HC Deb 06 May 1993 vol 224 cc279-80
11. Mr. Ian Taylor

To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the latest available number of live profit-related pay schemes; and what the numbers were a year ago.

Mr. Portillo

There were 4,615 active profit-related pay schemes at the end of March 1993—getting on for double the number a year ago. The number of active schemes has more than trebled since my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer increased the tax relief in his 1991 Budget.

Mr. Taylor

The figures that were given by my right hon. Friend are extremely good news for workers in those companies. Also, given the extension of employee shareholding organised by the Government, does that not show that we can extend co-operation and consultation with workers and enable them to share in the benefits of their companies much more effectively on the basis of participation in profits than the collectivist-imposed solutions favoured by the Labour party and by the social protocol? Does it not prove that we put up and that they should shut up?

Mr. Portillo

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are now 1.2 million employees participating in profit-related pay schemes. There are 2.9 million employees participating in all-employee share schemes. Both those schemes are highly commendable. They have attracted the approval and support of the Trades Union Congress. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that such schemes is the way to get employees involved. It means that all employees have a vested interest in the success and profitability of companies. That must be the right way to handle it.

Mr. Battle

Can the Minister explain why the Government are spending British taxpayers' money on advertisements placed in the German press to tell Europe that Britain now has the lowest wages in the whole of Europe? Is that something of which the Government want to be proud?

Mr. Portillo

We are enormously proud that the United Kingdom has become a haven for inward investment. We are the envy of Europe. We are attracting 40 per cent. of Japanese investment into the European Community and about the same proportion of investment from the United States. Is the hon. Gentleman so xenophobic that he wishes to turn away that investment?