Finance Bill

James Duddridge Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The shadow Chief Secretary says it is a tax cut for investment managers. They are different from hedge fund managers; however, as I have already explained at some length, the tax cut will benefit the investor, not the managers.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

I sense from the mood of the House that the Opposition are thinking of opposing new clause 7. If they are, will my hon. Friend make it clear how many hard-working savers will be hit by not receiving this benefit?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is investors in pension schemes who will bear the cost. The UK investment management industry, which exists up and down the country—we had a debate about the regional nature of that industry—will also be damaged. The cost makes it hard for UK-domiciled funds to compete. We want UK-domiciled funds to compete. [Interruption.] Maybe that is not Labour’s position, although I note that the shadow Chief Secretary seems to be accepting from a sedentary position that this is not a tax cut for hedge funds.

--- Later in debate ---

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me begin where the Minister left off, on new clause 7. It is worth noting that section 74 of the Finance Act 2003 provides SDLT relief for lessees of flats who collectively acquire the freehold of their block under rights afforded by the Landlord and Tenant Act 1987 and the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The relief sets the rate of SDLT according to the consideration for the freehold divided by the number of flats, which brings the amount of SDLT paid by lessees more into line with what they might have paid had they been able to acquire the freehold of their flats separately. As the Minister said, such acquisitions are commonly undertaken by a company in which the lessees are shareholders. Under such circumstances, the 15%, higher rate SDLT charge in schedule 4A to the Finance Act 2003 will apply if the main consideration exceeds the higher rate threshold.

The Minister pointed out that clause 105 reduces the higher rate threshold from £2 million to £500,000 for transactions where the effective date is on or after 20 March 2014. However, clause 105 omitted to apply the reduction to the relief in schedule 74 to the Finance Act 2003, an omission that new clause 7 rectifies. It is welcome that the Minister has brought forward something to deal with that earlier omission and I will therefore not take issue with him on that at present.

Let me turn to amendment 67 and stamp duty reserve tax. I hope hon. Members will forgive me if I confess to having a sense of déjà vu, because it is not the first time we have debated this issue. Not only did we debate it in Committee, as the Minister acknowledged; we also debated it in last year’s Finance Bill. In fact, it is almost a year ago to the day that my esteemed colleague the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) was standing at this Dispatch Box trying, as I will be, to make the Government see sense and accept our call for a report to be published. [Interruption.] I think my hon. Friend is indicating that he failed on that occasion.

[James Duddridge]

You’re a better woman.

[Cathy Jamieson]

The hon. Gentleman says I am a better woman, but I have to confess that I was not able to persuade the Minister in Committee. However, as always, I am an optimist by nature, so I will venture forth today in the hope, even at this late stage, that the Government can be made to see the light and accept our call for a report to be published.

As I mentioned, it is almost a year ago to the day that my colleague the hon. Member for Nottingham East was standing at this Dispatch Box. It would be remiss of me not to remark briefly that, some 15 years ago to the day, I was in the Scottish Parliament for the formal opening of that august institution. If anyone had suggested to me then that 15 years later I would be standing at this Dispatch Box discussing stamp duty reserve tax, I might have fled and looked for something else to do. Who knows? It certainly was not something that was on my agenda at that point.

However, to return to the amendment, for the benefit of anyone who may have forgotten, amidst all the excitement of the last year, exactly what we were speaking about on that occasion, I want briefly to recap some of the key points from the debate. It is worth noting what our amendment 67 proposes. For those who are following this debate with avid interest, it asks the Government to insert at the end of clause 107, page 90, line 33 a new section 5A, stating:

“The Chancellor of the Exchequer shall, within six months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, publish and lay before the House of Commons a report setting out the impact of changes made to Schedule 19 of the Finance Act 1999 by this section.”

A new section 5B is then proposed:‘

“The report referred to in subsection (5A) must in particular consider…the impact on tax revenues;…the expected beneficiaries; and…a distributional analysis of the beneficiaries.”

I shall return to those issues in responding to the Minister’s points.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[James Duddridge]

Is there not a contradiction between the argument that the scheme will lose billions and saying that it is being taken up by nobody?

