Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Thursday 10th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Nobody has lost anything. Britain has gained a top-100 company in which 10% of the shares are owned by the staff themselves. Nearly three quarters of a million individual investors also have shares in Royal Mail. We achieved our objective of realising nearly £2 billion of receipts for the Exchequer, ensuring that Royal Mail has been put on a sound commercial footing.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Minister can spin this as much as he likes, but he shamefully lost the taxpayer £750 million from the sale of Royal Mail. At that time, the Business Secretary dismissed the loss, saying:

“We wanted to make sure that the company started its new life with a core of high-quality investors who would be there in good times and bad”.

Given that the core long-term investors that the Business Secretary championed have used the good times to sell the majority of their shares at huge profit, is it not right that the Government tell us who those priority investors are, so that the taxpayers know where their lost millions went?

[Michael Fallon]

Nobody has lost anything from the sale of Royal Mail. More than half the shares allocated to priority investors remain with those investors, and the share price has fluctuated wildly. I do not think the hon. Gentleman has been in touch with his broker recently; otherwise he would know that the share price closed last night at 17% down on its post-float peak.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Thursday 23rd January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. I would have thought that Labour Members would welcome this extension of employee share ownership. I am delighted that 99% of Royal Mail’s employees took up the offer and now have a stake in the success of that company as it moves forward.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Gregg McClymont) said, the fire sale of Royal Mail has cost the taxpayer in excess of £750 million, but it has not taken it long to enjoy its new privatised status. Reports in the media suggest that the board of Royal Mail is about to propose a significant pay increase for the chief executive to bring her in line with those in other FTSE 100 companies. The Business Secretary says that he will use the Government’s remaining stake as the largest stakeholder to veto the proposals. Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State, his boss, or is this just froth?

[Michael Fallon]

If this were a fire sale, it would certainly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) has said, be one of the longest fire sales in history, given that Governments have been trying to sell Royal Mail for over 20 years. I think we should salute Moya Greene’s achievement in transforming a loss-making public corporation into one of Britain’s top 100 companies and congratulate her, as one of all too few female chief executives, on her award as business person of the year. We have yet to receive any proposal from the remuneration committee.

Arms Exports and Arms Control

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Thursday 21st November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Michael Fallon]

The export licences granted between 2004 and 2010 are not something that I can explain or account for and those are the licences that were followed through; that is when the fluoride was actually exported. I cannot now explain why the previous Government took those decisions. What I can say is that the exporters concerned behaved responsibly by applying for the licences. All the licences were rigorously assessed against the criteria to determine that the end users intended to use the products for legitimate civilian commercial activity. We had no grounds to refuse the applications for our two licences, based on the information available and the circumstances prevailing at the time.

Let me turn now to disclosure. I fully understand the Committee’s desire for public disclosure of the exporters’ names, but that raises important questions, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) made clear. Export licence applications are submitted to my Department in confidence, and it is important that we maintain the integrity of the licensing system by respecting that confidence. In this case, the exporters have made it clear that disclosure could pose significant potential harm to their broader commercial interests—not in Syria, but in other parts of the world—as well as potential risks to their staff. I share those concerns, and we should not take them lightly.

My right hon. Friend has offered to provide the exporters’ names to the Committees on a confidential basis, and I hope that represents a suitable compromise.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation, but could he address the attitude of the companies? Are they happy to have their names disclosed? I understand why confidentiality is important for these purposes, and the companies may end up in front of the Committees in a private capacity, but would they be willing to disclose their names voluntarily?

[Michael Fallon]

That is a perfectly reasonable question, and we are, indeed, exploring with the companies concerned whether they would be prepared to give evidence on a confidential basis. I will let the hon. Gentleman have an answer on that when we have one.

I was asked one other question about Syria, by the hon. Member for Glasgow North. She asked about the position of Croatia, but I am not able to answer her straight away. If I may, I will write to her on that—and, indeed, on any other points that I have not been able to answer.

Let me now turn to Bahrain, another country that has been mentioned in the debate. Since the events of the Arab spring, the Government continue to monitor the situation in Bahrain closely. We assess all export licence applications case by case against the consolidated and the national criteria. The assessment considers all those factors, including the risk of the proposed exports being used for internal repression and in any developing internal tensions.

