Finance (No. 2) Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 25th March 2015 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

The Minister is tempting me to go further than I want to at this stage, because I am going to develop exactly those arguments about the costing, what the measure is likely to raise, and the inherent uncertainty in the Government’s work and the report that they produced. The Minister will be welcome to intervene once I have reached that point in my speech.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

As always when it comes to talking about the 50p tax rate, my hon. Friend is incredibly persuasive. Does she not find it strange that the Government are projecting a £7 billion tax cut but refusing to raise tax in this way, so the only conclusion the public can come to is that they must be looking to break their promise and raise VAT?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend is both generous and correct. Members who were here for the last debate will know that Government Members utterly failed to meet the charge levelled at them, which was that the combination of their history on VAT and what they wish to achieve in the next Parliament means that a VAT rise is inevitable if the Conservative party is elected to government in a few weeks’ time.

We know that the Government’s decision to reduce the top rate of tax for those earning more than £150,000 is as much at the heart of the current political debate today and in the next few weeks as it was in 2012. The debate is about where we raise revenue from and who we ask to shoulder the burden to help bring down the deficit further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend has acquitted herself of that duty in her usual brilliant way. We may not be able to persuade the Conservatives to be fully Thatcherite, but getting them part of the way there would be welcome. If they cannot bring themselves to support bringing back the 50p rate, which of course they will not, they should at least support our amendment. As I said, it comes down to a simple question: is the burden of deficit reduction and dealing with the fall-out from the global financial crisis being shared fairly across all parts of our society? The amendment is genuinely intended to shed some light on that.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. She is always incredibly generous, especially in Committee debates on Finance Bills.

If the Government are correct in their assertions about tax take and behavioural change—that a 45p rate generates more than a 50p rate and is fairer—does my hon. Friend share my surprise that they object to bringing forward a report that would tell us exactly that?

[Shabana Mahmood]

That is exactly the point. If the Government have nothing to hide and nothing to fear from all the data being out there for us to interrogate, they should accept our amendment and get on with the review that we have called for. They should have got on with it when we first called for it, immediately after they made the change to the rate. Our amendment genuinely seeks to shine light on what has been happening to people’s incomes and the impact of changes to the top rate of tax. When the Government commissioned their report, the data were not extensive, and the report has been contentious from the minute it came off the printer. The reasons for that go to the thrust of what the Financial Secretary was asking me earlier, and I will come on to those points shortly.

As we have heard, the Labour Government introduced the 50p rate. It came into effect in 2010-11 and was a decision made after the financial crisis as we sought to get the deficit down. There was nothing in the coalition agreement about abolishing the 50p rate, but in 2011 HMRC was asked to look into it and the yields it produced. It did not take a genius to work out that the Chancellor was thinking about cutting the top rate of tax, and in 2012 with HMRC’s report, the Exchequer effected a 50% additional rate of income tax to back up the Chancellor cutting the rate to 45p.

--- Later in debate ---

Income tax is the Government’s biggest revenue source, and the annual charge, legislated for in the Finance Bill, is essential for its continued collection. In 2015-16, there will be about 30 million income tax payers, and clause 1 states that they will pay income tax this year at the same rates as in 2014-15. The basic and higher rates remain at 20% and 40%, and the additional rate is 45%. On Monday, Labour voted against the Budget resolution renewing income tax, but thankfully it was defeated. It would have put a £150 billion hole in the public finances—reckless even for Labour. I can only hope it was a symbolic vote that they had no desire to win. It was perhaps more a protest vote than anything else.

[Ian Murray]

It would have been popular.

[Mr Gauke]

None the less, under this Chancellor and this Government, we will stick to the long-term economic plan and avoid populist giveaways that could damage the public finances.

I could spend some time on these clauses—they are a significant achievement for the Government and I am delighted we are making further progress on increasing the personal allowance—but I shall deal with amendment 1, tabled by the Opposition. It is the annual debate we have on these matters; it is familiar to me and, I suspect, to you, Sir Roger. It proposes that the Government publish a report reviewing the impact of setting the additional rate at 50% within three months of passing the Bill. In addition, it asks for an assessment of

“the impact of setting the additional rate for 2015-16 at 45 per cent and 50 per cent on the amount of income tax currently paid by someone with a taxable income of…£150,000…and…£1,000,000 per year.”

To be credible, such an analysis would need to take behavioural impacts into account, like the HMRC report on the additional rate published at Budget 2012. Simply looking at theoretical income tax liabilities when increasing taxes is not enough. For perhaps the first time in a long time in these debates, we might have made a bit of progress in trying to understand Labour’s position. The HMRC report concluded that the underlying yield from the introduction of the 50p rate was much lower than originally forecast owing to large behavioural effects. It would be fair to say that when the 50p rate was introduced by the previous Government, they made allowances for behavioural effects. The question is whether it was sufficient.

When HMRC looked at this again, it was clear that the behavioural effect was greater than anticipated by the previous Government. Indeed, it is quite possible that it cost the Exchequer money. So let me take this opportunity to assure hon. Members once more that the Government already consider the impacts of any policy decisions taken, and they take the behavioural effects into account. The simple point is that the 50p rate was failing to raise the money anticipated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Fiona O’Donnell]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I am spoilt for choice, but ladies first.

Equitable Life

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Commons Chamber

[Fabian Hamilton]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Of course, I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz).

Equitable Life was established in 1762 and started selling pensions as early as 1913, but it was not until 1957 that the society started selling its now infamous guaranteed annuity rate pensions, which promised a clear and unambiguous return on capital invested. That carried on until 1988, when it realised that its rates were so good and so far ahead of the rest of the market that they were totally unsustainable. In December 2000, Equitable Life was forced to close to new business, but by that time it had more than 1.5 million members.

In July 2008, as the hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned, the parliamentary ombudsman published her first report on Equitable, entitled “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”. On 11 December that year, the Public Administration Committee produced a report entitled “Justice delayed”, in which it stated:

“Over the last eight years many of those members and their families have suffered great anxiety as policy values were cut and pension payments reduced. Many are no longer alive, and will be unable to benefit personally from any compensation. We share both a deep sense of frustration and continuing outrage that the situation has remained unresolved for so long.”

That is already seven years ago.

On 5 May 2009, Ann Abraham, the parliamentary ombudsman, published a second report, “Injustice unremedied: the Government’s response on Equitable Life”, in which she stated:

“I was deeply disappointed that the Government chose to reject many of the findings that I had made, when I was acting independently on behalf of Parliament and after a detailed and exhaustive investigation.”

There was certainly no shortage of reports, just a shortage of justice for those who, through no fault of their own, had suffered huge losses in their life savings, which they had accrued over many years of hard work.

How could Equitable Life have maintained a rate of return and a guaranteed annuity rate way beyond any competitor in the market? Ann Abraham addressed that question in her initial report of 2008, which took four years to complete. Her answers went to the heart of the anger expressed by investors through the Equitable Members Action Group. At the core of the problem was the fact that Equitable Life simply could not meet the obligations that it had made, because it had no provision for guarantees against low interest rates on policies issued before 1988. It therefore declared bonuses out of all proportion to its profits and assets.

Following a ruling of the House of Lords in 2000, the society stopped taking new business in December of that year, which effectively spelled the end for Equitable. More than 1 million policyholders then found that they faced cuts in their bonuses and annuities, which caused a huge loss of the income on which many small investors had totally depended. After all, the average investment for the 500,000 individual policyholders was just £45,000, which, according to EMAG, would have yielded no more than £300 a month even at its height.

In its December 2008 report, one of the Public Administration Committee’s many recommendations stated:

“We…strongly support the Ombudsman’s recommendation for the creation of a compensation scheme to pay for the loss that has been suffered by Equitable Life’s members as a result of maladministration.”

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, the co-chair of the all-party group, for his wonderful speech and for all the work that he has done. One of the people who lost out was Leonard Stuckey, in my constituency, who has run the EMAG group in Edinburgh South. Does my hon. Friend think that 22.4p in the pound is the right level of compensation, given what the parliamentary report that he has just mentioned said?

Money Creation and Society

Ian Murray Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Meacher]

That is an extremely important point and, again, I strongly support it. The current Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has been struggling to introduce a Government-supported business investment bank and has recently announced something along those lines. I think that should be greatly expanded. The book by Mariana Mazzucato, which I hope most of us have read, “The Entrepreneurial State”, shows the degree to which funding for major innovation, not just in this country but in many other countries which she cites, has been financed through the state because the private sector was not willing to take on board the risk involved. One understands that, but one does need to recognise that the role of the state is extremely important, and under a Labour Government I would like to see something like this being brought in.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My right hon. Friend makes a tremendous case for money creation and what we should be considering in this House, but I wonder whether there is also a cultural issue. Many businesses and lenders tell me that there is a cultural problem in the United Kingdom for businesses, particularly entrepreneurial businesses that we have heard about from my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin), with regard to giving away equity rather than creating debt—funding businesses through equity rather than debt. Other countries throughout Europe that are incredibly successful at giving away equity rather than creating debt have much more growth in their entrepreneurial economy.

[Mr Meacher]

That is perfectly true, and my hon. Friend makes an important point. The proposals that I am making would support that. There is a very different climate in this country, largely brought about by the churning in the City of London where profits have to be increased or reach a relevant size within a very short period, such as three or six months. Most entrepreneurial businesses cannot possibly produce a decent profit within that period, so the current financial system does not encourage what my hon. Friend wants. These proposals would make money creation available to those we really want to support much more fully than at present.

Fourthly, under the current system, house price bubbles transfer wealth, as we all know, from the young to the old and from those who cannot get on the property ladder to existing house owners, which increases wealth inequality, while removing the ability of banks to create money should dampen house price rises and thus reduce the rate of wealth inequality.

