| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Chairman of Ways and Means: I can confirm that any hon. Member who wishes to refer to anotherhon. Member should forewarn him that he wishes to do so.
Mr. David Shaw (Dover): I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 69, line 44, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£30,000'.
The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 4, in schedule 15, page 269, line 44, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£30,000'.
Mr. Shaw: The purpose behind the amendment is to raise the limit on approved share option schemes from the £20,000 that was originally proposed to £30,000. The figure of £20,000 is too low to operate a wide-ranging share option scheme that brings in not just very low income earners, but some of the people who are just above very low income levels.
The House should bear in mind that the share options are held over a three-year period. We are not talking about something that can be allocated at a rate of £20,000per annum, but a fixed sum for at least a three-year period. The £30,000 limit would include people who are above very low income levels, but fall well short of fat cats. I would describe some of the beneficiaries as young, hard-working, aspiring, low and middle-income cats rather than fat cats. Those who are working in early-stage and developing companies would also benefit. There has been a cross-party view in the House that high-technology companies should be encouraged.
I shall give three brief examples of the pressure that I have received from a number of people outside the House to raise the limit from £20,000 to £30,000. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has received many representations. In the retail trade, the figure of £30,000 would cover both store supervisors and junior managers. In high-tech companies such as an Internet service company, where many American companies are often bidding for staff, the figure would cover the highly skilled junior staff.
Among the many letters that I have received on share options was one from a research scientist in a small biotechnology company in Kent. Such people would benefit from a raised limit. They are not big income earners, but they hold the United Kingdom's future in their hands. They will help to create and maintain the jobs of the future.
I hope that my hon. Friend can accept this minor amendment.
Mr. Jack:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) for the way in which he moved his amendment. He knows that our overall objective is to encourage companies to introduce schemes from which as many of their employees as possible can benefit and to encourage employees to participate in them.
The new tax relief for company share option plans must be seen in that context. The representations that we have received in response to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's invitation made it clear that there was demand for a third sort of scheme aimed at providing a more flexible way of granting options to modestly paid employees. That is what the new scheme is intended to do and that is why we initially pitched the limit on the value of options that could be granted at £20,000.
On the basis of what my hon. Friend said and the representations that we have received, I accept that it is sometimes difficult to set the right limit. We initially felt that the balance was about right but, like my hon. Friend, I received representations. The British Retail Consortium, the ESOPs Centre and the Society of Share Scheme Lawyers were among those who asked us to review the subject to see whether £20,000 was right. We did so and I have thought carefully about the representations.
I recognise the force of the broad range of arguments that have been advanced. As those who have made representations to us suggested, the limit might have been a shade too tight to allow middle managers to receive a significant quantity of options. The limit was aimed at middle managers. There was no attempt to push it higher, into the stratosphere, as Opposition Members suggested earlier.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have concluded that it would be right to provide greater flexibility, which my hon. Friend the Member for Dover
adverted to, for the companies that want it, so that they might tailor the scheme to meet their needs and those of their employees. On that basis, I am prepared to recommend to the House that we accept my hon. Friend's--
Mr. Vivian Bendall (Ilford, North):
As a signatory of the amendment, may I thank my hon. Friend for making the opportunities open to a greater part of middle management?
Mr. Jack:
I am grateful for my hon. Friend's endorsement of the line on which I was about to conclude by saying that I am prepared to recommend to the House that we accept the amendment.
Mr. Darling:
I wonder whether the Financial Secretary--as we are in Committee, he has an opportunity to do so--would tell us whether the Treasury has made an estimate of the cost of agreeing to amendment No. 3.
Does not the support for the amendment emphasise the truth of what we said earlier--that not only do the Conservatives oppose making schemes available to the many but, given the opportunity, they are prepared, inch by inch, bit by bit, to open all the doors that they said that they would close? What they are about is benefiting--
Mr. William Cash (Stafford):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Darling:
No, I will not. The hon. Gentleman has not been in the Chamber all night, and he need not expect to get in on the debate like that.
The Conservative party says that it intends to shut off loopholes and close down abuses, but the minute that it is subjected to pressure, it is prepared to start opening up the scheme. What is worse, when we table an amendment that is designed to ensure that the many are able to participate in schemes, Conservative Members vote it down. Given any opportunity, the Conservatives will choose to benefit as small a group of people as possible and deny opportunities to the many.
Mr. Jack:
Sir Michael, let it be--[Hon. Members:"Mr. Morris."] Mr. Morris, let it be known to every middle
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central asked me two questions. First, he asked about the cost of the scheme. [Interruption.] Would the hon. Gentleman care to listen to the answer, as he asked the question? The answer, in this public expenditure survey, is zero. When the scheme comes in, we estimate that the costs will be about£10 million.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central misleads the House when he says that we do not want the employee share option plan to be available to all employees. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members is that we believe that companies should have the choice to tailor the scheme to meet their needs. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, if some companies were confronted with the regime that he has advocated, they would not even contemplate having any schemes, which denies the object of his remarks.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment made: No. 4, in schedule 15, page 269, line 44, leave out '£20,000' and insert '£30,000'.--[Mr. David Shaw.]
Schedule 15, as amended, agreed to.
To report progress and ask leave to sit again.--[Dr. Liam Fox.]
Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.
Asylum Seekers
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury):
I beg to move,
I fear that we have a ridiculously short amount of time in which to debate a measure that will affect the life and livelihood of thousands of people. I know thathon. Members on both sides of the House wish to contribute to the debate, so I shall be brief.
I shall be urging my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote strongly against the regulations, primarily because they are simply inhumane. They will ensure that people who are in this country legitimately--many of whom have fled repression and torture--will receive no benefit whatsoever unless they submit their applications for asylum at the port of entry and prior to the first determination. The Government are seeking to introduce powers in the Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is also before the House, to remove child benefit as well. That will leave asylum seekers with no means of sustenance or support. Every time that we have asked how those people, who are legitimately in this country, will survive without any means of support, the Government have provided no answer. The Government are simply driving people--including children and the sick and disabled--into destitution.
10 pm
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Persons From Abroad) Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 30), dated11th January 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on11th January, be annulled.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |