Speeches by Murray.

“Thanks very much, Chair, for having me today. If I set the context of when I was appointed, under Rachel Reeves as Chancellor, we had some very clear priorities for HMRC, which I am sure I will come to later in the session today. I was determined to drive those changes through the organisation at HMRC. I know that diff…”

“It is a different job. The role that Jayne-Anne Gadhia plays is a fantastic benefit to HMRC. She brings a huge amount of experience, counsel and advice for me. Her staying on as the lead NED has been really important.”

“I wanted to reform the board around our priorities as an incoming Administration.”

“I wanted to ensure that the priorities that I have on behalf of the Government, Ministers and the new Administration were transmitted as directly as possible through to HMRC to deliver that.”

“I have to be slightly careful because civil servants, rightly, do not tell me exactly what previous Ministers’ relationships were like with HMRC. My impression of it is that Ministers have been, certainly in recent years, much more arm’s length with HMRC. There is an issue here where the principle of taxpayer confident…”

“No, because that is with my hat on as Exchequer Secretary. As a Minister, I would have a role in setting the general direction of HMRC. Ultimately, the backstop is that Ministers can issue directions to HMRC. That is never needed, hopefully, because the backstop is that directions can be issued, which means that, on a …”

“Ultimately, I am held to account by the people of this country and the voters. As a Government, we are held to account for whether we deliver. We were elected to deliver.”

“Ultimately, it has always stopped with Ministers. The way to make sure that you can not only make clear that accountability line but use the relationship between the Minister and HMRC to deliver change is by making sure that it is less arm’s length than it has been in the past.”

“When I was at City Hall, we delivered the affordable homes programme there. A lot of that was around unblocking individual housing developments in London and working with third parties in the private sector to ensure that our policies were ones that would work and support the private sector to play its role in what we …”

“Ultimately, it would always be the Minister. The buck stops with Ministers. That has always been the case, but I am very happy to make that clear.”

“That is one way of phrasing it.”

“I actually do not see it as twice over. I disagree with your analysis, because I do not think that the chair of the board has ever actually been responsible, because the board is non-executive in its nature.”

“Yes, but the Minister should always have been responsible for delivering and making sure that improvements are delivered, obviously working with the Perm Sec, the commissioners and everyone throughout the organisation at HMRC to deliver that. Ultimately, we are elected as Ministers to deliver a set of priorities. HMRC …”

“It was discussed with the HMRC commissioners and we looked in the context of the Act that sets out what the powers of the commissioners are. There was a need to comply or explain—I think the phrase is—to work out who should chair the board, because the presumption is that it is non-ministerial. If it is going to be min…”

“I suppose it depends whether you are talking in the strict letter of the law or about how I relate to HMRC and what I see my responsibilities to be.”

“My position is that I lead change at HMRC.”

“Whatever phrase you want to use—”

“We can check the website, Chair. My view is that I help lead change at HMRC.”

“Certainly, as a Minister, I lead the change at HMRC. As I say, we have not had to change the law to make this happen. The set-up, the relationship between me and the HMRC commissioners and the way in which Ministers can issue directions have not legally changed. In terms of the role that I take, it is one of leadership…”

“There is no risk whatever of individual taxpayer confidentiality being breached as a result of me chairing the board, because, as I was saying earlier, there is taxpayer confidentiality. There is the fact that Ministers, whether as a Minister or as chair of the board, cannot intervene in individual taxpayer’s affairs. …”