My fifth and last point, which I think is very important, is that sovereign money redresses a major democratic deficit. Under the current system, around just 80 board members across the largest five banks make decisions that shape the entire UK economy, even though these individuals have no obligation or mandate to consider the needs of society or the economy as a whole, and are not accountable in any way to the public: it is for the maximisation of their own interests, not the national interest. Under sovereign money, the money creation committee would be highly transparent—we have discussed this already—and accountable to Parliament.

For all those reasons, the examination of the merits of a sovereign monetary system is now urgently needed, and I call on the Government to set up a commission on money and credit, with particular reference to the potential benefits of sovereign money, which offers a way out of the continuing and worsening financial crises that have blighted this country and the whole international economy for decades.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

What we have seen under this Government is a party that is able to bring our public finances under control; to reduce the welfare bill; and to make sure the egregious waste in Westminster and Whitehall that took place under the previous Government no longer takes place. We will fund that by lower public expenditure, because once we get the public finances under control we are going to keep them under control.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

3. What assessment he has made of the effect of tax receipts on the deficit in the last 12 months.

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

Progress has been made on reducing the deficit; it is down by more than a third from its peak and borrowing in 2013-14 was under £100 billion for the first time in six years. The latest public finance release shows that the impact of the great recession is still being felt in our economy and the public finances. The Office for Budget Responsibility expects real earnings to rise faster than inflation, and receipts are expected to perform more strongly in the second half of the year. It is therefore important to stick to the plan, which is building a more resilient UK economy.

[Ian Murray]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be aware that although unemployment has been falling, income tax receipts to the Treasury have stayed flat, despite the Government predicting a significant increase. Does that not show that this Government are presiding over an explosion of underemployment, zero-hours contracts and low pay, and until they deal with that, they will never bring the deficit down?

[Danny Alexander]

First, I would think that the hon. Gentleman would welcome the substantial increase in employment we have seen in the past two or three years—after all, it was his Front-Bench team who predicted that that would not happen under this Government. In fact, 80% of the jobs created in the past 12 months have been in full-time employment, not the part-time employment he is talking about, which is greater than the level in the economy as a whole.

Finance Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Commons Chamber

[Shabana Mahmood]

I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman is here. I recall in the debate in Committee of the whole House that he argued for a further cut in the rate to 40p, citing in evidence the increase in revenues resulting from the cut, but as he should know—I am sure he does—that is a result of bonuses being deferred. I shall return to that point, but I think it tells us all we know about where the Government stand on fairness.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend talks about the amount that may be raised, but rather than having a regular debate across this Chamber about the 50p tax cut and the massive tax cut for millionaires, perhaps the Government could just accept the new clause and bring all the facts before the House?

[Shabana Mahmood]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We do indeed have a regular debate about the facts and figures—I will come to the detailed data on the yield from the 50p rate later—but if the Government accepted our new clause, much of that debate could be put to bed, especially as Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs now has much more data with which to produce an analysis that is less flawed than the one in 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

The figures I have been using refer to the whole coalition period and show a reduction in inequality, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will welcome. I do not recognise his figures on the child tax changes. The overall effect of taking a lot of people out of tax has been a very positive impact on their net incomes, as we would hope.

[Ian Murray]

If the right hon. Gentleman disputes whether an increase in the additional rate of tax would bring in more money, does he agree with the new clause’s call for a report? If it shows that the 50p tax rate brings in more money, will he and his Conservative colleagues advocate increasing it again?

[Mr Redwood]

I thought that I had dealt with that point. As far as I am concerned, it was proven conclusively in the ’80s that taking the rate down from 83% to 40% increased the revenue very substantially and on a sustainable basis. That was sufficient to persuade the official Labour party—perhaps not some Labour colleagues here today—not to increase the tax rate from 40% throughout its long years in government until the very end.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Swales]

I am not committing anything for our next manifesto, just as the hon. Gentleman’s party is not as yet. Our manifesto is being discussed now.

[Ian Murray]

I will check Hansard to make sure that this is accurate, but I think the hon. Gentleman said that some of the figures were dubious. If he genuinely believes that, why does he not vote for the new clause so that we get figures that are not dubious? Perhaps we can then assess whether a 50p tax rate is correct. Indeed, while he is going on about tax rises, will he confirm to the House whether he thinks a VAT increase is a Tory tax bombshell?

[Ian Swales]

I do not see VAT mentioned in the new clause. I was pointing out that, as the hon. Gentleman’s own Front Benchers say, the analysis of the benefits of the policy comes out as plus or minus zero: it could have a large cost or be a significant benefit. If we are in that sort of ballpark, we are clearly not talking about huge measures that will cut the deficit.

Under this Government, the wealthy have been paying a lot more every year in income tax than they ever did in any year under Labour. They are paying more in many other ways as well. The Labour Government thought it was okay for the wealthy to pay £250,000 in pension contributions and get full tax relief; the coalition Government have reduced that to £40,000, making £95,000 a year of tax benefits that the Labour Government were happy to give but this Government are not. Capital gains tax was at the derisory level of 18%, and is now 28%. The level the Labour Government charged on capital gains was lower than the rate of income tax, so hedge fund managers could be paying a lower rate of tax than the people who cleaned their offices, a truly shameful record.

If anyone is lucky enough to be spending £1 million a year, they will be paying £25,000 more in VAT. To answer a point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) earlier, people on low pay spend very little on standard rate VAT items. Once again, the right hon. Member for Wokingham mentioned this: most of the day-to-day living costs of most people—housing, energy, food and many other costs—do not carry standard rate VAT, so the wealthy are paying more there.

The thresholds for inheritance tax were going up under Labour but have been frozen under this Government through the efforts of the Liberal Democrats. We know that the party with which we are in coalition would like to return the level to £1 million, as it campaigned on that during the last election and I believe it will do so again next time. We are pleased that the threshold for inheritance tax has been frozen throughout our time in Government, because we feel it is the right thing to do at this time. We also saw industrial-scale tax avoidance under the previous Government, and many cases now arriving in court go back to the days when they were in power. The idea that this Government are not taxing the wealthy does not stand up to examination.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chi Onwurah]

I will not give way because other Members want to speak.

From the “The Spirit Level” by Wilkinson and Pickett through “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” by the current economic rock star Thomas Piketty to “The Entrepreneurial State” by Mariana Mazzucato, economists and social scientists are raising their voices against the claims from Government Members that inequality is good for growth. Recent analysis concluded that

“inequality is bad for both the magnitude and sustainability of growth”.

Before Government Members jump in, that is the view not of some left-leaning sociologist but of the International Monetary Fund.

Equally, President Obama’s chief economic adviser has said that reducing inequality is good for growth. In other words, we must not balance the efforts to reduce the deficit unfairly on the poor, as they are less likely to be in a position to reap the benefits of any growth that follows. None the less, that is exactly what the Government are seeking to do.

The new clause would make the impact of the Government’s policies absolutely clear. I know what the impact of their policies is from my Newcastle surgeries. One constituent who is on a low income uses his so-called second bedroom to store his wheelchair and oxygen bottles. The result is rent arrears and constant anxiety. The threat of eviction hangs over his head. He is only hanging on because he believes that the next Labour Government will abolish the hated bedroom tax. And yet, at the other end of the income scale, taxes are being cut. If the rest of the House does not join Labour in voting for the new clause, people will know what to think.

The next Labour Government will reverse the £3 billion tax cut for the top 1% of earners to ensure that the books are balanced in a fairer way. We will cut taxes for 24 million working people on middle and low incomes with a lower 10p starting rate of income tax. At the next election, the Labour party will put an alternative vision to this Government’s classic 1980s trickle-down economics to the British people. Our vision is to build a new kind of economy that works for communities and ordinary people, and that does not put a premium on social and economic inequality.

[Ian Murray]

It is a great pleasure, as always, to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah). New clause 14 is simple, and I cannot understand why the Government would not want to produce figures showing whether the 50p tax rate raises more or less money. When the Budget was announced, the Red Book stated that the tax cut would cost £3 billion. If politics is the art of the possible, it is also about priorities, and if we consider the priorities of this Government, we see clearly why that cut was unfair and should be reversed, and why the Government should accept new clause 14 and state why they think that lowering taxes for millionaires is the right thing to do.

We have already heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central about the bedroom tax—that was a priority introduced by this Government. The bedroom tax raises only 10%, if not less, of the £3 billion that the 50p tax rate cost. The use of food banks has exploded across the country in all our constituencies, which is a disgrace in a modern society, and people on welfare are waiting for their personal independence payment applications to be processed—at the current rate it will take perhaps 42 years. Tuition fees have trebled, which is hitting young people and aspiration in this country, and we have seen the NHS privatised, with money spent on a top-down reorganisation that nobody voted for. Those are the priorities that the Government have introduced, which is why it is important to get from them in black and white as part of the Finance Bill the implications of what a tax rate does, what it raises, what it does not raise, and how much other levels of tax could raise. It may be that some of the pernicious policies introduced by the Government could be reversed if they realised that they could raise more money from different levels of taxation.

[Bill Esterson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am afraid we do not have much time, but if there is time at the end I will take an intervention.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the wages crisis in this country, which is of course connected to taxation. We also have a cost of living crisis: people will be £1,600 a year worse off by 2015. We have a youth unemployment crisis, and we are in danger of writing off another generation of young people, as happened in the 1980s when all those wonderful top rate reductions in tax were being made; and we have the lowest rate of house building since the 1920s. All these are priorities that the Government could put to the top of their policy agenda instead of concentrating on a tax cut for the wealthiest.

On the back of all this, we have a Chancellor who has set golden rules for the economic cycle but who has failed on pretty much all of them, while taking £3 billion from the Treasury’s coffers with this tax cut. The UK has lost its triple A rating, and not only will the Government not balance the books by the end of this Parliament, but they will borrow £75 billion this year alone— £190 billion more than planned. They have missed their targets for the deficit and for debt, and they broke every fiscal rule that they set themselves. What is their answer to the conundrum? It is to cut the top rate of income tax for the very richest in the country. Everyone has seen an increase in VAT, which is the most regressive tax; and we have had the granny tax—the list is endless. If politics is about priorities, the Government should come forward with a report, as suggested in new clause 14, and say how much the tax would raise or not raise. We can then decide whether it was the right idea and priority to lower that tax, alongside the long list of this Government’s failures, including social policy failures.

