Gender Balance on Corporate Boards

Debate between David Mowat and Ann McKechin

Monday 7th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. As the Minister will know, I am a member of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee. The Committee is currently undertaking an inquiry into women in the workplace, which will include a review of the recommendations of the Davies report. I do not want to pre-empt our final report and recommendations to the Government, but I will say that we wanted to institute a cross-party inquiry for the very reasons that the Minister gave earlier.

Diversity on boards is good for companies, and therefore good for the British economy. Given the present state of the economy, we should explore every avenue that may lead to increased innovation, diversity and productivity. In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), let me point out that diversity means introducing different experiences to a board, rather than a single set of pre-judged experiences. The hon. Gentleman advanced the classic Catch-22 argument that those who do not have enough experience cannot join a board, but those who are not members of the board do not have enough experience in the first place. However, we all have to start somewhere.

Evidence given to our Committee has made it clear that there are strong views on both sides about the imposition of quotas, but it has also shown that some companies have taken strategic steps to increase diversity through, for instance, regular reporting on how they are achieving a gender balance. I was interested in what was said by the hon. Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) about the use of reporting to drive progress. Pay transparency is another key component, as are solid targets and consistent ways of ensuring that progress is made. As with politics, progress can go back as well as forward. Unfortunately, when it comes to membership of the Cabinet, it is going back. It is important to have a clear and consistent policy in this regard.

We should take account of companies that are keeping their heads well down and not joining in the argument because they think that if they do not participate in it they can ignore it. I do not rule out the use of quotas if we find that a persistent sector of the economy does not consider diversity to be integral to the progress of the economy overall, and I think that the Government have a role to play in that respect. I agree that quotas are not the only way of achieving diversity, but I think it important for the Government to think about procurement and about how they spend money on training and higher education.

One other aspect we should be considering is regulation of the London stock exchange. Requiring companies that are members of the stock exchange to look at how they achieve diversity on their boards and throughout senior management is a way of avoiding primary legislation while driving progress. In response to the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, I should add that one of the companies that gave evidence to us, Clydesdale bank, has set a target of increasing the number of women in the three top senior management roles over the next few years. That is one way women can gain experience in executive director roles, as well as non-executive director roles, which have been referred to.

This is a work in progress, but the Government need to be at the heart of it.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The hon. Lady said that companies that are more diverse grow more quickly and that there is evidence of that. Is this not, then, a self-correcting problem, because all companies need to grow, and those that are struggling to grow and are not diverse enough should surely be doing what is required to correct that? Surely this is self-correcting, so the measures she is describing are unnecessary.

[Ann McKechin]

A persistent group of people will always resist change if they can. Despite the good track record, there are contrary voices, as we heard during the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee inquiry, stating that men are inherently better at doing these things anyway and that things will be fine. That view should not be accepted in the 21st century. The public, this Parliament and the Government should take an active role in engaging with this. Issues of pay transparency, part-time work, child care and business culture should interest us all, whether we are in business or not.

I concur with my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary about it being important that we respond positively to the EU over how this country and this Government can make a difference to the economy, which will, I hope, improve if we ensure that diversity is key to our corporate structures.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mowat and Ann McKechin

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin]

Indeed, and the fact that we now have converts to the cause shows what a difference the passage of time makes. As I said earlier, I am pleased that even the SNP has agreed to the LCM motion.

Our present approach is consistent with the approach that the Labour party has always taken to constitutional reform, which is to seek political consensus before introducing legislation in the House of Commons. The reason we have such a degree of consensus this evening is that we have spent a good deal of time examining details of the legislation. I congratulate the Holyrood Committee, which has done an excellent and thorough job in examining many of the issues in great detail. We all benefit from its work and from last week’s debate in the Scottish Parliament, which showed that the Scottish Parliament and its Committees are more than capable of doing a thorough job in scrutinising legislation.

I should be interested to know whether the Government agree that the retrospective application of an order could adversely affect the budget of the Scottish Parliament. For example, if the Budget is set in March and the Treasury lays an order in October to apply a relief clause retrospectively, that could have grave implications for the Scottish Government’s budget. That is another reason why I seek some reassurance about the Government’s intentions for the use of this clause.

