Finance Bill

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 11 relates to the Government’s employee shareholder scheme, more commonly known as “shares for rights”. It seeks to probe the Government on the scheme’s performance to date and the costs to the Exchequer in the form of capital gains tax exemptions. We have debated the subject at some length, so I thought that it would be helpful to give some background to jog hon. Members’ memories before setting out the reasons why the Opposition tabled the new clause.

The concept of employee shareholders was introduced under section 31 of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, which was part of the Chancellor’s desperate attempt to kick-start growth after three years of a flatlining economy and rising unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. To get more businesses hiring, he created a status of employee known as employee shareholders. They are expected to give up several fundamental employment rights in return for tax advantaged shares in the employer’s company or parent company, issued under an employee shareholder agreement. Those shares would be tax advantageous to employees because up to £50,000 of the shares would be exempt from capital gains tax on disposal.

In exchange for those tax advantageous shares, employees would be expected to waive some of their fundamental employment rights, including the right not to be unfairly dismissed, the right to a redundancy payment, the right to request leave for study or training and the right to request flexible working, and they will have to give 16 weeks’ notice, rather than the usual eight weeks, before returning to work.

Of course, the right to request flexible working and the ability to give just eight weeks’ notice after maternity or adoption leave have been assessed by the Government themselves, in their tax information and impact note, to affect women disproportionately. They acknowledged that when they legislated for this last year. These reduced rights for female employees, in particular, are in addition to the Government’s real-terms cuts to statutory maternity pay—the mummy tax—the scrapping of the health in pregnancy grant and the significant restrictions on the Sure Start maternity grant. That begs the question that many of us are asking ourselves: just what do this Government have against women and families?

The shares for rights scheme has been widely criticised from across the political spectrum—particularly by the business world because of its impact on employment rights and grave concerns about the opportunities that it presents for tax avoidance.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that rights are rights—not something to be bought and sold? If we give people rights, they should not be able to be sold to whoever.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend hits on a key point. Rights are rights and should not be up for sale. I will go into some of the concerns expressed about the policy. The TUC, for example, has said:

“We deplore any attack on maternity provision or protection against unfair dismissal, but these complex proposals do not look as if they will have very much impact, as few small businesses will want to tie themselves up in the tangle of red tape necessary to trigger these exemptions.”

Not only do the proposals send out completely the wrong signals about employment rights—I have focused on women’s employment rights, but those rights are affected across the board—but they have been so badly thought through that the general feeling is that they will not have much impact, as most people would not want to enter into the arrangements.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making incredibly important points. She mentioned businesses. Does she share my concern that the scheme has not had the support from businesses that we might have expected, for some of the practical reasons that she has raised?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with my hon. Friend’s concern. The lack of transparency from the Government about the interest in the scheme is why we tabled the new clause. It has been difficult to get information about the scheme’s potential take-up—how many businesses have expressed an interest? It has taken a freedom of information request to get even the most basic information, which I will outline a little later.

I should like to quote Justin King, chief executive of Sainsbury’s. What he says relates poignantly to the interventions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra):

“This is not something for our business. The population at large don’t trust business. What do you think the population at large will think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?”

I could not have expressed it better myself.

[Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure lacks basic human dignity, which should be at the forefront of all public policy legislation? Does she agree with Lord O’Donnell, the former head of the civil service, who said that it was a form of modern slavery?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The proposition risks ringing of that. It lacks an ethical approach, given that it trades people’s rights for £2,000 of shares. More than that, it flies in the face of what we know to be true about productivity and engagement. We know that engaging a work force and building their trust makes businesses more successful. Sarah Jackson, chief executive of Working Families, says:

“It also flies in the face of everything we know about productivity and employee engagement. Treat your employees well, give them the flexibility they need, and you will be rewarded by highly motivated and high performing employees.”

The proposal we are discussing goes in completely the opposite direction, undermining the rights of employees and buying them off with shares that could carry a lot of risk for them. It is no wonder that so few businesses have taken up the offer.

