‘Shares for Rights’ defeated in the Lords

There is an unwritten rule that there can be no deaths in the Palace of Westminster. Well, we had one in the House of Lords on Wednesday, as the controversial ‘Employee Shareholder’ clause in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill was removed.

This pet project of George Osborne would have set up a new employment status where employees would be required to give up certain workers rights in exchange for shares in the company. Labour and crossbench Peers, plus a small number of prominent Liberal Democrat and rebel Conservative peers supported the amendment.

Crossbencher Lord Pannick, outlined four main problems with the new status:

  • employment rights were created to protect employees and should not be a bargaining commodity
  • JSA Claimants would lose their benefits if they were to refuse such a job
  • it would be damaging to ‘industrial harmony’ and would ‘negate trust’ between employer and employee
  • a lack of protection for an employee to ‘understand what they are being asked to give up

Of course there are many other problems with the policy, including liability to Income tax and National insurance on shares worth over £2,000, the cost and method of share valuation, an increase in discrimination tribunals due to the loss of the right to unfair dismissal claims and redundancy pay etc

From the Labour benches, Lord Adonis said:

In my eight years in the House I have never witnessed a government policy with less support not only in Parliament but within the Government themselves… To remove this clause today would be an act of mercy to the Government

On 6 February, Conservative peer Lord Deben (John Gummer), had said;

I cannot imagine any circumstances whatever in which this would be of use to any business that I have ever come across in my entire life.

Indeed, even the government’s own consultation on this showed a massive lack of interest in using such a status. Of the 209 respondents, 184 answered the question on whether they would take it up. Only 3 said they would.

Lord Forsyth was scathing in his criticism;

The idea in this clause has all the trappings of something that was thought up by someone in the bath, taking these two ideas together and believing that they made for a great scheme. In fact, it is damaging to both

Liberal Democrat Baroness Brinton, who has constantly opposed this proposal from the beginning, suggested that the clause would achieve the exact opposite of what was intended. She referred to her own experience;
 

… speaking with employees working for high-tech SMEs who are bemused that they would want to demotivate their staff during the very difficult early days of a company when it is developing products and just beginning to enter the marketplace…

Meanwhile, the Bishop of Bristol was quoting Michael Sandel in support of the amendment;

Such treatment fails to value human beings as persons, worthy of dignity and respect; it sees them as instruments of gain and objects of use.

It would also reflect badly on the employer, as Lord O’Donnell remarked;

If an employer is offering this, they are probably the kind of employer that you do not want to go near.

Conservative peer Baroness Wheatcroft suggested that it could also damage the reputation of existing successful share ownership schemes which do not require employees to give up their rights.

The amendment was put to the vote and was won by 232 votes to 178. It is now our mission to persuade George Osborne not to reinstate the clause when it returns to the Commons in April. Please sign the petition.

* Tracy Connell is a member of the Liberal Democrats in Newcastle City, and a regional officer.

Read more by or more about or .
This entry was posted in News and Parliament.
Bookmark the web address for this page or use the short url http://ldv.org.uk/33813 for Twitter and emails.
Advert

6 Comments

  • Please add you name to the petition. We only have about 3 weeks to collect signatures https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/george-osborne-do-not-resurrect-the-employee-shareholder-status-shares-for-rights

  • Alex Sabine 22nd Mar '13 - 6:30pm

    It is a silly gimmicky policy. It’s interesting that arch-Thatcherites like Lords Forsyth and Lawson provided some of the sharpest criticism of it.

    The FT seems to think that Vince Cable, though not a fan of the policy, has promised George Osborne that he will support it in return for a beefed-up industrial policy (another bad idea… as Cable himself once argued when he wanted to abolish what is now his Whitehall empire).

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/3e6f723e-9230-11e2-a6f4-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2ODkJXdhw

  • “The amendment was put to the vote and was won by 232 votes to 178. It is now our mission to persuade George Osborne not to reinstate the clause when it returns to the Commons in April.”

    Based on a small sample (can’t be bothered to waste my time on a larger one) most of the Lib Dem peers seem to have loyally trooped through the Tory lobby.

    When you say “our mission”, who is the “we” you are referring to?

  • Oh but wait – “Liberal Democrats Gain a Seat from Independents on Chorleywood Parish Council “. Everything must be OK then.

  • Martin Pierce 24th Mar '13 - 8:23am

    I spent a gruelling hour or so ploughing through the official consultation – which amidst many many dull and uninteresting questions, made sure it didn’t actually ask if you were in favour or against. I see only about 200 of my 60 million fellow citizens did the same. This is good news indeed – provided we can get it taken out on a permanent basis – but don’t hold your breath that LDs in Parliament will work tirelessly for this to happen. Indeed for someone ‘not a fan of the policy’, Vince did a very good impression in the autumn of someone who is – including not only joint press release from BIS and the Treasury expounding its virtues, but going on LDV to make the case for it. Sorry Vince, not good enough. People often ask why our society is becoming more unequal in terms of wealth – the truth is that if you put no fetters on the ‘wealth creators’ (ha ha) and take away the rights and bargaining hand of employees, that – over time – is what happens

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

If you are a member of the party, you can have the Lib Dem Logo appear next to your comments to show this. You must be registered for our forum and can then login on this public site with the same username and password.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

*
*
Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?

Advert



Recent Comments

  • User AvatarJohnTilley 21st Dec - 12:37pm
    Caron Lindsay is right in her article where she says that most of us would not run up to Elton John and say - "...
  • User AvatarNeil Sandison 21st Dec - 12:34pm
    Can some one ask Teresa May how many universities does she want to close by banning overseas students . Will Oxford ,Cambridge,or the LSE be...
  • User AvatarPeter Watson 21st Dec - 12:31pm
    Surely a key difference between normal elections and by-elections for Lib Dems is that in the latter the party successfully brings in resources from outside...
  • User AvatarPaul In Wokingham 21st Dec - 12:29pm
    RC - yes, we poll better in places where there is a hard-working core of activists whose efforts have built up a strong local government...
  • User AvatarNeil Sandison 21st Dec - 12:14pm
    What we are missing is be it Labour or Tory policy was that it was a cunning wheeze to cut the husing benfit budget not...
  • User AvatarRC 21st Dec - 11:48am
    "You are fighting all-out elections, where the identity of the candidate is not anything like so important" Not according to Lord Ashcroft's constituency polling, where...