Currency in Scotland after 2014

Debate between Ian Murray and Mel Stride

Wednesday 12th February 2014 Westminster Hall

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[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?

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Debate between Ian Murray and Mel Stride

Monday 5th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray]

Given the current state of the economy, the hon. Gentleman should be a little more contrite when it comes to economic growth. I only hope that those remarks do not come back to haunt him when the effects of the Olympics are stripped out of growth in the next forecast. We all want to see growth in this country, but we need to wait and see what happens. As I was saying, the Prime Minister’s claim is not supported by the evidence in front of us.

Let me move on to what I think is the worst part of the Bill—shares for rights, or, more accurately, rights for peanuts. This part of the Bill introduces the new concept of an employee owner, but not one Government Member has raised this issue during the debate. I think that perhaps says it all and reflects the debate we had on Third Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill. On the Opposition side, we are strongly in favour of employee ownership, but coupling it with slashing employment rights is contradictory and counter-productive.

Doing away with people’s rights at work is wrong in principle and will do nothing for economic growth. The Employee Ownership Association has pointed out that boosting employee ownership

“does not require the dilution of rights”.

The Chancellor heralded this as an attempt to create a flexible work force, which is ironic given that taking up the shares for rights scheme will mean giving up on flexibility in the sense of flexible working. We must emphasise time and time again that the UK already has the third most flexible employment regime in the OECD—even before the measures passed on Third Reading of the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill last week. This has nothing to do with flexibility; it will simply allow employers to fire at will.

We oppose these measures, not just because they are bad for employees, but crucially because they are bad for business. As Justin King of Sainsbury’s has said, these proposals are likely further to damage the already fragile reputation of business. He said:

“What do you think the population at large will think of businesses that want to trade employment rights for money?”

Any employee who signs up to the scheme will effectively allow the employer to operate a compensated no-fault dismissal scheme of the type proposed by Adrian Beecroft which, apparently, is so fiercely resisted by the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills. Simon Caulkin, a writer on management and business, said:

“In effect, Osborne’s cobbled-together scheme is a back-door re-run of the agenda of Adrian Beecroft”.

Paul Callaghan, partner in the employment team at Taylor Wessing, went further when he said:

“This makes Adrian Beecroft’s fire at will proposals look moderate.”

There is absolutely no evidence to back up these proposals. Being offered as little as £2,000 in shares to give up entitlements to redundancy payments, training, unfair dismissal and some maternity provisions is bad enough, but how can the Government claim to be the most family-friendly ever, when the right to request flexible working hours, which might be helpful for child care and parental employment prospects, is also included in the Bill?

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

Surely the whole point of an employee share scheme is that it is voluntary and optional. Is it not rather patronising of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that those in employment are incapable of exercising such a choice?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Murray]

Let me make three points in answer to that question. First, this applies to new jobs. Secondly, there would be nothing to prevent an employer from sacking all the work force and then taking them on again with new contracts. Thirdly, how can the scheme be voluntary if the job is conditional on people signing up to one of those contracts?

Sarah Jackson, chief executive of Working Families, has said:

“Employers beware. Offering owner employee contracts—where employees effectively sell their employment rights for shares—is unlikely to deliver the highly motivated, engaged workforce you need.

Few men or women with family responsibilities would want such a contract”.

[Mel Stride]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way again. If the scheme is not voluntary, can he explain exactly who will be forced to take part in it?

[Ian Murray]

I suspect that we shall see two developments. We shall probably see an advertisement for employee ownership contracts in the first instance, and we shall probably see unscrupulous employers offering contracts on an employee-ownership basis to people when they feel that it will not be in the best interests for those people to be on normal full-time contracts. [Interruption.] Ministers are shouting “You cannot answer the question” from a sedentary position. I should like the Minister of State to come to the Dispatch Box and give a cast-iron guarantee that not one employee in the country, either in or out of work, will be forced to accept one of these contracts. I can assure him that that will not be the case.

Policy for Growth

Debate between Ian Murray and Mel Stride

Thursday 11th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Let me start by congratulating the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) on securing this important debate. I must confess that I could listen to him all day, for two reasons: first, he is one of the most engaging speakers in the Chamber; and secondly, if he were to speak all day, I am sure he would eventually say something that I might agree with.

The international financial crisis has affected every Government the world over, and getting back to sustained economic growth is the only real way to reduce the deficit and clear the financial crisis for good. The problem with this Government is that their Budget and comprehensive spending review have resulted in a set of conditions that harm growth. I would like to mention a few aspects of that which I am seeing locally in my constituency. As someone who runs his own small business—I have done so since I left university—I should say that many of the points that I will make concern things that I have experienced myself.

The first aspect is business confidence, particularly the small business confidence which, as many Members have said, is so important to economic growth. Many small business owners in my constituency currently see a quadruple whammy coming from the Government, which is not just stopping potential growth but risks causing contraction in the economy, with a real danger of pushing us back into recession.

First, there is a greater degree of nervousness among small businesses’ customers, who are concerned for their jobs and those of their families. They are therefore spending less and see no light at the end of that particular tunnel. In fact, the Government’s own figures, published by the Office for Budget Responsibility, show that 500,000 public sector jobs will go as a result of decisions made by the Government, and of course PricewaterhouseCoopers has projected another 500,000 job losses in the private sector. Many commentators are saying that that may be slightly on the low side.

[Mel Stride]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Ian Murray]

I will make some progress, if I may.

The instability of the job market is causing customers great uncertainty. All in all, they do not see the Government doing anything to assist in the job sector.

Secondly, such problems are always compounded by personal finance, which undoubtedly affects confidence in the small business sector. Products and services will be hit hard by any increase in VAT in January. I am disappointed that the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah) is no longer in his place, because he mentioned cash flow for small businesses, which is a critical factor in how they operate. Many of them go under not because they are not profitable but because of cash-flow issues. One of the main effects on cash flow of what this Government have put in place will come from the increase in VAT in January.

Many people have forgotten the other hidden increase that the Government have imposed on people, which will hit confidence even further. They say that they are not introducing a jobs tax, but they are keeping the national insurance increase for employees, which will compound the problem of confidence in personal finances even further. Individual families see job insecurity, significant job cuts, increasing VAT and less pay in their pay packets, so bottom-up growth through the small business sector, and particularly the service sector, will be sluggish at best.

Thirdly, despite the warm words of the senior bankers whom we have all spoken to over the past few months, businesses and particularly small businesses are not able to borrow to enable growth. Not even in Edinburgh, which is at the forefront of financial services in Scotland and one of the biggest financial services centres in Europe, can small businesses access financial services.

To be slightly fair to the banks—I never thought I would say that in the Chamber—that may be partly a matter of perception. They tell Members that they have adequate funds to lend, but small businesses are not coming forward and creating demand. The Government and all Members have to do more to get rid of the perception that banks will not lend. While it still hangs around, small businesses will not approach banks and their business managers to access finance. Let us call the banks’ bluff. If they are telling us that the funding is there, let us all encourage small business to go and see their banks as soon as possible to have conversations about how they can borrow and therefore enable growth.

Fourthly, many businesses in my constituency rely on the public sector for contracts. If the public sector shrinks at the rate the Government wish, even though they want the private sector to take over, growth will be severely damaged by businesses not being able to access many billions of pounds of public sector contracts.