Chuka Umunna
Main Page: Chuka Umunna (Liberal Democrat - Streatham)
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Michael Fallon)
I beg to move,
That this House does not insist on its amendment 25E, to which the Lords have disagreed, and agrees with the Lords in their amendments 25H rev and 25J in lieu.
On Tuesday when we considered this issue the House agreed to two amendments to the employee shareholder clause. First, we ensured that individuals would receive written particulars to explain the employment rights that are not associated with an employee shareholder job. Those particulars will also explain the rights attached to shares that are given as part of that role. Secondly, we amended the clause to ensure that individuals had the space and time to consider whether or not to accept the job.
Yesterday, the other place agreed further amendments to help ensure that individuals fully understand what those employee shareholder jobs will mean for them—both the risks and the rewards. Individuals who are offered employee shareholder roles must now receive independent advice before they can accept the job. That advice can be given only by a solicitor, a barrister, a fellow of the Institute of Legal Executives employed in a solicitor’s practice, a certified adviser in an advice centre or—I am sure Opposition Members will welcome this—a certified trade union official. A person employed by the company, such as an in-house lawyer, cannot give that advice; it must be independent. In addition, the company must pay any reasonable costs incurred in obtaining that advice, even if the individual does not take up the offer of the employee shareholder job.
The amendments also clarify the process of becoming an employee shareholder. When offered an employee shareholder role, an individual must be given the written particulars in advance of receiving independent advice. We have also made it clear that the seven calendar day consideration period starts only once the individual has received the advice.
Those amendments confirm our intention that the new employment status is wholly voluntary. I have made it clear throughout the debates on the clause in the House and in Committee, and my hon. and noble Friend Viscount Younger has made it clear in another place, that we do not want people to be coerced into the new roles. It is important that they should agree to accept an employee shareholder job only when they understand what it means for them.
To that end, we have published guidance in draft. In response to the concerns expressed by some of my noble Friends, we have strengthened the measures by saying that there should be special protection for those on jobseeker’s allowance—they cannot be mandated to take that type of employment status. We have provided a written statement of the particulars and a cooling-off period, and we have now provided access to independent legal advice.
The shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna), kept pressing me on Tuesday on what I meant when I said that we would reflect on the concerns expressed in the other place. The new measures are the results of such reflection. We have reflected on and met those concerns.
I pay tribute to Lord Pannick and to my noble Friends Lord King of Bridgwater and Lord Forsyth. Lord Pannick has said:
“It is impossible to see what further protections this House could usefully add.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1464.]
The House should support the further amendments to clause 27, so that it can form part of this important pro-growth Bill and provide companies and individuals with a new employment option.
Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)
Where on earth does one start with this poor excuse of a Bill? It is worth reflecting on where it all started. The Bill was a ridiculous and badly thought-out idea cooked up for insertion in the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s conference speech. It has been so badly handled and so badly thought through that people from all political parties, employers and employees have united in almost universal opposition to it.
Lord Bilimoria, one the country’s best-known business men, who voted against the plan in the other place yesterday, described the policy not just as a dog’s breakfast, but as a mad dog’s breakfast. The noble Lord is a man to whom all hon. Members should sit up and listen. I do not know whether hon. Members have partaken of Cobra beer while treating themselves to a curry, but Lord Bilimoria is the man behind Cobra. He is certainly worth listening to. He said that:
“from a businessman’s point of view, this does not make sense. It is absolutely unnecessary to do this”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 24 April 2013; Vol. 744, c. 1450.]
The Minister referred to the concessions—that concessions have been forced out of the Government serves only to reinforce how badly thought-out the proposal was. Whether or not JSA claimants could lose their benefit if they refuse to accept job offers carrying the employee shareholder status was an obvious question. I first asked it in November, when the Government ignored it. I repeated it, and the Government said that they could not lose their benefit. When they were mauled on the point in the other place, they effectively admitted that they could. In order to get the proposal through in the face of opposition from several former Conservative Cabinet Ministers, the Government had to come to the House last week and agree to amend the guidance for Department for Work and Pensions Jobcentre Plus advisers to state explicitly that a jobseeker cannot be mandated to apply for an employee shareholder job. They should have done that in the first instance. What a total shambles.
Another issue is the advice and guidance to potential employees, and the need to ensure that they understand what they are getting into. Of course people were going to be concerned—that was obvious. If, as is the case at the moment, the law requires that people who sign away their fundamental rights on leaving employment receive proper legal advice and guidance, then of course people were going to insist on getting similar advice on entering employment. I doubt the thought even passed through the Chancellor’s mind as he pursued his ideological fixation with watering down people’s rights at work.
Now there is a requirement for employers to pay for that advice in advance of a potential employee shareholder entering into an agreement. The point is this: these concessions are not enough and they were never going to be enough, because this entire proposal is wrong in principle. I think that most Government Members know that: it has been notable how few Government Members have stood in support of this measure.
Mr David Anderson (Blaydon) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very good case. It is notable not only that the Business Secretary is not here, but that no one from his party is here. It will be interesting to see, in a few minutes when we go through the Lobby, whether the rest of the invisible men and women turn up to vote, or whether they abstain and renege again on workers’ rights.
Mr Umunna
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fairness to Conservative Government Members, at least they are up front and frank about their purpose in taking away people’s rights at work and do not, while voting for measures that do that, claim to be doing otherwise. We will watch carefully to see which Liberal Democrat Members join us in the Division Lobby.
I return to my previous point: there is no compelling vision for growth in the Bill. On all the evidence, the comments that the Business Secretary made in his letter to the Deputy Prime Minister and Prime Minister last year are just as valid now as they were then, which is why we will not support this ludicrous measure and have resisted it every step of the way.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr Umunna) on the Front Bench. There is a parallel here with the privatisations and de-mutualisations of the 1980s and early 1990s, when consumers and partners—shareholders, if one likes—in mutual organisations were persuaded to give up their rights for shares, which were then sold. A classic example is Northern Rock, which had to be funded by the taxpayer to prevent it from being destroyed, and just recently came the disaster affecting the old Trustee Savings Bank, which was a mutual bank serving the country and its customers very well. It was forced to privatise and has now turned out to be an expensive disaster, a basket case that even the Co-op bank cannot afford to take on. This will cost the Government money. Again, a Conservative Government are persuading people to give up rights for shares that will last a few weeks, and then they will have lost their rights for good.