I will pass on my hon. Friend’s concerns to him.

Amendment of the Law

Stephen Metcalfe Excerpts

Thursday 22nd March 2012 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this most important debate. Before I start, I put on record my appreciation to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his statement yesterday, for putting growth at the heart of the Budget, for unashamedly backing business, and for rewarding hard-working families. Those are the areas I want to focus on, but first I want to talk a little about the cut from 50% to 45% in the top rate of tax.

I have to say that I did not campaign for the cut and I was surprised to see it in the Budget, although that does not mean I do not welcome it. As a Conservative, I believe that all taxes should be as low as possible so that everyone can keep as much of their money as possible and spend it how they wish. But I recognise that at a time of national austerity, when public sector workers are experiencing a pay freeze and then very modest pay increases, and ordinary families are struggling with high fuel and energy prices, giving what appears to be a tax cut for the wealthiest in society seems to make no sense. Our hearts say this cannot be right, but if we use our heads, look at the hard facts and stop listening to the class war rhetoric of the Opposition, it begins to make a little more sense.

The 50% tax rate left Britain isolated as the country with the highest income tax rate in the G20—higher than our competitors such as the United States and countries in Europe. It made Britain a less attractive place for wealth and job creators to set up and do business. It encouraged the wealthiest in society to be more creative about where in the world they paid their tax. It saw £16 billion of income deliberately shifted into a previous tax year, meaning that the total take from the 50% rate was only around £l billion. It did not raise the levels of income expected and it made Britain less competitive.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a lot of sense. Would he also draw Members’ attention to the HMRC report and the chart on page 23 showing that even with a 45p tax rate we will still have the highest tax rate for top earners in the OECD and G20?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

I think my hon. Friend has just done that.

The higher tax rate made Britain less competitive, and if we are less competitive, it means less growth, fewer jobs, reduced prospects for economic recovery and fewer tax cuts for the rest of us. Despite the perception, therefore, that this cut benefits the wealthiest, I believe that it benefits us all. Having a top rate of 50% rather than 45% raises only £100 million in direct tax, whereas the other Budget measures introduced yesterday raise five times that amount—£500 million.

We should not listen to Labour on this matter. Its aim is to reignite the class war and divide Britain along the lines of envy for its own political gain. I want to say to the people of South Basildon and East Thurrock, “Ask yourself this simple question: what is in the best interests of you and your family? If you answer economic growth, better job prospects, low interest rates or lower taxes, welcome this change, because it goes some way to delivering those aims.” On its own, however, it is only a small step. To achieve real growth, we need more, and I am pleased that we are getting more. The Chancellor both confirmed existing growth measures and announced new ones. As a member of the Science and Technology Committee, I am pleased that the science budget is receiving continued support. Investment in science and technology is vital if we are to emerge from financial austerity. New technologies, deployed for our own economic gain, can provide both jobs and growth. I therefore welcome the maintenance of the £4.6 billion science budget. I believe—I think the Chancellor does too—that science and technology form the basis of our future competitiveness.

Investment in sectors that Britain excels in is also vital. Investments such as in the Francis Crick Institute at St Pancras, the establishment of a UK centre for aerodynamics, which will encourage innovation in the aircraft industry and help design and commercialise new ideas for decades to come, and the £100 million of support, alongside the private sector, for investment in major new university research facilities are important parts of that support.

Also important are the changes to research and development tax credits to encourage businesses to invest in innovation and technology. We also need to improve links with small businesses and the research base to assist in the commercialisation of research and, I hope, capture the value that can come from that. These will be the key drivers of economic growth, and the Government should continue to strive to create the best possible operating environment in which this can take place to encourage greater investment and international interest. We want the international research community to see the UK as the best place to invest in science and technology. I am therefore pleased that the Science and Technology Committee will be looking at how we can bridge the valley of death—the chasm between concept and commercialisation.

This goes wider than just science-based businesses, however. We want all businesses to see the UK as the best place to set up and do business, and I welcome the measures that the Chancellor has taken to ensure that this becomes a reality. The reductions in corporation tax, the introduction of corporation tax relief for video games, animation and high-end television, and the investment in broadband provision and infrastructure are all welcome additions to the growth programme.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Notwithstanding the 1% cut in corporation tax, what impact will the 5.6% rise in business rates have on growing businesses and economic growth?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

Obviously, any rise in cost base will have an impact, but we are working hard to reduce that to the absolute minimum, and we are putting in place a framework around which businesses can grow that will mitigate the 5.6% rise.

We all welcome the investment in infrastructure, which will be a driver for growth, although I add the caveat that I and my constituents remain wholly unconvinced that an airport in the Thames estuary is the right solution to maintaining our hub status. I would therefore encourage the Government to listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who made a very good bid for that increased capacity in Birmingham.

I also want to put in a plea for small and medium-sized enterprises. In 2009, they accounted for 49% of private sector turnover. SMEs are vital to the economy. Cutting corporation tax, abolishing Labour’s job tax and offering support through the national loan guarantee scheme are all welcome, I am sure. However, if SMEs are to operate at their full potential, regulation, red tape and bureaucracy must be cut. They have been strangling the economy for too long. I am therefore encouraged to see measures that will allow greater freedoms for businesses in this area. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcement yesterday that he plans to reduce the number of UK SMEs required to undertake an audit and to reduce the burden of financial accounting for UK businesses has to be welcome. I hope that the consultation on a new cash basis for calculating tax, which the Federation of Small Businesses has welcomed, will benefit many small and micro-businesses, allowing them to concentrate on growing their businesses, rather than spending time, money and effort fulfilling requirements that were designed for much larger businesses.

[Bob Stewart]

As an expert, my hon. Friend will be able to confirm this, but I have heard that about 10% of what small businesses do is taken up with bureaucracy—filling in forms, and so on. Does he agree that we need to avoid that?

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It varies from sector to sector, but that is not an unrealistic figure.

Finally, in the short time I have left, I want to talk about jobs. Businesses are vital for growth, but they are equally vital for tackling unemployment. I am delighted to see that unemployment is beginning to stabilise. Dealing with unemployment, through the building business and enterprise loans, will allow jobseekers to start their own businesses and unleash a new generation of entrepreneurs. However, we should not forget that our existing small and medium-sized enterprises have the potential to deliver sustained employment. We should redouble our efforts to create confidence for businesses to take on staff. I therefore reiterate my call to make it easier for firms to hire staff in the knowledge that employment regulation will support them if things do not work out.

As we emerge from the deepest recession in living memory, I applaud the Government’s commitment to addressing an over-leveraged economy, an unsustainable budget deficit and a broken model of growth, inherited from the previous Administration. Our plan of fiscal responsibility has allowed the UK to surge ahead of the curve. We have become a safe haven in the sovereign debt storm. As a result, we have been able to deliver record low interest rates for families, businesses and taxpayers, yet still remove millions of people from paying any tax at all, by increasing the tax threshold. Although we are not immune from events taking place on our own doorstep, we can—as this Government are demonstrating—steer this country out of a financial quagmire and deliver growth, employment and a future brighter than any alternative the Opposition may offer.