Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Murray]

In October 2021, the right hon. Member for Richmond (Yorks) (Rishi Sunak), as Chancellor, welcomed the OECD global agreement on a global minimum corporation tax rate. The then Chancellor’s press release made it clear that

“The aim is for these historic rules to be implemented and effective from 2023.”

Yet now we hear rumours that some senior Conservatives are agitating against the deal being implemented, and we have all seen the Prime Minister’s weakness when facing resistance from his own party. Can the Minister confirm that pillar two of the OECD deal will be in place, as promised, by the end of this year?

[Victoria Atkins]

Yes.

Non-domicile Tax Status

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That there be laid before this House, no later than 28 February 2023, a copy of the Treasury analysis related to the effect of the abolition of the non-domicile tax status on the public revenue referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in evidence to the Treasury Committee on 23 November 2022 together with any other document or analysis relating to that matter prepared for the Chancellor’s consideration since 14 October 2022.

Today, 31 January, is of course the last day for people across the country who pay taxes by self-assessment to file their returns and make any payments. In a very small number of cases, those tax returns will have been submitted by people who are claiming tax benefits because of their non-dom tax status. That loophole is well known to some of the current occupants of Downing Street; indeed, some of them may still have that status and hope to benefit from it again in future.

The loophole allows a small group of high-income people who live in the UK to avoid paying tax on their overseas income for up to 15 years. It is a status that can be passed down through people’s fathers. It costs the public finances £3.2 billion a year and it fails to support economic growth in the UK. It is a 200-year-old loophole that should have no place in our modern tax system.

[Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)]

If it is such a long-standing loophole, as the hon. Gentleman describes it, why have successive Labour Governments not abolished it?

[James Murray]

We are debating the importance of a fair tax system for the future of this country. This Government have sat on non-dom tax status for months and years. We are questioning why this Prime Minister is not heeding Labour’s calls to abolish the non-dom tax status once and for all, and spend the money on the NHS, childcare and a growing economy.

When the Government are making working people pay more tax, it is simply wrong to allow wealthy people with overseas incomes to continue to benefit from an outdated tax break. It is also bad for UK business. The loophole prevents non-doms from being able to invest their foreign income in the UK, as bringing it here means that it becomes liable for UK tax. That is why the shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), first set out our party’s position last April—four Conservative Chancellors ago. She confirmed that, in government, Labour would abolish the non-dom status as part of our reforms to create a fairer tax system for working people. We will abolish that indefensible 200-year-old tax loophole and introduce a modern scheme for people who are genuinely living in the UK for short periods.

Labour believes that, if a person makes Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here. That patriotic point should be accepted on all sides of the political divide, yet Ministers in this Government, under this Prime Minister, seem desperate to defend the non-dom loophole. What is it about the current Prime Minister that makes him so reluctant to abolish non-dom tax status? The Government are increasing taxes on working people, businesses are struggling, and our NHS is in crisis. Yet the Conservatives defend a small number of rich people who use non-dom tax status and offshore trusts to wriggle out of paying taxes here in Britain.

We know that the Prime Minister understands how non-dom tax status works—he can hardly claim ignorance on that—so how can he possibly justify it? How do Conservative MPs look their constituents in the eye and tell them that their taxes will keep going up, while the taxes of non-doms must always stay down? It is indefensible, and that is why the next Labour Government will act by abolishing the non-dom tax status.

[Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

The hon. Member asks what makes this current Prime Minister reluctant to change non-dom tax status, but what made Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, the former Labour Prime Ministers, also very reluctant to scrap the non-dom tax status? They both reviewed it and both kept it.

[James Murray]

We were not increasing taxes on working people when we were in government. The hon. Gentleman can start looking at the record 13 years ago, but it is high time that Members on the Government Benches took responsibility for what they have done in government—for the low growth, for the high taxes on working people and for the fact that our public services are crumbling.

[Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)]

On that point, to recall what happened in 2010, one of the first things that the incoming Conservative coalition Government did was to increase VAT from 15% to 20%. Who did that hurt?

[James Murray]

As my hon. Friend reminds us, increasing taxes on working people has long been a hallmark of the Conservatives. That has led us to a situation where we have the highest tax burden on working people in more than 70 years.

[Anthony Browne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[James Murray]

No, I will make some progress. Our position contrasts with that of the current Government, whose Ministers have been at pains over the past year to protect this unfair loophole. When the Chancellor told the Treasury Committee last November that he wants

“to make sure that wealthy foreigners pay as much tax in this country as possible”,

his words could not have rung more hollow. They rang almost as hollow as the Prime Minister’s promise when he took office that he would run a Government of “integrity, professionalism and accountability.” The truth is that the Prime Minister is running a Government without even basic competence and it is hitting people across this country.

[Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)]

It is reported today that Infosys, the Indian-based IT firm, which holds several contracts with public services here, is in a £20 million dispute with His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. Whether it is through non-dom status or something else, it costs our country dearly when there are tax avoiders. Does my hon. Friend not agree? I am sure that the Prime Minister knows that company very well.

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the impact that tax avoidance has on the public purse and on people across this country and to the fact that the Prime Minister probably understands some of these issues very well indeed.

As my hon. Friend set out, people are feeling the impact on this country’s economic growth as we lag so far behind other countries around the world. People are feeling the impact of so many parts of our public services breaking at the seams, and people are feeling the impact as the big challenges of the future get kicked ever further into the long grass.

We need a Government with a plan to grow the economy, with the drive to get ahead of the challenges of the future and with the determination to reform and strengthen our public services. Nowhere is that clearer than with the NHS, as more than 7 million people wait months and even years for treatment, unable to work or to live their lives to the full. We know that, to make the NHS fit for the future and able to support a healthy society and economy, it desperately needs reform and sustainable funding from a growing economy.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a typical, anti-aspirational socialist rant straight out of the book called “Politics of Envy”, but he is not actually speaking to the motion on the Order Paper. Why has he put “28 February” in that motion when he could just wait for the Budget on 15 March?

[James Murray]

It would only be a Conservative MP who could criticise an Opposition shadow Minister for suggesting that people should pay their fair share of tax.

I was speaking about the NHS, so let us look at the Government record on the NHS and see what can be done. We know that, after 1997, Labour’s reforms and funding from a growing economy meant that our country had an NHS of which we were proud. If we win the next general election, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) the shadow Health Secretary has set out, one of the first steps we will take to get the NHS back on track is to use some of the money raised by scrapping non-dom status to implement a workforce plan that addresses the root cause of the crisis the NHS is in. Under our plan, we would double the number of medical school places to 15,000 a year. We would double the number of district nurses qualifying each year. We would train 5,000 new health visitors a year. We would create 10,000 more nursing and midwifery clinical placements each year.

[Harriett Baldwin]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the Opposition spokesman to be talking in such general terms about a wide range of things, without actually addressing the motion on the Order Paper?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to set out the details of the kind of long-term workforce plan that we believe the NHS needs.

The NHS is one of the great challenges we face, but we know another challenge that parents and children across the country face: the desperate need for a modern childcare system. We need a system that supports families from the end of parental leave to the end of primary school, as the shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), has set out. As the first step in this landmark shift, we would use revenue from abolishing non-dom tax status to guarantee breakfast clubs for every primary age child in England. Too many families cannot afford the clubs before school that boost children’s learning and development and help parents to go to work. Labour’s plan would save families money as well as help parents to work the jobs and hours they choose.

Our plan to abolish non-dom status, replace it with a modern system and use the money raised to strengthen the NHS, childcare and the economy should be a no-brainer. Yet the Conservatives refuse to do it. We want to know why. This is not the first time I have asked Ministers to explain their position. In the last few months of last year, I asked Treasury Ministers five times to explain why the Government have been so reluctant to abolish this outdated tax loophole. I asked Ministers five times whether the Chancellor considered abolishing non-dom tax status, whether the Prime Minister was consulted about doing so and whether, when the current Prime Minister was Chancellor, he recused himself from discussions on the matter.

Five times I asked those questions; five times the Ministers refused to answer or even acknowledge them. Instead, Ministers have been determined to defend non-dom status. I suspect we will hear some of those same defences today. If previous debates are any guide, the Minister may well repeat her line that we should be grateful to non-doms for paying £7.9 billion in UK taxes last year.

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Victoria Atkins)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. If I am going to be quoted, I expect to be quoted correctly. The hon. Gentleman seems to use words I am not sure he quite understands—I do not know. In my speech, I am going to help him to understand some of the words he has used. But I have only ever sought to set out the facts, which we have to take into account on the issue under discussion, which is that they do pay £7.9 billion in tax. That is the context in which I have cited that figure, not in the way that he has alleged.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Shadow Minister, do you want to respond to that? They were your words, not mine.

[James Murray]

I am not sure I want to respond to that. The Minister has made her point. No doubt she will have a further chance in a few moments to set out those points again. She confirmed, in fact, that she is seeking to use as a defence for non-dom tax status the fact that non-doms paid £7.9 billion in UK taxes last year. Of course that argument entirely misses the point. We are talking about the £3.2 billion of tax that non-doms do not pay each year in this country.