[Stewart Hosie]

That is the key point, is it not? Share schemes and share option schemes are fantastic incentives in their own right. That is what should be promoted, not the link with the withdrawal of rights, which is absurd and preposterous.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He sums up the point at stake. The scheme seems to confuse and conflate two different issues: employee ownership of shares in a company—something we fully support—and employment rights. There seems to be a belief that one can be traded for the other and that that will create an entrepreneurial work force, when in fact it undermines productivity and performance and is so unattractive that few businesses have taken up the offer, we believe. But that is the reason for the new clause: we want to get to the truth of exactly how many businesses are interested in taking up the scheme.

[Seema Malhotra]

To build on that important exchange, Labour supports employee ownership, but coupling it with slashing employment rights is not only contradictory but counter-productive. Do we not need a way in which we can support employee ownership alongside employment rights? That is how we will get a motivated and engaged work force. Partnership between management and staff is the right way to get the focus on high productivity and long-term incentives.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend speaks passionately and I absolutely agree. Employee ownership is something we should be talking about and finding ways to support. That is why it is so disappointing that the Government wasted the opportunity to boost the cause of employee ownership and shareholding, and have undermined it by framing the argument so unfairly. It smacks of the Adrian Beecroft fire-at-will proposals and does not ring true for most businesses, which do not want to conduct their affairs in that way. They want an equal partnership with their employees to build the business together, knowing that in most circumstances their work force are their key asset. Undermining and cutting employment rights will potentially undermine the trust in a business between employers and employees. That is not the way to build a successful, strong business for the future.

The policy was the centrepiece of the Chancellor’s speech to the 2012 Conservative party conference. He suggested at the time that his grand idea would herald a new three-way deal between employer, employee and the Government, in which employees give up their employment rights, the company gives shares and the Government grant tax exemptions on those shares. In his words, it is swapping “old rights”—as if they are no longer required—

“with new rights of ownership.”

I want to be absolutely clear that we do not oppose the concept of employee ownership. We are aware of its benefits for both employees and employers alike, but we strongly object to its being linked to the removal of employment rights, which serves to undermine the whole concept. Ministers need to make it easier to hire people, not to fire them, but the Chancellor is kidding absolutely nobody by trying to claim that the scheme does anything other than encourage that.

The Chancellor talks about new types of ownership rights, but the Employee Owner Association, which describes itself as the voice of co-owned business, has pointed out that the scheme serves only to discredit and undermine genuine employee ownership schemes—schemes that we fully support. The chief executive of the Employee Ownership Association has said:

“There is absolutely no need to dilute the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership and no data to suggest that doing so would significantly boost employee ownership.

Indeed all of the evidence is that employee ownership in the UK is growing and the businesses concerned thriving, because they enhance not dilute the working conditions and entitlements of the workforce.”

We need only look at the comments of our colleagues in the other place, including a number of former Tory Cabinet Ministers, before they voted down these measures to see that that view is shared by pretty much everyone outside the Government. Lord O’Donnell said:

“If an employer is offering this, they are probably the kind of employer that you do not want to go near. If an employee accepts it, it is probably because they do not really understand what they are doing. On those grounds, it is bad.”

He went on to ask a question:

“we know that in the old days the price of slavery was 20 or 30 pieces of silver. Is it now £2,000?” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 617.]

I could not discuss shares for rights without reminding right hon. and hon. Members of the view of the former Conservative Cabinet Minister, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean. He described the scheme as having

“all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 614.]

Perhaps the Minister will respond to those comments today.

In new clause 11, the Opposition are trying to probe the Government on the take-up that the scheme has achieved so far. A cursory search for “shares for rights” on an internet search engine suggests that things have not been a roaring success. It turns up the following headlines. The FT.com website states, “Chancellor’s ‘shares for rights’ plan flops”. The Guardian says, “George Osborne’s shares-for-rights scheme doesn’t add up”. The Telegraph says, “No take-up on ‘rights for shares’”, as well as, “George Osborne’s flagship rights for shares scheme risks falling flat”. The specialist human resources website, XpertHR, sums it up well with, “Shares for rights: 1.7% of UK employers plan to use employee shareholder contracts, XpertHR research finds”. Even the Deputy Prime Minister has contributed to the headlines, with FT.com reporting in January that “Nick Clegg urges end of ‘shares for rights’”.