[Chris Evans]

I have the utmost respect for the hon. Gentleman, but he should allow me to develop the argument a bit further. As he knows very well, this is a Finance Bill, and the Opposition cannot move any amendments that relate to spending. A report is the only thing we can propose, and it would be eminently sensible. If we had the data, we would know what the uptake was. I would argue that the Government have to abandon their ill thought out “shares for rights” policy, which even the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies described as having

“all the hallmarks of another avoidance opportunity”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) alluded to the Conservative employment Minister Lord Forsyth who described it as having

“the trappings of something that was thought up in the bath”—

by the Government on their own, I hope, although we don’t know with Tory sleaze! It is bad enough that this divisive policy undermines the concept of employee ownership and workers’ rights, but it could also cost the Exchequer up to £1 billion, a quarter of that arising from tax planning activity—the very tax planning activity that the Chancellor said he had clamped down on since he took office.

Fundamentally, the problem that employees have faced over the last 40 years with the end of heavy industry—it is a problem that comes with Governments of all stripes—is that most feel insecure in their jobs anyway. People do not have a job for life any more; they move around seven or eight types of jobs, but slashing employment rights at work is wrong in principle. It will not help create jobs and growth. It seems to me that this is a policy made up on the fly.

If anybody wants to know how ill-conceived this policy is, they need only look at some statistics. The scheme has not won the support of the business community. A 33-week consultation on the scheme—two thirds of the year, or nine months—had more than 200 responses. Of those, only five businesses said they would be interested in taking up the scheme.

I sometimes think I admire the Chancellor. He is an economist—of the highest rank, I have no doubt—but I wish he were here to explain how he came up with the line:

“Owners, workers and the taxman are all in it together”.

Where was the sense in that? It is just not fully worked out. Has he not asked the employer? If an employer has a bad employee, why would he want to give them shares and make them owners of the company? That does not make sense to me. The employee would then have voting rights over what the employer wanted to do. Why would an employee want shares in a company that had just dismissed him? It should be easier to hire than fire.

We need tax breaks for small businesses so that they can hire extra employees rather than throw away their employment rights. As a proud Labour and Co-op MP, I support employee ownership, but coupling it with slashing employment rights is contradictory and counter-productive. As the Employee Ownership Association has pointed out, boosting employee ownership

“does not require a dilution of rights”.

Even a city on the hill, the United States of America, where employee rights are certainly not in fashion, has criticised the scheme. The proposal reflects the “fire at will” recommendations of the controversial Beecroft report, authored by the Prime Minister’s employment tsar and Tory donor, Adrian Beecroft. Mr Beecroft admitted to MPs that his proposals were based not on any statistical or empirical evidence but on a “valid sample of people”. Who has he spoken to? No doubt the same Tories who have problems with the employment rights of anybody anywhere.

The scheme could also present considerable costs to business and create new administrative burdens. I believe that people are already being deterred from taking up the scheme. Alan Higham told The Guardian:

“I worry it would create suspicion among employees that I might sack them unfairly. Employees wouldn’t easily be able to see the value in the shares today…If I employ 10 staff and decided to give them £2,000 each of shares, then I would need to spend £10,000 in getting a professional valuation done. Under current tax rules I would also have paid them £2,000 each to change their contract, on which PAYE and national insurance would be charged. As this is a gift I would also have to pay tax on this. On this basis it could cost me £10,000 and a further £9,400 to give away £20,000 of shares. There will probably also be some sort of ongoing admin and HMRC compliance to do, which will also cost.”

Fundamental questions must be asked about this entire scheme. If the company goes bankrupt—if the employer is so bad that he runs his company into the ground—does the employee he has just sacked become responsible for any of the company’s losses? If the employee has shares in the company, of course he will.

Ministers are seeking to introduce this scheme without proper consultation and discussion. They have proceeded in a shambolic and chaotic way. That is reflected by the fact that the Second Reading of the Bill that became the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 took place before the consultation had closed.

Given that £10,600 of capital gains tax is already exempt, exemption from CGT in the scheme is only likely to benefit employee shareholders in a small minority of companies which achieve unusually high growth. There is also concern about the full cost of the scheme. Ministers originally claimed that it would be £100 in 2017-18, but according to the Office for Budget Responsibility’s contribution to the Treasury’s policy costing document, which was released along with the 2012 autumn statement 2012,

“the cost is expected to rise towards £1 billion”,

and the OBR concluded that

“uncertainties are around assumptions on take up rates, the average value of shares that are entered into the scheme, the extent of tax planning and the timing of disposals.”

What really concerns me is that a person could throw away all his employment rights in return for shares that could already be tumbling. There is no win-win situation for such people.

According to the Office for Budget Responsibility, a quarter of that £1 billion additional cost—£250 million—is expected to arise from tax avoidance as a result of the scheme. A Government who have been obsessive about tax avoidance seem to be creating another vehicle for people to avoid taxation. Following the publication of the Government’s response to the consultation scheme, a Government source was quoted as saying:

“The proposals are on life support.”