Without wanting to forecast what might come in a few minutes, I suspect the Minister might also recycle her line that non-doms have invested £6 billion in investment schemes since 2012. But, of course, that ignores the fact that only 1% of non-doms invest their overseas income in the UK in any given year, and that non-dom status actively discourages people from bringing money into the UK to invest. Finally, the Minister may try to win praise for the Government having stopped non-dom status being permanent, but I suspect she will neglect to mention the fact that the Government have created a brand-new loophole that allows people to use offshore trusts to retain non-dom benefits permanently.

To be fair, while Treasury Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box time and again to defend non-dom tax status, the Chancellor did at least confirm to the House of Commons Treasury Committee on 23 November last year that he had asked the Treasury to look into how much abolishing that loophole would save. When he was questioned at that Committee by the superb interrogator, my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), the Chancellor claimed:

“I want to make sure that anything you do in terms of the non-dom tax regime does not mean you lose more than you gain.”

We already have clear, well-evidenced work from the London School of Economics and Warwick University—respected academic institutions, using HMRC data—which confirms that non-dom tax status costs the public finances £3.2 billion a year, even after any behavioural effects are taken into account. If the Chancellor is determined to ask his officials to confirm that figure, presumably using the same HMRC data as the LSE and Warwick University, we want to see him doing so as quickly as possible, and we want to see the result. That is why we have tabled today’s Humble Address.

We believe that non-dom tax status should be abolished, but that is not what we will be voting to make happen today. All we are voting for today is to make sure that, by the end of next month, the analysis the Chancellor referred to at the Treasury Committee on 23 November last year is published. Our motion would put that analysis alongside any other document or analysis on non-doms prepared for the Chancellor since he took office into the public domain ahead of the spring Budget.

I would hope that a Government supposedly committed to integrity, professionalism and accountability would feel obliged to accept that request. If not, the question will surely arise, what have they got to hide? What is it they are so keen to keep out of the public domain? What questions or conclusions are they so desperate to avoid? Our motion would simply make sure that any information the Chancellor has been considering in relation to the non-dom tax status would be made public ahead of the spring Budget in March 2023.

We know what happened at the last fiscal event, the autumn statement in November 2022. The decisions taken by the Chancellor at that time hit working people by forcing through a council tax rise and extending freezes in thresholds for income tax and national insurance contributions. Those freezes in tax thresholds will, over time, cost the average household more than £1,000 a year, and yet, at the same time as announcing those tax rises on working people last November, the Chancellor was silent on non-doms. That is what it looks like when working people are forced to pay for this Government’s failure.

Time and again, the Conservatives have chosen to put the burden of tax on to working people, rather than asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay their fair share. If working people are being asked to pay more tax, it is simply wrong to allow well-off people to continue to benefit from an outdated tax break on their overseas income. The truth is that Labour wants lower taxes for people who keep the country moving. The Tories want lower taxes for people who move their tax status overseas. We believe that if a person makes Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here. We believe that abolishing this tax loophole should be common sense and that using that money to invest in the NHS and childcare should make it a no-brainer. We will be voting today to make this Government finally come clean about why they are so reluctant to do the right thing.

Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) Order 2022

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2023 General Committees

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve in the Committee with you as Chair, Sir Robert.

As we all know, and as we heard from the Minister, national and non-domestic rates are calculated as the product of a hereditament's rateable value, as determined by the independent Valuation Office Agency, and the relevant multiplier. The national non-domestic rating multiplier applies in relation to hereditaments of £51,000 or more, while for hereditaments with rateable values of less than £51,000, the small business non- domestic rating multiplier applies.

As we have heard, the regulations before us effectively maintain the non-domestic rating multiplier rates in the financial year 2023-24 at the same level as they were in 2022-23 in relation to the payment of business rates. We will not oppose these regulations, as they seek to implement the commitment in the autumn statement to freeze the business rates multipliers in 2023-24 at 49.9p and 51.2p, preventing them from increasing to 52.9p and 54.2p. However, I would like to check with the Minister my understanding of the calculations that sit behind those values and which are affected by the content of the order.

The explanatory note at the end of this order explains that the small business non-domestic rating multiplier is calculated using a formula in the Local Government Finance Act 1988. Within those calculations, variable 'B' will be the retail prices index for September of the preceding financial year, unless the Treasury by order specify a lower amount.

This order specifies that for 2023-24 the amount for item B will be 320.2. That is of course an increase from its value in 2022-23 of 294.3, as specified by the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (Non-Domestic Rating Multipliers) (England) (No. 2) Order 2021. I understand that the value of B has to increase to achieve a freeze in the multiplier rates, as a result of the separate formula that is used in revaluation years. I would be grateful if, when the Minister responds, she could confirm how the formula achieves a freeze by way an increase in the value of B.

We in the Opposition have already set out our broader position in relation to business rates. We would scrap the current outdated system and replace it with a fairer, more sustainable system that is fit for the future. As we know, however, the Government have abandoned their 2019 promise to do a fundamental review of the system review business rates. That represents another broken promise by a Government who is out of energy and out of ideas.

In conclusion, the Opposition will not oppose this statutory instrument as any benefit for businesses at this difficult time is welcome, and I look forward to the Minister confirming how the formula to which this order relates achieves the freeze as promised.

[Victoria Atkins]

I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North for his efforts in describing the origins of the SI. It is always very interesting, because when I take a SI, I take the view that of course hon. Members will have read and considered carefully the document. I like to try to bring those SIs to life, but the hon. Gentleman can always be relied upon to go through the minutiae of a SI. We are extremely grateful to him for that.

I must pick the hon. Gentleman up on a point that he also mentioned in a Westminster Hall debate, namely that we have somehow reneged on a promise about a review. We have reviewed, and we have been able to make the package under consideration today precisely because we worked with businesses and the Valuation Office Agency—an independent, arm’s length body though it is—to make sure that when we drew up that package, we were responding to the needs of the retail, hospitality and leisure sector. We were drawn to help the needs of that sector in particular, even though he knows that at the autumn statement we had very, very difficult circumstances with which we had to deal. I for one am very, very pleased that in what was a very difficult period for the economy—and it remains so—we were able to find the headroom to bring about the £9.3 billion tax cut for local businesses up and down our high streets.

I know from my own constituency the help that businesses rely on, particularly those on the high streets in some of my more rural market towns. Very often the properties there get small business rate relief and that can mean the difference between their being able to stay in business and sadly being unable to do so.

In relation to the hon. Gentleman’s specific question, I am assured that no increase is involved and that it is an aggregate RV change and there is an adjustment in the appeals package.

[James Murray]

The Minister may have misunderstood my question. I was asking her to clarify how the formula works. I think I understand it, having read the minutiae on which she commented that I pay great attention to, but I just wanted to check that my understanding is correct, because variable B obviously increases in comparison to last year, although business rates are frozen. Could she just explain how that formula works, just so I have clarity that I have understood it correctly?

[Victoria Atkins]

As I said, we are freezing the multiplier. The Valuation Office Agency conducts the valuations of properties independently, as he will know. We have gone to great trouble since the pandemic to support the VOA in its assessment of properties. In relation to the formula, it is precisely because we are freezing the multiplier that we have the SI.

It is very good of the Opposition to support the SI, and I am confident—

[James Murray]

I understand the Minister’s point about the freezing of business rates, which is the commitment made by the Chancellor in the autumn statement. My question is about variable B increasing as a result of the order. How does the formula work to maintain a freeze in business rates in that context?

[Victoria Atkins]

Again, I am very happy to help the hon. Gentleman. The formula reduces the multiplier to affect the increase in rateable value at the revaluation, and then adjusts by about 4% to account for appeals before protecting from inflation. I hope that that level of detail is reassuring to the hon. Gentleman, and that he understands that the full might of the Treasury has worked this out, with the help of the Valuation Office Agency.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Minister.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I echo the consensus about the importance of a merry Christmas. In the last month, I have asked Treasury Ministers three simple questions: whether the Chancellor has considered abolishing non-dom status; whether the Prime Minister was consulted about doing so; and whether, when the current Prime Minister was Chancellor, he recused himself from discussions on the matter. I have asked those questions four separate times, but four times Treasury Ministers have refused to answer or even acknowledge them. Once might be an oversight and twice might be careless, but three times seems deliberate and four times feels like stonewalling. Will the Minister finally show that they have nothing to hide by answering my questions today?

[Victoria Atkins]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is entering into the spirit of pantomime season with his questions. We have been clear that non-doms paid £7.9 billion in UK taxes last year—a number that he does not seem able to accept—which is a significant sum of money. Although we keep the scheme under review, as I have said many times—perhaps he is choosing not to hear it—we must recognise their contribution in UK taxes, because that £7.9 billion helps to pay for the services that we all care so much about.

