UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 1st November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

On what has just been said, the issues relating to the power of direction in clause 4 and the steer that can be given on the strategic priorities by the Treasury deserve to be explored in a little more detail. When I see words like

“the Government will not normally”

and I think about what the Government do not normally do in relation to Scotland, I think the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) is right to be slightly anxious.

However, I give the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Bill a broad welcome. Taking the Bill at face value, there is nothing to criticise in its objectives of helping to tackle climate change and supporting the efforts to meet the UK Government’s 2050 targets. Nor is there anything to criticise in the objective to support regional and local economic growth. What I would point out, however, is that—the Minister alluded to this—the delivery of support to facilitate local and regional growth is provided in Scotland by the Scottish Government, local government and other agencies, and that the green targets in Scotland, for example the earlier net zero target, are also set independently in Scotland. It is therefore important that the UKIB supports the devolved Governments’ objectives and does not, even inadvertently, end up working against them. That is important, because Scotland has its own infrastructure investment plan, our own global capital investment plan and our own national strategy for economic transformation that provides the framework for the Scottish Government’s policy priorities.

There is—I am sure the Minister is aware of this—clearly an overlap between the strategic objectives of the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank, particularly in the context of tackling climate change and supporting regional economic growth. The UKIB’s aims include:

“to help tackle climate change”

and

“to support regional and local economic growth”.

The Scottish National Investment Bank’s aims include:

“investing in inclusive and sustainable economic growth”

and

“investing to promote environmental wellbeing”.

To ensure that both banks meet their goals and deliver the maximum impact for the people of Scotland, and in line with the objectives being set in the Bill, it is essential that the two banks are able to work together to identify and support appropriate infrastructure projects in Scotland. It is also vital that Scottish interests are appropriately represented and that there is an awareness of the Scottish economic context and the Scottish Government’s policy goals. To ensure that there is alignment between both of the bank’s aims, there should be an administrative mechanism, such as a memorandum of understanding, between the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank to ensure that policy alignment is maintained. I fear that, unless we have such a mechanism, UKIB’s aims might be undermined and there will ultimately be a risk that it will not deliver fully on its objectives.

It is also vital that the creation of UKIB is not seen as an excuse to reduce further the Scottish or any other departmental or devolved Administration budget. We have already had a £1.7 billion real-terms cut since last December. However, I welcome the Bill and its strategic objectives, including tackling climate change, but it is vital that the Scottish Government’s more ambitious climate targets are reflected either in the Bill or in the way in which the bank operates.

My next point is on the bank’s activities, which are clearly described in clause 2 as

“providing financial assistance to projects wholly or mainly relating to infrastructure”

and

“providing loans to relevant public authorities”—

and so on. That is broadly welcome, as is the description of infrastructure underpinning the “circular economy”—not least because the Scottish Government are introducing a circular economy Bill to advance a zero-waste and circular economy by increasing reuse and recycling rates and improving waste and recycling services. It is important that the investment bank can therefore fund existing bodies such as non-governmental organisations, think tanks and other agencies that are already specialists in their fields. Let us take, for example, the Scottish Institute for Remanufacturing at the University of Strathclyde, which enables industry to become part of the circular economy. To date, the Scottish Institute for Remanufacturing has committed substantial sums to support Scottish remanufacturing to become part of the circular economy.

I also particularly welcome the express inclusion of railways, including rolling stock, in the description of infrastructure. However—this is a very narrow point—I was at a loss as to why there was no specific reference to electrified rail or carbon-neutral rolling stock. That may be implicit in the Bill’s intentions, but it would nevertheless have been helpful to see it.

On strategic priorities and plans, the Bill states:

“The Treasury must prepare a statement of strategic priorities…The Treasury must comply with subsection (1)…The Treasury may revise or replace the statement…The Treasury must lay a copy…before Parliament…The Bank must…act in accordance with strategic plans which reflect the Treasury’s statement”.

I can well understand why the Treasury would be intimately involved in the creation and the nuts and bolts of setting up a bank, but I am at a bit of a loss as to why devolved Administrations, other agencies, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and even those responsible for levelling up have no specified role in setting out the bank’s strategic priorities.

My final point is that, sadly, as has been mentioned, we have been here before with the Green investment bank. The Minister said twice in his opening remarks that he wanted the bank to be long-lasting and to endure, and I agree entirely. However, the way in which the Bill is drafted fails to provide the certainty that many of us would like about its future. The Treasury has too much power over the investment bank’s functions and there are few safeguards to ensure that the bank is not sold off to a private company. It is vital that the Bill contains more of an assurance that UKIB will not meet the same fate as the green investment bank: it was privatised and is now owned by the Macquarie Group. The Green Investment Group, as it is now known, carries out extremely valuable work, but it is vital that the new investment bank is not set up at public expense and public risk only to be sold off later. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members will recall that when it became clear that the old green investment bank was to be privatised, the decision was described as reckless. This is what was said at the time:

“The Green Investment Bank is not just the government’s most lauded innovation in the war against climate change. It has kept investment in the real economy going at a time when bank lending had fallen to an all-time low. It has played a critical role in supporting the UK economic recovery.”

I would like the UK Investment Bank to be long-lasting and to endure. The last thing we would like to see is the public purse and public risk being used to establish an institution that is then privatised, no doubt with some Minister hoping for preference later and a seat on the board. That is not what our party considers the circular economy.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 1st February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Richard Fuller]

I shall go through the amendments thoroughly and therefore I shall not detain the House long.

New clause 1 on the future of the UK Infrastructure Bank would have the effect of not permitting a sale of the bank until the duty set out in the Climate Change Act 2008 and the targets of the net zero commitment by 2050 had been met. That puts significant strictures on the maintenance of one bank and its objectives. I think the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Richard Foord) probably acknowledges that. He wants us to reflect on the sale of the green bank that was set up under the coalition Government. He talked about the profits that it made last year—about £180 million, perhaps a little less. However, I hope that he recognises a couple of things.

First, when the sale was made, the taxpayer benefited to the tune of £2.3 billion. That included a surplus of £186 million on taxpayer-invested funds and a commitment from the successful acquirer, Macquarie bank, to invest a further £3 billion. In the round, I do not think that was a bad transaction to make, because it enabled the attraction of more third-party capital—private capital—to try to achieve some of the objectives of that green bank under its new owners, and indeed that has taken place. Part of the balance with this Infrastructure Bank is: how are we going to evaluate its abilities and success in attracting third-party capital? If the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton reflects, he will see that his broad point in new clause 1 is a fair one, but I hope that he will not press it to a vote, because there are strong arguments on the other side and I would not support the points that he would be trying to make.

Again, I can understand some of the import of Labour’s new clause 2 and amendment 5. Labour is saying, “Here is an opportunity, with a major institution, with which we are going to look at and try to expand the infrastructure of the country, to make sure it has a full focus on the round of public interest in the things it is doing in our name.” That is a good intention but, as the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) knows—we have talked about this in Committee—there are trade-offs to be made within those sets of objectives. As we add objectives to our institutions, those trade-offs make it more obscure to parliamentarians and to the public what the intention of the bank will be.

The objectives that the Government have set out in the Bill are already clear. They have the benefit of clarity, as we know what they are. They also cover a wide range of sectors and intentions, but with the underlying core objective of helping us to meet our green net zero and climate change objectives.

So if the Opposition wish us to support their amendments, where do they see the trade-offs being made between achieving those objectives and having the duties to reduce economic inequalities between regions, to improve productivity, pay, jobs and living standards, and to support supply chain resilience? Very few of us would disagree with some of those objectives—indeed, the Government are making great strides on some of them with their levelling-up initiatives—but we have to accept that as we give directions to some of these institutions with a broad range of objectives, we are, as democrats, losing some control over how public money can be directed; we are giving more discretion to the chief executives of those organisations to do as they see fit and not perhaps to do as we were laying down in statute. I encourage the Opposition to think again, and to consider that perhaps having the clarity and precision of objectives set out in the Bill is precisely what will enable this and future Parliaments to exercise control over the Infrastructure Bank.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, who is speaking for all the Liberal Democrats today, as he has graced us with his presence in a number of the debates, talked a little about the water companies again. I hope that he will have been listening today and will be reflecting back to his party’s leadership that some of the publicity the Liberal Democrats have put out has been substantially misleading about the intentions and actions of this Government. Obviously, parties make political statements all the time, this way and that. However, particularly as he has now followed up with his proposal for how water company discharge can be managed, I hope he will see that it is a serious issue and therefore we should treat it seriously.

Amendment 4 seeks to provide that the support the bank can give can happen only after the water companies have produced a “costed, time limited plan”. I think the water companies would say, “We have already done that.” They have a plan, but not one that can be implemented just like that, in the flash of an eye—I mix my metaphors there. I am not sure that the amendment will have the intention that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton wishes it to have, given what the water companies are already doing and what the Government are already doing with the monitoring and the objectives being set to reduce sewage discharge.

I will step over what the SNP spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), put forward, because I am sure he will be able to elucidate that point clearly—I believe we have heard it here a number of times, although we are never bored by the repetition. Finally, I thank the Minister for listening to the points that were made in Committee and coming forward with the Government’s amendment.

Finally, I thank the Minister for listening to the points that were made in Committee and coming forward with the Government’s amendment. I can see that the Opposition have not put down a further amendment on that matter, which is a sign that he has got that judgment call right.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I will speak to amendment 2 in my name, but before I address that fully, I will say a little about the other Opposition amendments and new clauses.

New clause 1 seeks to stop the bank being sold prior to net zero targets being met, which is sensible in principle, given the fate of the old green investment bank, as I described on Second Reading. New clause 2 seeks a report on the geographical spread of investments, which, again, is sensible given the Government’s recent track record on allocating money from the levelling-up fund. It still strikes me as rather absurd that the Prime Minister’s wealthy Richmond constituency should have been allocated £90 million, while the entire city of Glasgow received nothing in the second round of funding. I think we would all want to ensure that the UK Infrastructure Bank was far more equitable in its disbursements.