I am quoting headlines from internet searches because it is incredibly difficult to get any information out of the Government on the take-up and impact of the policy. The purpose of the new clause is to get to the truth. [Interruption.] I see that the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) is frantically searching on his hand-held device. Perhaps he has found some alternative headlines that he would like to share with the House. Would he like to intervene?

[James Duddridge]

I assure the hon. Lady that I do not do anything frantically. I have been searching. I think that it was on Google, but I am not very good at using this little hand-held box. HR magazine says, “Osborne’s shares for rights scheme could help SMEs”. I do not know whether she needs to update her search engine or whether she is using an internal Labour party search engine that filters out good news stories.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would be interested to hear more details of that story once the hon. Gentleman has had time to read the entry on his search engine. I am sure that it will help him to provide a robust response to my comments when he speaks in this debate. I look forward to hearing the positive story that he has to tell about the shares for rights scheme. I think that he might be a lone voice in this debate, but good luck to him.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend has quoted some significant voices in this debate and I want to add one more quotation. Justin King, the chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said:

“This is not something for our business… The population at large don’t trust business. What do you think the population at large will think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?”

Does she agree that businesses are concerned that the way in which this scheme is being used is not helpful to them? They want to build long-term relationships with their employees, invest in them and find ways to build employee engagement in the profits of the company. Does she also share my concern that this is another way in which the Government are trying to reduce employment rights?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, and that concern has been expressed by a range of voices in response to the proposals—when I say voices, I mean businesses, but also those who represent employees, employee ownership and recruitment agencies. They are all concerned about the proposals ultimately creating a two-tier work force: those who have rights and those who do not.

The Opposition would like to see many problems addressed in relation to some of the insecure working practices that many workers up and down the country are subject to. We know the impact that such working practices have, particularly on those with families and their ability to plan for child care and to know whether they can afford to pay the rent at the end of the week.

People come to my constituency surgery in awful confusion about whether they need to claim housing benefit from one week to the next, because one week they get enough hours to pay the rent, and the next week they do not. That creates a two-tier work force of those who know how much they will be paid and what hours they will work, and those who are left with insecure zero-hour contracts. That potentially creates yet another tier of worker—one who does not have redundancy rights, cannot request flexible working, does not have the right to take time off to train, and one who, if they take maternity leave, has to give four months’ notice instead of two as to when they might return. There is a worrying trend of eroding employment rights that does no good for the workers involved or for businesses, and that strong message has come from businesses in response to the proposals.

Let me return to the criticisms of this policy made by the Deputy Prime Minister in the Financial Times report that I mentioned. That report was telling because it contained the only official piece of information in the public domain about the take-up of the scheme. A freedom of information request from the FT revealed that the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills had received just 19 inquiries about the scheme in the six months to the end of December. That followed a report in The Daily Telegraph last November which found that of 500 businesses surveyed, a mere 0.1%—virtually none—said they were planning to introduce the scheme. The survey also showed that 72% of businesses believed that encouraging employees to relinquish rights would make recruitment far more difficult, in complete contrast to the Chancellor’s claims.

I find that response from the business community incredibly heartening because it shows that businesses in Britain know what makes for a good, strong work force, and for trust between employer and employee. It also shows, however, how completely out of touch the Government are if they think by offering this scheme, they are giving business what it needs. The results of the survey correlate closely with the Department’s own consultation responses, which found that the policy had the full support of fewer than five of the 209 businesses asked to respond. It conceded that only a “very small number” of respondents welcomed the scheme or were interested in taking it up.

To return to the FT report, it is perhaps no wonder that Treasury officials are not particularly optimistic about the scheme’s take-up. Responding to the FT’s FOI figures, an unnamed official admitted:

“This was never going to fly off the shelf.”

Of course it was not—it is divisive, ill thought through, and has proved unpopular among former Tory Cabinet members, not to mention the overwhelming majority of the business community. I gather, however, that those FT figures are the latest information available for the scheme. Will the Minister comment on why that is the case, and explain why Ministers are so reluctant—for whatever reason—to update Members of the House on the scheme’s progress? That is why we have tabled new clause 11. We think that the House deserves to have available the information associated with this scheme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

One could conceive that this policy may have had a well-intentioned goal, but does my hon. Friend agree that, given the feedback on the consultations, the low take-up and now the claims that it could lead to a tax loophole and large amounts of tax avoidance, it could end up being a real own goal for the Government? If the policy is not reversed, it needs to be under active review at the very least—hence the importance of new clause 11.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention as it takes me neatly to my next point, which is the issue of tax avoidance. Several people share our concern that the employee rights scheme is potentially vulnerable to significant abuse. I raised that concern during consideration of last year’s Finance Bill, when we tabled an amendment calling on the Government to review the impact of this scheme on tax avoidance activity. That helpful amendment was not accepted by the Government, but I hope that this year—knowing that the Government profess to be keen to clamp down on all forms of tax avoidance—they will accept the need to have the right information available to prove that this policy will not create just another massive loophole.

Buried in the annexes to the OBR’s policy costing document from December 2012 was an admission that the cost of the scheme could rise to £1 billion by 2018—depending on take-up, obviously, and we are looking forward to the figures for that. A quarter of that cost was specifically attributed to tax avoidance—or tax planning, as it is termed in the report. In certifying the figures, the OBR stated that

“there are a number of uncertainties in this costing. The static cost is uncertain in part because of a lack of information about the current Capital Gains Tax arising from gains on shares through their employer. The behavioural element of the costing is also uncertain for two reasons. First, it is difficult to estimate how quickly the relief will be taken up; this could make a significant difference as the cost is expected to rise towards £1 billion beyond the end of the forecast horizon. Second, it is hard to predict how quickly the increased scope for tax planning will be exploited; again this could be quantitatively significant as a quarter of the costing already arises from tax planning.”

Perhaps the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Paul Johnson, characterised the issue best when he wrote, in a Financial Times article aptly entitled, “Shares for rights will foster tax avoidance”:

“There may be a case for more flexible approaches to employment legislation. But as a tax policy, ‘shares for rights’ always looks pretty questionable. At a time of increasing scrutiny of tax avoidance schemes, it has all the hallmarks of another avoidance opportunity. So, just as concern over tax avoidance is at its highest in living memory, just as government ministers are falling over themselves to condemn such behaviour, the same government is trumpeting a new tax policy that looks like it will foster a whole new avoidance industry. Its own fiscal watchdog seems to suggest that the policy could cost a staggering £1bn a year, and that a large portion of that could arise from ‘tax planning’.”

It is bad enough that the policy is unnecessary, divisive, damaging and counter-productive. Those of us on the Opposition Benches pretty much all agree on that, and I have not heard any voices from the Government Benches argue the opposite. I look forward to the Minister’s contribution, once he has managed to find that article that is, apparently, supportive of the scheme. The fact that the scheme could cost the Exchequer up to £1 billion, and that one quarter of that cost could arise from tax avoidance, simply beggars belief. The Minister has previously stated that there are sufficient anti-avoidance provisions to mitigate such activities, but what are the Government actually doing to monitor capital gains receipts and reliefs, and ensure we have evidence of avoidance?

Recent reports from the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee have been highly critical of the Government’s continued creation of complexities and loopholes that open the door to more tax avoidance. If Ministers fail to monitor such avoidance activity properly, I fear that this will be just one more tax relief to add to the 948 on the NAO’s list of unmonitored tax expenditures, to use the Treasury’s own phraseology. Considering that the scheme came into being last September, can the Minister produce any more up-to-date estimates, based on Treasury data, to build on the OBR’s original forecast? If he is not able to do that today, hon. Members will want to vote for new clause 11 to ensure that that information is available to the House, that monitoring is taking place and that we can all see the potential implications of the Government proposal.

The Chancellor’s flagship shares for rights scheme has been rejected by businesses. It may have opened up a tax loophole that, according to the OBR, will cost the Exchequer £1 billion. For what gain? That is what people are asking. That is what the Government need to demonstrate in their response today, or certainly in the report that we are calling for. We have said that we will reverse the shares for rights scheme and use the money to contribute to the repeal of the bedroom tax. The bedroom tax is a cost-inefficient policy and we would like to see it reversed. We want the money saved from the damaging shares for rights scheme to be used to ensure that that can be achieved without any extra borrowing. We have urged the Government to abandon their ill-thought-through shares for rights policy, which the director of the IFS aptly described as having all the hallmarks of another tax avoidance opportunity, never mind the former Conservative employment Minister, Lord Forsyth, accusing it of having the trappings of something thought up in the bath. So far, Ministers have failed to listen; or at least, they may be listening but they are not hearing.

We have tabled new clause 11 to try to provide much-needed clarity. Officials and Ministers dismiss out of hand as unrepresentative take-up figures disclosed in FOI requests. OBR forecasts are dismissed as not taking account of all the facts. Indeed, the Government’s own measures are dismissed as being unreliable or uncertain. Why will Ministers not step up to the mark and disclose exactly how many employees have signed up to employee shareholder contracts and have been awarded the £2,000 in return for shares? Why will Ministers not disclose the value of shares that have been issued under the shares for rights scheme to date? Instead of labelling Opposition amendments as unnecessary and as an administrative burden, which I anticipate the Minister will, why will the Minister not instead today tell us exactly how much the scheme is costing the Exchequer as a result of the capital gains tax exemptions? How much of that cost is as a result of tax planning arrangements; people capitalising on a poorly thought through policy that could quite easily act as a tax avoidance mechanism, rather than the great stimulus to entrepreneurship and employment that the Government claimed it would achieve?

It is bad enough that this divisive policy totally undermines the concept of employee ownership and workplace rights, not to mention the potential millions lost in tax avoidance activity; but worst of all, Ministers are plainly refusing to disclose the information that would enable Members properly to assess and scrutinise what the scheme has done to achieve the Chancellor’s clearly stated aim of helping businesses to recruit more people.

For all those reasons and given the concerns set out by my hon. Friends, I urge hon. Members to support our new clause 11, so that we can get the facts straight on shares for rights.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

Before the soothsayers and the sketch writers say again that Labour is anti-something or other, I want to make something quite clear. [Interruption.] The sketch writer is in the Gallery, although perhaps I am being a little arrogant to think that anyone would want to report on one of my speeches. Before the press releases go out from Tory central office saying that Labour is anti-share save schemes all of a sudden, I want to make it clear that this party has always been in favour of shares to reward people for the work they do.

The best and most successful companies offer shares to their most successful employees. Indeed, I would like to draw the Minister’s attention to how successful a share save scheme can be by using the example—a Welsh example—of Admiral Insurance. In March 2013, it recorded a 15% increase in profits. In all, 6,500 members of staff at the Cardiff-based Admiral Group will get £3,000 in an employee share save scheme. Alastair Lyons, the chair, said at the time:

“I want to thank everyone who has helped us to create such a robust business”

in the past 20 years. People are more productive, happier and more contented when they are valued and, above all, when they feel valued. That is why the Admiral Group of companies are among the top 100 best places in the UK to work, which I am sure did not come about by trading in employee rights for shares.