[James Murray]

Well, that was the fifth time; I wonder what people will make of that.

We believe that to be trusted and effective, the tax system must be fair, yet while millions of working people and businesses across Britain are paying the highest tax burden in decades, those who use tax havens are playing by different rules. Those who benefit from tax havens are undercutting responsible businesses, undermining our public services and breaking the basic principle that we must all play by the same rules. Will the Minister agree that creating a fair tax system must involve challenging tax havens and those who avoid paying their fair share?

[Victoria Atkins]

I ought to declare an interest at this point: I used to prosecute tax fraudsters for HMRC before I came to this place. I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman and put my money where my mouth is when it comes to tackling those fraudsters.

On the income tax take, the top 10% by way of income paid 36% of all tax in 2020-21. We are proud of the fact that our distributional analysis for the autumn statement shows that decisions made at that fiscal event are progressive: the lowest income households will receive the largest benefit in cash terms and as a percentage of income, and will on average be net beneficiaries of decisions made on tax, welfare and amendments to the energy price guarantee.

Business Rates and Levelling Up

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 13th December 2022 Westminster Hall

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate on business rates. I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Opposition.

We know that there are around 5.6 million small businesses in the UK, creating millions of jobs and opportunities. They provide essential services to local people, and make a significant contribution to the Exchequer. Businesses on high streets across our country are not just places to buy things we need. They are also an important part of where we live, work and share our daily lives.

While business rates affect businesses of all sizes, smaller businesses often struggle the most to meet those costs. They face the burden of an outdated system of business rates, while struggling with rising energy costs, rents or mortgages, and inflation, as well as the ongoing impacts of the pandemic and the September mini-Budget. Data released by the Office for National Statistics shows that the number of business closures in the UK in the first quarter of 2022 was a shocking 137,210which is 23% higher than the equivalent figure in the first quarter of 2021.

As the shopkeepers campaign has highlighted, the existing business rates system in England has become disconnected from the realities of modern retail and retail real estate. As the campaign explains, business rates in England were 87% higher in March 2020 than they were in 2001, whereas retail rents rose by only 17% over the same period. As it also points out, business rates have not responded effectively to evolving consumer and economic trends, not least the rapid growth of online retailing, and equitable business rates liabilities are the result of infrequent and delayed revaluations under a system that acts as a barrier to investment. Such views are echoed by the 2018 Confederation of British Industry report, “A Tax System that Enables Businesses to Invest and Grow”, which states:

“In an increasingly digitalised word, it has never been a more crucial time for the Government to act and set out a path for reform to the broken business rates system.”

I am sure the Minister will recall the 2019 Conservative manifesto, on which the party stood for election. Specifically, page 32 promised:

“We will cut the burden of tax on business by reducing business rates. This will be done via a fundamental review of the system.”

We recognise that any help for businesses that are struggling is welcome, and we recognise that the UBR has been frozen, relief extended into 2023-24, and downward phasing abolished. However, it seems that the promise of fundamental reform has now been abandoned. It seems that the Government have abandoned their promise fundamentally to address the imbalance that affects bricks-and-mortar businesses, which find themselves at a significant disadvantage compared with their online counterparts, whose warehouses typically attract considerably lower business rates.

My colleagues and I believe that the current system of business rates should be replaced to meet the needs of a modern economy. Last year, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) announced that a future Labour Government would replace the current system of rates with a new system of business taxation that is fit for the 21st century. We will set out our plans before the next general election, and such a system will involve more frequent revaluations—a move that many people have been urging for years. It will be a fairer system that asks online giants to pay a fairer share, so that small, local and high-street businesses in all parts of the country can thrive. Ahead of fundamental reform, we also believe that the same principle of rebalancing the burden of tax in the system should apply, which is why we have set out our plans for an increase in the threshold for small business rates relief, funded by an increase in the rate of the digital services tax.

We know that partnership between the Government and businesses is critical to economic growth, but it has been lacking in our economy for so long. We also know that small businesses have been held back, particularly by an outdated system of business rates, for many years. To increase growth in all parts of the UK, the Government should support small businesses to invest, grow and create jobs.

As the shadow Chancellor has set out, Labour will carry out the biggest overhaul of business taxation in a generation so that our businesses can thrive. Our replacement system will shift the burden of business taxation so that online firms take a fairer share, while freeing those that rely on bricks-and-mortar premises. Our new system will incentivise investment and include more frequent revaluations and instant reductions in bills where property values fall. It will reward businesses that move into empty premises and encourage, rather than penalise, green improvements to businesses. It will also make sure that no public services or local authorities will lose out from the changes.

Labour’s approach will be based on working together, with businesses, workers and public bodies all pulling together to rebuild Britain and to seize the opportunities of the future. A Labour Government will help to breathe new life into our high streets by calling time on the outdated model of business rates, so that British businesses in all parts of the country can play their part in creating economic growth and the jobs of the future.

Finance Bill

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for this opportunity to consider the details of the Bill and speak to the amendments and new clauses in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).

As we have heard from the Minister, the first three clauses of the Bill relate to the energy, oil and gas profits levy—or, as everyone in the country apart from Conservative Ministers calls it, the windfall tax. It has been a painful journey to get this windfall tax on the statute book. As I set out on Second Reading, it took five months for the Government to finally support the principle of a windfall tax after my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) first called on them to introduce one in January this year.

The current Prime Minister, who was Chancellor at the time, was dragged kicking and screaming into introducing a windfall tax before the summer, but even then he decided to couple it with a massive tax break for oil and gas giants. We do not believe it is right to let that large untargeted and unnecessary tax break continue. It is a tax break that the current Prime Minister introduced and that has left some oil and gas giants paying no windfall tax at all this year. That is why we have been pressing the Conservatives to remove that loophole.

We have also pressed the Government to strengthen the windfall tax by raising its rate from 25% to 38%, a move that would align the overall rate with the taxation of oil and gas profits in Norway. We have also pressed them to extend its period of impact by backdating it to January 2022, the month when the shadow Chancellor first proposed it, and by extending it to 2027-28. We therefore welcome at least some strengthening of the windfall tax in clause 1, which increases its rate to 35%, and clause 3, which extends the period it affects to the end of 2027-28. These clauses do not go as far as we have proposed. They fall short of our plans to increase the rate of the windfall tax to 38% and to backdate it to January 2022, but they do confirm a frequent and recurring pattern when it comes to the windfall tax: Labour leads with the ideas while the Tories object, only ultimately to be dragged kicking and screaming into a U-turn.

Clause 2 highlights one respect in which the Government are still resisting following our lead. In that clause, they have made changes to the rate at which additional investment expenditure is calculated. As the explanatory notes make clear, this rate has been carefully set to

“maintain the overall cumulative value of relief for investment expenditure”.

Let us be clear what this means. The rate of the windfall tax might be going up, but the Government are making sure that the tax break for oil and gas giants is safe. As we see time and again, even when the Government are forced to legislate on a windfall tax, they cannot bring themselves to do it properly.

It is for this reason that we have tabled new clause 2, which would require the Chancellor to publish an assessment of the revenue that is estimated to be generated by the windfall tax and show how much more it would raise if it were backdated to January 2022, if it were increased to 38% and if the additional investment expenditure were reduced to zero—a move that would remove at least some of the oil and gas giants’ tax break. We urge hon. and right hon. Members from all parts of the Committee to support this new clause and help us to push the Government for a stronger and more effective windfall tax that no longer includes such a huge giveaway to the oil and gas giants.

Clause 4 of the Bill concerns tax relief for expenditure on research and development. As we have heard from the Minister, the clause reduces the additional deduction for R&D costs incurred by small and medium-sized enterprises and reduces the rate at which qualifying losses can be surrendered by such companies. At the same time, it increases the rate of R&D expenditure credit, which is mainly claimed by large companies. On this side of the House, we recognise the need to support R&D as a crucial part of driving growth in our economy. It is critical for the Government to have in place a system of R&D tax relief that is effective, that provides as much certainty as possible for businesses to make the investments that our economy so badly needs, and that provides crucial support to key growth sectors in the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

On Second Reading on Monday, the Opposition made it clear that this Bill comes from a Government who have made the wrong choices time and again. In this Bill, the Conservatives have chosen to freeze the income tax personal allowance, which is the latest of the Government’s stealth taxes and will leave an average earner paying more than £500 a year more in income tax. Yet while raising stealth taxes on working people, they have also chosen to leave billions of pounds on the table by maintaining a tax break given to oil and gas giants for doing the things they were going to do anyway.

Furthermore, as we have discussed several times, this is a Bill that leaves non-dom tax status unaffected. The Prime Minister has chosen to preserve a £3.2 billion tax break for UK residents on their overseas income—a tax break that should have no place in the UK tax system in 2022. I ask the Minister, for a third time this week, to answer my various questions on this matter, including whether the Prime Minister was consulted on the option of abolishing non-dom tax status.