I was interested to hear the intervention from the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is no longer in his place. He wanted to talk about the 50p tax rate. I am very surprised that our Scottish nationalists have not mentioned it—they refuse to confirm whether or not an independent Scotland would back a 50p tax rate because the answer is no.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I am being told to wrap up, so I shall do so by saying that a tax cut for this country costs £3 billion, according to the Treasury’s figures. The Government are standing up for the wrong people, they have the wrong policies, and new clause 14 needs to be approved by the House.

[Stewart Hosie]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that if an hon. Member is mentioned in the Chamber, the Member who mentioned them is obliged to accept the intervention?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

We both know that the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) is not obliged to give way. The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) has made the point well, and I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh South will finish now because Frank Dobson is waiting.

[Ian Murray]

I meant no discourtesy to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), but you were indicating that I should wrap up my speech, Mr Deputy Speaker; otherwise, I would have allowed the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Perhaps he will speak later and tell us his views on the Scottish Government’s refusal to back a 50p tax rate.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Chair is not going to take a decision or be blamed for anybody.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Kane]

The best organisations offer benefits in kind, which can be shares to their employees. I and many in the House have no problem with that.

This measure is wrong for business and wrong for employee-business relations, and I urge all hon. Members to support the new clause.

[Ian Murray]

I apologise to the House for not being present at the beginning of the debate. The previous debate finished slightly earlier so there was a clash with something else that I had in my diary. However, I want to make a few comments on this because it harks back to new clause 14, which we debated earlier. All we are looking for in new clause 11 is some transparency on this policy. We know it was introduced with great fanfare by the Chancellor at the Conservative party conference last October when he said:

“Workers of the world unite.”

The conclusion to the workers of the world uniting was that everyone united against this policy.

This is incredibly relevant to the Finance Bill because it has created a significant tax loophole. On new clause 14 on the 50p tax rate and the need for transparency on how much tax that takes, the Government said clearly that 45p brings in more tax at the top rate than 50p, which brings in less because of tax avoidance. In this case, we are looking at the biggest tax avoidance measure we can get. It has been described by the Institute of Fiscal Studies as a billion-pound tax lollipop on the table. If we are serious about tackling such tax avoidance, it would be great for transparency, not just for the House but for the country, if a report were produced showing take up and the consequences of that.

Because it is such an important prospect, we need to look at what the Chancellor tried to do in his conference speech. We will end up in the situation where people are able to sell their rights for a few pounds that might be worth nothing. That is not the kind of working society that we want. It is not the kind of partnership that we want between employers and employees and trade unions, whereby people can sell their rights for maternity pay, unfair dismissal, and all those rights referred to by Beecroft in his report for the Prime Minister. We now have a fire-at-will culture, which does nothing to dispel the Government’s move towards a hire-and-fire culture with this proposal. There are the hallmarks of another tax avoidance scheme. Why on earth would we want to produce a scheme that not only allows people to sell their rights and not be covered by any employment rights, but to be in a situation whereby those at the top end of businesses can use these mechanisms to avoid paying tax? I hope that the Minister can address some of those serious concerns when he replies.

I cannot understand why the Government would not accept new clause 11 if they are so confident that this measure will be well used, resulting in a transformation in entrepreneurship, with people hiring more and more employees because they do not have what the Government would call the burden of employee relations. Why would they not want to produce a report showing how many people are using the measure? I do not understand why they do not want to produce a report showing the impact on the Treasury coffers, through capital gains tax and any other tax receipts that might be lost.

It is important for the Government to have confidence in their proposals. The Chancellor was confident when he announced it with great fanfare. I am not sure whether it will have any take-up, because of the way it has been presented and the message it sends out. Justin King, the former chief executive of Sainsbury’s, said that it sends out a poor message. Many chief executives and business owners say that it sends out such a poor message on the partnership we want in the workplace.

Therefore, if the Government wish to have confidence in their own policies, it is only right that they agree to new clause 11, bring forward the report setting out the take-up and the data collected on the scheme and publish further reports every year. If the scheme is denying people their rights at work at the same time as denying the Treasury valuable income, this House should know about it and be able to debate it so that it can hold the Government properly to account.

[Mr Gauke]

As we have heard, new clause 11 would require the Chancellor to review the impact of the new employee shareholder status on tax revenues and to publish a report setting out the impact on capital gains tax receipts, the estimated value of shares owned by employees with employee shareholder agreements and the number of such employees. Let me set out why I believe the new clause is unnecessary—a word the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) rightly predicted would come up, although, to be fair, we have had this debate before.

It is far too early for any detailed information on the employee shareholder status to be available. It has been available only since 1 September 2013, and we have not yet reached the deadline by which companies must submit their annual share scheme returns covering that period. Therefore, the Government do not yet have full information about the use of the new employment status. Once received, it will take time to process and analyse those data. The Government set out the potential impact on tax revenues in our tax information and impact note for the employee shareholder tax reliefs, and there are currently no additional data available that would allow that to be updated.

In addition, it is not necessary for a requirement to publish information to be placed in legislation. HMRC publishes a wide range of information about employee share schemes with no such statutory obligation. For example, only last week it published a wealth of data on the use of the tax advantaged employee share schemes during the year ending 2012-13.

We will consider whether that type of publication is appropriate for employee shareholder status or whether a different approach might better enable an evaluation of the employee shareholder status. As the Government have made clear, the employee shareholder scheme is different from the existing tax advantaged employee share schemes. It is primarily designed as an employment measure to encourage choice, growth and flexibility over the long term, rather than being focused on tax advantages. We will want to take those broader factors into account when evaluating the policy. However, given that employee shareholder legislation has been in operation for less than a year, it is simply too early to be finalising any details in that area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

I appreciate the intervention just made by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). The issue is surely not one of employment flexibility; it is about maximising tax advantages. The policy has been announced on the basis of allowing companies—particularly high-growth technology companies—to employ people on a more flexible basis, but the example just given by the hon. Gentleman goes completely against that. That shows that the scheme is being used for tax-avoidance purposes.

[Mr Gauke]

I do not accept that. As far as avoidance is concerned, the tax reliefs are intended to encourage the take-up of employee shareholder status by individuals when that is offered to them. However, those reliefs are not an end in themselves. A number of rules in the legislation will prevent abuse of the new status while keeping it as simple as possible for employers and employees to use. For example, there are rules that will stop people with a material interest in the relevant business exploiting the tax reliefs for their or their families’ benefit. We will always keep the matter under review. As I said, if we see any abuse, we will act. However, we believe that we have put in place rules that protect the Exchequer from such tax avoidance.

I want to say a little more about take-up. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) made a good point: the argument is simultaneously that no one is making use of the scheme and that the scheme will cost a lot in tax avoidance. There is something of a tension between those two positions.

We decided not to introduce a pre-registration or pre-approval system for those wishing to make an employee shareholder agreement. The Office of Tax Simplification has told us that HMRC pre-approval of share schemes is outdated and time consuming for businesses. Data on employee shareholder status will therefore be picked up from companies’ annual share scheme returns to HMRC. As I said, the scheme has been in place only since the beginning of September 2013, so we have not even reached the deadline by which companies must submit their returns to HMRC for that period. It is far too early to finalise any details of publication.

[Mr Gauke]

No, that is not the case. As I said, when the original legislation was passed, protections were put in place; a moment ago, I gave an example of one designed to prevent abuse. We will continue to monitor the issue. As with all activities, if evidence of avoidance emerges, the Government will be determined to act, as we have time and again.

On the data on employee shareholders and on take-up, a question raised by a number of hon. Members, I am simply seeking to explain that I am not in a position to give the information that the hon. Lady and others have asked for because we have not required pre-approval or pre-registration for the scheme. That point is also relevant to the FT figures on take-up that have been mentioned. As there is no need for companies making use of the employee shareholding scheme to contact BIS in advance and there is no registration or approval system, we do not expect BIS to have a definitive list of all those companies that have made use of the scheme. That is why I am not in a position to give that information to the House and why the figures that were used by the Financial Times should not necessarily attract a huge amount of excitement.

The scheme is a new facet of our employment practices. It is probably unfair to judge a scheme such as this in its first few months because it will need time to bed in before there is wider knowledge about it and it is more widely used. As I have said, I am not in a position to provide information at this point.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to my favourite Treasury Minister for allowing me to intervene again. What the Minister is missing is that, according to his Government’s own figures in the Red Book, £1 billion has been allocated to this proposal. Why will he not agree to the new clause, which would allow the House to scrutinise what that £1 billion of public money is being used for? That way we could avoid the situation raised by the hon. Member for Redcar in which people use the scheme to avoid tax rather than as a proposal to create growth and to get more people into employment by denying them their workers’ rights.

[Mr Gauke]

It is always a great pleasure to give way to my favourite Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South. In quoting the figure of £1 billion he is somewhat conflating two things. One is the OBR’s estimate of the potential cost of the scheme some years into the future, if a whole set of circumstances apply and we do not take action to deal with any concerns that might emerge. As far as the Red Book is concerned, the published estimates of the annual cost of the measures are £10 million in 2016-17 and £45 million in 2017-18. Those are the numbers and we have no reason to believe that they will prove inaccurate, so to correct the hon. Gentleman for the record, we are not talking about a cost of £1 billion.

