Financial Services (Implementation of Legislation) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Flight and Lord Adonis

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 8th January 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis]

I did not hear the noble Lord across the Chamber, but it does not affect the point. He wants to vary the level of the bar—that is the issue. I do not object in principle: he has a right as a parliamentarian to put forward proposals for changing the level of the bar. However, I object strongly that the Government should be allowed to make those changes by decree, the power that is given to them by this Bill, but we will return to that on Report.

At the moment, the intentions of the European withdrawal Act are elaborately debated in this House, precisely to meet the objective rightly set out by my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe: that there should be a transposing of European legislation to British law and any further changes to the law should be sufficient only to prevent, remedy or mitigate deficiencies in retained EU law. That is a limited objective which justifies the power of the Government to do this by Orders in Council. As soon as we get to much wider political objectives—the kind that the noble Lord has just set out and as set out by this amendment—it completely undercuts the justification for this Bill. The justification for this Bill should surely not be for major departures of this kind in the law and the regulatory regime to be made by Orders in Council rather than by the full, open and proper debate which is necessitated by introducing primary legislation.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, first, I declare my interest in the register. I want to make a small point, to which no one has referred so far. There is quite an importance in the various trade and regulatory bodies to discuss with the Treasury, and potentially with the regulator in the EU, what makes sense and what does not. That is a check on the Government having too much power where they will potentially have to do things in a way that is not approved by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Lord Flight and Lord Adonis

Wednesday 20th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, as I suggested in our debate on the previous amendment, I accept that some improvements could be made to this clause, and it is unlikely that its take-up will be substantial if it goes ahead as it is. I also certainly agree with the principle that it has to be voluntary. If it was the case—I am not sure that it is, despite the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick—that people lost their jobseeker’s allowance if they did not accept employment, I think that is wrong. But this House should listen a little more to the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, and those who really are engaged at the SME level. It is very interesting that nearly all those opposed to this clause had nothing to comment on the extent to which employment law has clearly become discouraging of employment and has, in a sense, gone too far in the protective direction, generating massive income for lawyers, with too many vexatious claims. This clause is, in some senses, no more than a perhaps not totally well thought out attempt at an experiment to see what happens and whether we can agree, with benefits to the employee, to have much less demanding employment law.

I am a little concerned that those opposing this Bill are, to me, today’s establishment from all sides of the House, and not the people at the coal face who are trying to promote small businesses. The clause could be polished up—I hope that it will be—before it is enacted, and some things may be wrong, but at least in an important way it accepts the point that many others do not seem to accept, which is that employment law in this country, particularly in the world in which we live today, is costing us jobs and prosperity, and something needs to be done about it.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, in my eight years in the House I have never witnessed a government policy with less support not only in Parliament but within the Government themselves. We greatly admire the stoicism of the noble Viscount, who will read out his brief in a moment, but it is no secret that his own Secretary of State, Vince Cable, does not support this clause. This is what he said when he vetoed the original Beecroft plan to scrap unfair dismissal rights:

“Britain has already got a very flexible, co-operative labour force. We don’t need to scare the wits out of workers with threats to dismiss them. It’s completely the wrong approach”.

Most Conservative and Lib Dem Back-Benchers clearly think that it is the wrong approach, too. Only two government Back-Benchers have supported this clause at any stage in our debates, and they have been not only outnumbered on their own Benches but massively outgunned, not least by the powerful speeches made this afternoon by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth, Lord King, and Lord Vinson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft.

To remove this clause today would be an act of mercy to the Government, let alone to the employees adversely affected by it. Justin King, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, who was on the Prime Minister’s business advisory group, said that trading basic employment rights for shares was,

“not what we should be doing”.

He went on to say:

“What do you think the population at large will think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money? … Our agenda … should be making employing people easier and less costly”.

That is absolutely right.