On Second Reading, we made it clear that the Government could have taken fairer choices in this Bill. In Committee, we gave hon. Members a chance to vote against the stealth tax rise on working people, but Conservative MPs refused to do so. We gave hon. Members a chance to press the Prime Minister and the Chancellor on ending tax breaks for the oil and gas giants but, again, Conservative MPs refused to do so. We are disappointed that, having had these chances to improve the Bill, we are debating the same unamended Bill we had on Monday.

As well as the unfair choices that this Bill makes, we also know it comes from a Government with no plan to grow our economy or halt the decline in living standards. Over the past 12 years, the UK economy has grown by a third less than the OECD average—a third less than during the Labour years before. We are now the only G7 economy that is still smaller than it was before the pandemic, and over the next two years we are forecast to have the lowest growth of any country in the G20, bar Russia. In the coming two years, living standards are forecast to fall by 7%—the biggest fall on record—taking incomes down to the levels of a decade ago.

The truth is that a plan for growth in the UK has been missing for a decade and its absence is now having a greater impact than ever. That is why we have used the debate on this Finance Bill not only to argue in favour of the fairer choices Labour would take when it comes to taxation, but to set out our plan to escape the doom loop of Conservative economic failure and incompetence.

Under Labour’s plan, we would grow the economy, including by replacing business rates with a fairer system to support high-street businesses; by implementing our modern industrial strategy to work hand in hand with businesses to succeed; by supporting start-ups, so that Britain becomes the best place to start and grow a new business; by fixing the holes in the Brexit deal so our businesses can export more abroad; and by creating good jobs across the country with our green prosperity plan, while making sure people have the skills they need to work in the industries of the future.

Twelve years of the Conservatives has given us chronic economic stagnation. Their reckless incompetence earlier in the autumn crashed the economy, imposed a Tory mortgage premium, put pensions in peril and trashed our reputation around the world. Now, our country faces tax hikes on working people, the biggest drop in living standards on record and no prospect of our growth rate rising from its position at the bottom of the league. We cannot afford another decade like the last, and I urge all hon. Members to join us in voting against this Finance Bill today.

Co-operatives, Mutuals and Friendly Societies Bill (First sitting)

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 30th November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I am overawed by the experience of the other Members of this Committee. I welcome the questions that have been asked and I agree with the hon. Member for Preston that it is disappointing that not all of his ideas have been taken forward, and I put on the record our support for this Bill.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as Chair, Mr Mundell. I begin by thanking and warmly congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Preston on securing cross-party support for this important Bill.

Britain has a long tradition of fostering the principles of co-operation and mutual support. The histories of the Co-operative party and the Labour party in this country are closely entwined. That relationship was institutionalised in 1927, when the Co-operative party and the Labour party entered an electoral agreement to stand joint candidates in elections. Nearly a hundred years later, that agreement is going strong—as one of many Labour and Co-operative MPs, I can attest to that.

To this day, both parties continue to make the case for co-operatives and friendly and mutual societies. I have always been proud to work with the Co-operative party to promote the co-operative businesses that are leading the way in improving equality and productivity at work. As a shadow Treasury Minister, I am keenly aware of the role that co-operatives and mutuals play in trade sectors as diverse as agriculture, renewable energy, retrofitting, creative industries, manufacturing, distribution, wholesale, retail and financial services.

Those British businesses play such an important role in supporting working people across the country in gaining greater control over their lives. In the financial services sector for example, building societies provide people with a low-risk, member-focused banking alternative and research has shown that trust in building societies is consistently high. Building societies are also typically well capitalised, making the sector more resilient to financial shocks and better able to lend and plan for the long term.

At the same time, credit unions serve 1.9 million members and 2.1 million depositors across the UK. Currently, around £1.7 billion has gone out in loans to credit union members, providing a crucial lifeline to the most financially vulnerable in society and preventing people from turning to loan sharks and high-interest loans.

With the right support, the co-operative sector has the potential to provide solutions to many of the crises and challenges we face as a country, such as the cost of living crisis or climate change. But despite the distinctly British character and history of mutually and co-operatively owned companies, and the important role they play in promoting financial responsibility and resilience among their members, the sector’s needs have too often been ignored. The number of mutual credit unions has fallen by more than 20% since 2016. Ordinary families have paid the price, with many forced into the arms of unethical lenders. That will only get worse as the cost of living crisis deepens.

Unlike the United States and many other European countries, the UK is uniquely lacking in mutually or co-operatively owned regional banks, which could play a crucial role in providing the affordable credit that small and medium-sized businesses need to reach net zero. The growth of co-operatives in this country is being held back by a legislative and regulatory framework that is not designed for co-operative businesses. Given their unique structure, co-operatives, mutuals and friendly societies are often excluded from traditional investment methods.

Sadly, as we have heard, the sector is also under threat from demutualisation. There was celebration across the co-operative and labour movements last year when members voted to reject the controversial takeover of the insurer Liverpool Victoria by the private equity firm Bain Capital, yet demutualisation remains a real and present threat to the sector. That is why the provisions contained in the Bill are so important and will help to ensure that mutual capital is maintained for its intended purpose.

We welcome the Government’s support for the Bill, and we would like to use this opportunity to urge the Government to consider wider reform, such as giving co-operatives more freedom to issue perpetual capital to fund investment, to secure the future of this important sector. The Financial Services and Markets Bill, which is currently passing through the House, contains some welcome and long overdue provisions, such as enabling credit unions to offer a wider range of products, but if the Treasury wants to unlock the economic potential of the sector, it could go much further. That is why I hope that, alongside supporting this Bill, the Government will consider supporting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which would give the regulators—the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority—an explicit remit to report on how they have considered specific business models, including mutuals and co-operatives, to ensure they are given parity of esteem with standard providers.

It is time to radically reform the rules governing the sector, to give greater flexibility and to allow mutuals and co-operative financial services to grow. The Labour party and the co-operative movement share a commitment to building a society in which power and wealth are shared fairly. That is why the Labour party and the Co-operative party have agreed an important ambition for government: we will double the size of the co-operative and mutual sector in the UK. We recognise that the Bill represents an important step toward achieving that aim, and we will be giving it our full support today.

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Andrew Griffith)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell, and it is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ealing North. I congratulate the hon. Member for Preston on reaching Committee stage with this important Bill and on the role played by him and his team in championing the needs of the mutuals sector. I also congratulate my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire, who did so much to pilot the Bill in its early stages and has given it his wholehearted support. It is always a pleasure to work with him, and I am pleased that we can take it forward.

I am pleased with the warm reception that the Bill has received right across the sector and on both sides of the House. A number of my colleagues look forward to their membership of the co-operative movement, and would it not be a wonderful thing if the co-operative movement once again graced both sides of the House? I always pay tribute to my thought leader in this space, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes, who has consistently advocated the benefits of a place-based approach to policy. We continue to hang on his every word as to how we can make that a reality as we seek to level up the United Kingdom.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester raised some important points. I will write to him with what I consider to be the best legal position on the perfectly fair points he raised in pursuit of facilitating transactions that would protect mutuals, and not seek to undermine them or create a loophole, which I am sure is not the spirit of what he suggests. Nor would the Government want to see that or support that.

Draft Social Security (Class 2 National Insurance Contributions Increase of Threshold) Regulations 2022

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 29th November 2022 General Committees

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on this Committee with you as chair, Mrs Cummins. I thank the Minister for her opening remarks.

As we have heard from the Minister, the statutory instrument seeks to amend legislation relating to social security and to introduce a new threshold above which self-employed people are liable to pay class 2 NICs. That is referred to in the regulations as the “lower profits threshold” and is set at £11,908 for 2022-23. The SI also seeks to make sure that self-employed individuals with profits at or above the existing small profits threshold of £6,725, but below the lower profits threshold, are treated as if they had paid class 2 NICs. That means people with profits within that range will maintain their eligibility to contributory benefits and statutory payments without having to pay class 2 NICs.

As we can see from the detail of the instrument, part 1 simply gives effect to the regulations from 6 April 2022. Part 2 introduces the lower profits threshold, the new threshold at which liability to pay class 2 NICs begins. It is set at a level equivalent to the threshold at which class 4 NICs become payable. At £11,908 it is an annualised threshold, recognising an increase to £12,570 from July 2022. Part 2 also makes it clear that self-employed individuals should be treated as having paid class 2 NICs where their profits are at or above the small profits threshold but do not exceed the lower profits threshold. Part 3 of the instrument makes consequential amendments to other regulations to make sure they are aligned with the changes made by earlier parts of the regulations before us.

The Opposition will not oppose the regulations. Particularly with the tax burden having risen under the Government to its highest level in 70 years, any help to relieve the pressure on working people is welcome. It is hard, however, to avoid drawing a contrast between the Government's regulations today, which seek to increase certain thresholds at which working people pay taxes, with how they voted last night on the Second Reading of Finance Bill, through which the Government are freezing thresholds, thereby making working people pay more tax. Indeed, last night the Minister defended her and her colleagues’ decision to freeze the personal allowance until 2028—a choice that will leave an average earner paying over £500 more in income tax a year.

I wonder whether the Minister could explain whether she feels there is any inconsistency in her approach. This afternoon, she is taking credit for raising thresholds—

[The Chair]

May I gently remind the shadow Minister to keep his comments in scope of the SI before us?

[James Murray]

Absolutely, Mrs Cummins. I am simply asking the Minister to compare her comments on the regulations in front of us with what she said last night. She may choose to address that in her response.

[Victoria Atkins]

This is not in scope.

--- Later in debate ---

[Victoria Atkins]

Yes.

I am helpfully reminded that the Office for Budget Responsibility produced updated forecasts for the autumn statement, including on all previous measures. Any broader debates about the autumn statement should be dealt with tomorrow in the Finance Bill Committee.

[James Murray]

You have been very clear in your guidance, Mrs Cummins, about what is within and without scope. The points that I referenced about the tax information and impact note were referred to in the explanatory memorandum to the regulations. I therefore followed your judgment, Mrs Cummins, that they were within scope. If the Minister is not entirely clear of my argument, she can either consult Hansard or speak to me after the Committee rises.

[Victoria Atkins]

I have been assured that we produced updated forecasts, as I have already said, for the autumn statement. On the details about TIIMs, I will happily speak to him after the Committee, or write to him and put a copy of my response in the Library. We are in danger of encroaching on the Finance Bill, however, and—

[James Murray]

Will the Minister give way?

[Victoria Atkins]

I have already said to the shadow Minister that I will write to him on outstanding matters. I have taken that approach because we will be going through an awful lot of this tomorrow in the Committee stage of the Finance Bill.

Question put and agreed.

Finance Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 28th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:

“this House declines to give a second reading to the Finance Bill because, notwithstanding the importance of increasing the energy (oil and gas) profits levy, it raises taxes on working people through its freeze of the personal allowance threshold; because it fails to take advantage of other sources of revenue, such as ending non-domiciled tax status and further reducing the tax allowances available to oil and gas companies; and because it derives from an Autumn Statement which fails to set out plans to arrest the 7 per cent fall in average living standards forecast over the next two years, and to grow the UK economy, including through replacing business rates, supporting start-ups, giving businesses the flexibility they need to upskill their workforce, investing in clean and renewable energy, insulating homes across the country, and creating jobs in the green industries of the future.”

After 12 years of economic failure from the Conservatives and 12 weeks of economic chaos, we now have this Finance Bill from a party that is holding Britain back. It is a Bill from a party that has, of course, lost any claim that it might once have tried to lay to economic competence; but more than that, it is a Bill that shows a party making the wrong choices time and again, and a party with no plan to grow our economy and halt the decline in living standards.

As people across the country know, the Conservatives’ economic failure is hitting households hard. We are living through the longest period of earnings stagnation for 150 years, with real wages lower this year than when the Tories came to power in 2010. Living standards are forecast to fall by 7% over the next two years—the biggest fall on record, taking incomes down to 2013 levels. No wonder the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies described the forecast drop in disposable income as “simply staggering”. This will truly feel like a lost decade for people across the United Kingdom: a decade of low growth, with incomes now set to fall back to where they were a decade ago.

I know that Conservative Members are desperate to make out that global factors are entirely to blame for the economic reality of today, but although no one denies the deep impact of covid and of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, it is simply not credible—and it is frankly insulting—to pretend that the occupants of Downing Street, now and over the past 12 years, have had nothing to do with the mess that we face. It was decisions taken by the Conservatives in office that left us uniquely exposed to the inflationary shock of oil and gas prices rising—they took misguided and damaging decisions to shut down our gas storage, to stall on nuclear power and to ban renewable technologies such as onshore wind—and it was decisions taken by the Conservatives in office that have denied the UK the opportunity to grow our economy over the past 12 years as we could and should have done.

[Richard Fuller]

Will the hon. Gentleman please check his facts? If he looks at the period from 2010 to just before the covid pandemic and compares the UK’s average rate of growth with that of our OECD competitors, particularly the G7, he will find that the UK outstrips all of them bar the United States and Germany.

[James Murray]

I seem to be engaging more with the hon. Gentleman now that he is on the Back Benches than when he was briefly on the Front Bench. If he looks at the statistics, he will see that, over the last 12 years, the UK’s growth rate has been a third lower than the OECD average, and a third lower than it was during the previous Labour years. I will take no lessons from him or his colleagues on the need for economic growth.

I take this opportunity to give the previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), some rare credit. At least he took responsibility for the mess he inherited from his colleagues when he confirmed that our economy is stuck in a “vicious cycle of stagnation.” On that point, he was absolutely right.

Over the Conservatives’ 12 years in power, as I said to the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the UK economy grew a third less than the OECD average and a third less than during the previous Labour years. What is more, we are now the only G7 economy that is still smaller than before the pandemic. Over the next two years, we are forecast to have the highest inflation in the G7 and the worst economic growth of any country in the G20 except Russia.

What is more, we are the only country in the G7 whose governing party chose to inflict profound damage on its own economy. Although the Prime Minister and the Chancellor refuse to take responsibility, the British people can see through them and will hold them to account. What the British people want and need is a Government who will get on and do the right thing without having to be pushed, dragged and forced into doing so. That is one reason why people across the country have been so exasperated by the Government’s reluctance at every turn to implement a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ huge profits this year.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) first called on the Government to bring in a windfall tax in January. It took five months of pushing the Government along a painful journey to get them to act. In those months, Conservative Ministers tried to defend their position, saying that oil and gas producers were struggling. They said a windfall tax would be “un-Conservative”, and the current Prime Minister said it would be “silly” to use this money to offer people help with their energy bills. Conservative MPs voted against a windfall tax three times, and then, when they finally realised their position was untenable, they did a U-turn.

Even then, having been dragged kicking and screaming into introducing a windfall tax, the current Prime Minister coupled it with a massive tax break for the oil and gas giants. This tax break will be given to the oil and gas giants for doing the things they were going to do anyway, which helps to explain why some of them have paid zero windfall tax in the UK this year, despite record global profits.

Despite having another go at windfall tax legislation with this Bill, the massive tax break is still there. It is set at a level that will, to quote the explanatory notes,

“maintain the overall cumulative value of relief”.

This tax break leaves billions of pounds on the table. These profits—the windfalls of war—could go towards helping people facing the difficult months ahead. This tax break is set to cost the taxpayer £80 billion over five years. This tax break was brought in by decisions that this Prime Minister took when he was Chancellor, and it is staying thanks to the decisions of the Chancellor he appointed from No. 10. What clearer evidence could there be that, no matter which Conservative goes through the revolving door of Downing Street, it is all more of the same?

All we get from the Conservatives is the same vicious cycle of stagnation. This doom loop has been dragging wages down, forcing taxes up and hitting public services, all of which come round again and keep economic growth low.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I agree with many of the hon. Gentleman’s points. Much of the narrative around the autumn statement and the Budget is about restoring market credibility after the implosion of the previous Administration. In reality, the one thing we could do to restore market credibility is to have a more sensible trading relationship with the European Union. There is no hope from the Government, but will the Labour party offer us that hope?

[James Murray]

Later in my speech I will talk about our plan for growth, which will involve fixing the holes in the Brexit deal with which the Conservatives left the European Union. Alongside other measures, it is important to make sure that the deal has a proper plan for growth that is sorely lacking from this Government.

This Finance Bill is a bill in more ways than one, because as well as being legislation, it represents a bill landing on working people’s doormats. It is a bill that working people are being forced to pay for the Government’s failure. Working people are paying for the Tories’ decisions that, for the last 12 years, have held back the economy, and for the last 12 weeks have crashed it.

This Bill freezes the income tax personal allowance, which will leave an average earner paying over £500 more income tax a year by 2027-28. In the autumn statement, the Government announced a council tax bombshell that will force a £100 tax rise on families in the average band D house from next April. As a result of all the tax measures announced in this Parliament, middle-income households will see their tax bill rise by £1,400. That is what it looks like when working people are made to pay the price.

It is all the more galling for people to be asked to pay more when the Conservatives are so slapdash with public money. Today, new figures show that the current Prime Minister wasted a staggering £6.7 billion on covid payments to businesses and individuals that were fraudulent or mistakes. Despite wasting public money so carelessly, he is now happy to put up taxes on working people across the country.

It could have been different had the Government made fairer choices. The Government could have chosen to close the unfair private equity loophole that gives hedge fund managers a tax break on their bonuses. They could have chosen to reverse their tax cut for banks. Perhaps they have forgotten what their position is, having voted for the cut at the start of the year, before U-turning on it a few months ago and then, more recently, U-turning again.

The Government could have finally chosen to scrap non-dom tax status, an outdated and unfair tax break that costs the taxpayer £3.2 billion a year. A tax break for non-doms should have no place in the UK in 2022. As if evidence were needed that this tax break belongs in a different era, the law makes it clear that people can inherit non-dom status only from their father, unless their parents were unmarried. More fundamentally, this loophole ignores the principle of fairness that should be at the heart of our tax system. If a person makes Britain their home, they should pay their taxes here.

There are theories going around about why the Government are so reluctant to modernise the tax system and abolish the non-dom tax break. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm at the end of the debate, or in writing afterwards, whether the Prime Minister has been consulted on the option of abolishing non-dom tax status. Perhaps he can confirm whether the option was ever considered. When the current Prime Minister was Chancellor, did he recuse himself from discussions on this matter? I see the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury acknowledging my request, so I look forward to his response either later today or in due course.

We know that the Conservatives’ choices on tax are deeply unfair, but we also know that the lack of economic growth is the deep root of the rising tax burden in the UK. Over the last 12 years, the UK economy has grown a third less than the OECD average and a third less than during the previous Labour years. We are now the only G7 economy that is still smaller than it was before the pandemic, and over the next two years we are forecast to have the lowest growth of any country in the G20 bar Russia.

A plan for growth has been missing for a decade, and its absence is having a greater impact than ever. In its report this month, the OBR confirmed that measures announced at the autumn statement will make no difference to growth in the medium term. The CBI’s director general, Tony Danker, put it starkly following the autumn statement:

“There was really nothing there that tells us that the economy is going to avoid another decade of low productivity and low growth”.

We cannot afford another decade like the last. We cannot afford another decade of being held back, another decade of lost growth. That is why Labour’s plan is so crucial to raising wages and living standards, supporting and sustaining public services and driving business investment and job creation in the decade ahead.

[Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, in stark contrast to what we have heard from the Conservative party. It is about people, working people and building back better. Does he agree that, for the people, particularly young people, who lost out so much during covid and are now facing another decade of low growth, we are particularly disappointed about the lack of support for further education and colleges to support the skills agenda for both 16 to 18-year-olds and adults who desperately need retraining and skills? That is starkly absent from what we have heard from this Government.

[James Murray]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. She is a great advocate for investment in skills training and making sure that young people have opportunities in the decade ahead, which they have been denied in the last decade under this Conservative Government. The points she makes fit well within a wider plan for growth, which is at the heart of what Labour Members are proposing and pushing the Government to adopt.

That plan is wide ranging. It covers business rates being replaced with a fairer system that makes sure that high street businesses no longer have one hand tied behind their back. It relies on us implementing a modern industrial strategy to support an active partnership of government working hand in hand with businesses to succeed. Labour’s start-up reforms will help to make Britain the best place to start and grow a new business. Small businesses will benefit from our action on late payments and we will give businesses the flexibility they need to upskill their workforce. As I mentioned, we will fix holes in the Brexit deal so our businesses can export more abroad. Crucially, our green prosperity plan will create jobs across the country, from the plumbers and builders needed to insulate homes, to engineers and operators for nuclear and wind. We will invest in the industries of the future and the skills people need to be part of them. That is what a plan for growth should look like. As John Allan, the chair of Tesco, said recently, when it comes to growth, Labour are the

“only…team on the field.”

The truth is that the need for an effective plan for growth has exposed the emptiness and exhaustion of the Conservative party. All we have to show from 12 years of Cameron, May and Johnson is chronic economic stagnation.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he should not refer to existing colleagues by name.

[James Murray]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. All we have to show from those three former Conservative Prime Ministers in the last 12 years is chronic economic stagnation. This autumn, the Conservatives tried desperately to make their economic strategy work, but their decisions crashed the economy, imposed a Tory mortgage premium, put pensions in peril and trashed our reputation around the world. Now they are trying again. We face tax hikes on working people, the biggest drop in living standards on record and growth still languishing at the bottom of the league. It seems that Conservative MPs are beginning to realise they have come to the end of the road and their time is up. In a timely echo of the popular TV show, hon. Members from Bishop Auckland to South West Devon are declaring: “I’m a Tory, get me out of here.” It seems the Conservative party is finally beginning to realise what the rest of us already know: the Tories are out of time and out of ideas, and Britain would be better off if they were out of office.

Our amendment makes it clear that, although Ministers have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into action on oil and gas giants’ windfall tax, this Finance Bill fundamentally fails the UK economy and comes from a Government holding the British people back. Be in no doubt: the mess we are in is the result of 12 years of Conservative economic failure. With this Bill, they are loading the cost of their failure on to working people. The Government still have no plan to grow the economy and to stop the fall in living standards that is filling people across the country with dread. We need a Government with a plan to get our economy out of this doom loop, to support businesses to grow and to raise living standards again. We simply cannot afford another decade of the Conservatives. Now is time for change, now is the time for them to get out of the way, now is the time to let Britain succeed.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Griffith]

The steer provided from time to time in the context of the wider oversight of the investment bank, under its statutory objectives—effectively, the interpretation layer—is the right place. We do not disagree with the principle, but we could sit here all day and think of various admirable principles that we would like to put into statute. It is the Government’s contention that the provision would over-fetter the discretion of the bank and that it is not the appropriate vehicle. I understand that we will debate this point a number of times as we go through the Bill. The Government want the bank to get on with its job. We want to give it the statutory clarity it needs and to allow Parliament and Government, from time to time, if they wish, to give the steer required.

[James Murray (Ealing North) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve on the Committee with you as Chair today, Mr Davies. As we know, clause 2 concerns the objectives and activities of the UK Infrastructure Bank. Subsection (5) seeks to define the infrastructure and makes reference to the

“structures underpinning the circular economy, and nature-based solutions”,

which reflects an amendment made in the Lords that Government amendment 1 seeks to remove. The Government’s opposition to this measure seems to run counter to subsection (3)(a), which defines tackling climate change as an objective of the bank. I note that the Government do not oppose this objective of the bank, but they do seem to reject its delivery. We naturally oppose the amendment, which highlights how the Government seem to be all talk but unwilling to follow through on solutions to the climate emergency.

The truth is that the Government and the newly appointed Prime Minister have a record of failure on investing in green infrastructure for our country and our economy. While we welcome the bank’s focus on tackling climate change, no matter how well it plays its part, the British people need a Government with an effective plan to make the investments in the jobs, homes and energy supplies of the future a reality.

[Richard Fuller]

The hon. Gentleman may point to conflict between taking out from subsection (5) the words

“structures underpinning the circular economy, and nature-based solutions”,

and the objective in subsection (3) about tackling climate change, but if he looks at subsection (5)(c), he will see that

“climate change (including the removal of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere)”

is retained. The amendment does not affect the Government’s commitments on climate change at all.

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—it is a pleasure to speak with him once again following his brief tenure on the Government Front Bench. I am not quite sure from that intervention whether he supports our opposition to Government amendment 1. Perhaps we will see when we push it to a vote shortly.

Let me move on to Government amendment 2. It seeks to remove from the clause subsection (6), which was introduced by Labour in the Lords. Subsection (6) requires the bank to have regard to public interest when targeting investment that improves productivity, pay, jobs and living standards and reduces the economic disparities between the nations and regions of the United Kingdom. Sadly, it comes as no surprise to us that the Government wish to remove commitments to better pay and the reduction of economic disparities. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead already set out clearly the importance of prioritising job creation and putting it in the Bill. We want all parts of the country to benefit from investment in green jobs for the future, along with improved rail and other transport services and other essential modern infrastructure, including broadband.

When it comes to supporting economic growth across the country—or levelling up, as the Government used to call it—words ring hollow unless people see change. That is why clause 2(6) is so important, as it seeks to ensure that the bank has regard to the first mission of the Government’s levelling-up White Paper when exercising its functions under the Bill. We oppose the amendment because we seek to hold the Government to account on their commitment to level up our country.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

These amendments are a proof positive of the Government having listened. If the hon. Member is so crushingly sceptical, perhaps he will oppose the amendments, which have been proffered following consultation with the DAs. It was never our intention to pursue these measures without an appropriate mechanism to engage with the DAs. That is why we are happy to bring forward these amendments today.

I would like to put on the record my gratitude to officials in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales for engaging so positively to date on the Bill. I think we all support the Bill’s ultimate objectives, and I am hopeful that it will secure a legislative consent motion from each of the devolved legislatures. I hope that hon. Members will support the amendments.

[James Murray]

Government amendment 3 concerns the consultation of appropriate national authorities when using statutory instruments to change regulations pertaining to the definition of infrastructure and the bank’s activities, as outlined in clause 2(7). If changing regulations under subsection (7) fell within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, Senedd Cymru or the Northern Irish Assembly, the amendment would require the Treasury to consult the relevant devolved authority.

Similarly, Government amendment 4 would require the Treasury to consult the relevant devolved authority before including in a statement of strategic priorities for the bank matters within the legislative competence of the devolved authority.