New clause 11 would impose an obligation on the Government that is not only unnecessary but, as I have set out in some detail, could not be met given the current availability of data on take-up of the employee shareholder status. Given that the new clause is unnecessary and would be unworkable, I ask the Opposition not to press it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It will be no surprise that I find the Minister’s response extremely disappointing and a little concerning in its complacency towards a policy about which widespread concern has been expressed. Taking away the rights of working people across the UK is no substitute for a proper strategy for economic growth. The policy makes it easier to reduce rights at work and fire people, rather than making it easier to hire people. That shows just how out of touch the Government are.

I commend the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) on his thoughtful speech. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) on his mammoth and excellent speech, and my hon. Friends the Members for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) and for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray). Opposition Members have put forward a powerful argument for the reasonable new clause that we have tabled. It simply asks the Government to make a proper assessment of who is taking up the shares for rights offer and what the cost to the Exchequer will be, including any loss from tax avoidance or abuse. As far as we can see, this is just another way in which the Government are trying to water down the rights of people at work.

Frankly, to Opposition Members and the many business organisations that have expressed their concerns, this policy stinks. The House and members of the public deserve to know exactly what the implications of the policy will be before the horse has bolted. The Government say that they will only shut the gate once that has happened. [Interruption.] I hear hon. Members groan at that, but I quote Lord Deben:

“I cannot imagine any circumstances whatever in which this would be of any use to any business that I have ever come across in my entire life.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 February 2013; Vol. 743, c. 293.]

I think that he puts it very well.

[Ian Murray]

The Minister tried to respond to my two interventions about tax evasion by reading figures from the Red Book. However, the accompanying document to the autumn statement of 2012, at which this policy was announced, states that the policy could cost upwards of £1 billion because there are uncertainties around

“the extent of tax planning”.

That sounds to me like tax avoidance.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I, too, took great interest in what the Minister said, because he seemed to disown the figures that were published by the Office for Budget Responsibility on this policy, as though they were in some unknown ether in the future. He appeared to be saying, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv.” The figures that the OBR predicts are very clear. It will cost £1 billion and a quarter of that can be attributed to tax planning and, if the concerns of the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) are borne out, tax avoidance.

Undeclared Work (Reasoned Opinion)

Ian Murray Excerpts

Monday 9th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jenny Willott)]

I beg to move,

That this House considers that the draft Decision on establishing a European Platform to enhance cooperation in the prevention and deterrence of undeclared work (European Union Document No. 9008/14 and Addenda 1 and 2) does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity for the reasons set out in the annex to Chapter One of the Forty-ninth Report of the European Scrutiny Committee (HC 83-xliv); and, in accordance with Article 6 of Protocol (No. 2) annexed to the EU Treaties on the application of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, instructs the Clerk of the House to forward this reasoned opinion to the Presidents of the European Institutions.

This debate will give the House a welcome opportunity to discuss the proposed platform on undeclared work, and to decide whether to send a reasoned opinion to the European Commission. The Commission proposal seeks to establish an EU-level platform on undeclared work. Undeclared work is defined by the Commission as paid activities that are lawful but are not declared to public authorities. This matter is high on the European Commission’s agenda, against a backdrop of efforts to improve job creation, job quality and fiscal consolidation.

The proposal highlights a number of concerns, based on a perception of high levels of undeclared work in the EU, including tax evasion, mis-declaration of hours worked and benefit fraud. The Commission is proposing a platform, whose members will be drawn from member states’ nominated enforcement bodies, to try to improve co-operation, share best practices and identify common principles for inspections. I should of course stress that addressing undeclared work is a priority for the Government. We have taken action at national level to detect and deter fraud through inspection, as well as to encourage good practice by providing guidance for employers.

The debate has been called because the European Scrutiny Committee requested an opportunity to discuss its concerns about whether the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity. There are also very short time scales and deadlines to which the European Commission is seeking to secure agreement on a position; hence the debate taking place tonight.

Let me first turn to the issue of subsidiarity. The concerns that I set out in the explanatory memorandum—the Committee shares those concerns—were based on the initial draft of the proposal, which sought to mandate member states to participate both in the platform and in any enforcement activities arising from the platform’s recommendations. Like the Committee, we remain to be persuaded that the Commission has demonstrated a need to mandate member states to take part in the platform or that EU-level intervention action will add value.

However, it emerged in negotiations late last week that although member states’ participation in the high-level platform would be mandatory, participation in any cross-border operational activities recommended by the platform would be voluntary. The Council’s legal service has indicated that that is the case, and we have asked it to clarify its official position. Therefore, the principal concern about subsidiarity that we identified in the explanatory memorandum—based on an earlier text—drops away. We could decide, issue by issue, whether the UK should participate in further activity, and we would of course seek the Committee’s views on such matters. However, we have not yet had advice from the Council’s legal service in writing, and the proposals are still being negotiated, so they may change. I therefore understand that the Committee will want to decide for itself whether the proposal respects the principle of subsidiarity.

Our concerns about the detail of the proposal have been shared by other member states and, together, we have secured some changes. The changes, alongside the fact that the activities identified will not be mandatory, mean that the majority of member states will support the proposal. Therefore, the original subsidiarity risk that we identified does not still stand. Moreover, we should be involved in discussions about activities in relation to which we could be asked to take action, even if we probably do not want so to act. Negotiations are ongoing and the European Parliament is yet to begin its consideration of the proposals, so we will be continuing to work throughout the negotiations to ensure that our concerns about subsidiarity are addressed in the final text.

Let me now turn to justice and home affairs. Since publishing the explanatory memorandum, our ongoing analysis has identified that the proposal may include elements relating to justice and home affairs, thus invoking the UK’s JHA opt-in. That is because the proposals suggest, for example, that enforcement bodies such as the police will collaborate in cross-border activity. No decision has yet been made on whether or not to opt in to the proposal. Once a decision has been made, we will write to the European Scrutiny Committee. Having said that, as it is not mandatory to participate in any activities that result from the discussions, no significant burden would be placed on the UK by opting in.

The Commission and presidency are pushing hard on the proposal, and we were informed on Friday that they hope to reach a general approach on 11 June, which is very soon. The deadline for sending the reasoned opinion to the Commission is 11 pm tonight. With the timing of the recess and the Queen’s Speech, this evening was the earliest opportunity to facilitate a discussion in time to meet the deadline, although I appreciate that the timing is not ideal for such an important discussion. If we run out of time tonight, I will be happy to follow up any questions in writing, although given the numbers present, that seems somewhat unlikely—[Interruption.] The shadow Minister may want to raise lots of questions.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

indicated dissent.

[Jenny Willott]

Oh, I am looking at the wrong side of the House. I hope that we will have time for a reasonable discussion and come to a decision on issuing a reasoned opinion tonight.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for its consideration of this issue and the Minister for her comments. Given the time scale involved and the number who would like to speak, we should try to meet the European Commission’s 11 o’clock deadline, although I doubt that I share the Minister’s enthusiasm or optimism that we will do that, given the Members who wish to speak. Nevertheless, as the Minister said, we have the first opportunity for the House to start banging on about Europe again so soon in the new Session.

It is worth reflecting on what is in the document, because undeclared work is an important issue. We should reflect on how harmful it can be to our economy and to the people who participate in it, and particularly on bogus self-employment in the construction sector. I was going to talk a little about that, but, given the time scale, I would like simply to agree with the Minister on the issues around subsidiarity and what the proposal is trying to achieve.

We have no problem whatever with trying to improve co-operation between member states’ enforcement authorities in order to prevent and detect undeclared work, including bogus self-employment. We should all share that aim, and it is welcome for all member states to work together on that. We should also be improving member states’ enforcement authorities by giving them the technical capacity to tackle cross-border undeclared work. We are very good at that in this country and should be sharing our best practice, as well as getting best practice from other member states on other mechanisms for doing that.

The third aim of the document is to increase public awareness of the urgency of action and to encourage member states to step up their efforts to deal with undeclared work across the European Union. I could spend a few minutes bashing the Lib Dem Minister and ask her what she is doing to persuade the Commission to look seriously at subsidiarity, because if they were to remove the mandatory element of the proposal, everyone would welcome taking it forward on a non-compulsory basis and be able to help other member states to go forward with the rest of the proposal.

The reality on the ground is that people are often looking desperately for work and will sign any contract placed in front of them in order to secure employment. With the freedom of movement across the EU, it is right that member states work with one another to tackle rogue employers who perpetrate undeclared work and attempt to hide behind other member states’ borders—they hide behind undeclared work in order not to pay their fair share of taxation and to undermine workers’ rights. It is that sort of limited and practical proposal that shows how the European collaboration project could work and add value to member states.

I do not know whether the Minister will get an opportunity to respond to the debate, or whether she will have time to do so, but I would like to pose a number of questions; if she does not get an opportunity to respond, perhaps she could write to me to give me some comfort.

What assessment has the Minister’s Department made of the scale of undeclared work across the EU, and in particular the UK? What investigation has she made into the cross-border problems of undeclared work? That information may be incredibly helpful in indicating the problem we are dealing with and what the benefits of such an EU-wide platform would be. What recent discussions have current enforcement agencies such as the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, the Employment Agency Standards inspectorate, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs had with the Government and the European Commission on undeclared work and the usefulness of the proposal? Finally, I do not think the Minister mentioned this, but does she agree with the proposals in principle? The Opposition agree with the Government’s position, and hope we can get it to the European Commission as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 29th April 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is right. The reality is that this Government are raising more from the richest. We are doing it in a more effective and efficient way, and the 50p rate failed on its own terms.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the Minister tell the House and the country today that his Government rule out any more substantial tax cuts for the richest before the next general election?

[Mr Gauke]

What this Government will do is continue to stick to a long-term economic plan that ensures that we are competitive, that we reduce the deficit and that we put in place the conditions for sustainable growth.

Currency in Scotland after 2014

Ian Murray Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Riordan, for a very important debate. Over the past couple of weeks, we have seen a watershed in the referendum debate in Scotland. The Governor of the Bank of England’s non-partisan and technical intervention on the currency has been critical in debunking the false assertions that the Scottish National party has been peddling about keeping and using the pound. I will come back to those revelations later and to some of the latest news on that issue.