Sometimes it seems that this Government are so intent on presenting some sort of radical, compassionate conservatism that they fumble around for an idea, before coming back to ideas that have failed time and again. Very often, it seems that this Government, like previous Tory-led Administrations, are fearful of employment rights, and I am not the only one saying that. According to even the independent Office for Budget Responsibility—if I may digress, Madam Deputy Speaker, the Government are resisting requiring that very body to audit all parties’ manifestos at the next general election—the flagship shares for rights scheme has been rejected by businesses, opened up a tax loophole and will lead to £1 billion being lost by the Exchequer. In the face of such criticism, it seems eminently sensible to support our amendment for it would compel the Treasury to report on the take-up of shares for rights, collect data on the scheme and publish further reports on shares for rights every year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Evans]

The hon. Gentleman is taking a very liberal position, but I refer again to the evidence given during the Committee stage of the Bill that became the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, which introduced the measure. It was said there that employees who took up the scheme would have to pay income tax and national insurance on any share received from employers over and above £2,000. The scheme would impose significant up-front costs, so I do not know whether it would be so voluntary. I have criticised Adrian Beecroft about his anecdotal evidence, but I wonder what would really happen in the workplace. We know of so many tribunal cases where people have been harassed or been under severe strain from an employer and then gone on long-term sick leave. What is to prevent the employer from forcing them to sell those rights?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point, but the intervention by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) does not take account of the fact that many employees are in a very vulnerable position with their employers. If they are approached by their employer to take this up and they turn it down, what happens? What situation are they left in? There are an awful lot of question marks over how the scheme works in practice and where the equality of arms is for the employees potentially affected by the scheme.

[Chris Evans]

My hon. Friend advances the argument eloquently. We debate these issues and talk about employment rights, but if someone is in a poor workplace, is struggling to pay the rent or the mortgage and the bills, and faces a severe threat that they might lose their job, they might be forced into doing this. In many non-unionised businesses there will be nobody to police this, so those people might be forced into it. She powerfully made the point about how women, in particular, are in that type of situation.

I should have made my next point before the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) intervened on me, but I will do so now. Paul Callaghan, partner in the employment team at Taylor Wessing, has said:

“Osborne is potentially forcing all new employees to waive the main employment rights including unfair dismissal and redundancy rights in exchange for £2,000 of shares. This makes Adrian Beecroft’s fire at will proposals look moderate.

From April it may become the norm for job offers to require this waiver which will also involve the loss of flexible working rights and stricter maternity rights. This is likely to have a disproportionate effect on women.”

Henry Stewart, founder and chief executive of the training company Happy Ltd, has said:

“I welcome anything which makes it cheaper and simpler to give employees shares, but coupling it with taking away employment rights is ridiculous. If as an employer you have a problem with unfair dismissals, you need to improve management—that’s what the government should be giving incentives for. I don't think it's been thought through.”

In a nutshell that sums up what I think of this proposal. Bad employers who are afraid of unfair dismissal cases, reprisals, recrimination and grievances from employees should think about how they are managing their staff and look hard at their human resources department.

Corey Rosen, founder of the National Centre for Employee Ownership, one of the world’s leading groups promoting share ownership, has said:

“There is a lot of employee ownership in our country, but not one of these employees and not one of these plans asks employees to give up any employment rights to get any of the various tax benefits associated with employee ownership.”

That is a voice from the United States, not somewhere known for being particularly friendly to those in trade unions or on employment rights.

Simon Caulkin, writer on management and business, has said:

“In effect, Osborne's cobbled-together scheme is a back-door re-run of the agenda of…Beecroft”.

Rebecca Briam, partner at Gannons Solicitors, said:

“It is unlikely to get off the ground.”

With only five businesses out of 200 wanting to take up the scheme, I think she is right. She goes on to say:

“The proposals will be unpopular with employees because the chances of benefitting are so slim.”

She said that it was

“unpopular with employers, especially privately controlled companies, because of the risks imposed to the share structure. Far from saving on payroll expenses, the total costs for an employer may well increase.”

Manufacturers’ organisation EEF said:

“Our members have indicated they would not implement the new status.”

The Federation of Small Businesses said:

“The scheme is unlikely to be appropriate for many small businesses.”

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development said:

“There is very little evidence as to why this policy is needed or what impact it will have.”

