| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Darling: Does not the Minister, by his own words, admit that he has certainly given the choice to companies, but it is also choice to deny their work force the chance to participate in share ownership schemes? In other words, it is not giving a choice to the many. Labour Members believe that everyone should have choices in this world, not only the few.
Mr. Jack: We believe in choice by persuasion. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I must return to thehon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. Perhaps he can help me with a word or two of reassurance. He is interested in all employees having an opportunity to participate in the company. I shall give him an opportunity to show the truth of his credentials.
There is a privatisation scheduled for a few months--that of Railtrack. Railtrack has said that it will not have an executive share option scheme but it does want its employees to participate fully in the company by holding
shares. I will give way to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central if he wants. Will he now commit himself? It might be difficult to bring your party with you, but take a personal view. I give you the opportunity to say,"I welcome the commitment to the privatisation of Railtrack and the opportunity for the staff to own shares in the company." Will you interrupt me and tell me--
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. On several occasions, the Minister used the word "you". I am not responsible.
Mr. Jack:
The enthusiasm of my argument has led me again to cause you to interrupt, Sir Geoffrey; thank you for correcting me.
I ask the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central, through the Chair, is he able to tell me--having had a little extra thinking time--that he would like the employees of a privatised Railtrack to have that opportunity, or does he wish, by opposing that privatisation, to deny those employees that opportunity to own shares?
Mr. Jack:
I give way. This could be historic.
Mr. Darling:
I am grateful to the Financial Secretary. He must realise that we are arguing about the opportunity to ensure that, in companies throughout the country, there is the widest opportunity for many to participate in those companies' success. The argument about the privatisation of Railtrack and rest of the railway network has nothing to do with that, as well he knows. I suspect that I speak, not only for Opposition Members, but for a majority in the country, who want nothing whatever to do with breaking up the rail network. That process is purely designed to satisfy a tiny minority in the country, and the vast majority of the public would suffer as a result. It has nothing to do with the amendment, as well the Financial Secretary knows.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. The Minister would be wise not to go down that track. The privatisation of the railways has nothing to do with the debate.
Mr. Jack:
I entirely take your guidance, Sir Geoffrey, but that answer is another example of Labour hypocrisy, because, as I said earlier in response to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Stamford and Spalding, when the Opposition choose to deny something, they will follow that, but when it comes to personal gain, as we saw with reference to the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, we know what the answer is. Thehon. Gentleman was unable to give me the satisfaction that I sought.
On the basis of the amendment, which has been--
Mr. Darling:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling:
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister did not mean it, but, as I
Mr. Richard Ottaway (Croydon, South):
Hypocrisy is a sensitive subject today!
Mr. Darling:
The Whip speaks from a sedentary position.
Privatisation of Railtrack is a matter of concern to this country. The Financial Secretary might be better dealing with the merits of his argument--which, I am bound to say, I struggle to see--instead of indulging in this silly sort of thing, which might go down well in the Conservative party bar room but is not terribly suitable for debate.
The First Deputy Chairman:
Order. I did not understand that the Minister was using the word "hypocrisy" regarding an individual. If he was, I am sure that he would wish to withdraw it.
Mr. Jack:
I would never wish to insult any hon. Member on a personal basis, and if the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central thought that that is what I said, let me say to him that I unreservedly withdraw any smear on him as an individual. As you rightly said, Sir Geoffrey, my use of the word "hypocrisy" was in the context of the Labour party as a collective, not the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central. I would not want in any way to go beyond that.
There is another technical hitch in the amendment.I was surprised to see that it would require part-time directors to participate in the scheme. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central may have overlooked the fact that the guidelines for institutional investors, which are produced by the Association of British Insurers, state very clearly that part-time directors should not participate in share option schemes. That is an important factor, and another reason why I am unable to accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment.
We have had a very thorough debate. The Conservative party is the party of wider share ownership. I welcome the Opposition's endorsement of the company share option scheme, but I hope, for the reasons given, that thehon. Member for Edinburgh, Central will understand why, at this stage, I am unable to accept his amendment.
Mr. Tipping:
I am pleased to have had the opportunity to listen to the Financial Secretary's remarks. I generally welcome the changes to executive share options that are set out in the Finance Bill. The Financial Secretary made some historical references early in his speech, and perhaps it is worth remembering how the clause came to be a part of the Finance Bill.
We should remember that the Government vacillated over the Greenbury report, which formed the basis of the clause. Some of us argued that the Government should have done the work themselves. The Government's response to Greenbury can only be described as erratic. The Chancellor reacted quickly on 17 July, but he lived to rue that day. Archie Norman and the employees of Asda forced him to change his mind by pointing out that the Chancellor's actions did not fit the bill.
The amendment is important because it seeks to extend the share option scheme, as laid down in the Finance Bill, to all employees. It requires that, in order for a scheme to be approved, all employees and directors must be able to participate on equal terms. I was interested to hear the Financial Secretary's remarks about choice: he argued that our amendment should be rejected because it forbids choice.
The Asda episode shows--as the amendment does--that we want choice for all. We want all employees to have the opportunity to participate in a scheme of that kind. That is fundamentally important. If we were to follow the track laid down by the Financial Secretary, we could return very quickly to the bad old days of perks for a few and a handicap for the majority of the work force.I believe that "choice" means that everyone should be able to choose: all employees should have the right to participate in share option schemes. That is why the amendment is so important.
It is also important to recognise that the share option issue has generated real public concern. People come to my surgery and talk about the benefits and the perks that the fat cats, as they call them, have enjoyed under share option schemes in the past. They find it hard to understand why the newly privatised gas, electricity and water industries offer such perks. I believe that the public's view resonates very strongly: everyone who is involved in those industries should have the same right to choose.
As I am talking about those who attend my surgeries, I shall mention two firms about which people have relayed their concerns. I refer first to East Midlands Electricity.I know the company well and I have a great deal of respect for it. I remind the Financial Secretary that the company's former chairman and chief executive, John Harris--whom I hold in high regard--left the company with a very good pay-off of reportedly £1 million, partly in share options. The second company that local people raise with me is Severn Trent. Its former chairman, John Billock--whom I know and admire--also left that company with a big pay-off.
8.45 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |