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 ] (Second sitting)

James Murray Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to speak to this important but uncontroversial aspect of the Bill. As we have heard, clause 10 concerns interpretation. We do not oppose the definition of “activities”, “financial assistance”, “infrastructure”, “local authority”, “objectives” or “relevant public authorities”.

Clause 11 is a short clause concerning the extent and commencement of the Bill, as well as providing its short title. It stipulates that the Act extends to England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The legislation comes into force two months after the date on which it is passed, and it is to be cited as the UK Infrastructure Bank Act 2022. Government amendment 7 simply removes the privilege amendment inserted by the Lords, and is a procedural necessity that we have no reason to oppose.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11

Extent, Commencement and short title

Amendment made: 7, in clause 11, page 5, line 11, leave out subsection (4).—(Andrew Griffith.)

This amendment would remove the privilege amendment inserted by the House of Lords.

Clause 11, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Businesses and bodies the Bank invests in

“(1) The Bank must publish an annual report setting out—

(a) the geographical spread of businesses and bodies it invests in, and

(b) the ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in.

(2) The Bank must prepare and publish a “Good Jobs” plan for all businesses and bodies it invests in, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.”—(Abena Oppong-Asare.)

This new clause ensures that the Bank considers the location and ownership of the businesses and bodies it invests in and only invests in businesses and bodies who create “Good Jobs” plans to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 1 supports amendment 23. It would require the bank to publish an annual report setting out the geographical spread of the businesses and bodies it invests in, and their ownership. To be clear, amendment 23 required the independent review, conducted over longer time frames, to consider those points. Our new clause requires the bank to report annually on those matters.

Subsection (2) of new clause 1 would require the bank to publish and invest in a good jobs plan for all businesses and bodies, which requires the business or body to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards. Before the Minister objects, I will say that the wording might be familiar to members of the Committee, particularly Conservative members, because it is the same wording they voted to remove from the Bill earlier in Committee. The wording will be familiar to Conservative Committee members because it is the first mission of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Given their voting record in this Committee so far, I am not sure it is something they are committed to any more, but I am sure they can agree that they want the UK Infrastructure Bank to create highly-skilled, well-paid jobs in their constituencies and across the country. I know that constituents in Erith and Thamesmead want to see better job opportunities, whether for young people or older people who are looking to reskill and retrain.

As I said earlier, we do not believe in growth for growth’s sake. We believe in growth because it creates jobs and improves living standards. With fairer choices, we see our economy growing again, powered by the talent and effort of millions of working people and thousands of our businesses. Our new clause would ensure that the bank plays its part in its mission, creating new industries across the country and working hand in hand with businesses to create jobs for the future. Before the Committee concludes, I want to take the opportunity to make some closing remarks and thank some people.

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.)

Autumn Statement Resolutions

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 21st November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Today’s debate has confirmed what we all knew immediately after the autumn statement last week: the Conservatives have no plan to get us out of the mess that results from 12 years of their economic failure. The Prime Minister and Conservative MPs may try to pretend that the mess that we are in is entirely the result of global factors—no one denies the deep impact of covid and Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, which we are all united in condemning—but the problems we face have much deeper roots.

After 12 years of the Conservatives in Downing Street, the UK economy is growing at a third less than the OECD average and at a third less than during the Labour years. We are now the only G7 economy that is still smaller than before the pandemic. The one thing that the last Chancellor got right during his brief time in office was to confirm that our economy has become trapped in a vicious cycle of stagnation. Of course, he and his Prime Minister made a bad situation much worse by crashing the economy and forcing up people’s mortgage bills.

This crisis has not come about overnight, however; it has been 12 years in the making. Through their decisions in office, the Conservatives have left us uniquely exposed to the inflationary shock of oil and gas prices rising. They took misguided, short-sighted and damaging decisions to shut down our gas storage, stall on nuclear power and ban renewable technologies such as onshore wind. As a result, the UK is being hit with the highest inflation forecast in the G7 for this year and next year.

We know what a profound and shocking impact the current cost of living crisis and the Tories’ decisions over the last 12 years are having on many of our constituents, as we heard from many of my right hon. and hon. Friends today. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) spoke about the shocking impact of the number of people forced to rely on food banks in his constituency, and his neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), spoke powerfully about her constituent Geetha, who is unable to cook food from the food bank as she is living in a hotel.

My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) spoke about the appalling housing conditions that some of his constituents have to face, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) spoke about the lack of action on social care and health inequalities and its impact in his constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) spoke of how food price inflation is causing misery to so many people, particularly after 12 years of Conservative government. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown) spoke about the impact of the income tax personal allowance freeze on working people, and about how many students in his constituency are having to rely on food banks.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) spoke about social care and drew on her experience as a former co-chair of the APPG on apprenticeships to make some important points about apprenticeships. Her constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), spoke about the financial pressures their council faces in trying to protect vital services.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke about working people paying the price for the Conservatives’ economic failure while the Government insist on protecting non-dom tax status. Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) highlighted how we are the only G7 economy that is still smaller than before covid, and he spoke about the rising number of people using food banks in his constituency.

All the right hon. and hon. Members we have heard from today spoke about constituents across the country feeling the impact of this economic crisis on their household finances, and we know in this place that the Conservatives are offering no change. Real wages this year are lower than when the Tories came to power in 2010. This is the most profound period of wage stagnation in more than 150 years. Living standards will fall by 7% over the next two years, with real household disposable income per person set to be lower at the end of this Parliament than at the beginning.

Yet, despite the squeeze facing working people, the Conservatives chose in their autumn statement to raise stealth taxes on working people and to hike council tax. They chose to press ahead with tax rises that will cost an average earner more than £500 a year and will see the Government forcing a £100 tax rise on families in an average band D house. This will hit families and working people right across the country and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said, the income tax personal allowance freeze will see an extra 2 million pensioners being pulled into paying tax.

The Government have refused to follow our plans to make fairer choices. They refused to follow our plans such as those to raise billions by ending the large, untargeted tax breaks for oil and gas giants that are supposed to be paying a windfall tax. They could have stopped private equity fund managers who earn millions benefiting from a tax break on their bonuses. They could have closed the non-dom tax loophole to make sure people who make the UK their home pay tax on all their income here. Instead, the Conservatives’ choices will leave the British public, once again, paying the price for their economic failure.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves)—I am honoured to be able to refer to her for the first time as my right hon. Friend—warned last week, the Conservatives are picking the pockets of working people across the country. When she responded to the autumn statement last week, she quoted a timely warning from the police about the behaviour of pickpockets:

“You may have an idea of what a pickpocket looks like but they’re far less likely to stand out in a crowd than you might think…they may work in teams to distract the target…One of their tactics is…where a thief will appear to be over-friendly…while pickpocketing you.”

I would add to that list a further warning from the police:

“Pickpocket teams are adept at creating distractions.”

That advice feels well worth bearing in mind when listening to this Government. The truth is that, no matter how many distractions the Conservatives try to wave up and down, their rhetoric will come to nothing when people feel the impact of the Chancellor’s new stealth taxes.

The average earner faces a tax rise of more than £500 a year from the Government’s income tax threshold freeze. When combined with double-digit inflation, this double whammy makes it clear that the British public are paying the price for the Conservatives’ economic failure.

Alongside their unfair choices, it is clear that the Conservatives have no plan for growth. They have no plan to get us out of the economic mess in which they have landed us. The Office for Budget Responsibility made that clear when publishing its view on the Government’s prospects for delivering growth, confirming that the UK economy will not return to its pre-pandemic level until the end of 2024. The OBR confirmed that the UK is forecast to have the lowest growth in the G7 over the next two years and that the measures in the autumn statement will make no difference to growth in the medium term. Yesterday, the CBI’s director general, Tony Danker, said of the autumn statement:

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

The British people cannot afford another decade like the last. We know that getting our economy growing as it could do is not something that will happen overnight, but we also know that we need a serious long-term plan to build a fairer, greener economy. We need to create good jobs in every part of the country by insulating our homes, ramping up homegrown renewables and investing in the zero-carbon technologies of the future. We need a modern industrial strategy, where the Government work hand in hand with businesses toward our common goals. We need to fix business rates, we need to fix the holes in the Government’s Brexit deal and we need to make sure that Britain is the best place in the world to start and grow business.

It is only by growing the economy that we will start to get out of the mess that the Tories have left us in. After 12 years, people are facing higher prices, higher mortgages and higher rents, and thanks to the autumn statement they are going to be facing even higher taxes, too. Only with Labour’s plan will we be able to start turning things around and finally delivering the higher growth that our country has been lacking for so long. Twelve years of economic failure is letting the British people down. The Conservatives failed to invest in what we need to protect our country and our economy from global shocks. They have failed our public services, they have failed to get wages rising and they have failed to set out a plan for growth. It is time for them to get out the way and let Britain succeed.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, James Murray.

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

Two years ago, in a video entitled “Rishi Explains: Green Home Grants”, the current Prime Minister enthusiastically took credit for the green homes grant scheme. Six months later, the scheme collapsed and £1 billion was cut from its budget. The truth is that we have the draughtiest homes in Europe, but when it comes to insulating homes, the Government are nowhere to be seen. If the Government had followed our plan last year, 2 million of the coldest homes could already have been upgraded, saving households more than £2 billion on energy bills this year alone. Home insulation should be a no-brainer. Will the Chancellor explain why the Government will not follow Labour’s plans and get on with it?

[Jeremy Hunt]

There are all sorts of bigger reasons why we do not want to follow Labour’s plans, not least because they would bankrupt the economy. On the scheme to help people to insulate their homes, the picture that the hon. Gentleman presents is not correct. We are spending billions of pounds to help hundreds of thousands of families up and down the country to insulate their homes. We completely recognise that that is a vital part of our long-term energy policy.

Draft Financial Services (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2022

James Murray Excerpts

Tuesday 8th November 2022 General Committees

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

Thank you, Mr Robertson, and it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship.

As we have heard, the regulations concern miscellaneous amendments to the financial services regulations, and are made to address deficiencies in retained EU law arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the EU. The delegated legislation is technical in nature, and seeks to correct a “deficiency” through regulation 2, and to extend post-Brexit temporary recognition arrangements through regulations 3 and 4. The latter regulations relate to the requirement for institutional investors to carry out specific due diligence prior to investing in EU simple, transparent and standardised, or STS, securitisations. They will extend the exemption from the clearing obligation in relation to EU STS securitisations to those notified prior to 11 pm on 31 December 2024. That will ensure consistent treatment for EU STS securitisations notified before that date.

Regulation 2 of the instrument ensures that the Treasury and the FCA will be able to apply their powers through certain regulations to Gibraltarian firms in the UK financial services market. As we know, the Treasury has made a number of amendments to regulations since 2019 in attempting to ensure that the UK-Gibraltar regulatory framework for financial services continues to operate smoothly. Regulatory changes in the Gibraltar (Miscellaneous Amendments) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 transferred powers from the EU to the Treasury and the FCA. Although the amendments made in 2019 caused the EU to cease having any regulatory oversight of Gibraltar, the regulations did not fully transfer all of the necessary powers and functions to the Treasury and the FCA that they should have done.

Clearly, the SI before us seeks to remedy the Government’s error. It is important that the financial services regulatory framework concerning UK-Gibraltar market access and oversight runs smoothly, so the Opposition will not oppose the measure.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I will set out the views of the Opposition. We will not oppose the Bill today, as it seeks to put the UK Infrastructure Bank, which has been operating on an interim basis since June 2021, as we heard, on a statutory footing. We support the establishment and strengthening of the bank, and we want the new institution to play its part in tackling climate change and supporting regional and local economic growth.

The need for economic growth is central to the challenges our country is facing today, and it comes after 12 years of low growth under the Conservatives. During the last Labour Government, despite the global financial crisis, the economy grew by 2.1% a year. Since 2010, however, the Tories have grown the economy by just 1.5% a year. The outlook under the Tories now is even worse, with growth forecast to be the worst in the G7 over the next two years. As the previous Chancellor recently admitted, under the Conservatives we have been stuck in a “vicious cycle of stagnation”.

That stagnation in our economy has seen real wages fall and the tax burden rise for working people in this country. Even before the disastrous mini-Budget, working people were paying the price for the Conservatives’ record of failure on the economy. What the then Chancellor announced on 23 September poured petrol on the fire, as Ministers unleashed a discredited and reckless economic approach on the British public. Trickle-down economics, unfunded tax cuts and an ideological slashing of protections for workers and the environment—no wonder the former Prime Minister and Chancellor were removed from office so quickly, and no wonder the current Chancellor has had to U-turn on almost every measure. The truth is that this economic crisis was created in Downing Street. The damage has been done, and working people will be paying the price for years to come.

Part of the reason for the Conservatives’ failure to grow the economy as it could have been growing over the last decade has been their failure to invest in the infrastructure our country needs. As we look ahead to the coming decade, investment in our country’s response to the climate emergency could not be more critical, both to protect the environment and to grow the economy.

That is why Labour’s green prosperity plan is so important. Under our plan, we would invest in wind, solar and nuclear power to make our electricity system zero-carbon by 2030, we would insulate 19 million homes across the country, bringing down carbon emissions and people’s home energy bills, and we would invest in new jobs in industries of the future, from electric vehicles to clean steel.

We recognise that the UK Infrastructure Bank can play an important role in supporting essential investment. We therefore welcome the fact that one of its objectives, set out in clause 2 of the Bill, is to help tackle climate change. But setting up the bank is not enough on its own; we need a Government who will drive forward the agenda of green investment that we need. Sadly, the Government’s record makes it clear that they will fail to rise to that challenge.

There is evidence of that failure littered throughout the past 12 years. Ten years ago, the Government set up the Green Investment Bank. Five years later, they sold it off to a private equity group. The Public Accounts Committee said that the bank had

“failed to live up to original ambitions”.

The Committee was clear that, in selling it off, the Government had been focused on

“how much money could be gained from the sale over the continued delivery of GIB’s green objective.”

Supporters of the current Prime Minister on the Conservative Benches may remember that, two years ago, the then Chancellor published a video on his YouTube channel titled: “Rishi Explains: Green Home Grants”. In that video, the now Prime Minister excitedly announced that the brand-new green homes grant scheme was open for applications. However, I was not able to find any videos of him explaining why the green homes grant scheme closed six months later and saw £1 billion cut from its budget. Although he seems to have forgotten to make a video explaining that, the Environmental Audit Committee was happy to set out its views. In its report, “Energy Efficiency of Existing Homes,” it concluded that the scheme had been

“rushed in conception and poorly implemented”

and described its administration as “nothing short of disastrous”.

[Richard Fuller]

The Opposition spokesman talks about the importance of sticking with plans and of permanence. That is quite right; this is infrastructure, which lasts a long time. Will he therefore use this opportunity on the Floor of the House to give the assurance that, should Labour form a Government in the near future, it will make no changes to the objectives listed in the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Murray]

It would be a strange parliamentary procedure for the Opposition to commit to a Bill that has not even passed into law yet; let us see what happens in Committee and on Report and what the Government do, and indeed what we inherit when we become the next Government if we win the next election. So much has changed over the last few weeks; we do not know exactly what we are going to inherit and it is not sensible to make commitments now. We will set them out in our own time ahead of the next election.

Of course, the Government’s record of failure over the last 12 years continues to this day. In January, the Government pledged £l00 million to help Britishvolt, a UK battery start-up company, to build its planned battery gigafactory in Blyth, but when Britishvolt faced a critical hurdle yesterday and needed to access some of that funding, the Government refused. If the Government are not prepared to back a British business investing in green technologies and new jobs in Blyth, what on earth are they doing? When this money was announced, the then Business Secretary said the new factory was

“exactly what levelling up looks like.”

It turns out he may have been right, as this is exactly what levelling up looks like under this Government: broken promises, a record of failure, and a Government unable to deliver the investment and jobs we need.

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. So, while we welcome the new UK Infrastructure Bank and its focus on tackling climate change, we know that no matter how well it plays its part, the British people need a Government with an effective plan to make the investment in the jobs, homes and energy supplies of the future a reality.

I have focused so far on the first of the UK Infrastructure Bank objectives set out in this legislation: helping to tackle climate change. The second of the two objectives in the legislation is also critical for the bank’s success, and is described as being

“to support regional and local economic growth.”

We firmly support that objective, and we want to see all parts of the country benefit from investment in green jobs of the future, along with improved rail and other transport services, and other essential modern infrastructure, including broadband. But when it comes to supporting economic growth across the country—“levelling up” as the Government used to call it—we know that words ring hollow unless people see change. That is why clause 2(6) is so important, as it seeks to make sure the bank has regard to the first mission of the Government’s “Levelling Up” White Paper when exercising its functions under this Bill. We have heard rumours that the Government may seek to remove this new requirement from the Bill now that it is back in the Commons. I am sure the Minister will agree that doing so would make it clear the Government have abandoned their commitment to levelling up, so I urge him in his closing remarks to confirm that this requirement will remain in the Bill.

Finally, along with doing all it can to help tackle the climate crisis and to support economic growth, we believe that the UK Infrastructure Bank must also play its part in helping create good-quality jobs with decent pay and conditions. All businesses and bodies receiving public money from the UK Infrastructure Bank must have a plan to create those good jobs with decent conditions, and there must be tough contractual sanctions to make sure those commitments are honoured. To make sure the bank keeps that focus on good jobs at the heart of its approach, there must be a worker representative on its board.

After 12 years of low growth from the Conservatives, there is a vital need to invest in the infrastructure of the future. We need to invest across the country 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 this Bill’s aim of putting it on a statutory footing.

We will of course press Ministers in the Commons Committee and Report stages to improve this legislation, and, as well as seeking changes from Ministers, we will defend changes made in the Lords that we believe have improved the Bill. Alongside the insertion of levelling up targets that I have mentioned, we welcome the amendment that changed the definition of “infrastructure” to refer to the circular economy, nature-based solutions and energy efficiency. We further support those amendments that strengthened requirements on the Government to have a more regular and meaningful review of the bank’s effectiveness and impact.

However, even if we succeed in strengthening this Bill and the operation of the bank, we know the country needs far more from its Government. We need a Government who will use this bank as part of a far more ambitious plan to grow the economy, to make the transition to net-zero, and to create jobs and industries in all parts of the country.

The record of this Government to invest in greener homes, energy, and jobs is one of failure. The latest so-called “growth plan” from the Conservatives crashed the economy, and their newly appointed Prime Minister is doomed to fail, as he is trapped so tightly by a need to put his party first, leaving the country second. The truth is we need a fresh start to face the challenges of the future, and the sooner the British people get the chance to have their say, the better.

Out-of-Turn Supplementary Estimates 2022-23

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Today’s debate is unusual in terms of parliamentary process. The last time that supplementary estimates were considered out of turn was in October 2008, when an estimate was presented to give the Treasury funding to meet costs during the financial crisis. This is no small matter. These out-of-turn estimates will increase overall spending by £71.4 billion, and I would like to briefly raise certain points on behalf of the Opposition so that they are put on record and the Minister has a chance to respond.

First, the largest component of these estimates is the £60 billion that the Department for Business, Energy, and Industrial Strategy is seeking through its resource annually managed expenditure budget. This funding is due to be split almost equally on implementing a per unit price cap for domestic energy users and a per unit price cap for non-domestic energy users. The Opposition have been calling on the Government since August to implement an energy price freeze, so we are glad that support for businesses and families with energy bills is finally being implemented.

Of course, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) set out a week ago, the passage of this energy support package through Parliament has been typical of the Tories’ hallmark chaos. During the debate on the legislation for this energy support, he pointed out that the now outgoing Prime Minister had gone

“on and on about her decisive action of a two-year guarantee”,

and he reminded us that she had

“even derided the Opposition’s approach of a six-month freeze”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 441.]

That was before U-turning and following our lead by implementing a six-month package. However, despite the U-turns, the Government’s approach differs in crucial respects from ours. Our plan was for a real freeze, whereas the Government’s approach still sees a rise, and of course the Government have refused to use a windfall tax on oil and gas producers’ excess profits to help fund this financial support.

Moving on, the second component of these estimates comprises just over £11 billion of capital annually managed expenditure to fund payments to the Bank of England’s asset purchase facility under the terms of its indemnity by the Treasury, as the Minister set out. This part of the debate is particularly laden with financial terminology, but I will make my point to the Minister as simply as I can. The Bank of England has used quantitative easing to support the economy through lending to households and businesses. This has been carried out by buying Government bonds or other financial assets from private investors through the vehicle known as the asset purchase facility. The asset purchase facility borrows the money to buy these bonds from the Bank and pays the Bank rate—the headline rate set by the Monetary Policy Committee—on that loan. It can therefore make profits or losses, as we have heard, depending on the difference between the Bank rate and the return on the assets it holds.

The Treasury has indemnified the asset purchase facility against any losses it incurs, and of course it receives any running profits. A crucial determinant of whether the Treasury—the public purse—receives profits or losses is therefore the Bank rate. No one is denying that, since the scheme’s inception, it has been expected that, after receiving profits during years of the Bank rate being set low, at some point the Treasury would need to pay out on its indemnity of losses as, for instance, the Bank rate was expected to rise. However, if people thought the public finances were likely to pay for those losses in a relatively stable and orderly fashion, it seems extremely unlikely that the Government would have needed to make the payment by way of an out-of-turn estimate—the first such emergency payment in 14 years.

As the House of Commons Library put it in its briefing, published on Friday, the speed and scale of this cash flow appears to have been unexpected. In the briefing, the House of Commons Library acknowledged that it has been known for a long time that the Treasury would eventually need to make cash payments to the asset purchase facility, but:

“Despite that, the scale and speed of the impact leading to cash flowing from HM Treasury to APF may have been unexpected by HM Treasury, leading to this out-of-turn Estimate. It is also not clear how much of the impact may have been caused by events after the publication of the Main Estimate, for instance the hit to the gilt markets after the publication of the Government’s Growth Plan in September 2022.”

The implication is very clear: this payment to the Bank of England is being made urgently and unexpectedly—the first such out-of-turn payment in 14 years—and it comes straight after the kamikaze mini-Budget. What we are seeing is yet more of the damage done by the Conservatives. The £11 billion bill before us today is a brutal reminder that the Tories created this economic crisis and that working people are paying the price.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction)

James Murray Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

The last time we debated a stamp duty cut in this House was summer 2020. During that debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Dan Carden) made it clear that we do not oppose the principle of additional support for homeowners and buyers, and action to stimulate the housing market. The same principle applies today. At the time, however, my hon. Friend rightly questioned why the Government’s plans include such significant support for second home owners, landlords and holiday home buyers. Why have the Government today designed a scheme that gives so much help to second home owners?

We estimate that the Bill means subsidising second home owners to the tune of £300 million a year. That is not only a very significant amount of public money, but an amount that will be paid out each and every year. How can the Government justify that spending?

What is more, any benefit that the stamp duty changes may have for first-time buyers, or for the housing market in general, will pale into insignificance when compared with the havoc that the Government’s kamikaze mini-Budget unleashed on our economy. The Conservatives’ recklessness has seen more than 40% of available mortgages withdrawn from the market. It has seen lenders begin to price in interest rates of over 6% for two-year, fixed-rate deals. It has led to families facing their mortgage repayments increasing by £500 a month.

Despite the inevitable U-turns on all but a few measures, the damage has been done. No matter how much the Conservatives shuffle the personalities in Downing Street, as the shadow Chancellor, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), put it a week ago:

“People will be paying a Tory mortgage premium for years to come”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 398.]

So we come to the fundamental question behind this resolution: whether spending public money on this stamp duty cut is the right priority in the midst of an economic crisis that the Conservatives have thrust upon us.

Under Labour, all our proposals are fully funded. Our approach is governed by clear fiscal rules and value for money is at the heart of how we would manage the public finances. Our approach to the economy will be even more important than ever, given the damage that the Tories have caused and the mess they have made. In truth, we still do not know just how big that mess will prove to be. As we stand here today, we still have not seen the forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility in relation to the damage that the Tories have caused.

The easy thing for the Opposition to do would be simply to vote for the stamp duty cut today, but that would not be right or responsible. At a time when our economy is reeling from the long-term damage that the Conservatives have done, when current and future homebuyers are facing spiralling and prohibitive mortgage costs, and when we are still flying in the dark as the Tories refuse to publish the OBR forecasts, it is not the time to spend £1.7 billion a year on this tax cut. We will be opposing the Government’s plans.

Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill

James Murray Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

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

Yesterday was one month since the previous Chancellor delivered his mini-Budget. Since then we have had a month of utter chaos, a month of the most extraordinary U-turns and a month in which the Conservative party recklessly inflicted damage on our economy—damage that the British public will be paying for and that will take years to fix, yet the Conservatives are clinging on to power, putting their party’s interest before the country’s. We are here today debating one of the very few remaining pieces of the former Chancellor’s mini-Budget.

As hon. and right hon. Members will know, the current Chancellor—I assume he is still in post as we speak—U-turned on almost all his predecessor’s plans. One of the measures he decided to keep was lifting the cap on bankers’ bonuses. It is particularly hard to understand why he chose to do so when even bankers themselves do not seem to have been advocating for it. In fact, it could involve reputational damage that I know many of them fear. None the less, lifting the cap remained a priority for the previous and current Chancellors.

As we know, the current Chancellor also decided to keep the legislation that reversed the national insurance rise and repealed the health and social care levy. We are glad that the Government finally followed the position that Labour set out over a year ago that raising taxes on working people in a cost of living crisis is wrong. The decision to reverse the national insurance rise was itself a U-turn by the current Chancellor, the outgoing Prime Minister and their colleagues on the position they held just last year. At least by doing the right thing the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) avoided doing a U-turn on a U-turn in this particular instance.

The current Chancellor also decided to keep the changes to stamp duty that were announced on 23 September and that we are debating today. Under these changes, which are the subject of the resolution we have just debated and the Bill that is now to be read a Second time, the nil rate threshold for stamp duty payments on residential properties is increased, effectively by removing the existing lowest band. There are consistent changes to the higher rates for additional dwellings and changes to the threshold and limits for first-time buyer relief.

Before I address the substance of the proposed changes, I would like to ask the Minister about the process of the legislation before us. In the business of the House statement on Thursday 13 October, the Leader of the House of Commons said that we would today be debating

“a resolution relating to stamp duty land tax (reduction), followed by all stages of the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2022; Vol. 720, c. 258.]

Four days later, the current Chancellor confirmed that the stamp duty changes would proceed. However, during her next business of the House statement on 20 October, the Leader of the House said that we would no longer be considering all stages of the Bill today, only its Second Reading. That most recent statement by the Leader of the House did not set a date for the Bill’s remaining stages. What message does that send?

Treasury Ministers will know that, across the country, families and businesses are crying out for stability. In the housing market, as in many parts of the economy, certainty is prized. That is why, when the stamp duty cut was announced, it took effect straight away. It had to be in place immediately to avoid giving people a reason to delay their home purchases as they waited for an announced change to come into force. Indeed, the policy paper published alongside this announcement on 23 September confirmed that no consultation had been carried out on the measure. The reason stated was:

“It would not be in the public interest to consult, as this may have an adverse effect on the housing market if buyers delayed purchases during the consultation period.”

Yet now, the remaining stages of the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Reduction) Bill have been delayed.

This last-minute flip-flop of parliamentary business sends the message that it is open to the new Prime Minister and whoever his Chancellor might be to change their mind over these stamp duty changes. By delaying the Bill’s remaining stages, the Government have introduced more uncertainty into the housing market, which is the last thing anyone needs. I do not know what the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), will be able to say that will give homebuyers any confidence in this matter, but I urge him to try to give them and the housing sector whatever assurances he can.

I fear that the Government have learned nothing from the mistakes they made two years ago about uncertainty when it comes to stamp duty. As hon. Members may remember, when stamp duty was last changed in the summer of 2020, the legislation was rushed through Parliament earlier than planned. This happened after someone thought they were being clever by briefing the press about the plans of the then Chancellor—now the incoming Prime Minister—three months ahead of their being implemented. In that debate, the former Member for South West Hertfordshire and Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Gauke, was quoted as having said that this trailing of plans months ahead would be “hugely counter-productive”. He said that even “two days of speculation” over such plans would be “unhelpful”. So this concern is nothing new. It is crucial that stamp duty changes are not left hanging. Decisions either way must be executed swiftly and with certainty. These last-minute changes to parliamentary business seem to be another reminder that the Conservatives are not fit to govern.

As I said in the previous debate, it would be easy for us as the Opposition simply to vote for the stamp duty cut today, but it would not be right and it would not be responsible. At a time when our economy is reeling from the long-term damage the Conservatives have done, when current and future homebuyers are facing spiralling and prohibitive mortgage costs and when we are still flying in the dark as the Tories refuse to publish the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecasts, this is not the time to spend £1.7 billion a year on this tax cut.

There is so much else the Government could be doing to support the housing market and to help people to get a secure and decent home that they can afford. Beyond restoring financial stability, they could go further and adopt some of our plans to introduce a mortgage guarantee scheme, to raise stamp duty for foreign buyers and to give first-time buyers first dibs on newly built properties. Those are some of the plans we need after 12 years under the Tories, during which home ownership rates have fallen. Compared with when the Conservatives came to power in 2010, there are now 800,000 fewer households under 45 who own their own home. At the same time, nearly 1 million more people are renting privately. Some of them might once have been hopeful that the Government would deliver on their commitment to ban no-fault section 21 evictions, but that promise was made more than three years ago. It was pushed into the long grass, and it was rumoured a few weeks ago that it was about to be dropped. Now, with a new Prime Minister coming through the revolving door, its fate is anyone’s guess. The only safe conclusion is that the Tories cannot deliver the security, stability and affordability that people need.

This debate is focused on the stamp duty changes that the Government are seeking to approve, but it cannot be taken outside the context of their disastrous mishandling of the economy. After 12 years of failure, the Conservatives have shredded any claim to economic competence they might once have thought they had. We are suffering an economic crisis created in Downing Street. The damage has been done and working people are paying the price. The Conservatives can rearrange the personalities in Downing Street, but they have inflicted damage on our country and have no mandate to govern. It is time for the British people to have a say on our country’s future. It is time for a fresh start with a Government who are ready to sort out the Tories’ mess, to grow the economy for working people and to build a fairer, greener future. It is time for general election.