Since February 2011, we have approved a number of licences for the Bahrain air force, navy and defence force where we have been satisfied that there is no clear risk of items being used in human rights abuses or internal repression. We have refused licences for the Bahrain internal security forces where we have not been satisfied about the risk in respect of internal repression.

We reacted quickly to the events of the Arab spring in 2011, reviewing all licences to Bahrain and revoking those no longer in line with the criteria. In total, 23 single licences and seven open licences were revoked.

Let me turn now to Sri Lanka. The hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) made the rather unfortunate suggestion, in what was otherwise a really good speech, that the Prime Minister was somehow prioritising the selling of arms in his recent visit to Sri Lanka. Let me be very clear: during the recent Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, he was the first foreign leader since independence in 1948 to give the local population the chance to be heard by an international audience. He shone a light on some of the human rights concerns in the aftermath of the recent prolonged civil conflict and demonstrated our commitment to reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka.

Again, we assess all export licence applications to Sri Lanka case by case, in accordance with the consolidated and the national criteria. Decisions on Sri Lanka, of course, take into account alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law during the military conflict that ended in 2009, as well as the nature of the equipment—in other words, would it be used in a manner inconsistent with the criteria?

Arms exports to Sri Lanka have increased recently, as we have issued a number of licences for weapons and other equipment that will be used by maritime security companies undertaking commercial anti-piracy work. Those ongoing efforts to fight piracy are important for international trade and security. Our assessment of those applications has taken into account the fact that the weapons will be held in secure storage while in Sri Lanka and that the companies are fully signed up to the international code of conduct for private security service providers. The licences that have been mentioned were all for anti-piracy, and they were not supplies to the Sri Lankan Government.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Thursday 24th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

The fees paid to the Government’s advisers will be disclosed in the normal way to the National Audit Office, which is of course looking at this sale as they looked at the Northern Rock sale, but they compare favourably to the fees paid to advisers by the Labour Government in the sale of QinetiQ 10 years ago, when 10 senior managers were allowed to walk away with £107 million and no shares were sold to the public.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The Minister claimed that value for money for the taxpayer was central to the Government’s fire sale strategy for the national institution that is Royal Mail. Given that many investment banks valued the company at £1.7 billion more than the sale price, that the sale was oversubscribed 20 times over and that the share price has steadily risen to more than 60% of its initial value, why did the Minister reject raising the price range when he knew the offer was oversubscribed? Does the Minister agree with the Secretary of State that the loss of more than £750 million to the taxpayer is froth and ill-informed?

[Michael Fallon]

It is far too early to judge the long-term performance of the Royal Mail share price. With any initial public offering there will be volatility in the price and it is too early to make a judgment. As far as the banks are concerned, a whole number of banks were consulted on the value of Royal Mail. The value established was, I think, around the mid-point of the range of the advice we received.

Royal Mail

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Thursday 12th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and for coming to the House today, following his intention-to-float announcement to the stock exchange this morning. Let us start by putting on record our thanks to all the staff at Royal Mail for all that they do, and for their dedication to delivering the mail, come rain or shine, to all parts of the country. Royal Mail is a much-cherished national institution.

The case for the privatisation of Royal Mail has not been made. Its recent annual profits were more than £400 million and we should be allowing it to flourish in the public sector, but the Minister has told the stock exchange today that he will sell a majority stake in the company, on a shortened timetable. He is pushing ahead with this politically motivated fire sale to fill the hole in the Treasury created by George Osborne’s failed economic plan.

This decision will have significant impacts on consumers, businesses and communities up and down the country. The Government are pressing ahead with the fire sale of Royal Mail despite having failed to answer critical questions on the six-days-a-week, one-price-goes-anywhere universal service obligation. The Minister has failed to ensure the long-term maintenance of the USO. He claims that it is written in legislation, but I am sure that he can envisage a scenario in which a privatised Royal Mail comes to the Government and asks for alterations to that legislation.

Why is that a realistic scenario? It is because the regulatory environment does not prevent the cherry-picking of the most profitable parts of Royal Mail by rival companies that operate under much lower service standards than Royal Mail. If the USO becomes unsustainable, the Government will have no choice but to alter it. Royal Mail will still have to deliver daily to Shetland while its rivals enjoy providing services in London, Manchester, Liverpool, Edinburgh and other profitable centres. Pressure will be put on the Government to respond to such requests to alter the USO; otherwise, what is there to prevent the privatised Royal Mail from handing back the USO keys, just as we have witnessed with the east coast main line? The result will be that the taxpayer will, ultimately, pick up the costs.

