Inheritance Tax

David Linden Excerpts

Wednesday 17th January 2024 Westminster Hall

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is, as ever, a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I thank the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) for securing the debate, which has been quite informative and good-mannered. I pay tribute to my colleague and comrade, the right hon. Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), who I am sure was here to advocate a 5% inheritance tax.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Members for Darlington (Peter Gibson), for Easington (Grahame Morris), for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). It is not often that I disagree with the hon. Member for Strangford. He knows that I hold him in high esteem. But to gently push back on his argument, I suggest that perhaps his parents started with only £5 because of the inequality that exists. Perhaps if inheritance tax was properly in place, his parents might have had more money.

[Jim Shannon]

Perhaps I did not make my point in the right way. My mum and dad started with £5. They worked hard, developed all those shops and the farm that they owned through hard work and effort. What I am trying to say—I hope I can convey it in a sensible way—is that with that hard work ethic they made their £5 go far. It is like the story in the Bible of the 10 talents. They got 10 talents and a whole lot more.

[David Linden]

I appreciate that. Anyone watching this debate will know that, given how we are debating this, some of which is based on Bible principles, this is just something that we will disagree on. I none the less appreciate how the hon. Member put his point and I respect it.

I have listened with great interest to the points made by Members today. As we approach the spring Budget, I suspect it will not be the last fiscal event of the year if we are heading for an autumn election. As with last year’s autumn statement, I am sure that the issue of inheritance tax—we got to the crux of this with the contributions from the hon. Members for Darlington and for North East Hampshire—or more specifically the issue of scrapping inheritance tax, will feature heavily in the debate leading up to the Chancellor’s announcement this spring.

As we debate this issue it is important to be cautious and take stock of who this debate favours and at what cost. Who are the winners and losers? I appreciate that, in the cosy consensus of Westminster, talking about the royal family is not often appreciated, but there is an elephant in the room here: there is no inheritance tax for the royal family. Indeed, recently, the King, following his mother’s passing away, benefited enormously from inheriting the Duchy of Lancaster, and his son benefited enormously from inheriting the Duchy of Cornwall. Neither of them paid any inheritance tax—we are talking about hundreds of millions of pounds being inherited by the King and the Prince of Wales, and not a single penny of inheritance tax being paid on that. I am at risk of upsetting either the Clerk or you, Sir Robert, so I will not make any more comment on that, but simply leave it on the record that my constituents and I find the situation deeply unacceptable.

Just last week, I stood in this Chamber outlining the dire situation that people currently face as a result of the cost of living crisis—a crisis that shows no real signs of improving any time soon. As I go around my constituency of Glasgow East and people talk, quite rightly, about the impact of the cost of living crisis and the upcoming Budget, not a single constituent who has spoken to me in person, emailed me or come to my surgeries has said, “Do you know what, David? The biggest solution to the cost of living crisis is to abolish inheritance tax.”

I suspect that if we challenge people on the issue of polling and go out there—whether to Westminster tube station, Hemsworth or Worcestershire—abolishing inheritance tax will be so low down in people’s priorities. That is why, in the midst of this cost of living crisis, debating whether to scrap inheritance tax—which less than 5% of people pay, despite bringing in nearly £7 billion to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs—seems ludicrous. Against the backdrop of a British Government intent on bringing forward draconian measures to force ill and disabled people into work in order to balance the books, it is ludicrous that they are floating the idea of scrapping an inheritance tax that is paid by only the wealthiest households on these islands.

However, the British Government’s commitment to reducing taxes for the most well-off is a timely reminder of just how out of touch they are. As people struggle to turn on the heating this week in -4° conditions, it is simply absurd that the British Government should be even considering getting rid of a tax that goes at least some way, albeit a very small way, to alleviating the entrenched wealth inequality that is so prevalent in our society. The UK has one of the highest levels of income inequality in Europe, so scrapping or even reducing inheritance tax only deepens further the chasm of inequality that no modern or fair society should have.

Fuelling speculation around the scrapping of inheritance tax, the Chancellor has previously stated:

“I think that inheritance tax is a pernicious tax because one of the main reasons people invest is because they want to pass on savings to their children”.

Inheritance is an emotive subject of debate. It makes us consider life after we are no longer here and what that may look like for the generations after us. This is where my friend the hon. Member for Strangford and I entirely agree: we both know where we are going after we have been here, because of our belief in Jesus. I also happen to believe that people should not have a removal van or a bank van following them to their grave, but that is a separate issue.

As a parent myself, I understand the logic of wanting to be able to provide for our children, even from beyond the grave, but here is why I take that statement and the Chancellor’s line of argument with a degree of incredulity. I recently—in fact, only yesterday—spoke with Daniella Jenkins, a senior lecturer at the University of Bristol, who made an important point about recognising the existing inequality of intergenerational wealth. Like the hon. Member for Darlington, the Chancellor made a sweeping statement without giving any consideration to what I would argue are the huge disparities in intergenerational wealth that exist across these islands.

Pre-existing parental wealth is often overlooked in this debate. It is worth noting that while some children are set to inherit from their parents, some stand to inherit absolutely nothing, either because they do not have any parents or because their parents themselves face dire levels of income inequality, meaning that they will have little to leave behind. Sadly, that issue is probably more the case in constituencies such as mine, Glasgow East; I respectfully suggest that perhaps that is why I bring to the debate a different view from that of my friends on the Conservative Benches.

Although the Chancellor frames his argument around the desire to transfer wealth to children, we cannot escape the fact that the national trends across the population show that parental wealth is very, very unequally distributed. We should also remember that the value of wealth being passed on has also increased over time. If that cycle continued, it would only further entrench wealth inequality among millennial children and younger children, because—frankly—the difference between having rich parents or poor parents is now shaping what economic resources are available to children. That is why it is so important that the discussion about inheritance is centred on fairness and equality.

In Scotland, the issue of taxation has been under intense scrutiny over the last few months, following the Scottish Government’s latest reforms to their progressive tax framework. Only today the Prime Minister spoke about Scotland being the highest-taxed part of the United Kingdom. I am afraid that is not something that keeps me awake at night. As a higher earner, I am quite happy to pay more tax, because the tax that I pay goes towards the education that my children receive at the local school; the tax that I pay goes towards the salary of my mother, who works in the national health service. As a higher earner, I have no issue whatever with paying more tax, although I know that view is not shared widely in this place.

Although the Scottish Government currently have no ability to introduce measures related to income tax, within their income tax framework they have been able to create a progressive tax system conducive to a fair and more prosperous Scotland. With the limited powers that they have, the Scottish Government have ensured that the tax and social security system is progressive and equitable, so that everybody in Scotland—regardless of their background—has the opportunity to thrive. It is within those guiding principles that progressive policies have resulted in Scottish households, particularly in the lower half of the income distribution bracket, being £400 better off a year than they would be in other parts of the UK.