Government amendment 6 simply defines “appropriate national authority” to mean the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, or the Department for Infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

We are supportive of these amendments, as we are supportive of the Union. Labour recognises the very real importance of working closely with devolved Administrations, and we recognise the great work of Welsh Labour. Indeed, the Government could learn a thing or two from Welsh Labour, given its record for infrastructure investment. The Welsh infrastructure investment plan has already allocated more than £12 billion for key capital projects to transform and maintain the NHS estate, deliver 20,000 affordable homes and deliver rail infrastructure improvements.

Amendment 3 agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Griffith]

Clause 2 is of central importance to the policy remit in which the bank will operate. I think that is why we have heard so many different—sometimes contrasting—views about how prescriptive that remit should be. The clause sets out the bank’s objectives and activities, as well as an inclusive definition of infrastructure, which is central to its scope—it is the UK infrastructure bank, after all. The clause also creates delegated powers to enable the Treasury to change the bank’s activities or the definition of infrastructure using secondary legislation under the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have its say. The bank’s objectives to help the Government meet their climate change ambitions and to support levelling up across the UK are currently set out in the framework document. Clause 2(3) puts those on a statutory footing, which we hope sends a signal to the market about the Government’s commitment to these policy aims and the bank’s central role in helping deliver them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

My hon. Friend makes a very fair point. I will be happy to facilitate meetings between her— expert in transport as she is—and the infrastructure bank to get into some of those potential projects in more detail. She made a significant contribution as roads Minister.

Clause 2(5) sets out the definition of infrastructure. We have taken a power to amend the bank’s activities and the definition of infrastructure, using the affirmative procedure in both Houses. Across these different areas, clause 2 is the bedrock on which the bank will operate, and I commend it to the Committee.

[James Murray]

We know that after 12 years of low growth from the Conservatives there is a vital need to invest in the infrastructure of the future. Across the country, we need to invest in new transport, new digital infrastructure, new sources of energy that are sustainable and secure, and new high-quality jobs with decent pay. That is why we support the establishment of the UK Infrastructure Bank, and the Bill’s aim of putting it on a statutory footing.

We wanted the bank to address the deep economic inequalities across the country, which is why we sought to amend clause 2(3). My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead emphasised that, in supporting regional and local economic growth, the bank should reduce economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards. In the same subsection, we wanted to add a third objective: for the bank to support supply chain resilience and the UK’s industrial strategy.

We wanted to retain two Lords amendments that strengthened the Bill: one that included the circular economy and nature-based solutions in the Bill’s definition of infrastructure, and one that Labour introduced to ensure that the Bill would focus on creating jobs and reducing economic inequalities. It is deeply disappointing that the Government have blocked those measures to make the UK Infrastructure Bank succeed and be fit for a modern, prosperous Britain. A Labour Government would deliver investment and loans in a way that supports the entire country, to meet the challenge of regional inequality and the commitments of our climate ambitions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Strategic priorities and plans

Amendment made: 4, in clause 3, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(4A) The Treasury must consult the appropriate national authority about any provision which the Treasury proposes to include in a statement under this section and which concerns a subject matter provision about which would be within the legislative competence of—

(a) the Scottish Parliament, if contained in an Act of that Parliament,

(b) Senedd Cymru, if contained in an Act of the Senedd, or

(c) the Northern Ireland Assembly, if contained in an Act of that Assembly made without the Secretary of State’s consent.

(4B) The duty to consult imposed by subsection (4A) may be satisfied by consultation carried out before the passing of this Act.”—(Andrew Griffith.)

This amendment would require the Treasury to consult the relevant devolved authority before including in a statement of strategic priorities for the Bank any provision which the Treasury proposes to include in the statement and which concerns a subject matter within the legislative competence of the authority in question.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

[Andrew Griffith]

Clause 3 gives His Majesty’s Treasury the power to issue the bank with a strategic steer. We talked about that earlier as a mechanism by which the Government of the day can flexibly, and in an agile fashion, give the bank some direction. That steer will set out what, in the Government’s view, the bank should prioritise and focus its activities on. The strategic steer, and any revisions of it, will be required to be laid before Parliament.

The Chancellor issued the bank with its first strategic steer in March in order to inform the development of the bank’s inaugural strategic plan, which was published in June. That gave the opportunity to share an update on the Treasury’s interpretation of the bank’s strategic objectives and to clarify the definition of infrastructure that the bank should be working with. It highlighted the role that the bank can play in improving energy resilience, as well as setting out the outcome of the Treasury’s review of environmental objectives, confirming that there is significant scope in the bank’s existing objectives for it to invest in nature-based solutions.

We do not expect a steer to be issued more than once a Parliament, which will ensure that the bank has certainty in the long term to plan its investment strategy while keeping pace with Government priorities and ensuring policy alignment across infrastructure investment.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 4, page 2, line 38, at end insert

“and any subsequent, consequential, or relevant correspondence between the Treasury and the Bank.”

This amendment increases transparency surrounding directions issued by the Treasury to the Bank.

I will briefly set out what the clause will do, because that context is necessary to understand what our amendment would do in turn. Clause 4 would grant the Treasury the power to give directions to the UK Infrastructure Bank about how to deliver on its objectives. Subsection (2) would require the bank to comply with those directions, but the Treasury would be unable to give those directions until it had consulted with the bank’s board of directors. The Treasury would be required to publish the directions as soon as practicable, and under an upcoming framework document the bank would have the right to publish a reservation notice in respect of the direction.

The bank has been described by the Government as operationally independent, but we know that the Treasury is the sole stakeholder in the bank. It is therefore possible for the Treasury to exert influence on the bank’s activities as a result of its ownership stake under the normal principles of company law. The Bill’s explanatory notes set out the Government’s position, stating:

“The Government’s policy is that such influence should be used sparingly in practice, and that the default position should be that the Bank is independent as regards its operations and investment decisions.”

Given that the Treasury is the sole stakeholder in the bank, however, we have concerns about the procedural transparency of the clause. We are conscious that the clause provides the procedural framework for the Government to direct the bank. As we have heard several times this morning, the Prime Minister’s infamous Tunbridge Wells speech indicates the need for an extra degree of caution.

The explanatory notes state that the Government’s use of influence will be constrained by the need

“to act rationally and proportionately”,

but the record of the Government causes us to have doubts. We therefore wish to enhance the safeguards in the Bill and ensure that the Government do not exert undue influence over the activity of the bank. Conservative Governments have recently rejected Treasury orthodoxy, and the bank may in future raise concerns about the direction of Government policy. As the bank is compelled to abide by directions given by the Treasury, it is important that we have a transparent process to allow for scrutiny in those circumstances. That is why we tabled amendment 19, which seeks to insert a requirement that

“any subsequent, consequential, or relevant correspondence between the Treasury and the Bank”

be made public. The purpose of the amendment is to increase transparency surrounding directions issued by the Treasury to the bank. It will simply require the Treasury to publish additional relevant correspondence between the Treasury and the bank, providing fuller context to any directions issued and enabling the proper scrutiny of investments made with public money.

[Andrew Griffith]

The hon. Member’s amendment is a solution in search of a problem. The bank is constituted with taxpayers’ money, for which Ministers are accountable to Parliament and to Select Committees, which have the power to compel information and witnesses. There is a strong degree of accountability, and it is entirely appropriate that Ministers, from whichever side of the House they may one day hail, have the ability to direct the bank as necessary, as part of the matrix of ministerial accountability. I therefore reject the amendment. The Government will not support it, simply because we consider it to be wholly unnecessary.

[James Murray]

I take no reassurance whatever from the Minister’s comments, so I will push this amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

Clause 4 contains a provision for His Majesty’s Treasury to issue the bank with a direction of a general or specific nature about how the bank is to deliver its statutory objectives. To address the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Ealing North, the bank must be consulted before any direction is given, and any direction given must then be published by the Treasury. Ministers are rightly accountable to Parliament for this bank, and for any element of risk to the Exchequer or taxpayer that its activities create. That is right, even though the bank will be operationally independent for its day-to-day operations and its own investment decisions.

It is therefore considered necessary and entirely appropriate that the Government have a reserved power to direct the bank about how it is to deliver its objectives. Without a power of direction in statute, His Majesty’s Treasury could still direct the bank; however, there would be situations where the board would refuse a direction if the power were not in statute, given directors’ obligations under the Companies Act 2006. The two things could conflict. The purpose of the clause is to clarify where that conflict could arise, and the power of direction in statute removes that potential.