We can sum up the Governor’s intervention by reflecting on a quote from renowned economist Keynes:

“He who controls the currency controls the country”.

And which eminent economist said that a country without its own currency is a country not only without a steering wheel, but also without brakes? No, it was not Keynes, Adam Smith, or even Marx, but the lesser-known SNP Education Secretary, Mike Russell. There is little doubt that the Governor was saying exactly that when he stated:

“It is no coincidence that effective currency unions tend to have centralised fiscal authorities whose spending is a sizeable share of GDP.”

He went on to say:

“In short, a durable, successful currency union requires some ceding of national sovereignty.”

The central message of the Governor’s speech, of course, was that currency union requires fiscal, economic and political union to avoid financial crisis.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. As he will know, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, of which I am a member, has conducted an inquiry into the consequences of Scottish separatism. Last week, we were taking evidence from a number of eminent academics. One in particular, Professor MacDonald of the university of Glasgow, who is an expert in economics, said, in the context of price shocks regarding Scottish oil production:

“If you had a separate currency, your exchange rate would take up the adjustment, but, of course, if you are part of a monetary union, you won’t have that…That, for me, is one of the key deciding issues as to why, whatever we want to call it, a currency union or a monetary union would not work.”

Does my hon. Friend agree with that assessment?

[Ian Murray]

I do, and I think that is the assessment that many economists, academics and politicians have been making over the past few weeks. The Governor of the Bank of England made the very same assessment, and the Scottish Affairs Committee deserves great credit for the amount of work they are putting in on the issue.

Let me go back to the central message of the Governor’s speech. He said that currency union requires fiscal, economic and political union to avoid financial crisis. It is precisely that fiscal, economic and political union that the SNP seeks to dismantle with its obsession with independence. When the First Minister met the Governor of the Bank of England a few weeks ago, there was one person in that room who would control Scotland’s fiscal, monetary and spending policies in a currency union after independence, and it was not the First Minister.

A key test that the Governor set for any currency union is that a centralised fiscal authority would need to control about 25% of that fiscal union’s GDP. That is about 50% of the spending in Scotland. The SNP immediately responded by saying that they would have 100% control over taxes and spending in an independent Scotland, so by default, it is the SNP that has ruled out a currency union by completely ignoring the central warning of the Governor’s full analysis.

We do not have to look too far back into history to see that the Governor was correct. The euro created sovereign debt crises, financial fragmentation and large divergences in economic performance. That clearly illustrates the risks and challenges of creating and maintaining a formal currency union across different states with differing economies.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

People in my constituency have said that they should be entitled to a say on the terms on which an independent Scotland might continue to use the pound, for the very reason that they fear that, if the conditions are not sufficiently strict, they could end up with a Greek euro situation, with workers in one country paying to prop up the financial circumstances in another. Does my hon. Friend agree that people in Selly Oak, and indeed, in England, have a point on that?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. A currency union is a question not only for Scotland, but for the rest of the United Kingdom, because the stabilisers that require a currency union would be stabilisers that England or the rest of the United Kingdom would have to use, as well as Scotland. It is a question for the rest of the United Kingdom, and that is a very valuable intervention from my hon. Friend, who is from an English constituency. [Interruption.] I can hear SNP Members chuntering, “Scaremongering”. Well, I hope that they go back and tell their constituents that the SNP disregards what they are saying as scaremongering rather than as raising legitimate issues about the currency and jobs.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will make some progress, then I will give way. I was talking about the euro. Let us reflect on what is happening now with the euro area: it is seeking very significant steps to expand the sharing of risks and pooling of resources to create a more homogenous currency union to make it work properly—exactly what the UK in its current state now provides for the pound sterling.

I know that the First Minister said that we should ignore experts, but John Cridland, the director general of the CBI, emphasised last week:

“As the Governor highlighted, successful currency unions need strong fiscal agreements and a banking union, with common supervisory standards and resolution mechanisms. The negative effects”—

this point is critical—

“of not having these structures in place have been starkly illustrated by the Eurozone crisis.”

There is a very positive case for staying with the United Kingdom as part of this currency debate and I would like to run through three points that are particularly relevant to the currency and the economy.

First, Scotland benefits from being part of the UK economy, which is the third largest economy in Europe and the sixth largest in the world. Being part of the larger, more diverse UK economy brings strength, stability and security, not only to Scotland’s finances, but to those of the United Kingdom.

Secondly, being part of the UK offers us protection from financial shocks. During the financial crisis, banks based in Scotland took advantage of the protection offered to UK banks. Since 2007, the UK has committed £1.2 trillion to bailing out the banks. At its peak, the Edinburgh-based Royal Bank of Scotland received £254 billion in support from the UK Government. That pooling and sharing is critical.

Thirdly, the rest of the UK is Scotland’s biggest trading partner. Scottish businesses buy and sell more products and services from the rest of the UK than every other country in the world combined. In 2010, 70% of Scotland’s exported goods and services went to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, accounting for a massive 35% of Scottish GDP. Likewise, 70% of Scotland’s imports are estimated to come from the rest of the United Kingdom.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Turning that argument on its head, based on the very ill-thought-out and ill-judged comments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer overnight, what assessment has been made by the no campaign, the Treasury and the Labour party of the impact on Welsh jobs should Scotland not be allowed to use sterling as currency? [Interruption.]

[Ian Murray]

I did not quite catch the end of what the hon. Gentleman said about Welsh jobs—[Interruption.] The impact on Welsh jobs would be the impact described by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). Losing Scotland from a single currency in the United Kingdom is very dangerous indeed—[Interruption.]

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

Let me make some progress, then I will give way. The attitude you have just seen from the nationalists in the Chamber, Mrs Riordan, sums up exactly the argument we are having. When challenged on legitimate questions about legitimate issues to do with people’s jobs and the economy of this country, all they can do is shout, “Scaremongering”, and shout down the people who are asking those legitimate questions.

This is not just a technical or political issue; it is also a significant issue for the Scottish public. I say to the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards) that I am sure the attitudes of the Welsh are exactly the same. The recent Scottish social attitudes survey said that 79% want to keep the pound with only 11% wanting their own currency—no doubt the Greens and the chair of the yes campaign are included in that 11%—and 7% want Alex Salmond’s previous obsession, which was the euro.

The First Minister has gone from saying that the pound is,

“a millstone round Scotland’s neck”

to making it the currency of choice for the SNP, but not all the yes camp believe that that is right. The SNP’s own fiscal commission was not even in favour of an informal monetary or currency union.

[Guy Opperman]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. On the specific issue of jobs—I am speaking as an MP whose area has a border that divides Scotland and England—my local businesses, the North East chamber of commerce and the local authorities have all indicated that there would be a negative impact on jobs, growth and the development of our respective economies in Scotland and England were the referendum to go ahead. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that point, as always, is totally ignored by the Scottish nationalists?

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for that intervention. That point is ignored because it is convenient for the nationalists to ignore it. They do not care about the rest of the United Kingdom. They do not care about businesses and employment across the rest of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] If they did, they would put their efforts into ensuring that that worked for businesses and for employment across the United Kingdom, rather than being obsessed with the constitution.

I will try to make significant progress. There is a banking museum in the old HBOS headquarters on the mound in Edinburgh. It says that people think of money today as banknotes and coins, but that the currency used to be things such as tea, shells and even feathers. That has been used in the past. We may need to go back to that, because people need to know what the money will be in their pockets. We cannot run a modern economy on empty ginger bottles. Incidentally, people can press their own coins at the museum. There is a little press that kids can use to press their own coins. Perhaps that will become the Scottish Government’s plan B when they have to decide to print their own coins.

This is too important an issue for the SNP and the yes campaign not to be honest with the Scottish people and businesses about the way forward. The overwhelming weight of opinion is now against a currency union. It is little wonder, as any agreement would mean that our interest rates would be set by a foreign bank and include strict instructions on how much Scotland could tax and spend. Scotland would have no control at all over monetary policy. It would also mean the loss of our UK central bank, which acts as the lender of last resort. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills raised the lender of last resort issue last week in relation to the large Scottish financial institutions perhaps being forced to move south to be by the central bank, for the reasons that I highlighted earlier, from the crisis in 2008.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Would keeping the pound not make Scotland a neo-colonised state?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend makes that point rather well. Let me go on to talk about something that has been mentioned already. Scotland’s relationship with the rest of the United Kingdom, in terms of having a currency union in the way that the SNP envisages, would be exactly the same relationship as the Greek Government currently have with Germany, but it is not just an issue for Scotland.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

rose—

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

Let me make a little progress. I know that other hon. Members want to speak, but I will allow hon. Members to intervene.

It is not just an issue for Scotland. The rest of the UK—this is an important point, which other hon. Members have made in interventions—would have to agree. It appears from speculation in the press today—perhaps the Treasury Minister can indicate whether it is speculation—that there will not be an agreement on currency union, as it is undeliverable. If an agreement is not possible or is ruled out by the Treasury, what will be the Scottish Government’s plan B? [Interruption.] The nationalists are chuntering away about what they would do. I am happy to take an intervention if they want to tell the people of Scotland now what the Scottish nationalists’ plan B is for the currency should Scotland vote yes for independence. [Interruption.]

[Mr MacNeil]

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has given way; he promised to give way. Has he informed the people of England of what his policy would mean for them if he managed to go hand in hand with Osborne and keep Scotland out of sterling? What would it mean for the balance of payments? What would it mean for the value of sterling? What would be the price of holidays for English people going abroad without Scotland’s contribution to sterling? The hon. Gentleman knows full well that Labour keeping Scotland out of sterling would make things far more expensive for English people.

[Ian Murray]

I apologise to everyone in the debate. I allowed the hon. Member for the Western Isles to intervene to tell us what the SNP’s plan B is, and he chuntered on about something to do with holidays that I could barely hear because his colleagues were chuntering over him. I have no idea what he said. [Interruption.]

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman must be heard. The other hon. Members will get the same respect under my chairmanship.

[Ian Murray]

Thank you, Mrs Riordan. I will give the nationalists one more opportunity if they want to intervene to tell us what the SNP’s plan B would be should people vote yes for an independent Scotland and there is no currency union. No?

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Ian Murray]

Go on. Tell us what plan B will be.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman did not hear because of the chuntering beside him, but the point is that we know full well what we are doing—we are keeping sterling. But if his policy was—[Laughter.] If his policy was put in place, what would happen to people in England as the balance of payments worsened and sterling weakened? Imports would be more expensive. Holidays would be more expensive. Labour’s policy is irresponsible to the people of England as it is to the people of Wales.

[Ian Murray]

Mrs Riordan, I apologise again for wasting another intervention through the nationalists not telling us what plan B would be. Let me tell them what the currency will be in England and Wales. It will be the pound sterling. That is what they will keep.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

The former deputy leader of the SNP, Jim Sillars, said that the SNP’s currency union plans were “stupidity on stilts”. After listening to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), does my hon. Friend think that Mr Sillars might have been speaking about him?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: it is stupidity on stilts. Economist after economist, academic after academic, politician after politician and business after business has said that the SNP’s currency union plans are completely barking on stilts.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

Is not the former deputy leader of the SNP on to something? The fundamental fact is that if the Scottish National party wishes to keep the economic and social union, there also has to be a political union; otherwise democracy is lost. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Ian Murray]

I absolutely agree, because what the SNP wishes to do is cherry-pick what it wishes to have in an independent Scotland. It cannot have the economic and social union without having that political union. Let us just reflect on a hypothetical situation in which Scotland either is an independent country or has its own currency. After the eurozone crisis of 2008 and beyond, it would probably be in negotiations with the UK Treasury to get more of a fiscal pact and more of a monetary union to ensure that those stabilisers were in place to ensure that it did not happen again.

Let me go back to where I was—challenging the SNP on whether it had a plan B. It is quite clear that it has barely a plan A, and it will not tell us what its plan B is. The Scottish people deserve to know before they go to the polls. It is clear that leaving the UK means losing the security of the pound. The yes camp cannot even tell us what money we would have in our pockets. How can they ask us to vote to leave the United Kingdom?

The pound is one of the most trusted and secure currencies in the world. The eurozone crisis has shown us how important it is to have a strong and stable currency, and this is not just about what money is in your pocket; it is about what it will buy you. Losing the pound means more expensive mortgages, more expensive credit card bills and more expensive car loans. Anyone who banks, anyone who saves and anyone who borrows will be hit with higher bills.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the debate. He will be aware that the Deputy First Minister has indicated in the broadcast media today that the Scottish Government are now minded to default on their debt in the event of a yes vote. Can my hon. Friend give any indication of what he thinks the interest rates would be on our residents’ mortgages or on debts and savings if such a scenario occurred?

[Ian Murray]

That is a very timely intervention, because there is no doubt about this. Everyone in this room, everyone watching this debate and everyone in Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom will know what happens when people do not pay their bills. When people default on their bills, they end up in a situation whereby the bills get higher. Interest and credit get higher and more difficult to get. Indeed, they are punished for ever more with an incredibly bad credit rating. In the context of an economy and a country, that is devastating for jobs and public services at the very least.

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will give way once more, but I do need to move on.

[Mel Stride]

The hon. Gentleman rightly highlights the problem of any two countries that go into a currency union and therefore have to get their budgets, spend and tax agreed between them, which in itself will be deeply problematic with an independent Scotland under SNP leadership certainly, but will he also recognise that the situation is even worse than that? In the event that, in that situation, Scotland overspent, it would in effect be down to London to decide that it was going to have to row back on that expenditure and cut expenditure north of the border.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for that intervention. Again, I can only emphasise what the Governor of the Bank of England said. It was a non-partisan speech; it was a technical speech about currency unions and that was the point that he made: those monetary, fiscal and spending stabilisers have to be in place; otherwise a currency union does not work.

What about business? We sell twice as much to the rest of the UK as we do to the rest of the world combined. Losing the pound would mean that every time a Scottish company sold to or bought from somewhere down south, they would incur the cost of exchanging money. That would result in higher prices for us all, as the supermarket bosses—again, we have been told by the First Minister to ignore them—warned us last week. We should listen to business. In a strong criticism of the SNP White Paper, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland has warned that there is

“a high degree of uncertainty as to what the currency of an independent Scotland will be.”

ICAS states that no alternatives have been set out in case the negotiations are unsuccessful, and warns:

“The choice of currency will have a very significant impact across the pensions sector, the economy and the country generally, and this will inevitably remain as a major uncertainty for the time being.”

We should listen to that warning from Scotland’s accountants. The SNP must tell us what currency it would use instead. Will it set up an unproven currency or rush to join the euro?

[Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate on a matter that has got my constituents, and probably his, worried. Not so long ago, the nats wanted to join the euro; indeed, that was a slogan of theirs. It is very strange—it is a consequence of all that has happened in mainland Europe—they are now trying to hitch up to the pound, which would also be a foreign currency.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. The SNP has ditched its euro credentials and its wish to join the euro in favour of a currency union with the United Kingdom that it is already in. I believe its slogan was “independence in Europe” but it now seems to be “independence in the UK with the pound.” Will it rush to adopt the euro—indeed, will Scotland actually be in the EU—or will it join the only other two countries in the world that tie their currency informally to another? This is a great quiz question: which countries are those? The answer is Panama and El Salvador, which use the dollar. [Interruption.] I can hear the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) chuntering, “Greece”, and that is exactly the point that I have been making.

The First Minister and Deputy First Minister of Scotland this morning made the unedifying assertion that Scotland will default on its debt if no currency union is forthcoming. That ill-thought-through, toys-out-of-the-pram threat is a recipe for economic crisis and political conflict. It is reckless and irresponsible, to say the least.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an amazing speech. Is not that statement—that throwing of the toys out of the pram—proof that the SNP would be incapable of conducting normal relationships with the rest of the UK post independence?

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A currency union requires some kind of political co-ordination to ensure that the stabilisers make the currency work. What better political stability could we have than being the United Kingdom, with a strong Scottish Parliament as part of that overall economic and political framework?

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

I apologise for missing the start of the debate; I have just come from a debate on a statutory instrument that affects my constituency. My hon. Friend is making a powerful contribution. According to the International Monetary Fund, none of the 64 largest economies in the world operates without a central bank. Does he agree that if Scotland were forced into the position, which was denounced by the SNP’s fiscal commission, of using the pound without a central bank, the consequences for business and ordinary people throughout Scotland would be devastating?

[Ian Murray]

I could not have put it better myself. I look back to 2008, when hundreds of billions of pounds were poured into Scottish banks to keep the economy afloat, and to keep my constituents, many thousands of whom work in such banks in Edinburgh, in jobs. Without such action, the whole financial structure would have collapsed.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will give way one last time.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I see that the Scottish Government’s White Paper on independence asked the question:

“What about bank bail-outs if there is another financial crisis?”

The Scottish Government responded:

“If in the future wider support from governments is required to stabilise the financial system, this would be coordinated through the governance arrangements agreed between the governments of the Sterling Area.”

In other words, they would have to rely on negotiations with the rest of the UK Government. Contrast that with the situation in the recent financial crisis when, as part of the UK, the Scottish banks were able to call on the resources of the UK.

[Ian Murray]

That is precisely the argument about pooling and sharing, and it is why the UK is such a powerful political, social and economic union. The larger and more stable economy of the UK can deal with such shocks.

Experts such as Professor MacDonald and Professor Armstrong are clear that defaulting on debt would be a reckless move with negative consequences for the people of Scotland for many years to come. That threat shows that the SNP accepts that Scotland cannot keep the pound if it leaves the UK. Defaulting on our debts as a nation has the same impact as if someone defaults on their debts as an individual, and I have already mentioned what happens if someone does not pay their bills. Our credit rating would be terrible, and we would have to pay more for absolutely everything, which would be a disaster for ordinary individuals and families up and down Scotland. Any Scot who borrows money or who has a mortgage, a credit card or catalogue payments will have to pay more. That is not scaremongering, but basic economics.

The SNP has said in its fantasy White Paper that Scotland would have to rely on the rest of the UK to collect our taxes and to pay our pensions and benefits for many years after independence until it sorted out its own systems. The SNP cannot threaten to dump the debt one minute and ask to share everything else the next. That is a recipe for crisis and disaster. How would those UK institutional systems work with a separate currency? Can the Minister tell us whether the systems used by the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are capable of working in a currency other than sterling? I doubt it. The White Paper is underpinned by and predicated on the pound. Perhaps it will turn into an actual white paper when it has been so heavily Tipp-exed that it contains nothing but Tipp-ex.

Scots have an international reputation for being prudent and thrifty. To default on its debts would irreparably damage Scotland. Even to threaten to default on debts has significant consequences for interest rates, borrowing and international reputation, which the National Institute of Economic and Social Research put at a minimum of 1.5%.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will not give way again to the hon. Gentleman, because he refused to answer my last question. To summarise, losing the pound would result in a higher cost of living, with higher mortgage repayments, higher credit card and store card bills, and more costly car loans. Scotland would start out as a separate state with no credit rating, or one that had been hugely damaged by threats of default. There would be fewer jobs, because of the cost of changing money every time Scottish firms bought or sold from our biggest customer, which is the rest of the United Kingdom. There would be deeper cuts or higher taxes because the Scottish Government would pay more to borrow money, which would result in more debt and lower public spending. There would be risks to benefits and pensions as payments were converted from sterling to a different currency.