While we are faced with these elevated levels of income inequality, scrapping or reducing inheritance tax would simply deepen and perpetuate the existing disparity. If the British Government are determined to make an already deeply unfair inheritance tax system more unfair, the only conclusion that I can draw is that they must transfer the necessary powers to legislate on inheritance tax to the Scottish Parliament, either through the means of further devolution or—my desired option—independence. Only then will Scotland be able to build a comprehensive and progressive tax system that puts fairness and equality at the centre, representing the values of a modern and equitable society and not those of a Westminster system that frankly does not have the confidence of the people of Scotland.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Nigel Huddleston)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Robert. I join others in congratulating the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) on securing this debate. I also welcome the participation of other colleagues, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame Morris), my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Jayawardena), the hon. Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my opposite numbers.

We have had a wide-ranging debate. Everybody knows, and the Government certainly recognise, that individuals do work hard to build up assets over their lives, and it is a very human instinct to want to pass that on to their loved ones, when they pass away. Yes, there has recently been a great deal of speculation in the media and on Opposition Benches about potential future changes to inheritance tax.

I am sorry to disappoint hon. Members and colleagues, although they will not be surprised to hear that I am not going to announce Government policy here today. The Budget is on 6 March, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer will set out any changes to the tax system in the normal way. There is a great deal of speculation and it would be inappropriate for me to comment.

[David Linden]

Could the Minister confirm something for us? We hear the argument all the time that Ministers will not speculate and that the announcement will be made in the Budget. The blunt reality, however, is that, whether it is speeches at the Conservative party conference, op-eds in The Sun newspaper, or cosy sit-downs with political journalists, the Government do comment on what they are doing before the Budget, do they not?

[Nigel Huddleston]

The hon. Member will be aware from his own party and the Opposition that there is a wide range of views within parties on policy. I am not going to speculate on tax policy. We always keep tax policy under review and always welcome insights, evidence, information and views when developing tax policy, as do the Scottish Government. We have heard a wide variety of views today. As I said, announcements will be made at the appropriate time and place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nigel Huddleston]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. Again, I cannot make any promises today, but I understand the important point he is making about the nil rate. Changes have been made over the years in that area, and I will come on to that point later.

The vast majority of estates pay no inheritance tax. The combination of nil-rate bands, exemptions and reliefs mean that only 5.1% of UK deaths are forecast to result in an inheritance tax liability in 2023-24. That is forecast to increase slightly to 6.3% in 2028-29: it is still a relatively small number, but it makes an important contribution to the public finances. It is forecast to raise £7.6 billion in 2023-24 and £9.9 billion in 2028-29. That revenue is important because it is spent on a whole variety of public services, levelling up and many other areas of Government policy.

The headline rate of inheritance tax is 40% but, as the hon. Member for Wansbeck acknowledged, a 36% rate is charged when at least 10% of the net estate is left to charity. That is an important point of this system as well. It is important to remember that the rate is charged on the part of the estate that is above the threshold and after the application of reliefs and exemptions.

The Government have made changes since 2010 that have increased the threshold to £1 million, made the system fairer and reduced administrative burdens. For example, in 2017 the Government introduced the residence nil-rate band, mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, to make it easier to pass on the family home to the next generation, but we restricted the residence nil-rate band for the wealthiest by tapering it away for estates over £2 million. More recently, we made changes so that for deaths from January 2022, over 90% of non-paying estates each tax year no longer need to complete inheritance tax forms when probate or confirmation is required. At the same time, we have tightened the rules to make sure that individuals make a fair contribution and pay the tax owed. For example, in 2017 we introduced new rules to limit abuses of the rules by people with non-domicile status who used complicated structures to make their UK homes look like offshore assets.

Several hon. Members talked about loopholes and avoidance. It is important to distinguish between the legitimate use of reliefs and those who engage in avoidance by bending the rules to gain a tax advantage that Parliament and none of us ever intended. It is not true that the wealthiest do not pay inheritance tax: national statistics for the tax year 2020-21 show that taxpaying estates valued at over £1 million accounted for 81% of the total inheritance liability.

[David Linden]

If it is not true that the wealthiest do not pay inheritance tax, can the Minister tell us how much the King paid upon inheriting the Duchy of Lancaster?

[Nigel Huddleston]

As I said, estates valued at over £1 million paid 81% of all inheritance tax.

I am aware of the time, and I need to leave a minute or two at the end for the wind-up, but I want to make a final point. We have had a very good discussion about inheritance tax, but we have had an inkling of the differences between the political parties. I am afraid that some Opposition Members started to delve into the politics of envy, which is a well-trodden path for the Labour party, by commenting on elitism, Oxford University and so on. Well, I can tell them that I went to Oxford, and that my Labour-voting trade unionist father, my mum, who worked on the tills at Asda, and the schoolteachers at my comprehensive, instead of being snide about the opportunities and aspiration that I had, actually applauded and supported social mobility. That is what we on the Conservative Benches do. It is disappointing to hear the tone of the Opposition.

The hon. Member for Ealing North, in another well-trodden argument, started trying to lecture us on responsible finances. We still have not had an answer to the question of where the £28 billion of spending promised by the Opposition would come from. We are more than happy to debate the issue, because we have a very clear plan for the economy: we had the very welcome and well-received national insurance cut at the autumn statement, which I do not believe the hon. Member opposed, and nor did he oppose the significant support that we gave during covid or the significant support that we have given households during the cost of living crisis. That all needs to be paid for, which is why we have higher taxes than we would like. But we are on a path to reducing them, because that is what Conservatives do. I thank hon. Members for their contributions; all their comments have been taken on board.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call David Linden to ask the final question.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Westminster-made cost of living crisis is having a devastating impact on household incomes, particularly in Broomhouse, where many young homeowners are seeing mortgage prices soaring. Will the Chancellor use the autumn statement to introduce mortgage interest tax relief to help people across Glasgow to deal with the cost of living crisis?

[Jeremy Hunt]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have taken enormous steps over the past year to help families throughout Scotland to deal with cost of living pressures. If he really thinks that people in Scotland believe that this was a “made in Westminster” problem, when we have experienced an invasion of Ukraine and a global pandemic, I simply say to him in return that after 16 years of SNP rule, GDP per head in Scotland is lower, productivity is falling, employment is lower, and inactivity is higher—[Interruption.]

Cost of Living

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 16th May 2023 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

The point I was making was that stopping the boats is a priority for the people of this country, and this Government are focused on the priorities of the people of this country. We are on track to meet these pledges to make our country and all nations, including Scotland, better off. It is also worth remembering that Scotland already has one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments anywhere in the world. The Scottish Government have substantial tax powers, including in relation to income tax, and agreed borrowing powers to further increase their spending, which I am sure the First Minister will be considering.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister talks about Scotland having one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments in the whole world. How does he feel about Lord David Frost’s accusations that it has too much power and some of it should be taken away? Is that official Government policy now?

[John Glen]

I am not aware that Lord Frost is a member of the Government. I speak for the Government, and I am clear about what the situation is.

As it stands, the Scottish Government are well funded to deliver all their devolved responsibilities. The 2021 spending review set the largest annual block grant in real terms of any spending review settlement since the devolution Act, and that provided an average of £41 billion a year for the Scottish Government. That settlement is still growing in real terms over the three-year spending review period, despite inflation being higher than expected. On top of record spending review settlements, as a result of UK Government decisions at the autumn statement and the spring Budget, the Scottish Government will receive an additional £1.8 billion over the next two years. All that means that the Scottish Government are continuing to receive around 25% more funding per person than equivalent UK Government spending in other parts of the UK.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dave Doogan]

The nub of the hon. Gentleman’s question was whether I support the fishermen of Angus; I would have thought it was patently obviously that I do. In direct answer to his question about highly protected marine areas, the Scottish Government have been very clear—maybe he was down here, juggling jobs, when he should have been up in Scotland listening in his other job—that any community that does not wish to have a highly protected marine area will not have to be subject to it.

[David Linden]

I do not want to put too much on my hon. Friend, but after the debate will he be so kind as to dig out—indeed, fish out—a copy of the Scottish Tory manifesto that commits exactly to that and place it in writing to the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross)?

[Dave Doogan]

I think that would be quite interesting. I am not suggesting for one minute that the hon. Member for Moray was saying one thing in 2019 and another thing now, but it would be interesting to see any clash of rhetoric.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to close the debate on behalf of the Scottish National party. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mhairi Black), who opened the debate and laid bare the sheer scale of the cost of living crisis for people across these islands. It has been remarked on that there have been a number of contributions mainly from the SNP Benches, but I do want to single out the one Conservative party contribution, from the hon. Member for Moray (Douglas Ross). He started off by expressing almost a degree of frustration that the motion before the House touched on the big issues. He then spent the rest of his speech complaining about other issues that he wished he could debate, most of which were under the competence of the Scottish Parliament—of which, of course, he is a Member. It was none the less good of him to grace us with his presence.

We had a contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson), who spoke eloquently about the challenge for businesses in Midlothian as a result of the cost of living crisis. He was followed by my hon. Friend the Member for Angus (Dave Doogan), who expertly rebutted many of the points made by the hon. Member for Moray about comparisons with education policy in England.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) spoke about food and drink. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Neale Hanvey) spoke about the impact of the ice arena energy costs in Kirkcaldy. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) was right to open his speech by painting a picture. At first, most of us thought that he was talking about Brexit, but actually it was a reminder of all the scare stories we were told in the run-up to the referendum in 2014. He was right to do so, because every single one of them has come to pass while Scotland remains a member of the United Kingdom.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) was her usual cheery self; a ray of sunshine every single day. What was noticeable was that, as a member of the party of the people’s vote, she almost avoided any mention of Brexit. The Liberal Democrats have gone from being the party of the people’s vote to the party of “Don’t mention Brexit.”

[Christine Jardine]

rose—

[David Linden]

She is about to do it now.

[Christine Jardine]

I respectfully point out that perhaps the hon. Member was not in the Chamber or did not hear when I talked about Brexit. My party is more than happy to point out the damage that Brexit is doing to the economy, as I did when I spoke. Perhaps he would like to go back and check the record.

[David Linden]

I was in the Chamber—I may have lapsed into a coma. The hon. Lady talks an awful lot about Brexit and the damage of Brexit. The reality is that the Liberal Democrats were advocating a people’s vote knowing that Brexit was a disaster. I ask her to reflect on her party’s hypocrisy on the idea that, when the facts change, people should have the opportunity to change their minds. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[Patrick Grady]

I think that I am right in saying that the Liberal Democrats proposed not only a people’s vote but said that, if they formed the Government of the United Kingdom after the last general election, they would reverse Brexit immediately. So they say that we can have a de facto referendum in the shape of a general election, because their policy was to undo Brexit if they had won the UK general election. Now, of course, they are happy to continue with Brexit.

[David Linden]

I would caution my hon. Friend not to take absolutely seriously any commitments made by the Liberal Democrats in the run-up to a general election. The Labour party has been taking a leaf out of Nick Clegg’s book when it comes to tuition fees in the run-up to a general election. Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh West will have that on her next leaflet.

My hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) spoke about energy, and my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) spoke passionately about businesses in his constituency and the impact that Brexit is having on them.

My little heart was cheered when the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) got to her feet to take part in the debate. It was only about five minutes into her speech that I realised that she is not a member of the Labour party any more, so we could not tick off her speech as a Labour contribution. The debate was finished off by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), who spoke about a number of issues including fuel poverty in the highlands, which has been a massive issue.

[Douglas Ross]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David Linden]

Probably not.

There is a common theme this afternoon, especially from colleagues on the SNP Benches, which is borne out by what we are all hearing on the doorsteps. In short, that theme, which comes up time and again, is that Scotland can no longer afford to be tied to an intransigent British Government who are ploughing on with Brexit at any cost. It is clearer than ever that we need independence, so that people in Scotland can stop paying the price for disastrous decisions made here in London by a Government Scotland did not vote for. Indeed, we have not voted for the Tories since 1955.

We should be clear that the cost of living crisis is not necessarily a new thing. Yes, it has got worse, but for many of those I represent in Glasgow’s east end, it has been a permanent fixture in their lives due to Westminster’s inability to truly tackle structural inequality. In short, the cost of living crisis is the culmination of 13 long, brutal, cold years of austerity policies, compounded by Brexit and last year’s kamikaze Budget, which crashed our economy and trashed the Tories’ record on economic credibility.

Let us look at the backdrop against which today’s debate takes place. In this, the sixth richest economy in the world, baby formula is now security tagged. It is now put behind tills to avert mothers stealing milk to feed their children. Now, if that is the image Ministers wish to project when it comes to global Britain, then it is certainly a look—I will give them that—but it would be remiss of me, when we focus on supermarkets and retailers and discuss the cost of living crisis, not to look at the issue mentioned in the motion before the House today. I ask Members to think very carefully about what is in the motion. It deals with price gouging, which was not referred to by either Front Bencher, and the need for tougher action on what has been dubbed “greedflation”.

We believe Ministers should follow the lead of other European countries to bring down the price of food and other necessities, a view supported by many of my constituents who are absolutely baffled as Westminster stands idly by while food prices continue to skyrocket. For example, France introduced a price block on staple products, with supermarkets pledging to keep the prices of certain food and hygiene products as low as possible. It is precisely for that reason that the British Government must intervene and put pressure on major retailers to pass on falling wholesale prices to consumers. More than that, it is vital that the Competition and Markets Authority utilises its full powers and imposes maximum fines where evidence of price gouging is found. Profiteering from selling basic necessities is unjust at any time, but at a time when numbers—record numbers—of people are turning to food banks and skipping meals, it is simply abhorrent.

The Bank of England recently found that falling costs at some companies were

“not automatically being passed through to consumer prices in an attempt to rebuild profit margins”.

Indeed, it was revealed just on Friday that the chief executive of Tesco received a £4.4 million pay packet last year. Ken Murphy was given a base salary of £1.37 million and received £2.73 million in an annual bonus, making around 197 times the amount of the average Tesco worker. That is the level of inequality we have baked into a system that is broken, and broken beyond repair. When I go to Tesco in Shettleston, the very many people I bump into there are shocked at the idea of a boss coining in £4.4 million, when many of them are trying to work out what they can remove from their basket so they have enough to get by.

