European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Seema Malhotra

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra]

My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. Indeed, the lack of engagement with the regions has been highlighted in the work of the Exiting the European Union Committee.

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

The Secretary of State actually said that he would get

“the mayors of the north to come and have a meeting in York”.—[Official Report, 17 January 2017; Vol. 619, c. 802.]

That was a very vague statement. My concern is that it does not seem to provide any clarity about how the Government are going to engage with regions that will not have elected Mayors by May, such as the north-east. Indeed, such Mayors will be elected only in May, which will be far too late for these negotiations.

[Seema Malhotra]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It comes down to how much the Government are really committed to and interested in hearing from differing voices across the country as we move forward. That is why I want the convention to include elected Mayors, representatives of civil society and local government, and MEPs—they have great expertise and experience—as well as representatives of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Finance Bill

Debate between Catherine McKinnell and Seema Malhotra

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.