How Osborne's shares for rights scheme has flopped

Only six companies have enquired about the Chancellor's plan to allow workers to give up employment rights in return for shares.

The centrepiece of George Osborne's speech to last year's Conservative conference was his plan for employees to give up their rights in return for acquiring shares in their companies. While losing rights and protections, including unfair dismissal, statutory redundancy pay and the right to request flexible working, they would gain shares worth between £2,000 and £50,000.

The Chancellor said:

This idea is particularly suited to new businesses starting up; and small and medium sized firms. It's a voluntary three way deal. You the company: give your employees shares in the business. You the employee: replace your old rights of unfair dismissal and redundancy with new rights of ownership. And what will the Government do? We'll charge no capital gains tax at all on the profit you make on your shares. Zero percent capital gains tax for these new employee-owners. Let shares and become owners of the company you work for. Owners, workers, and the taxman, all in it together. Workers of the world unite.

The policy was attacked from all sides in parliament, with former Tory Scottish secretary Lord Forsyth describing it as "ill-thought through, confused and muddled", Lord O'Donnell, the former head of the civil service, declaring, "In the old days the price of slavery was 20 or 30 pieces of silver – is it now £2,000?" and crossbencher Lord Billamora memorably warning, "This is not just a dogs's breakfast, this is a mad dog's breakfast". Andrew Adonis noted that "The idea that depriving employees of these basic rights is somehow going to boost growth is not supported by a single employer I have met, let alone [an] employee".

It turns out that the government is having trouble finding any too. With just two months to go until the scheme launches, today's FT reports that only six companies have enquired about it.  The Treasury had expected thousands of employers to sign up, pencilling in lost capital gains tax receipts of £135m in the three years to 2017/18.

Responding for Labour, Chuka Umunna said: "It was a ridiculous policy that had the support of very few people indeed. It was condemned by business and by people on all sides and it should be dumped. I am not at all surprised that it has attracted little interest from businesses who on the whole do not want to rob their employees of their fundamental rights at work."

The government rather optimistically remarked that its "approximate estimate" is that "around 6,000 companies" could choose to use the scheme, adding that "it could be more, it could be less."

In the absence of a 1,000 per cent surge in interest in the next two months, it looks like it will be less.

A member of the PCS union wears a George Osborne face mask at a demonstration on Whitehall on June 27, 2013 in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How Theresa May laid a trap for herself on the immigration target

When Home Secretary, she insisted on keeping foreign students in the figures – causing a headache for herself today.

When Home Secretary, Theresa May insisted that foreign students should continue to be counted in the overall immigration figures. Some cabinet colleagues, including then Business Secretary Vince Cable and Chancellor George Osborne wanted to reverse this. It was economically illiterate. Current ministers, like the Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, Chancellor Philip Hammond and Home Secretary Amber Rudd, also want foreign students exempted from the total.

David Cameron’s government aimed to cut immigration figures – including overseas students in that aim meant trying to limit one of the UK’s crucial financial resources. They are worth £25bn to the UK economy, and their fees make up 14 per cent of total university income. And the impact is not just financial – welcoming foreign students is diplomatically and culturally key to Britain’s reputation and its relationship with the rest of the world too. Even more important now Brexit is on its way.

But they stayed in the figures – a situation that, along with counterproductive visa restrictions also introduced by May’s old department, put a lot of foreign students off studying here. For example, there has been a 44 per cent decrease in the number of Indian students coming to Britain to study in the last five years.

Now May’s stubbornness on the migration figures appears to have caught up with her. The Times has revealed that the Prime Minister is ready to “soften her longstanding opposition to taking foreign students out of immigration totals”. It reports that she will offer to change the way the numbers are calculated.

Why the u-turn? No 10 says the concession is to ensure the Higher and Research Bill, key university legislation, can pass due to a Lords amendment urging the government not to count students as “long-term migrants” for “public policy purposes”.

But it will also be a factor in May’s manifesto pledge (and continuation of Cameron’s promise) to cut immigration to the “tens of thousands”. Until today, ministers had been unclear about whether this would be in the manifesto.

Now her u-turn on student figures is being seized upon by opposition parties as “massaging” the migration figures to meet her target. An accusation for which May only has herself, and her steadfast politicising of immigration, to blame.

Anoosh Chakelian is senior writer at the New Statesman.

0800 7318496