Concerns have been expressed about higher prices. Other privatised companies have already set precedents in that area. One of the questions posed in the Government’s documents today is whether the Post Office will be affected. The Minister says no, but the 10-year inter-business agreement can be reviewed in four years, and it can be altered if there are material adverse effects on either of the two companies. How can the Minister say that this privatisation does not affect the post office network? A privatised Royal Mail will want to look closely at costs, and that £380 million annual contract could be a good place to start.

The National Federation of SubPostmasters tells us that the privatisation of Royal mail threatens the future of the post office network and, as a result, it now opposes the privatisation. It has called it a “reckless gamble”, and we should listen to what it says. It is not only the NFSP that is against the move. Despite the £2,000 shares bribe to the staff of Royal Mail, a massive 96% of them voted against the privatisation, on a turnout of over 75%. Moreover, they already own the company. A poll in The Sunday Times last week showed 70% of the public to be against it, and former Prime Minister Baroness Thatcher, the architect of privatisation, said that it was a step too far. The Bow Group, a right-wing Tory think-tank, said that it would be deeply unpopular and should not be considered. A vast coalition of groups and organisations echo the concerns about prices, the maintenance of the USO and the impact on the Post Office. And the Minister himself said in a letter in 2009 that he was against the privatisation of Royal Mail. The problem is that the Government cannot see the wood for the ideological trees.

Let me ask the Minister four questions. He said in his statement: “Changes to the universal service’s minimum requirements, which include free services for the blind and services to urban and rural areas alike, can be made only by affirmative resolutions in both Houses.” Would that involve primary or secondary legislation, and would such legislation be dealt with on the Floor of the House or in Committee? Secondly, in what circumstances can he envisage the USO being revised? Thirdly, what assurances can he give us that the inter-business agreement with the Post Office will not be removed or revised? Fourthly, when will the prospectus be drawn up and made available? This is the largest privatisation since that of British Gas. The Government are playing politics with the Queen’s head, and they should think again before it is too late.

[Michael Fallon]

I do not think that we can legitimately be accused of conducting a fire sale, given that the previous Government were proposing to privatise the company four years ago. The process has hardly been rushed. A lot of people were against that sale; it was a half-baked sale and almost every Labour MP was against it, which is why it was abandoned.

I have already made it clear to the House that the universal service obligation is laid down in statute. It can be changed only by Parliament, and we have no plans to ask Parliament to change it. I can give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance in that respect. He asked me about the minimum requirements of the service. They can be changed by affirmative resolution, which would involve secondary legislation. We have no plans to alter those requirements. They will be properly policed by the regulator and will apply irrespective of any change in ownership. The price of stamps is also regulated. The price of a second-class stamp is capped by the regulator, and we have no plans to change that position either.

The hon. Gentleman asked me about the relationship between the Post Office and Royal Mail. They are natural partners in the delivery business, and it is unthinkable that they would not seek to work closely together. They have done more than that, however. Last April, they signed a 10-year commercial agreement to provide for the two businesses to work more closely together.

We heard nothing from the hon. Gentleman about what a future Labour Government would do. It seems extraordinary that, four years on, the Opposition still have not worked out a policy. Even now, they cannot say whether Royal Mail should be public or private; they cannot make up their mind whether they would renationalise the company if there were ever to be a Labour Government again.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Thursday 25th April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

With the leave of the House, let me reply to some of the points that have been made. First, there was a suggestion that the measure is not supported. It has been supported, repeatedly, by this House, and the Opposition’s attempt to derail it yesterday in the other place was defeated by a majority of 107, including by Liberal Democrats and Cross-Bench peers. We are now in a position where both Houses of Parliament support the clause and the principles behind it.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Fallon]

No.

The shadow Business Secretary, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) is quite wrong to say that we moved only very late in the day to consider the position of jobseekers allowance claimants. That issue was raised in this place and in Committee, where I gave assurances in response to questions and concerns from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Andrew Stunell) in December. This is not something new; we have done everything we can throughout the passage of the Bill to ensure that the status is entirely voluntary. Members in both Houses were fully entitled to raise these concerns, and were right to do so. We have responded to them.

Secondly, we have introduced legal advice. Independent legal advice is not available at the moment for those considering other forms of employment status. A person is not offered independent legal advice if they are asked to make a judgment between being a worker and being an employee. I remind the House that the status of being a worker gives someone fewer rights than the status of being an employee-shareholder. People are not given independent legal advice on that, but we have introduced it in this respect because it is a new form of employment status and we want people to be absolutely sure of the risks and rewards involved.

Thirdly, the hon. Member for Streatham said that my noble Friend Viscount Younger had somehow suggested that it would be impossible to value shares. What he actually said, at column 1444, House of Lords Hansard, was that the valuation of private company shares was not particularly easy, but that it was done the whole time by expert advisers in various circumstances who have to make a valuation. That is quite standard procedure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Fallon]

No.

The hon. Member for Streatham suggested that the tax provisions would be open to some kind of abuse. If he looks at the Finance Bill, which clearly he has not, he will see that schedule 22 includes provisions, which we published in draft, that deal specifically with the possibility of abuse of those tax provisions. I remind him that the Finance Bill is an annual event. Where abuses occur at any point under the law, we have the ability to improve our defences against them.

It is wrong of the Opposition to be completely negative about this proposal. It is wrong indeed to focus on just one aspect. We are talking about a package of employment rights, a package of mandatory shares and a package of tax incentives. It is the interaction of all three aspects that we think will motivate staff and better involve them in the future prospects of the company.

[Ian Murray]

rose—

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Tuesday 23rd April 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I do not think we would know in those circumstances whether that was the exact reason why somebody had not been offered the position, but what I did last week—and I hope my hon. Friend accepted this—was make it absolutely clear that nobody who had jobseeker status could be mandated to have to accept a job.

Our second amendment prevents an employee shareholder contract from taking legal effect until seven days have elapsed from when the offer is made to the individual. The amendment affords an individual a period to consider the risks and rewards of the contract. That removes any question that individuals might be pressurised into accepting a contract.

These amendments mean that an individual who has chosen to apply for, and has been offered, an employee shareholder job has both the information and the time they need to consider whether the job is right for them. Noble Lords, including my noble Friends Lord King and Lord Forsyth, also expressed a concern about the employee shareholder receiving independent advice. I want to reassure them and all noble Lords that the Government are taking that concern seriously and are reflecting on the remarks made in the other place yesterday evening.

This new status gives in particular young and new companies a fresh option that they may use to attract high-calibre employees who can share in the growth potential of the company, and I urge the House to support these amendments.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I shall start with the issues that the Minister raised on permitted development. We welcome the Government’s change of heart. This is a victory not just for Opposition Members but for Members who are sitting behind the Secretary of State who have helped us to protect the gardens of England from inappropriate developments. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but he was dragged kicking and screaming to table the amendments.

I still find it puzzling that the honeyed words from the Secretary of State last week were so mysterious and vague when the new arrangements unveiled look very much like the planning permission system. First, the house owner will have to provide plans and details to the planning department, including details of the materials to be used, just as happens now. Secondly, the planning department will have to notify neighbours, just as happens now. If there are objections, the planning authority will take the decision whether to grant planning permission, just as happens now. The only change is that in the absence of objections from the directly adjoining properties, the development will automatically go ahead, notwithstanding any objections from other affected neighbours, or from the council, or from the wider community—and, of course, the absence of the £172 planning fee.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister, which I hope he will answer if he has time to sum up, on how neighbours might be affected by the proposals. First, by limiting the possibility of objecting to an extension to those who share the immediate boundary with the property in question, the Government are taking rights away from other neighbours whose amenity or light may be affected. Remember that we are talking about extensions 26 feet long and 13 feet high, Mr Speaker—about the size of the Speaker’s Chair. Why are the Government not even giving those affected in that way the right to express a view that may be considered material by the planning committee? Secondly, what about neighbours who are away when an application is put in, and who come back 21 days later to discover that work has already started on a structure that will seriously affect their amenity and enjoyment of their back garden? Does the Minister not think that unfair?