There would be risks to the economy. Without the back-up of the rest of the UK, Scottish banks would have gone under during the financial crisis, and families and businesses across the country would have lost everything. Scotland would have an unproven and weak currency with a poor credit rating and high borrowing costs. The SNP’s proposition may be summed up as this: we should go from a proven and respected single currency backed by a strong lender of last resort as part of the United Kingdom to a promise from Alex Salmond that he is simply not in a position to deliver. That is not good enough for the Scottish people or Scottish business.

I can say this afternoon without doubt, argument or contradiction that the currency of Scotland post 2014 will be the pound, but only if we stay in the United Kingdom. It is now clear that the most positive case that we can make for the Union is the pound in our pockets. We must do all we can, today and for the next seven months, to protect it for future generations.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

Order. The wind-ups will begin at 3.40 pm, and several hon. Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I would like all those who wish to speak to be able to do so, so I intend to impose an initial time limit of five minutes.

Consumer Rights Bill

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I am slightly disappointed that my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) is not still in the Chamber. He said that the debate would be dull, but it has been far from dull. We have heard about the Foreign Secretary’s gym membership habits, about Obi-Wan Kenobi, about the Sith, and about the gestation period for elephants. One Member mentioned Alderaan. We have heard about Monty Python, the Arctic Monkeys, and, at the tail end of the debate, about Arnold Schwarzenegger. It has indeed been an exciting debate.

The experience of consumers is a litmus test for future economic success. When consumers are confident, they can reward good business practice and respond to innovation. When their treatment is shoddy—as it was in recent notable cases such as those involving unsafe breast implants and payment system failures in the long-drawn-out saga of payment protection insurance—goods and services can become stuck in a cycle of weak demand and low trust. The essential element of a successful economy is the ability to ensure that consumers have that confidence, and to support their role as a primary driver in making markets work effectively—as we heard from the hon. Member for Dudley South (Chris Kelly)—not just for consumers, but for producers. That in turn helps to lay the foundations for UK businesses to succeed in other markets, throughout the European Union and, indeed, throughout the world.

As a number of Members have observed, the Bill represents a welcome step towards the simplification of a complicated matrix of consumer law and the adoption of an up-to-date approach to the changing world of the consumer in these digital times. It is not difficult to demonstrate the ways in which consumers can suffer detriment. For instance, how would the Minister feel if she went into a hardware store to buy a number of handles for her garden forks and left with four candles? Such incidents should be resolved quickly and efficiently for the benefit of the consumer. [Laughter.] I thank my hon. Friends for their laughter. I cued them up for it earlier.

There must be a number of building blocks for effective consumer confidence. First, there must be a fair framework: a framework of behaviour, expectations and rules that seem to work fairly for both consumers and producers, and which encourage innovation. Secondly, there must be effective enforcement. The rules governing any exchange between consumer and producer must be enforced so that persistent malpractice does not take place in the industry or any sectors of it. Thirdly, there must be trusted advice. When people want advice or support that they can trust, it must be easy for them to find it. Fourthly, there must be simple means of redress: when things go wrong, they must be put right without difficulty.

The United Kingdom has a record of good practice in all those respects, and the Bill will improve the position further. However, although it does a good job in relation to, for example, the fair framework, Ministers appear to be ignoring other critical pieces of the jigsaw such as enforcement, advice and funding. Let me give two examples relating to enforcement. First, the changes in consumer protection provision that the Government have introduced since 2010 have been muddled, and have created uncertainty and confusion on the consumer landscape. They abolished Consumer Focus and transferred some of its resources and responsibilities to Citizens Advice, but then they did not really know what to do with Consumer Focus, so they came up with the wonderful idea of rebranding it as Consumer Futures, so that it could do pretty much the same job as it had been doing before.

Secondly—this was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden)—the Government slashed local authority funds. That has had a significant impact on trading standards, making it harder for consumers to uphold their rights and seek redress. Aggregate trading standards funding has dropped from £245 million to approximately £142 million since 2010. Hundreds of jobs have been lost in a brain drain that is estimated to amount to 15% of the total work force.

Trading standards are at the forefront of the upholding and enforcement of consumer rights, but, as the Public Accounts Committee commented last year,

“there is a creation of trading standards deserts”

owing to funding gaps. The Government now want to remove the ability of trading standards officers to make unannounced inspections. In response to that part of the Bill, the Trading Standards Institute, which has done so much wonderful work in this area, said that it

“would urge the Government to refrain from removing the power of trading standards officers to enter premises unannounced. It is an essential tool for them to use and it is vital that when complaints are made, councils can investigate and tackle the problem immediately.”

Those are just two examples of areas in which the Bill is deficient in relation to the four pillars by which we will measure its effectiveness.

I should like to comment on some of the contributions that have been made to the debate this afternoon, starting with that of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. We all read his comments last night about the wrong type of growth; today, he was slightly more contrite and demonstrated a more positive attitude towards the Bill. He mentioned the importance of the European Union in relation to competition policy, and talked about the clauses in the Bill that would allow collective actions on competition issues. It would be good, however, if the Government could examine an extension to the policy on collective redress. May I point the Secretary of State to the consumer investigation that the shadow Business team completed last year, which has been published on the team’s website? That could give him some ideas on the kind of collective redress arrangements that we would all like to see, and that many Members have mentioned today.

The Secretary of State was absolutely right to pay tribute to the work of the Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee, which has strengthened the Bill and will continue to do so. The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) highlighted some of the issues that the Government should be looking at, and I also pay tribute to the other members of the Committee for the work that they have done so far to make the Bill better.

The Secretary of State said that the digital landscape was hugely complicated; that is certainly an area of the Bill that needs clarity. Concern has been expressed that it is not flexible enough to deal with much of today’s modern technology. He also talked about measures on cross-border enforcement, which we all welcome. When local authorities take the lead on trading standards, there often seems to be a David and Goliath relationship between them and the big corporations that they have to take on. I said earlier that trading standards enforcement across the country has been decimated; we need to do something to replenish those resources.

The hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) rightly pointed out that this was a consolidation Bill, but it is none the less the responsibility of the House to make it as good as it can possibly be. The Bill Committee will have a huge responsibility in that regard. The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the areas of concern, including banking, utilities and the public sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West, the Chair of the powerful and effective Select Committee, highlighted the significant range of issues in the Bill, and the need to respond to changing markets. He mentioned three essential elements—clarity of pricing, clarity of contracts and clarity of redress mechanisms—and said that the Bill needs to be improved in those areas if it is to be the best that we can make it.

I agree with my hon. Friend that further debate is required on the sale of goods provisions, on the right to reject the refund tapering that can apply depending on how long someone has had a product for. I hope that the Bill Committee will examine those issues. My hon. Friend also said that he was looking forward to the debate in Committee on the digital provisions, to ascertain whether the Government had got them right and whether they were flexible enough for our modern economy. He also gave good examples of how complicated the service provision in the Bill would be. I am sure that the Committee will look closely at that.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), who is no longer in his place, was right to say that highly competitive markets were good for the economy. He also mentioned small businesses, yet they are not included in the Bill as consumers. The Federation of Small Businesses has asked for that to be remedied, and I hope that that point will be looked at in Committee. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today whether small businesses will be seen as consumers for the purposes of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) is a passionate advocate of tackling the abuses in the secondary ticketing market. She mentioned the Monty Python reunion show in her speech. My father-in-law is a massive Monty Python fan, and I decided to try to get some cheap seats for him for Christmas. The tickets went on sale at 9 o’clock on the Monday morning, yet I was able to purchase them on a secondary ticket site before the official site had opened. That shows that there must be something wrong. Those were not really secondary ticket sales, but there must have been some kind of collusion between the promoter of the event and the secondary ticket market. The Bill could be an opportunity to look at some of those things. Although that is a specific issue around secondary ticketing, the overall concept of consumer detriment from secondary sales is something that we should be looking at quite closely.

The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who is sitting in a slightly different place, wants to broaden the debate, and I welcome that. Indeed, that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) tried to do. Although this Bill is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness said, quite dry, technical and difficult in terms of the consumer landscape, it does have to be broadened out. Given that this is an opportunity to look at consumer law and the consumer landscape, it is important that we get it right. If the debate can be broadened out to some of those other markets, that is what we should be doing. I was also struck by the idea of a consumer champion to be put in across Departments in Government to ensure that consumers are at the heart of everything that is being done.

My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) was right to concentrate on the sales mechanisms of some industries and companies and on how the Bill should be used to assist consumers, particularly vulnerable ones. We are finding that constituents are increasingly coming to us with problems of nuisance calls and door-to-door selling, especially as they impact on vulnerable consumers and customers.

I was interested in the short contribution by the hon. Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). I agree that the law up to now has been deficient in terms of the digital landscape, and I hope that the Bill will be able to do something about that. Perhaps it is late in coming, but we do, none the less, welcome it. I am also pleased that he managed to speak for six minutes without banging on about Europe, which was fantastic.

The hon. Member for Dudley South talked about the importance of getting the Bill right in the digital sphere, but we have spoken about that already. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) endorsed the Citizens Advice briefing note—I think we all do—especially with regard to some of the simple steps that it suggests we put in the Bill to make things just that little bit easier.

Finally, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) raised a number of issues, particularly around the insurance industry. He mentioned the fact that some insurance premiums are not available in Northern Ireland in the way that they are across the rest of the mainland UK. It is worth emphasising something that he said at the end of his contribution, which is that we need to prevent the exploitation of the vulnerable. That should be the cornerstone of this Bill, and I do not think that anybody in the House would disagree with that.

It is also important to look at the competition in markets to give consumers confidence. Last year, Teresa Perchard from Citizens Advice said:

“Consumers have a long memory. When energy companies say ‘trust me’, to consumers, their experience says that they should expect the opposite. Consumers do not feel powerful in many markets.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow looked at some of those markets that the Government must deal with if they do not want the Consumer Rights Bill to be irrelevant. She mentioned energy, pensions, payday loans and banking. Those are just a few of the industries that may be affected by the Bill.