I assure right hon. and hon. Members from both sides of the House that the Government expect to use the power infrequently. Constrained powers of direction are a relatively common feature of similar institutions, such as the British Business Bank and HMRC. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[James Murray]

I rise to speak briefly, as I set out our views on clause 4 more widely in the context of amendment 19, which I am disappointed that the Government chose to oppose. We were simply aiming to improve procedural transparency; it makes me wonder why the Government are so keen to avoid that being part of the Bill. Having lost that amendment, we will not be opposing the clause as it now stands.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Financial Assistance

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 6 stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

Unfortunately, I was unable to catch the eye of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, but I do not necessarily disagree with much of what he is saying. I only hope that the idea would extend, for example, to reform of the House of Lords and even the size of the Cabinet of the UK Government, which I think is the biggest it has ever been. I am more than happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman. He can rest assured of my support if he chooses to push the amendment to a Division, but I think we need a degree of consistency if he is willing to pursue this line of argument.

[James Murray]

Amendment 12 seeks to limit the maximum number of directors on the board of the bank, moving it down from 14 to eight. Amendment 13 stipulates that at least four of the board members must be non-executive directors. We will be opposing amendment 12, as we believe that it is important for a range of views and expertise to be represented on the board of the bank. We believe that narrowing the board simply narrows the potential for diverse insight and ideas. As we will push for in amendment 20, which I will speak to shortly, we believe it is vital that there be a workers’ representative on the board. Narrowing the maximum figure reduces the board’s capacity to gain workers’ insight. On amendment 13, we will abstain.

[Andrew Griffith]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for rightly raising the important subject of governance, which relates to the arms length body in scope today. It is a very important point when considering how we manage efficiency and the will of Parliament through arms-length bodies. While not disagreeing in principle, the Government will not be supporting amendments 12 or 13, but I would be very happy to engage with my hon. Friend to see if there is something practical we can do.

My concern is with reducing the maximum board size to eight in the UK governance structure under the combined code, which my hon. Friend may have views on as well. Unlike in the US, in the UK we have a large number of committees of boards—rather more than is the case in the US. The limit of eight may present the challenge of not being able to successfully staff and structure those committees. That would be a concern to me.

The amendment requiring non-executive directors to hold a majority on the board is sensible, but I believe that would be the objective of the organisation anyway, and it complies with the corporate governance code to have a majority of non-executive directors. I do not think we need a requirement in legislation, but it is something I am happy to explore with my hon. Friend to give him the comfort he seeks without us moving out of potential compliance. I would ask him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

I would not necessarily oppose that argument, but I look forward to the day when the legislation can be updated to remove any representatives of the Scottish Parliament’s view, when Scotland takes its place as a rightful independent nation.

[James Murray]

I will speak only briefly to amendment 5, which requires the board of the bank to appoint one or more directors to be responsible for ensuring that the board considers the interests of the appropriate national authorities when making decisions. Labour will not oppose the amendment as we believe it is important that the interests of devolved authorities are taken into full consideration through the administration of the bank.

Amendment 5 agreed to.

[James Murray]

I beg to move amendment 20, clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

“(ba) at any time, the Bank is to have at least one non-executive director who is a representative of workers.”

This amendment ensures there is a workers’ representative on the board of the Bank.

As I mentioned earlier, Labour is concerned about the absence of a workers’ representative on the board of the bank, especially as much of the board consists of political appointees at the behest of the Chancellor.

We are committed to a strong partnership between industry, workers and the state. Having a workers’ representative on the board of the bank is important for good governance. The UK’s corporate governance code states that a company should have a combination of a director appointed from the workforce, a formal workforce advisory panel, or a designated non-executive director to facilitate engagement with the workforce. It also states, however, that if the board has not chosen one or more of those methods, it should explain what alternative arrangements are in place and why. In the absence of such an explanation, we have tabled amendment 20, which was originally moved in the Lords. We recognise arguments made in the Lords about how the Government’s framework document, to be published after Royal Assent, provides safeguards and protective measures, however that document is not legally binding. Sufficient questions have also already been raised about the activity of the bank to require explicit assurances in the Bill.

[Richard Fuller]

Could the hon. Gentleman clarify to whom the clause refers when it talks about workers? Is he referring to workers of the infrastructure bank, and is he calling for a board representative of them, because most of those people will be bankers? I am not so sure that Labour has always felt that the bankers are the most in need of representation in financial institutions. Or is he referring to workers of the investee company? If so, how would that be facilitated?

[James Murray]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks.

As I set out, the UK corporate governance code already has clear guidelines about the involvement of workforce in governance of boards. However, we have not had explicit assurances from the Government. We have tabled the amendment to push the Government on that. We need assurances that investments and loans made by the bank will be guided by the economic needs of the entire country. Investments made into tax havens pose a real risk to achieving that goal. Marcus Johns from the think-tank IPPR North has said that the use of tax havens

“hollows out our economy, keeps wages low, holds communities back, and enables money to be syphoned away into a globalised system of extraction”.

He argued that the bank

“must look seriously to prevent the use of tax havens and avoidance among the firms it supports.”

As the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), said, a Labour Government would support

“British industry, supply chains & support industrial strategy”,

and ensure that trade unions

“have access to workplaces”

and that all

“businesses & bodies receiving public money from the UK Infrastructure Bank…have a plan to create good jobs with decent conditions”.

We believe that only with a workers’ representative on the board will the bank have that critical perspective on job creation and succeed in being governed with the entirety of the UK’s economic prosperity in mind.

[David Linden]

I rise to indicate my support for amendment 20—[Interruption]—which I gather is also being given by Comrade Fuller on the other side of the Committee. It is very welcome that the Labour party, having recently departed from its relationship with trade unions and workers, is finally seeing the light and coming back to the idea that it ought to have a strong association with trade unions. The amendment probably could have been tidied up slightly, perhaps to include somebody from the Trades Union Congress, but on the broad thrust of the argument I very much support the idea that the Labour party is once again deciding to go back to its roots, rather than flirt too much with the policy of the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer).

[Andrew Griffith]

I shall strongly resist the temptation to debate the fundamental merits of workers on boards, overturning the existing system of UK corporate governance, or indeed the nationality of any particular worker. Why stop at one English worker when one could have representatives of workers from all the DAs?

In thoroughly opposing the amendment, I confirm that the bank will comply with the corporate governance code, which provides, as the hon. Member for Ealing North outlined, a number of options through which a company can achieve the desired representation. The bank has already designated Marianne Økland to take on the role of facilitating engagement with the workforce. That will be set out in the annual report when published. I ask, perhaps fruitlessly, the hon. Member not to waste the Committee’s time by pressing the amendment to a vote, given that the bank is complying with the existing UK corporate governance code.

[James Murray]

While I welcome the Minister’s assurance about the bank’s compliance with the UK corporate governance code, I am disappointed that he feels that a vote on worker representation on the board would be a waste of time. It is an issue of great importance to the Opposition, so we will press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

The clause sets out the core provisions on the make-up of, and appointment to, the bank’s board of directors. The clause requires that the board has a number of directors that is broadly consistent with comparable boards. It allows for the appointment of directors to have a spread of expertise across banking, infrastructure finance and climate change mitigation, as well as the appropriate balance between executive and non-executive directors. The clause sets out that the chair, chief executive officer and non-execs will be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

All non-exec directors are recruited with reference to guidelines set out by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, and are being appointed based on the skills that they could bring to the board around the UKIB’s mandate. Throughout the process we have been conscious of the need to ensure a broad spread of expertise, as well as cognitive diversity. Finally, the clause contains provisions on the circumstances that would prohibit a person from continuing as a non-exec director, such as bankruptcy, or mental or physical incapacitation. I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

[James Murray]

As the Minister outlined, clause 7 concerns the appointment and tenure of directors to the board of the bank. We note that it requires at least five but no more than 14 directors; that the board’s chair, chief executive officer and non-executive directors be appointed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; that the tenure of non-executive directors not exceed four years; and that a person may not be appointed as non-executive director more than twice.

The clause also requires that a person ceases to be a non-executive director as soon as they cease to be a director by virtue of any provision of the Companies Act 2006, or are otherwise prohibited by law; they become bankrupt or their estate is sequestrated; a registered medical professional treating them provides the written opinion that that person is incapable of serving as a director due to physical or mental incapacity for more than three months; or the person has resigned from the position in accordance with the notification procedures of the bank. We recognise that the number of directors is broadly consistent with comparable boards, such as the Bank of England board. We also understand that the intention behind that is to provide flexibility and a wide spread of expertise.

[Valerie Vaz]

One of the difficulties is that the Bank of England does not have a spread across the regions. Does my hon. Friend not agree that we should have regional expertise as well, which is the whole point of levelling up all parts of the country?

[James Murray]

My right hon. Friend is right: it is critical that the bank considers regional inequalities in its mission, and we are very concerned that the Government opposed earlier amendments on having a commitment to tackle regional inequalities in the Bill. The fact that there is no reassurance that the board will have that in mind either causes further concern about what the bank’s mission will ultimately be.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[James Murray]

I am just drawing to a close.

We understand that the intention behind the composition of the board is to provide flexibility. Notwithstanding the important comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South, and our earlier comments about the lack of worker representation on the board, we will not oppose the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Andrew Stephenson.)