However, Ministers went ahead with them. I wonder whether this Minister knows who that person was, and whether he can enlighten us.

It seems to me that the scheme is unworkable. When “shares for rights” were discussed during the Committee stage of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill, the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), admitted that employees taking part in the scheme could be liable to pay income tax and national insurance on any shares received from employers over and above £2,000. That would impose a significant up-front cost on employees.

It is feared that there are other ways in which the scheme could have an adverse impact on employees. For example, will jobs be advertised as available only with employee shareholder status? In practice, will employers be able to impose the scheme on individual employees or groups of employees? What safeguards will there be to ensure that the scheme is voluntary for existing employees, as Ministers claim that it will be?

On behalf of the members of the Employee Ownership Association, chief executive lain Hasdell sent an open letter to the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), who is responsible for employment relations, consumer and postal affairs, expressing concern about recent developments in the Government’s approach to growing the number of employee owners in the economy. He said:

“'Our Members have three main concerns on this matter.

Firstly, proposed legislation has appeared in a Bill before the Government consultation on the possibility of deploying this model of employee ownership has finished. Indeed it has only just started.

Secondly, our Members are very aware that there is no need to reduce the rights of workers in order to grow employee ownership and no data to suggest that doing so would significantly boost the number of employee owners. 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 employee owners.”

In that context, I remind the House of what I said about Admiral Insurance in Cardiff at the beginning of my speech. Iain Hasdell continued:

“Thirdly, the appearance of this measure in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill appears to our Members to be completely disconnected to the recommendations in the Nuttall Review. That Review contained a series of recommendations on how to grow employee ownership and none of those recommendations suggested the dilution of worker rights.”

I am not the only person who is saying these things, and that is why I believe that we should have a report. The criticism of this measure has been immense, from the business community and employment organisations to trade unions—some Members on the Government Benches will probably think I have sworn there. The Employee Ownership Association says:

“whilst growing employee ownership should be part of the UK’s Industrial Policy, such growth does not require a dilution of the rights and working conditions of employees.”

Brendan Barber, TUC general secretary, 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.”

There, in a nutshell, is the problem: there is low take-up; it is very complicated; people are not interested. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North said, we see maternity provision, a hard-fought right that many people argued and fought for and in some cases gave their lives for, being given up for the whim of a few shares in a company that could be either taken over or finished in a couple of years.

Mike Emmett, employee relations adviser at the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, says:

“The UK has one of the least regulated labour markets in the world and there is little evidence to suggest that employment regulation is preventing small businesses from taking people on. In fact, according to the Government’s own research, unfair dismissal doesn’t even figure in the list of top ten regulations discouraging them from recruiting staff. Employees have little to gain by substituting their fundamental rights for uncertain financial gain and employers have little to gain by creating a two tier labour market.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

The truth is that any tax gap, however big or small, is unacceptable to the public, and strong action should always be taken to tackle it. I was about to say that I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and that it was £32 billion. As I say, that is too high, and it has gone up to £35 billion under this Government. These large sums of money shake the public’s confidence when it comes to believing that the Government are doing everything they can to tackle tax avoidance.

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Shabana Mahmood]

I will take further interventions later, but I want to make some progress.

What else has been happening on this Government’s watch? The Government have raised expectations in respect of some aspects of their tax avoidance policy, but they have not been met. In particular—we have put this point to the Minister on many occasions—the Swiss deal, which was supposed to bring in £3.12 billion, a sum that would have gone some way towards making a dent in the tax gap, has in fact brought in only £818 million. I know the Minister will say that the figures were okayed by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility when the costings were put in the Red Book, but that does not mean that the Minister can simply get away with it. At the end of the day, there is an unexplained and substantial difference between what was meant to happen as a result of that deal and what did in fact happen, raising questions about the substance of the deal.

Another feature of public debate as the issue of tax avoidance has shot up the public agenda relates to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. If we are to close the tax gap, we need HMRC to be as effective as possible. Last year’s Public Accounts Committee report “Tax avoidance: tackling marketed avoidance schemes” found that HMRC did not know how much it spent on its anti-avoidance work and had not evaluated the effectiveness of its efforts. It calls for HMRC to improve its recording and monitoring of the cost of its anti-avoidance work and to set out clearly how it will evaluate its anti-avoidance strategy. This is a substantial gap in knowledge; again, it has a direct impact on the Government’s ability to tackle tax avoidance effectively and thereby close the tax gap.