Of course, stubbornly high inflation extends to so much more than food. Each week on the doorsteps, constituents tell me how they have resorted to rationing baths and showers simply to save on energy costs. That my constituents live in an energy-rich nation but experience eye-watering levels of fuel poverty is a damning indictment of just how ridiculous the situation has become and why change is desperately needed. But we know all that is exacerbated by Brexit, a Brexit Scotland rejected yet has had foisted upon us against our will. Indeed, it is the only nation of these islands to have been so royally screwed over as a result of the 2016 referendum.

We all know from bitter experience that the slogans on the sides of buses were nothing more than empty rhetoric. In 2016, the right hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) slammed the Resolution Foundation’s findings that food prices would increase as a result of Brexit as “ridiculous”, and claimed that the price of food would go down. What is more, last year he suggested that the rules that the British Government followed while part of the EU made life harder for small businesses and increased the costs of operating. That is an entirely false claim. The hard Brexit that Ministers pursued has made life harder for food exporting and importing businesses. Do not take my word for it. Nick Allen, chief executive of the British Meat Processors Association, told The Independent that the extra burden of new paperwork and fees will see some small specialist importers struggle to survive. We know the price of Brexit, and it is one that Scotland cannot afford to pay.

The OBR predicted in March that the UK’s GDP would fall 4% as a result of Brexit, with trade and exports reducing by 15%. Figures recently released by the ONS show that the UK economy contracted 0.3% in March, making it the worst performing economy of the G7, and the only G7 economy to experience negative economic growth. Last Thursday, the Bank of England raised interest rates to 4.5%, in the 12th consecutive rise. Many of our constituents coming off a fixed rate are watching hundreds of pounds being added to their mortgage bill as a Tory premium, simply for the pleasure of having an incompetent Westminster Government that Scotland did not vote for.

The Conservative party inflicting economic pain is hardly a surprise to my constituents—it is probably why we have not had a Conservative MP in the east end for over 110 years. But what of the Labour party, off to my right? I mean that in more respects than one. In the Labour party, we have nothing more than a pound-shop Tony Blair tribute act, devoid of ideas and lurching ever further to the right in a desperate scramble for the votes of Tory English market towns.

On the biggest issues of the day that have caused economic harm to these islands, the Labour party has nothing to say: on immigration policy, more of the same; on Brexit, more of the same; on social security, more of the same. I therefore say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) that simply hoping that the Tories run out of steam and that the keys to No. 10 Downing Street land in the laps of Starmer and Streeting is no vision to enthuse electors.

In my constituency, voters are clear that they want Brexit binned. They want their MP showing solidarity with public sector workers striking for fair pay. They want a social security system that provides a safety net. And yes, unashamedly, they want an immigration system not driven by focus groups and dog-whistle politics but responsive to our small island nation and its economic needs. Those are the challenges that Scotland faces today.

By failing to support today’s motion on the biggest issue of the day, Labour and the Tories are simply showing Scotland that it stands at a fork in the road. The choice could not be clearer: Scotland can veer off to right with the full-fat Tories or the diet Tories and pursue yet more economic self-harm with Brexit and austerity, or it can veer left by voting yes to independence, to rejoining the European Union and to unhooking itself from the economic bin fire that is the United Kingdom. On that basis, I commend the motion to the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

We had agreed on 10-minute winding-up speeches, but there seems to have been 40% inflation on that. I was not going to stop the hon. Gentleman because it is his debate, but I have to give equal time to the Minister.

Cost of Living Increases

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 25th April 2023 Commons Chamber

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

This is a Government who will always support those who need it the most, a Government on the side of working families and a Government who are implementing generational, landmark policies to get the economy growing and ensure that everyone shares in its success. Just look at the impact of decisions made from the autumn statement 2022 onwards. It shows beyond doubt that Government support for households in 2023-24 provides low-income households with the largest benefit in cash terms and as a percentage of income. In fact, on average, households in the bottom half of income distribution will see twice the benefit of households in the top half, in cash terms. Because of the rises in tax thresholds introduced by successive Conservative Governments, for the first time ever, people in our country can earn £1,000 a month without paying a penny of tax or national insurance.

I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for their contributions: my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom); and my hon. Friends the Members for Guildford (Angela Richardson); for Poole (Sir Robert Syms); for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes); for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer); for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew); for Wantage (David Johnston), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler); for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) and for Peterborough (Paul Bristow). They all made salient comments about the support this Government are giving at this time when the cost of living has been rising.

As my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury reminded us, the best way we can help people get through a period of rising prices is by bearing down on inflation. At the same time, we are cutting debt and growing the economy, which is the best way to lift living standards. But we also know at this time that some people need additional, targeted support. In the face of cost of living headwinds, we demonstrated our values by protecting struggling families with a £2,500 energy price guarantee, one-off payments and the uprating of benefits. Aside from the measures on energy, we made changes that mean the average driver has saved about £200 in total since the 5p fuel duty cut was introduced.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

The Minister speaks about the support the Government have given in terms of the cost of living payment. Why is it then that, when someone has already been punished with a sanction, the Government punish them twice by not giving them the cost of living payment?

[Andrew Griffith]

I understand that the hon. Member and his party are not happy campers these days, but we are giving more money per head to households in Scotland than we are in the rest of the United Kingdom, which is why he should get behind the many benefits of being part of this Union. On this very day, more than 8 million families across the United Kingdom will receive in their accounts a £301 cost of living payment from the Government, and that is just the first of three payments that will be made, giving a total of £900 to low-income and vulnerable families.

One measure that touches almost everyone in this country is childcare. In the Budget, we on the Conservative Benches confirmed the biggest expansion of free childcare in living memory. Our new offer will close the gap between parental leave ending and the current childcare offer. It will reduce costs for parents who can get back to work and make sure that a career break does not become a career end. It will improve the lives of millions of people. It is the right thing to do, but we can only afford to do that because of the fiscal discipline that we have exercised.

I am delighted that, as people go to the polls next week, the Opposition have given them a reminder of where they stand, for which I am grateful. Conservative councils charge £80 a year less than Labour on a band E property. Under the last Labour Government, council tax doubled. Under Labour Wales, it has more than trebled. Not for the first time, Labour says one thing and does another. Its motion today calls for a council tax freeze, and yet, far from freezing, I looked at the increases in every one of the constituencies of those on the Opposition Front Bench: Leeds up 5%; Wolverhampton up 5%; Camden up 5%; Ealing up 5%; Greenwich up 5%. A full house of Labour councils charging the maximum that they are allowed in council tax.

Enough, Madam Deputy Speaker: enough of the Opposition giving us rhetoric not record; enough of the economic illiteracy from Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen; and enough of these ChatGPT-does-socialism-type speeches that we have heard this afternoon. We should never forget Labour’s record on the economy: working people and your children pay the price. Labour has ditched its rule not to borrow to fund day-to-day spending, so we know its plan to stick billions on the nation’s credit card. [Interruption.] Labour Members can intervene if I am incorrect. No Labour Government have ever left office with unemployment lower than when they came to power. Under the last Labour Government, unemployment rose from 2.1 million in 1997 to 2.5 million by the time they left office in 2010—more people denied the security and the chance in life of a good job.

Finally, let us never forget, when Labour left office in 2010, how the then Chief Secretary wrote—[Hon. Members: “Ah!”] What did he write? He wrote:

“Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there’s no money left.”

We are a Government focused on delivering the British people’s priorities. We are making sure that we are helping those in financial strain. We are focused on the future and we are delivering not just for growth that comes when a country emerges from a downturn, but for long-term sustainable healthy growth.

Since the Conservative Government came into power in 2010, we have grown more than major economies such as France, Italy or Japan and around the same as Europe’s largest economy, Germany. We have halved unemployment. We have cut inequality and reduced the number of workless households left to us by 1 million. Output is now higher than pre-pandemic levels. There is still much to do, but we are on track to deliver—

Landfill Tax Fraud

David Linden Excerpts

Thursday 12th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (James Cartlidge)]

It is a real privilege to respond to today’s Backbench Business debate. I congratulate the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on calling this debate. I have only responded to one of these Backbench Business debates before, and it was when I was a Justice Minister, and, sure enough, one of the proponents was my right hon. Friend. It was on the subject of strategic lawsuits against public participation, so he does cover a diverse range of issues, but that is a credit to him.

The shadow Minister, my regional neighbour, referred to the fact that the right hon. Member for North Durham had called himself an anorak on this subject. I agree with the shadow Minister that, what the right hon. Gentleman has shown—as have the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell)—was a clear passion for this subject. He raised some very serious and important constituency matters.

I want to assure all hon. and right hon. Members that we do agree that landfill tax fraud and wider waste crime is an important concern in itself, but it also has a distortive effect on legitimate waste management businesses and the waste management sector, causes significant environmental damage and seriously impacts on local communities. Every single Member who has spoken today—with an emphasis, it should be said, on quality rather than quantity of colleagues participating—has clearly emphasised, above all else, the impact on their communities. I totally understand and sympathise with that point.

I will just canter through the history, as the shadow Minister did, because it is very important. We had a long established habit of landfilling our waste. As recently as the 1990s, more than 90% of household waste went to landfill, with only 5% of household waste being recycled. As he said, a landfill tax was introduced in October 1996 to help remedy that. The idea was to encourage the diversion of waste away from landfill and towards more environmentally friendly waste management options, such as recycling, reuse and recovery.

Having introduced the tax, it is also true, as the right hon. Member for North Durham pointed out, that successive Governments have applied escalators to that standard rate. These escalators increased the rate but also provided lead-in time and certainty that was welcomed by the sector, which was looking to invest in more sustainable waste management options. The tax has been widely recognised as being successful in contributing to the fall in landfill waste.

Where are we now? Since 2000, local authority waste sent to landfill in England has fallen by 90% and household recycling rates are now at around 45%. The tax collected in the last financial year was £667 million, which is in many ways a successful tax. Obviously, I am speaking primarily from the Exchequer’s point of view, but we have achieved a substantial policy goal there. We should think of a parallel universe in which we did not achieve that reduction in landfill—imagine how many square miles of our wonderful countryside would now be taken up by landfill. It is a striking thought.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

I do not want to intrude too much on this debate, but the Minister is right when he talks about the importance of moving more towards recycling and less to landfill. Will he join me in calling on Glasgow City Council to reject the planning application from Patersons of Greenoakhill, a landfill site that blights communities in Mount Vernon, Carmyle, Baillieston and Broomhouse?

[James Cartlidge]

It is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman has got that on the record, but he will appreciate that I am not going to comment—it is devolved, but beyond that it is a planning matter and not a matter for the Exchequer. He has got it on the record, though.

It is true that landfill tax has inevitably been relatively difficult to enforce, and non-compliance is high. The right hon. Member for North Durham is absolutely right that this is partly due to increases in the standard rate but, obviously, as the tax has increased, it has become more effective at incentivising disposal other than landfill. In parallel, there has inevitably been an increase in abuse and non-compliance.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2022 Commons Chamber

[John Glen]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend—perhaps unsurprisingly. The Government have developed a bespoke and objective index of priority places. We are very keen for this investment to work effectively, wherever it is. I very much respect the representations he has made this morning for the bid in his own constituency.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

An important part of levelling-up communities is to invest in the community transport network. Last week, I visited Shettleston-based Community Transport Glasgow alongside Councillor Laura Doherty. They were telling me that they were having real difficulty attracting volunteers because of HMRC rules around mileage rates. Is that something that the Government are willing to look at? Will the Minister be willing to meet me and Community Transport Glasgow to discuss that issue?

[John Glen]

We keep these matters under review, but I am sure my colleague the Financial Secretary, who takes a close interest in these matters, will follow up in the appropriate way.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

As I have hinted, Labour Members believe that the bank’s objectives need expanding. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North will speak later about the bank’s climate objective and the ways in which it might achieve it. I will talk about the economic objective of the bank, which is to support regional and local economic growth. After a mini-Budget that crashed our economy and an autumn statement last week that papers over the cracks, the importance of that objective is as clear as day; but we believe in growth not for growth’s sake, but because it creates jobs and improves living standards. As a result of fairer choices, we could see our economy growing again, powered by the talent and effort of millions of working people and thousands of businesses.

Our amendment 17 would make it clear that the bank should support regional and local economic growth, both to reduce economic inequalities within and between the regions of the UK, and to improve productivity, pay, jobs, and living standards. In our constituencies we see the disparities between the regions. As it stands, the bank does not have to focus its investment on disadvantaged areas of the country that would most benefit from its support. The Prime Minister has boasted about moving money away from disadvantaged areas, and so-called levelling-up funds have so far funnelled money into Conservative constituencies, rather than focusing on areas that most need the support. On its own, therefore, clause 2(3)(b) is not a sufficient objective for the bank. It relies on the tired Conservative assumption that growth and prosperity will trickle down and be spread evenly, which we know is not true.

Amendment 17 is crucial to targeting the bank’s investments and ensuring that it creates lasting change. The Prime Minister, then Chancellor, argued in his strategic steer to the bank in March that it should support the Government’s ambition of addressing

“the deep spatial disparities across and within UK regions”.

Those are his words. I find it strange that when he outlined the bank’s objectives in the strategic steer, his description of the climate objective matched that in the Bill, but his description of the economic objective did not. He said that the bank’s objectives are to

“help tackle climate change, particularly meeting the government’s net zero emissions target by 2050”.

That all seems correct, and we can see it repeated near verbatim in clause 2(3)(a). However, in describing the second objective, the then Chancellor said that the bank should

“support regional and local economic growth through better connectedness, opportunities for new jobs and higher levels of productivity.”

That wording is not in the Bill. Will the Minister tell us whether the Government have abandoned those commitments? Why does the Bill include a watered-down version of that objective?

I note that in his letter yesterday, the Minister’s justification for Government amendment 2 was that

“with regards to the economic disparities component of”

clause 2(6),

“it could be overly restrictive where the Bank looks to invest in a deprived part of a relatively affluent region for example, as there are difficulties in drawing distinct boundaries on this issue.”

Before the Minister uses that as a reason to vote against our amendment 17, I hope that he will notice that the amendment has been worded specifically to avoid such restrictions: by addressing

“economic inequalities within and between regions of the United Kingdom”,

the bank will retain the freedom to target at any level. If their commitment still stands, I am sure that Conservatives will not oppose Labour’s efforts to put that in the Bill. The amendment would bring the Bill back into alignment with their stated objectives.

Amendment 18 would add a third objective for the bank:

“to support supply chain resilience and the United Kingdom’s industrial strategy”.

That seems reasonable. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that the bank will have no effect on growth. With assets of 0.1% of GDP a year, the bank is dwarfed by its French and German counterparts, and the £12 billion of funding allocated over five years falls short of the £20 billion recommended by the National Infrastructure Commission. With their cancellation of Northern Powerhouse Rail and failed record on nuclear energy, the Government’s record on infrastructure is abysmal.

Labour has called for a strategic approach to infrastructure, and presented an industrial strategy that is based on evidence from around the world. Supported by the creation of a publicly owned Great British energy company, we would deliver self-sufficient renewable energy by doubling onshore wind, trebling solar and quadrupling offshore wind. We would create half a million jobs in renewable energy, and an additional half a million jobs by insulating 19 million homes over 10 years.

The importance of supply chain resilience has become particularly clear in the wake of the pandemic, and as concerns over energy security have come to the fore through the war in Ukraine. We are all concerned about it. We have an industrial strategy, and want the UK infrastructure bank to support and champion it. Our amendments 17 and 18 would clarify the objectives of the bank, and focus them on the challenges of the future.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Bore da, Mr Davies. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Aside from one issue that I would split hairs about on amendment 17 —Scotland is not a region, but a nation, so the amendment should read “regions and nations of the United Kingdom”—I have another point to object to. The bank’s strategic objectives include tackling climate change, and it is vital that the Scottish Government’s climate change targets be reflected in the Bill, so I take a wee bit of issue with points made by the hon. Member for South Ribble about the UK’s “world-leading” climate change legislation; it legislates for net zero by 2050, whereas in Scotland it is 2045. I wanted to make that point on the record.

Given the significant overlap between the strategic objectives of the UK Infrastructure Bank and those of the Scottish National Investment Bank, a mechanism must be in place to ensure alignment on how the objectives are reached. I would be grateful if the Minister provided a little more clarity on that when he sums up. However, if His Majesty’s loyal Opposition intend to press the amendment to a vote, they can be assured of the support of the Scottish National party.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

On reducing economic and other inequalities between regions of the United Kingdom, I first make the point that if the bank is to be located in my home city of Leeds, in Yorkshire, and is to invest in the region, it follows that Northern Powerhouse Rail has not been cancelled.

I have risen to speak simply because an intervention on the Minister would have been too long. The Opposition parties almost seem to be tabling amendments for amendments’ sake. To state the obvious about the whole point of this policy, I do not, to use a phrase, need a weatherman to tell me when it is raining. The Infrastructure Bank will already do exactly what is in the amendments.

On the green industrial strategy, the reality is that a multi-billion-pound industry, with hundreds of thousands of jobs in the offshore wind industry, has been created since we came to power in 2010. It is simply mistaken to suggest otherwise. When we look at the track record of this Government over the past 12 years, there is much that I am exceptionally proud of. We have changed the energy strategy of this country. Sometimes, we produce well over 50% of our electricity through renewable means. All that has come about through investment in infrastructure.

I believe that amendments 17 and 18 were tabled simply to develop an argument with a weak foundation that does not stand up when we look at the physical outcomes from the past 12 years. I will finish with that—

[David Linden]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[The Chair]

Will you take the intervention?

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I will, because I like the hon. Member for Glasgow East, but I had wrapped up my comments.

[David Linden]

My stock in the SNP has just fallen through the floor. The hon. Gentleman said that we do not need a weatherman to tell us what the weather is outside, but over the past seven or eight weeks, the UK Government have flip-flopped on their policy on energy, and specifically on their fracking policy, in a major departure from the 2019 manifesto. Given the instability of the UK Government and the changes in various weather people, it might not be a bad thing to put something about this in the Bill.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am always grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s input. Personally, I believe we should get on with fracking, and I have licences in my constituency, but that is a decision for the local authority. Often with such plans, local authorities are far better placed to understand the needs and issues than people down in Westminster.

On the green industrial strategy and the increase in fossil fuels—I know we are straying slightly from the subject—the investment in the green strategy that is being made by this Government is clear to see, but we cannot let our fossil fuel supply fall off a cliff and disappear overnight, and send people’s bills through the roof. That strategy and this policy are a key plank in ensuring that we move towards where we all want to be, while ensuring that we have the investments and structures in place and are clear about the target we are aiming for. Fundamentally, this Government have a proud track record on this matter, and amendments 17 and 18 are surplus to requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Linden]

On a point of order, Mr Davies. I am sure the Minister is not at all suggesting that you have selected amendments that are out of scope for the Committee to vote on.

[Andrew Griffith]

My reference to “scope” related to the broad set of industrial policies laid out by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, not to the wording of the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

As I have laid out, the Government’s position is that the steer to the bank, which is flexible and can be updated from time to time, rather than requiring primary legislation—it may be something the Labour party wishes to take advantage of in future—is a more agile and flexible way of guiding the bank as it seeks to achieve its objectives.

[David Linden]

Is the Minister therefore suggesting that that would only be within a policy framework rather than in the issuing of secondary legislation?

[Andrew Griffith]

That is what I am suggesting.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Fuller]

I am getting clear instructions from the Whip to be as brief as possible, so—[Interruption.] Not quite that brief. I draw hon. Members’ attention to clause 7(a). Clause 7 concerns the directors and 7(a) is about the number of directors; it says the bank is to have at least five and no more than 14 directors. It was that number 14 that caught my eye: it seems an extraordinarily large number of people to have on a board, and I do not believe that it is in accordance with corporate best practice.

Furthermore, there is no provision for the balance between executive and non-executive directors. It is a clear aspect of corporate governance that there should be a plurality and, often, a majority of non-executive directors. I want to probe the Government about why the number is 14, and why there is not more specificity about non-executive directors.

To back up my argument, I should say that the Minister will be aware that in the United States the average number of directors for the largest American corporations is between eight and 11, not 14. In its review of the FTSE 100 companies, Spencer Stuart said that the average board size is 10, and that 77% of boards are solely non-executive directors. The Minister will also be aware that the British Business Bank has nine directors, of whom four are non-executives and one is additional—he is a senior independent director. These are important points. There is a risk that the board could be full of people there to please—[Interruption.] He just told me to shush up.