The Minister decided to talk for some 15 minutes on permitted developments, on which the Opposition will not be objecting this afternoon, and very little time on shares for rights. I wonder why. Let me tell the House why I think he did so, because it is clear that the Government are in a total shambles with their ill-thought-out shares for rights proposals.

Let us remember the origins of the proposal, dreamt up by the Chancellor at Conservative party conference because he had absolutely nothing to say about the economy, growth or unemployment. He proclaimed, let us remember:

“Workers of the world unite.”

The Chancellor got his wish. The workers of the world did unite, along with businesses and organisations, to tell the Chancellor that his proposals were wrong. And it is not just the workers that have united, but his own Back Benchers and, of course, the noble Lords in the other place. The narrow 27 majority for the proposals last week in this place highlighted the extent of the discontent with the proposals in this House.

The Minister’s concessions on jobseeker’s allowance claimants not being forced to take up the shares for rights proposals were welcome, but if the proposals were truly voluntary in the first instance, it cannot be seen as a concession at all. The question that the Minister just avoided, from my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary, is whether an employer can make agreement to such a deal a condition of anyone, let alone a jobseeker’s allowance claimant, taking up a job. He refused to answer that question; perhaps, in his summing-up, he may be able to take that on.

What did the concession manage to achieve in the other place last night? Let us see. An increase in the majority against the proposals in the other place last night from 54 to 69—a triumph for the Minister, and it emphasised that Lord Forsyth was correct when he said that the policy

“has 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.]

I disagree with Lord Forsyth on that. I think it was thought up by someone in the bar, and not at the start of the evening but close to closing time. In fact, if we analyse the figures from last night, we see that Cross Benchers voted 59 to 1 against the proposals, as well as the former Liberal Democrat leaders Ashdown and Steel—and this current Lib Dem leader wants them and so does the Business Secretary. Will the public not ask why?

Yesterday, the Lords sent a powerful message to this House that the Government are wrong on shares for rights. Their message, for the second time, is loud and clear: “Dump this awful policy now.” Or will the Treasury not allow the Minister to dump the policy? The results of the vote give the Minister the out he was looking for. We know that the BIS Department is not keen on the proposals, we know that the Minister is not an enthusiastic supporter and we certainly know that the businesses of this country do not want it, following a consultation exercise.

Let us examine what some of the noble Lords said in the other place yesterday. Lord King said,

“I am not the only Member”

of this House

“who feels some embarrassment at finding ourselves in this situation.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1267.]

Baroness Wheatcroft shared Lord King’s embarrassment when she said:

“My Lords, my noble friend Lord King mentioned a degree of embarrassment at finding himself in this situation, which I certainly share.”

She went on to say that the Financial Times,

“that great bastion of employee rights, ran a leader the day after the last debate in this House in which it said that this legislation contained,

‘little to like and a lot to fear’.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1269.]

That was not all in the other place last night. Lord Deben, on shares for rights, said:

“Frankly, it does not matter much what we decide on this because I do not think anyone is going to take it up and I do not think it is going to happen.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1262.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Fallon]

I would hope that neighbours would talk to each other and discuss any proposed developments. They should not feel that they are not able to object. As I have said, it is hard to understand why those who live further away should have, or should be entitled to register, stronger objections than those who live next door to the property concerned.

My hon. Friend raised two other issues, the first of which was what would happen if the extension turned out to be larger than or different from the original proposal. Under the notification, the plans have to be deposited with and approved by the building control regime, which will exercise supervision in exactly the same way as it does for a normal planning application. It would also be able to require modifications to an extension that did not fit the original plans.

Secondly, my hon. Friend raised the issue of fees, which I addressed when I opened the debate. I repeat that if she turns out to be right about the actual cost to local authorities, we will, of course, discuss any concerns or new pressures on them with the Local Government Association in the normal way. Our position, however, is that there will be considerable savings as a result of a number of applications not going through the normal planning route.

Finally, on the employer shareholder clause, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) was a little cavalier in some of his arguments. First, he suggested that my noble friend Lord Deben opposed the clause, but he voted for it in a Division last night, so the hon. Gentleman was not accurate about that. Secondly, he suggested that people would be forced to give up their employment rights for what he called “worthless shares”, but they cannot be forced to surrender their employment rights unless those shares are worth at least £2,000. If they turn out to be worth less than £2,000, the employee shareholder would, of course, be fully entitled to be considered to have the rights that he or she previously had.