We are talking here about the right to statutory redundancy pay, the right not to be dismissed unfairly, the right for parents and other carers to request flexible working, and the right to request training. The idea that depriving employees of these basic rights is somehow going to boost growth is not supported by a single employer I have met, let alone employee. Out of the 219 responses to the government consultation, only five welcomed the idea. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, summed up the mood of the business community and the House when he told us in Committee:

“I cannot imagine any circumstances whatever in which this would be of any use to any business that I have ever come across in my entire life”.—[Official Report, 6/2/13; col. 293.]

He might have added that protection against unfair dismissal and the restriction on contracting out from basic employment rights were introduced by Conservative Governments in the 1970s and 1980s.

Throughout our debates, I have emphasised that we on this side strongly support wider employee share ownership, and we backed proposals to that effect in the Nuttall report, published only eight months ago. However, that is entirely different from trading shares for basic rights in what is generally an unequal employment relationship, which is the very reason why employment rights exist in the first place and why they have been built up by Governments of all parties over many decades.

I stress that the Nuttall review did not so much as mention trading shares for rights, and the Minister has been quite unable to explain to the House why, if this proposal is such a good idea, it was not even considered, let alone endorsed, by the most comprehensive review of employee share ownership in recent years. Meanwhile, the Employee Ownership Association has said:

“There is no need to dilute the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership”.

However, let me put these arguments of principle aside for a moment. The policy is internally flawed in two key respects. First, its key rationale is that it will promote growth by reducing employment law red tape for companies. In fact, as the Law Society argues cogently, it will create more red tape, not less, because it is bound to lead to costly litigation. In particular, it will lead to a rash of claims of discrimination because discrimination will be the only avenue for aggrieved employees to pursue once they have no rights to redundancy pay or unfair dismissal.

The second respect in which this proposal is internally flawed is that the Government claim—the noble Viscount repeated the claim in the previous debate—that this is an entirely voluntary new employment status, with no coercion on anyone to accept it. The problem is that on any fair assessment this claim is simply not true. There is no requirement in the Bill for employers to provide independent advice to those being offered these shares-for-rights jobs. It is therefore likely that individuals, particularly the more vulnerable and low paid, will not be properly aware, if they are aware at all, of the rights they are forgoing in return for shares worth as little as £2,000 at the time they are issued—shares that could easily be worthless by the time they come to sell them. That is why, in Committee, we supported amendments requiring independent advice to be made available before individuals sign shares-for-rights contracts, but the Government refused to accept those amendments. This being the case, Clause 27 stands condemned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which says in its advice to your Lordships:

“A failure to include effective safeguards in the proposals would make it strongly arguable that the proposals indirectly discriminate against those less likely to be able to make a properly informed or truly voluntary decision, for example, people whose first language is not English, those with learning disabilities, or young workers”.

Worse still is the position of individuals on unemployment benefits, who far from being given a voluntary choice about accepting no-rights jobs are being told by the Government that they stand to lose their income if they do not do so. In order to make it look as if they were sympathetic to these concerns, Ministers said that they would amend the guidance to DWP decision-makers in cases of appeal against loss of benefits so that decisions were taken on a reasonable basis. Despite months of badgering the noble Viscount and his department, we did not even see this revised DWP guidance until last week. I am very grateful to him for finally making it available to us. Now that we have it, I can see why the noble Viscount thought concealment the better part of valour, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said so eloquently, for it states in terms:

“Employee shareholder vacancies should on the whole be treated in the same way as any other vacancy”.

In other words, if the jobseeker does not take a no-rights job, they are likely to lose their benefits. I cannot see what is voluntary about that transaction.

As Paul Callaghan, a partner of the respected legal firm, Taylor Wessing, puts it,

“shares-for-rights contracts will be optional to the extent that eating and drinking are optional”.

As if all I have said so far is not enough, there is another major and completely unacceptable aspect of this shares-for-rights proposal. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has reported that it opens up a £1 billion tax avoidance loophole. During Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, quoted the coalition agreement, which says that the Government will,

“make every effort to tackle tax avoidance”—

and,

“will seek ways of taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income”,

yet Clause 27 does precisely the opposite.