Amendment 5 seeks to reduce inequality and improve productivity. Amendments 3 and 4 seek to ensure that investment in water supply quality is permitted, but with conditions on the private companies receiving it. Each of these amendments and new clauses have merit, and we will be happy to support any if they are pressed to a Division.

Government amendment 1 seeks to reduce the gap between reporting from a maximum of seven to a maximum of five years. That is progress of a sort, but five years is still too long. I would be looking for a commitment from the Dispatch Box that the Government anticipate the review and reporting frequency to be within the proposed five-year maximum.

Let me briefly reprise what I said about my own amendment on Second Reading, when I gave the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Bill a broad welcome. Taking it at face value, there was nothing to criticise in its objectives of helping to tackle climate change and supporting the efforts to meet the UK Government’s 2050 target. Nor was there anything to criticise in the objective to support regional or local economic growth.

What I pointed out, though, is that—the Minister on Second Reading alluded to this in his speech—the delivery of support to facilitate local and regional growth in Scotland is provided by the Scottish Government, local government and other agencies, and that the green targets in Scotland, such as the earlier net zero target, are also set independently. It is therefore important that the UK Infrastructure Bank actually supports the devolved Governments’ objectives and does not, even inadvertently, end up working against them. That remains important because we have our own infrastructure investment plan, our own global capital investment plan and our own national strategy for economic transformation that provides the framework for the Scottish Government’s policy priorities.

In giving the Bill a broad welcome, I also made the point that while there is clearly an overlap between the strategic objectives of the UK Infrastructure Bank and the Scottish National Investment Bank—the wording of the aims of both the UKIB and the Scottish National Investment Bank are broadly similar—it is vital to ensure that both banks meet their goals and deliver the maximum impact for the people of Scotland. In line with the objectives set in the Bill, it is essential that the two banks are able to work together to identify and support appropriate infrastructure projects in Scotland. It is also vital that Scottish interests are appropriately represented and that there is an awareness of the Scottish economic context and the Scottish Government’s policy goals.

To ensure that there is alignment between both banks’ aims, I have argued that there should be an administrative mechanism, such as a memorandum of understanding, between the UKIB and the Scottish National Investment Bank to ensure that policy alignment is maintained. I fear that unless we have a firm mechanism, the UKIB’s aims might also be undermined, and there will ultimately be a risk that it will not deliver fully on its objectives. However, the Bill merely suggests in line 9 of clause 2(7) that the Treasury must only

“consult the appropriate national authority before making provision in regulations…that would be within the legislative competence of”

one of the devolved Administrations.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [Lords]

Stewart Hosie Excerpts

Consideration of Lords message
Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)]

The question is that this House agrees with the Lords in their amendment 3B. I am going very slowly in case anybody appears on the Opposition Front Bench—or, indeed, in case anybody currently on the Opposition Front Bench wishes to address the matter. No? Then we will move to the SNP spokesman.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I just have a small point. The SNP supports this Bill and the intention to create the UK Infrastructure Bank, with its objective to help tackle climate change. However, it is worth putting on record very briefly that both the original Government amendment 3 and amendment 3B in lieu from the other place—while the latter does keep “nature-based solutions” in the wording of the Bill—seek to remove

“structures underpinning the circular economy”

from the infrastructure that the Bill is designed to support in its objectives of tackling climate change and meeting the target for 2050.

I am sure people interested in such matters will look rather askance at that. How on earth can we have a UK Infrastructure Bank Bill, with highly laudable objectives to tackle climate change and meet the Government’s own targets, only then to have both the Government and the other place actively remove investment in infra-structure to support the circular economy—which, for goodness sake, must be part of the solution—from the Bill? We are not going to oppose the amendment, because the Lords amendment is marginally better than the original Government amendment, but it is worth putting on record that the removal of the words

“structures underpinning the circular economy”

from the Bill strikes me as somewhat perverse.

[Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I find myself in the unusual and extremely uncomfortable position of agreeing with what the SNP spokesperson has just said. It is a condition that I hope will be quickly removed so that I can assert my usual sound Conservative principles.

There is an important point here, which I know the Minister is aware of, and which is not specific to this Bill. It seems a little odd, if we are looking at the next 10 or 20 years of our investment in infrastructure under the terms of the new Infrastructure Bank, to omit explicitly one of the foundational aspects of infrastructure from the Bill. I know my hon. Friend the Minister will have already reviewed that and he will say, I think correctly, that there is nothing in this Bill to stop support for investment in the circular economy infrastructure. However, I think it is important to have voices at this stage of the debate who can say that clearly, so that those who will now take forward the Infrastructure Bank know that, even if it is not in the Bill, the importance of creating the foundation of the circular economy is explicitly one of the things we anticipate and hope that the bank will do.