[Ian Murray]

On the surrender of rights, the Minister just said that if the shares are worth less than £2,000 the employee would have all their normal rights. Surely that is not accurate. Will he correct the record?

[Michael Fallon]

I did not say that. I said that the value of the shares must be worth at least £2,000. It was the hon. Gentleman who used the word “worthless”. These shares cannot be worthless, or the employee shareholder will not be forced to give up the rights that he or she currently enjoys.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Thursday 21st March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, it will, because Parliament put in place, in the Postal Services Act 2011, the statutory requirement for a universal postal service that is secured by Ofcom, an independent regulator, and that will exist irrespective of the ownership of Royal Mail.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

We very much support genuine employee ownership, especially for hard-working Royal Mail employees. However, we vehemently oppose this Government undermining employee ownership by attaching it to the Beecroft agenda of giving up rights at work. The Chancellor announced this policy by proclaiming:

“Workers of the world, unite!”

Well, they have: they have united against this policy, along with the Employee Ownership Association and the vast majority of responses to the consultation. The Minister is not listening to this large body of opinion, so may I press him again, following the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), to heed the advice of Conservative Lords Lawson, King, Forsyth and Gummer who voted yesterday, with a large majority of other Lords, to dump these divisive shares for rights policies?

[Michael Fallon]

I note that the hon. Gentleman wants to divert the House from the question about Royal Mail and the more interesting question of whether those on the Opposition Front Bench will support this opening up of Royal Mail to private capital and the scheme to ensure that those who work for the company will share in its success.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Thursday 7th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

No decision has yet been taken on the timing and size of any share sale. The key is to ensure that a big, successful company is no longer denied access to the capital markets.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

This week Royal Mail reported that it had selected a number of agencies to assist in the

“largest privatisation since British Rail”.

The Ofcom consultation, “End-to-end competition in the postal sector”, has stated that that is not relevant to its primary duty of protecting the universal service obligation as regards rival operators cherry-picking profitable Royal Mail work without having to meet its high standards of same-price, every-place, six-days-a-week delivery. What guarantees can the Minister give that Royal Mail’s service standards will not be put at risk? Does he share my deep concerns about Ofcom’s stance on end-to-end competition?

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Michael Fallon

Monday 17th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Michael Fallon]

I will not, because of the time.

Finally, let me turn to amendment 59, tabled by Opposition Front Benchers, and deal with their opposition to the clause. I have already outlined how the creation of the new employment status adds to the existing statuses of worker and employee. The new status gives companies a new way of taking on individuals, giving both companies and individuals greater choice and flexibility. Removing the clause in its entirety would remove the opportunity for new flexibility and choice for companies. Using the new employment status, just like using the existing status of worker and employee, is a choice for both companies and individuals. By increasing the range of employment statuses, companies limited by shares will have a greater choice about how to grow and adapt their work force. It will also create opportunities for an individual to take up an employment status that may allow them to share in the rewards of a company.

It is for the company to decide what type of contract will be most suitable for it to offer, depending on its requirements and circumstances. The clause does not prevent employers from offering more rights to their staff, such as a contractual right to request flexible work or contractual redundancy pay, just as they can now do with all other existing employment contracts.

This is not about taking away employment rights; it is about creating a new employment status with a different set of rights, just as there are different rights associated with being an employee or a worker. This Government want companies and people to share in the risks and rewards that share-ownership offers, and this is a new way to do so. The clause should remain part of the Bill, to give people and companies a new way of working together, and I urge the House to reject Opposition amendment 59.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister said that he was not Ebenezer Scrooge, but Fezziwig. Wikipedia explains that Fezziwig is

“a happy, foppish man with a large Welsh wig.”

Let us see whether that description fits the right hon. Gentleman.

The employee-shareholder schemes will not be voluntary and will have absolutely no value. How can the Minister tell the House that he knows better than the 204 respondents to the consultation who said that this policy was, as Dizzee Rascal would say, to give a more contemporary reference, “Bonkers”?

I finish by echoing the Business Secretary, who said that this provision would not be compensated no-fault dismissal by the back door. I could not agree with him more: this proposal is no-fault dismissal without any compensation. Anybody who cares about business and employees in this country will join us in the Lobby.

Question put, That the amendment be made.