How do the Government propose to deal with avoidance of the Scottish tax rate? Unlike other jurisdictions that have devolved taxes, and where there are different forms of collection and reporting, many people self-assess or are in pay-as-you-earn schemes, and they are not currently specifically called on to declare their residence to the tax authorities in the way required by the Bill. The Bill’s provisions only apply to income; they do not apply to dividends or to interest on savings, and we would want appropriate measures to be taken to ensure that people do not end up transferring income into another route, to try to avoid the income tax provisions made by the Scottish Parliament.

What provisions have the Government put in place for the self-employed? Will, as anticipated, the self-assessment tax return have to be altered, with additional questions on residency for example, particularly for those who work in a different part of the UK? I realise there are specific measures dealing with Members of Parliament and we are automatically included, but it has been pointed out that Scottish judges serving at the Supreme Court are not covered by the Bill’s provisions. Similarly, other senior Government officials travel from different parts of the country for their work. It is important that they are aware of what may be expected of them in terms of self-assessment claims.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Many of the hon. Lady’s comments imply that she is unhappy with residency being the method for working out where people pay tax, but it seems to me that there is no alternative. Is her position that she would like everybody to fill out a tax return?

[Ann McKechin]

No, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want to burden the taxpayer unnecessarily with additional questions and pieces of paper and that I think the residency basis is the simplest way to deal with this issue. The problem is that we have a floating definition of a UK resident taxpayer, and from that we are trying to define in very exact terms a Scottish resident taxpayer. That is the point at which there could be challenges, and sometimes mischief in that people might try to change their declaration of where they believe they are resident.

This situation is unlikely to arise for the vast majority of taxpayers in Scotland; most of them will be faced with a very simple exercise. Nevertheless, as I have pointed out, in other jurisdictions with devolved income tax there are ways in which people have to declare where their residence is that we currently do not have in the UK. I want the Minister to say whether the Government are aware of any potential problems, and what measures they intend to put in place to avoid them, so that the maximum level of tax that is due is collected and returned to the Scottish Government, and so that administration is kept to a minimum. All hon. Members will be concerned about the cost to the Exchequer, and also about the costs to individual businesses. That is why I am asking these questions, but I agree that residency is the easiest way to define who should be liable to tax.

I also appreciate that a decision has been taken not to include interest on dividends and on savings. People will comment that that perhaps creates a degree of unfairness because some individuals get the majority of their income from those sources, but I acknowledge that there are complex and expensive practical difficulties in applying a residency test for those types of revenue, and that ultimately the benefit may not be great. We therefore understand why the Government have phrased the clauses in this way, but the devil is in the detail of defining exactly what they will mean in practice.

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mowat and Ann McKechin

Monday 7th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Ann McKechin]

rose—

[David Mowat]

rose—

Scotland Bill

Debate between David Mowat and Ann McKechin

Thursday 27th January 2011 Commons Chamber

[David Mowat]

The difference that we are really talking about today is the one between the constituent parts of the UK, but I have no difficulty with also applying that to the constituent parts of England. As I said, a needs-based formula is fair.

If my constituency of Warrington South, which has areas of great deprivation and some better-off areas, were in Scotland, the average constituent would receive £900 more. That is not fair—I get a considerable postbag about it. Today’s debate is not on the Barnett formula, but unless we address the matter at some point, it will become a tension in the Union from the other direction. We need to be cognisant of that, and we need to be careful.

[Ann McKechin]

The hon. Gentleman mentions basing the determination on needs. In last Wednesday’s Adjournment debate, to which the Under-Secretary referred, there was some discussion about the system in Australia. It is based on needs, and there is a commission that makes a judgment. There is frequent argument between the federal states about the definition of needs, and some commentators are now saying that they want to move back to a per capita formula, just like the Barnett formula. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that stability might be a better prize?

[David Mowat]

I do not agree that stability is a better prize if it is based on something that is wrong. I agree that it is difficult to compute need, but that is no reason not to try. We have let the matter drift. One of the determinants is relative population movement—I repeat that, notwithstanding the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart); I guess we can discuss that later in the bar.

I ask the Under-Secretary to table a simple amendment to the Bill to provide for revising the block grant allocation to take account of relative need, in the way that the House of Lords Committee on the Barnett formula and the Holtham commission recommended last year and in previous years.