In his letter to me last week, the Minister confirmed that the first £50,000 of shares given to an employee shareholder will be free from capital gains tax when they are sold. It is for this reason that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that the scheme will cost the Exchequer £1 billion a year when it is mature. At this point, we enter the world of the surreal.

[Lord Flight]

I cannot see the argument that making shares free from capital gains tax is an act of tax avoidance or improper tax treatment, when one considers the other side of the coin, which is that a valuable employment allowance is being given up. It is not dissimilar to other situations where there are tax incentives to invest.

[Lord Adonis]

I am sorry that the noble Lord has difficulty in seeing the argument. This is creating a completely new branch of the tax avoidance industry. If that is not obvious, not many obvious statements have been made in the House this afternoon.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, a new scheme is being introduced by this Bill. It is not an existing scheme. If that were the case, we would not be here debating it. It is the new opportunities that the scheme creates for efficient tax planning, if I may put it that way, that has led the Office for Budget Responsibility to say that it will lead to the Treasury forgoing up to £1 billion.

At this point, we enter the world of the surreal because we are debating a tax loophole that will add £1 billion a year to the deficit. The proposals are from a Chancellor of the Exchequer who tells us day in and day out—indeed, only a few hours ago in the Budget—that reducing the deficit is the nation’s overriding priority.

[Lord Flight]

My Lords—

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, I have given away twice to the noble Lord. He has had plenty of opportunity to make his case.

[Lord Adonis]

I am happy to give way to the noble Lord because every time he intervenes he maximises the vote in favour of the amendment.

[Lord Flight]

The noble Lord clarified my previous point that the scheme was a new scheme that did not create tax avoidance. If the scheme did not exist, there would be no tax revenue at all. The Treasury will therefore not lose tax revenue as a result of the tax arrangements; it will merely not get as much as it might otherwise get.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, who knows to what the funds would have been devoted before the scheme was created? That is the answer to the point about whether the scheme leads to more efficient tax planning of a kind that leads to real income being forgone, not just additional income that might be generated from these contracts.

To conclude, by removing this clause we will be saving the Chancellor from himself; we will be saving the Government from themselves; we will be doing our basic duty as a revising Chamber; but, more importantly than any of this, we will be protecting decent hard-working people from the unfairness and humiliation of being stripped of basic rights at work. Our duty is clear.

Public Disorder

Debate between Lord Flight and Lord Adonis

Thursday 11th August 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight]

My Lords, all the circumstantial evidence is that these riots did not just appear spontaneously. What evidence is there to date, if any, that there was a fair degree of central organisation, if not orchestration, even down to the use of Sun Tzu tactics in riots? This required people to understand what those were about and how to use them. So my question simply is: what, if any, evidence is there of central organisation?

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, like the most reverend Primate—and, I think, the House—I find the prevalence of children as young as seven and eight in these events deeply shocking. I agree with the most reverend Primate that issues to do with education—education for citizenship, education for virtue—are vital, as is early intervention. However, some very pressing and urgent questions need to be asked in respect of schools. Many schools have attached police officers. Many schools in the communities that have seen disturbances over the last week will be in a very fragile state at the beginning of term. Can the Minister confirm that every secondary school that wishes to have an attached police officer in any of the communities in question will have access to them, and that funding constraints will not be an obstacle to that?

Secondly, I expect we will find that most of the young people involved either have been excluded from school at some point or indeed may not even be attending school at all. On any one day in the school year, 1,000 pupils are excluded from school, many of them for acts of violence and serious disturbance. One of the issues that has to be looked at, coming out of these events, is the whole way that we deal with pupils excluded from school. They need to be properly supervised; they need to be properly organised; there needs to be some inspiration in the provision for them. I also believe that that should be a punitive element for those who are excluded from school in respect of acts of violence. The underclass that we have talked about this afternoon begins, alas, in our schools. Unless we tackle it in our schools we will never tackle it at all.