[David Linden]

rose—

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith)]

I beg to move amendment 5, clause 7, page 3, line 23, at end insert—

“(ba) the Board is 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;”

This amendment would require the Bank’s Board to include one or more directors with responsibility for ensuring that the Board considers the interests of the appropriate national authorities when making decisions.

The amendment sets out the requirement for UKIB’s board to appoint one or more directors to be responsible for ensuring that the interests of the devolved Administrations are considered in the board’s decision making. The work of the bank is UK-wide and it has already supported projects in each of the devolved Administrations. Given that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have strong interests in infrastructure investment in their respective nations, we, the Government, are keen to ensure that UKIB considers their views throughout its strategy and decision-making, including board discussions.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

UK Infrastructure Bank Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

David Linden Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Griffith]

That is effectively what I am doing. The key point is that this is a novel institution. It has a great deal of runway, and it also has an awful lot of operationalising and scaling to do over the immediate period. I hope that no one wants to subject the bank to an excess of reviews during that initial period, as that would inevitably detract from its resources. None of that takes us away from any of the accountability measures we have talked about. I will write to the hon. Lady with a determination, or an explanation, regarding whether we can substitute a different interval in clause 9(5).

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

As this is the first time I have spoken this afternoon, may I say that it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone?

I want to pin the Minister down a little on what he means when he talks about coming back. Would that be coming back in the form of writing to the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, or coming back during the Bill’s remaining stages? I want to clarify exactly what he means, because some of us have fallen foul of such behaviour by Ministers before.

[Andrew Griffith]

I am not sure what is the nefarious behaviour of which the hon. Member speaks. I have spoken about our wanting to get the review intervals right. I am talking about potentially proposing a different number as an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.

[David Linden]

On Report?

[Andrew Griffith]

Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Griffith]

It remains my contention that it is simply not necessary for this barnacle to be adhered to this particular ship as it steams out on its levelling-up mission across the UK, taking us on the path to net zero.

[David Linden]

If I understand it correctly, the Minister’s objection to new clause 1 is that the bank would already be doing quite a lot of reporting anyway—by a nod of the head, he is acceding to that. If the Government oppose further reporting, I presume that they object to new clause 1 because they have undertaken an impact analysis of it. Could he place that impact assessment in the Library so that Members can see it, and perhaps the new clause could be brought back on Report?

[Andrew Griffith]

I remind the hon. Gentleman that this is not a Government new clause. If anyone wishes to conduct an impact assessment of it, they are very welcome to do so, but it was not tabled by the Government.

[David Linden]

Does that mean that the Minister is objecting to the new clause purely because it was tabled by the Opposition, rather than based on evidence?

[Andrew Griffith]

Our position has been very consistent. I understand that it may not be the position of the Opposition, and it is no worse for that. Our position is that statute is not the be-all and end-all. The most important thing is that we get this bank up and running, delivering on its outcomes, and that we do so in good fashion, with the minimum, not maximum, amount of extra statute.

The new clause contains two elements, so I will turn briefly to the other point nested in it, which is the good jobs plan. The bank is already committed to pursuing good environmental, social, resilience and governance policy. We do not feel that adding extra statutory requirements in this particular case is the right decision. The bank will be reporting on the number of jobs created as one of its key performance indicators and will be working up measures on productivity as well as setting out the impact of its assessments, on which we will all hold it to account. With that, I ask the Opposition to withdraw their new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Abena Oppong-Asare]

On a point of order, Mr Bone. I thank all members of the Committee for our robust debate. I am sure that we agree through our different channels that we want the best for this Bill and for our constituents. I hope people take on board the fact that we have been making recommendations that we feel are best for the country.

I thank the Minister for answering our questions. I am disappointed that some of our amendments have been voted against, but I accept that the Minister is going to look at some of our recommendations on some clauses, in terms of the annual review. That is very important. Seven years is a very long time.

I thank the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire for his detailed analysis and his amendments. I thank the Chairs of both sittings, Mr Davies and Mr Bone, who have guided the Committee with skill. At times, you have been very firm, but rightly so. I thank the Clerks, Amna Bokhari and Bethan Harding, who have been invaluable. I thank colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North and our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, and look forward to seeing what comes out of this next.

[David Linden]

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. Following the remarks of the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, and you as Chair, Mr Bone, and the Clerks and the officials. I thank in particular the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. I think we knew it was unlikely that he would sacrifice his position in the governing party by voting against the Government, but his amendments were helpful in provoking discussion. I know that a number of my colleagues on Bill Committees this afternoon will not have the luxury of finishing at 3 o’clock. On that basis, I thank everybody present for the speedy way in which the Bill has passed through the House and look forward to the further stages and to any remaining t’s being crossed and i’s dotted.

[Andrew Griffith]

Further to that point of order, Mr Bone. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow East and commend the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead for her graciousness and diligence. It is fully understood on this side of the Committee that Opposition Members do not have the same support as that provided to Ministers by officials. A great deal of diligence goes into preparing amendments and advocating them. The hon. Member for Ealing North is always a strong advocate for his party’s position. I thank my officials for their work in preparing and presenting the Bill. I thank you, Mr Bone, and your officers. I hope my colleagues will not mind me singling out my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire for bringing a certain je ne sais quoi to proceedings, and for advancing his own cause.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Energy (oil and gas) profits levy

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd November 2022 Commons Chamber

[Dr Fox]

I entirely agree. The concept of the bloc in trade terms is very second half of the 20th century. We need to look at the growing markets that give greater opportunities for the United Kingdom in goods and services. The fact that they are not immediately geographically adjacent to us should not be our primary concern. We need to move with the trends in the global economy, not focus on what is a largely ossified view of the world based on the post-second world war consensus.

When we look at the origins of the inflation that we are facing in the United Kingdom, we see that there are several of them. They have been referenced a lot during this debate. The post-pandemic supply issues are still ricocheting around the global economy and particularly harming developing countries at the present time. Also, the central banks—not just the Bank of England but the Federal Reserve in the United States and the European Central Bank—got into a group-think on what they laughingly call the modern monetarists, which means that they are not monetarists at all. They believed that they had found some sort of monetary alchemy through which they could continue to print money faster than the economies were growing without creating inflation. I believe that is why there is higher inflation in the United States, the United Kingdom and Europe than in other countries—notably Switzerland, which sits in the middle of the eurozone but did not follow the same expansionist monetary policies.

By far the greatest boost to inflation has come from Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, however. That has come about in a number of ways, which I will come to in just a moment, but we must remind ourselves that inflation is not just an economic evil; it is a moral and social evil as well. The poorest people in our society are hit the hardest by inflation because they spend more of their income on non-discretionary items. It also transfers money from the savers to the borrowers in society, which is not something that a Conservative Government should want to see. The Government have done much in this statement to protect those on low and fixed incomes, including an extra £26 billion in cost of living support, particularly on fuel, on top of what we have spent already, and an extra £11 billion on uprating benefits. The Government introduced those two items to protect those on low and fixed incomes and, taken together, they are the size of the United Kingdom’s defence budget. These are not small sums. Our increased spending on education and health is hugely welcome, especially as we catch up on the post-pandemic disruption, but to be frank, even the generous sums put forward by the Government will largely be eaten up by inflation until we get it under control.