Such views support the new clause that is before us.

Earlier, I talked about the vehicles that are created for the purpose of tax avoidance. Matthew Findley, partner at law firm Pinsent Masons, addressed that matter quite eloquently. He noted that the income tax positions of those receiving the shares is still unclear:

“There is nothing in what the Government has said so far that would stop senior executives or substantial shareholders from participating in the arrangement. This may mean that an opportunity still exists for such individuals, even if they may be viewed by some as the ‘wrong’ people politically to benefit.”

Paul Johnson from the Institute for Fiscal Studies talked about the potential for tax avoidance as the scheme

“prepares to put another billion pound lollipop on the table.”

He says:

“Just as Government Ministers are falling over themselves to condemn such behaviour, that same Government is trumpeting a new tax policy which looks like it will foster a whole new avoidance industry.”

An avoidance industry is something of which a Government who want to create jobs cannot be proud.

I support new clause 11. As there has been such a low take-up of the scheme—only five in 200 companies have said that they would consider it—a report needs to be produced. Numerous commentators from the business community have expressed the fear that a new tax avoidance scheme is being set up, which suggests that this is a pertinent and sensible new clause, and I urge the Government to accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Gauke]

I do not accept that. As far as avoidance is concerned, the tax reliefs are intended to encourage the take-up of employee shareholder status by individuals when that is offered to them. However, those reliefs are not an end in themselves. A number of rules in the legislation will prevent abuse of the new status while keeping it as simple as possible for employers and employees to use. For example, there are rules that will stop people with a material interest in the relevant business exploiting the tax reliefs for their or their families’ benefit. We will always keep the matter under review. As I said, if we see any abuse, we will act. However, we believe that we have put in place rules that protect the Exchequer from such tax avoidance.

I want to say a little more about take-up. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) made a good point: the argument is simultaneously that no one is making use of the scheme and that the scheme will cost a lot in tax avoidance. There is something of a tension between those two positions.

We decided not to introduce a pre-registration or pre-approval system for those wishing to make an employee shareholder agreement. The Office of Tax Simplification has told us that HMRC pre-approval of share schemes is outdated and time consuming for businesses. Data on employee shareholder status will therefore be picked up from companies’ annual share scheme returns to HMRC. As I said, the scheme has been in place only since the beginning of September 2013, so we have not even reached the deadline by which companies must submit their returns to HMRC for that period. It is far too early to finalise any details of publication.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Given the widespread concern expressed about the scheme, is the Minister’s position—that the Government will just wait and see—not incredibly complacent? When the returns come in, the scheme may prove to have been one big tax avoidance opportunity, but the Government seem perfectly relaxed about that.

[Mr Gauke]

No, that is not the case. As I said, when the original legislation was passed, protections were put in place; a moment ago, I gave an example of one designed to prevent abuse. We will continue to monitor the issue. As with all activities, if evidence of avoidance emerges, the Government will be determined to act, as we have time and again.

On the data on employee shareholders and on take-up, a question raised by a number of hon. Members, I am simply seeking to explain that I am not in a position to give the information that the hon. Lady and others have asked for because we have not required pre-approval or pre-registration for the scheme. That point is also relevant to the FT figures on take-up that have been mentioned. As there is no need for companies making use of the employee shareholding scheme to contact BIS in advance and there is no registration or approval system, we do not expect BIS to have a definitive list of all those companies that have made use of the scheme. That is why I am not in a position to give that information to the House and why the figures that were used by the Financial Times should not necessarily attract a huge amount of excitement.

The scheme is a new facet of our employment practices. It is probably unfair to judge a scheme such as this in its first few months because it will need time to bed in before there is wider knowledge about it and it is more widely used. As I have said, I am not in a position to provide information at this point.