Finally, let me turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) who brings experience to this debate through the Scottish Consumer Council. She highlighted the sensible approaches in the Citizens Advice briefing, one of which must be about giving information to consumers when they are purchasing goods through stores or online. I have often been met, when reaching the till in a store, with a nice sign that says that my statutory rights are not affected. I know that that is a statutory requirement, but it is completely beyond me what it means. If we turn over till receipts from many organisations, we would find a whole plethora of legislation that a Philadelphia lawyer would find difficult to pick through never mind someone who just wants to return a pair of shoes that are either too large, too small or not to their liking. There is something in that Citizens Advice briefing that I hope the Committee will look at when it takes through this Bill. For example, there might be some simple proposals to ensure that information for consumers is clear.

There is also a substantial body of evidence that shows that businesses are not aware of the rules. Will the Minister address that in her response? What will the Government do to ensure that there is a wide understanding of the new rules among businesses as well as consumers? Yet again, the Business Innovation and Skills Committee deserves a considerable amount of credit for its detailed analysis in that particular area.

Finally, will the Minister seriously consider the research that has been mentioned, commissioned by the Federation of Small Businesses, on treating small businesses as consumers? I know that that is incredibly difficult and complex, but they are a huge pillar of the economy and much of the detriment goes not only from businesses to consumers but from businesses to businesses—indeed, the detriment tends to go from large businesses and Government Departments to small businesses. We should consider that in Committee.

Healthy, fair and competitive markets and effective methods for information sharing across providers are vital to building an economy that works for both consumers and businesses. Well-informed consumers make better customers for businesses, improved markets make better businesses for customers, and better informed citizens get better outcomes when redress is required. We will support the Bill on Second Reading but encourage the Government to improve it in Committee to ensure that the opportunity is not lost truly to make a step change in consumer rights in this country.

Pub Companies

Ian Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

First, may I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott), to her post? She has taken over the role from the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson) whom we congratulate on the birth of her son, Andrew, and we pass on our regards to the hon. Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), who participated in the early part of this debate.

We have had yet another constructive debate on pub companies and their relationship with their tenants, but I cannot help but feel a significant sense of déjà vu. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins) said in opening the debate, it would not be January without his staying off the alcohol for a month—I could flippantly say that he keeps off paying for it for the other 11 months of the year—and without our having a debate on pubcos. This is the third such Opposition day debate—that is, this Opposition are using our own parliamentary time to continue to raise this important issue and keep the pressure on the Government, stressing that they are doing too little, too late and too slowly.

It is important that we should continue to re-emphasise the contribution that pubs make to our local economies and local communities. Each pub employs an average of 10 people, often young people who find it particularly hard to find work in other sectors. They provide skills in customer service, management and training. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is no longer in his place but he talked about training, which allows me to mention the Montpelier group in Edinburgh, which set up its own training academy for people who work in its pubs and restaurants. It deserves great commendation for the work it does on that in Edinburgh.

The role of the licensee is very difficult, as I should know—I was a licensee of a hotel and two licensed premises before becoming an MP. It is the combination of pubcos and decisions by Governments of all political persuasions that has pushed prices up for the consumer, which has subsequently undermined the competitiveness of these organisations and, indeed, other activities. We need to look at what can be done by Government.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I hope my hon. Friend will cover the new idea of local people buying their own pubs and setting up community pubs. Some football clubs are doing that as well. What does he think about that as a way forward?

[Ian Murray]

I think it is fantastic that communities are able to bid for pubs. It is happening in Scotland as well, under the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, I have a small vested interest in that, because I am leading a consortium of fans looking to buy Heart of Midlothian football club. Community ownership—or at least having the opportunity to go into community ownership—is the way forward for lots of industries that have a tie to the local community.

The combination of high rents and tied barrelage costs means that a pubco tenant must sell a pint at a price level that allows some reasonable profit margin. That level is well above what non-tied premises can charge, which makes the pubco tenants uncompetitive and pushes up the price for the consumer. As the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) mentioned, barrelage costs can be 50% higher in tied premises than in non-tied premises, which can distort the market in terms of how much tied premises need to charge the customer. Add to that an increase in VAT to 20% and we have a cocktail of disaster for the publican.

[Mr Donohoe]

As my hon. Friend was a pub licensee, he will know that in a tied pub it is not only beer prices that are tied but the spirits and everything else that is sold. I know that from my own experience.

[Ian Murray]

My hon. Friend is right to raise that because it is indeed the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield mentioned that too, when he said that the ties can be on wet sales, dry sales and gaming machines, and they can mean compulsory courses, compulsory training, compulsory licensing and using highly inflated contracts through the pub companies for, for example, statutory checks like electrical checks.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My constituency has a large number of excellent pubs of distinction, and my hon. Friend may well have visited some of them from time to time. They are also major sources of employment in the area. How would the proposals in the motion assist employment in that very important sector in my constituency and others across the country?

[Ian Murray]

There is a simple formula on employment in the licensed trade: the more successful a premises is, the more people it is likely to employ. The entrepreneurial nature of people in these small businesses running licensed premises means that they tend to want to get more licensed premises and expand what they are doing, so this is very good for employment. I declare an interest again, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have visited some of the hostelries in my hon. Friend’s constituency, some of which are rather nice, and I encourage others to do likewise.

I was talking about the double whammy of Government decisions and the tied contracts pushing up prices to the consumer, which perpetuates the demise of licensed premises. We must also consider the ever-increasing energy bills, the spiralling rates and the costs of other non-alcoholic supplies such as food, which are rising much faster than tenants are able to pass on to their customers. More has to be done to deal with all those other relationships, and I hope the Government will back Labour’s policy on both energy and business rates to enable us to bring some of those other pressures down.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

It is important that we talk about the financial structures of pub companies and pubs, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise the important social function of pubs such as The Bull’s Head in Rodington, The Cock Hotel in Wellington and the Plough Inn in Shifnal, all of which are in my constituency? They have a link to CAMRA and the flexibility of being able to bring in real ales so that everyone can enjoy them in the community at the right levels.

[Ian Murray]

I am delighted that I gave the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to mention a lot of the pubs in his constituency—I hope that is reciprocated. As he rightly says, pubs provide a community benefit, and many of the premises I have frequented, and one I used to run, had the local Rotary club there raising a lot of money for charity, so the community part of the pub is very well established.

I wish to reflect on the relationship between tenants and the pubco owners of the premises, which has been mentioned. One thing I found galling when I ran one of my own premises was that our business development manager took great delight in telling us which tenants he was fining that week for buying out, which they had to do to make a small living. That kind of behaviour and culture in the pubcos highlights the problem we face. We must also address the issue of inaccurate information being provided when people are making big decisions, particularly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield alluded to, when they are putting life savings into these premises; they have to make sure that the information they get is accurate.

[Greg Mulholland]

I thought it might be useful to intervene because I have something of an answer on the question of jobs. The research from the Federation of Small Businesses showed that the market rent only option would lead to 9,888 pubs in the UK taking on more staff, which would be worth £48 million in wages.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution. I only hope that he changes his mind and votes with us in the Lobby. It was striking that he said he would not be voting with us, given that he sent an e-mail to all Members yesterday encouraging them to do so. It is a shame that he will not change his mind, although he still has time.

Let me now deal with the remarks by the Secretary of State, whom I am delighted to see back in his place. He mentioned that he was drinking “mocktails” on his trade mission to the United Arab Emirates, and I wish him well in there. As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, a “mocktail” is a cocktail without alcohol. The Secretary of State has invented a brand new word in today’s debate, because he has developed a “molicy”, which is a Government policy without legislation. He refused time and again to commit to bringing legislation forward in the Queen’s Speech. Why? It was because he probably does not want to bring it forward or he is being pressed not to do so. Despite making the case for urgency, he does not seem to be doing this. To continue the puns, he seems to be serving the pub trade very much a short measure in his response to this debate, .

My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) rightly highlighted the numerous reports produced by the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee report, which are strewn over the Table. I can count 10 in front of us that have looked at this issue, so the Government do have a great degree of direction on which way they may wish to go. He was right to say that we have been round this issue time and again. He also talked about the considerable coalition for action that we have heard about, and we need to take cognisance of the number of people who have been looking at this matter.

The hon. Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith) blamed the previous Labour Government for some of the problems. I was delighted when the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), highlighted that, because the conclusions of the 2009-10 report, which came out just before the general election, included the sentence:

“The industry must be aware that this is its last opportunity for self-regulated reform.”

It is clear that the reason the previous Labour Government did not take a statutory approach was that they were listening to the influential Select Committee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) said that there was broad agreement on the matter in the House, but that Members and publicans become frustrated when the Government do not take the right action. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones), despite her tour of both Norwich and Huddersfield, was sober enough to notice that there is little legislation on the Government’s current agenda and that there is time to promote this issue, and we hope that the Government will be able to do that before this Session finishes, or in the Queen’s Speech in May.

In their amendment to our motion on this subject last year, the Government said that they would create an adjudicator; they have done that already with the groceries code. This year’s amendment tends to row back from that. We cannot help but think that they are kicking the matter into the long grass, as they did with the zero-hours contracts until they were forced into action by the Opposition. The window of opportunity for a Bill before the general election is rapidly diminishing. The Government must introduce a Bill in the next Queen’s Speech; otherwise, there will be insufficient parliamentary time to pass it. Without such a Bill, we face starting the next Parliament with even more reports telling us how broken the pubco market is.

The Government must support our motion today and set in place a statutory code that allows a mandatory free-of-tie option, independent rate reviews and an independent adjudicator with teeth. That is what this House wants, what it has consistently voted for and what we are asking the Government to do. If the Government do anything else, they will yet again be seen to be failing to stand up to vested interests and to back the local pub.