And that is before we come to the most frightening item of all, the fact that this year we will be spending £120 billion on debt interest payments. For reference, we spend only £134 billion on NHS England each year, so we are spending almost the NHS budget on debt interest payments. We need to recognise that we cannot increase our debt further. As my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) said, around 20% of our debt is now index-linked and is therefore very vulnerable to rises in the retail price index. Duncan Simpson, the chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance, said:

“The spiralling cost of servicing the national debt is deeply concerning. Taxpayers’ money that should be spent on frontline services or keeping rates down is instead going towards interest payments that outsize the costs of government departments.”

If we cannot raise debt any further, either we have to see spending come down or taxes go up, or we have to increase Britain’s wealth from the rest of the global economy. The latter is difficult in current global conditions and the Government have correctly, but rather disappointingly, from a political perspective, had to see taxes rise. That sets a clear way in which to see our future priorities. The first thing is to bear down on inflation. At the same time, we have to get control of the public finances and then we have to get our taxes back down.

I hope the Opposition will reflect on this point today. We have heard from the Opposition Front Bench on both days of this debate that we are facing a recession made in Downing Street. Currently, the greatest source of global inflation is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine and rising global commodity prices, particularly food and fuel, which is causing potential starvation in vulnerable states, with widespread social dislocation and increased international migration.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Fox]

I will not give way.

Those who talk about a recession made in Downing Street might want to ask themselves how much they are absolving Vladimir Putin of the global inflation we see today and whether, in fact, they are neglecting their duty to be patriotic at this time.

Conservatives do not want to see taxes rise. If we have to see temporary rises in taxation, the necessary corollary is that, as soon as inflation starts to be controlled, we will see those taxes coming down again. I would go further than my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire in one respect: this is not just a debate about growth, because any dummy can borrow tomorrow’s money to spend today and call the increased activity “growth,” which has been central to every Labour Government since the second world war.

The Government need to focus on wealth creation, in which we turn our unique intellectual property into goods and services that do not exist today, or into better goods and services than exist today. That means dealing with the supply-side constraints on the economy, making more private capital available to scale up companies, getting more international investment in the United Kingdom and making us more competitive globally. No one in the world owes us a living, and no Government can guarantee increasing living standards to the next generation. Only a successful free-market country in a free-market world can achieve that, and the sooner we get there, the better.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). I want to take a few minutes to make a few brief points, which I hope go with the flow of some of the excellent speeches we have heard. Before I do, I want to say something about the nature of last week’s autumn statement. One Opposition Member said that it was full of smoke and mirrors, but it was nothing of the sort. It was a straightforward, honest, blunt assessment of our economic situation and fiscal circumstances. Before the autumn statement, I made the point that if anybody in this House could be trusted to come up with the most “untricky”, straightforward, honest fiscal event, it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), and that is exactly what he did.

Opposition Members have been suggesting, yet again, that we are not spending enough and we need to spend more. I say to them that all the way through the pandemic and the lockdowns, theirs were the voices calling for further lockdowns and more restrictions. Even though we were spending hundreds of billions of pounds supporting families and businesses, Opposition Members were calling for yet more spending. Who did they think was going to pay for that? These moments of reckoning we are facing were always going to come, and the statement presented by the Chancellor last week reflected the honesty of that.

As other Members have said, the backdrop to the statement is the global energy crisis, which is fuelling the cost of living pressures that so many families in our constituencies are facing. An extraordinary number of households in this country lack basic financial resilience; they do not have the savings and reserves to enable them to withstand the shocks we have seen in the past two to three years. So I welcome the cost of living measures that my right hon. Friend has brought forward in the autumn statement.

We have heard the idea that this package lacks either compassion or financial firepower behind it, but next year alone the cost of living measures will cost £26 billion, and that does not include the extra £11 billion cost of the full uprating of working-age benefits. As one voice who had consistently been calling for the full social security uprating at this event, I welcome the clarification that the Chancellor brought, but this is a very expensive policy. We are talking about implementing the triple lock on the state pension and the full uprating of social security for working-age people by 10.1%.

[David Linden]

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for being one of the few voices on the Government Benches who have spoken about the need to uprate benefits. However, does he not agree that part of the problem with the cost of living crisis, which is not necessarily a new thing, is that it highlights the inadequacy of the current social security system and why we must have a root-and-branch review of what had gone wrong long before the war in Ukraine and long before covid?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I will go on to say something about that, but I agree with the point he is making.

Over the past 10 to 11 years, what the Government have done, in essence, is hold back increases in working-age benefits while boosting the state pension for older people. That is very much part of the picture. When wages did not increase in the way we wanted them to, following the last financial crisis, we saw an increase in in-work poverty as a direct result. I wish to flag up three areas that should be longer-term concerns for this Government.

I welcome the additional spending on health and education announced in the autumn statement, but let us not forget that our spending on education, as a percentage of GDP, has been squeezed over the past 10 or 20 years; this is a long-term trajectory. As a country, we are not spending anything like as much as we should be on our skills and vocational education if we are to see increases in productivity. We are also not spending as much as we should on our armed forces and on defence. We are not spending what we should be on these other areas because three large areas are not sustainable in the long run and they are constraining Chancellors of the Exchequer in their decisions.

The first area I wish to flag up is the triple lock. I called for it to honoured during this cost of living crisis, but there are long-term question marks as to its sustainability. I asked the House of Commons Library to do some calculations for me. It found that over the past 10 years if we had increased the state pension by CPI—the consumer prices index—inflation rather than by the triple lock measures, we would have saved almost £13 billion. If we had applied the same uprating measures to the state pension as we did to working-age benefits, that figure would have become about £23 billion. The triple lock is a very expensive long-term policy. It has played a hugely important role in lifting many pensioners out of poverty—no one will forget the derisory 75p increase in the state pension that the last Labour Government made—but I want those on the Treasury Bench to bear in mind that we need a more honest discussion about that area.

The second area to mention, which has already been flagged up this afternoon, is working-age benefits and economic inactivity. Some 9 million people in this country are economically inactive. Many of them have good reasons for this, such as older people and students, but there are millions of people in this country who could work—many of them want to work—but are finding themselves increasingly distant from the labour market.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Linden Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2022 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this case. It was, sadly, outside the FCA perimeter, but I would be happy to meet him, because I understand that it raises important issues for him and his constituents.

[David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)]

T7. It is not just individual mortgage payers who are impacted by increasing borrowing costs; that is a particular problem for housing associations such as Parkhead Housing Association, which I spoke to this morning. Previously, housing associations were able to borrow at fixed rates of 25 and 30 years, but that has been reduced. Would the Chancellor be willing to meet me, to look at how we can pursue this with lenders, to ensure that we do not stifle competition when it comes to building housing association properties?

[Jeremy Hunt]

We are looking carefully at that issue, and I would be happy for the hon. Gentleman to meet one of my Ministers.