[Mr Gauke]

It is always a great pleasure to give way to my favourite Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South. In quoting the figure of £1 billion he is somewhat conflating two things. One is the OBR’s estimate of the potential cost of the scheme some years into the future, if a whole set of circumstances apply and we do not take action to deal with any concerns that might emerge. As far as the Red Book is concerned, the published estimates of the annual cost of the measures are £10 million in 2016-17 and £45 million in 2017-18. Those are the numbers and we have no reason to believe that they will prove inaccurate, so to correct the hon. Gentleman for the record, we are not talking about a cost of £1 billion.

New clause 11 would impose an obligation on the Government that is not only unnecessary but, as I have set out in some detail, could not be met given the current availability of data on take-up of the employee shareholder status. Given that the new clause is unnecessary and would be unworkable, I ask the Opposition not to press it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It will be no surprise that I find the Minister’s response extremely disappointing and a little concerning in its complacency towards a policy about which widespread concern has been expressed. Taking away the rights of working people across the UK is no substitute for a proper strategy for economic growth. The policy makes it easier to reduce rights at work and fire people, rather than making it easier to hire people. That shows just how out of touch the Government are.

I commend the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on his thoughtful speech. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on his mammoth and excellent speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Opposition Members have put forward a powerful argument for the reasonable new clause that we have tabled. It simply asks the Government to make a proper assessment of who is taking up the shares for rights offer and what the cost to the Exchequer will be, including any loss from tax avoidance or abuse. As far as we can see, this is just another way in which the Government are trying to water down the rights of people at work.

Frankly, to Opposition Members and the many business organisations that have expressed their concerns, this policy stinks. The House and members of the public deserve to know exactly what the implications of the policy will be before the horse has bolted. The Government say that they will only shut the gate once that has happened. [Interruption.] I hear hon. Members groan at that, but I quote Lord Deben:

“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, House of Lords, 6 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 293.]

I think that he puts it very well.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister tried to respond to my two interventions about tax evasion by reading figures from the Red Book. However, the accompanying document to the autumn statement of 2012, at which this policy was announced, states that the policy could cost upwards of £1 billion because there are uncertainties around

“the extent of tax planning”.

That sounds to me like tax avoidance.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I, too, took great interest in what the Minister said, because he seemed to disown the figures that were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility on this policy, as though they were in some unknown ether in the future. He appeared to be saying, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv.” The figures that the OBR predicts are very clear. It will cost £1 billion and a quarter of that can be attributed to tax planning and, if the concerns of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) are borne out, tax avoidance.

[Ian Swales]

I am sorry to have missed some of the erudite contributions to this debate, especially that of the hon. Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans), whom I always enjoy hearing. I do not know whether these points have been mentioned. Is the hon. Lady concerned about the effect on competition between businesses if one business uses this process and another does not? Secondly, is she aware that the Office for Budget Responsibility thinks that existing share schemes may be shoehorned into the new process, meaning that people who are already in share schemes and who have employee rights might suddenly find themselves forced into the new arrangements?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I share all those concerns and many more. Ultimately, it is for the Government to take on board what is being said to them so clearly, but they seem to be ignoring it. The hon. Gentleman will know that he has the opportunity to vote with the Opposition on new clause 11 and to get the Government to sit up and listen to the concerns that are being expressed. Perhaps the data will show that the scheme has had a fantastic take-up, that it is entirely fair and that it has created many new jobs. Perhaps it is the boost for growth and job creation that the Chancellor proclaimed it would be. Alternatively, they might show that it is just a tax avoidance opportunity that is unfair to the employees who are forced into it against their will.

The Conservative, Baroness Wheatcroft, said:

“Let us imagine a group of employees who have sold their rights—for a mess of pottage, as we have heard—and another group who have not. The company falls on hard times and has to declare redundancies. Who will be first in the line for redundancy? I would hazard a guess that it will be those who have shown the most commitment to the business by becoming employee shareholders under the new scheme. That is the sort of perverse effect that we are likely to see if the clause goes through.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 20 March 2013; Vol. 744, c. 618.]

That is the sort of perverse effect that we want the Government to take action on by producing the data that will enable Members of this House to know the true impact of this employee shares for rights scheme.

I urge all hon. Members to vote for new clause 11.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.