The McMurdock Scandal: Taxpayer-Backed Bank Refuses to Release Loan Details on MP’s Firms
The British Business Bank cites “commercial interests” in a late ‘Neither Confirm Nor Deny’ response to our FOI, prompting a formal 30-point challenge from this publication.
TAMESIDE, UK – The British Business Bank has refused to confirm or deny whether two companies linked to a sitting Member of Parliament, Mr. James McMurdock, received taxpayer-backed Bounce Back Loans, citing concerns over “commercial interests” and “personal information”.
The refusal came in a late response to a formal Freedom of Information (FOI) request from the Tameside Independent, which sought details on loans issued to JAM Financial Ltd and Gym Live Health & Fitness Ltd. The request was made in the public interest, given the scale of public funds involved in the Bounce Back Loan Scheme and the widespread reports of its abuse.
In its formal response, the British Business Bank failed to address any of our questions, instead issuing a “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” (NCND) response. The bank’s position is based on the argument that revealing this information could prejudice the commercial interests of the borrower and their lender, and that it would lead to “speculation and unfair targeting”.
The bank’s refusal further noted that “the money loaned is the Lender’s funds not the taxpayer’s,” a statement that stands in direct opposition to the fact that the loans were backed by a 100% government guarantee from public funds. The bank itself is a development bank “wholly owned by HM Government”.
Why the Refusal is Legally and Morally Flawed
The Tameside Independent has now submitted a detailed, 30-point rebuttal, demanding an internal review of the bank’s decision. The bank’s decision to Neither Confirm Nor Deny (NCND) the loans is a blanket shield that we believe is being used improperly to avoid public scrutiny. Our rebuttal challenges the bank’s refusal on several key fronts:
- The “Neither Confirm Nor Deny” Exemption is Not Absolute: The bank’s response is based on Section 43(3) of the FOIA, which relates to commercial interests. However, we argue that this is not an absolute exemption. It must be balanced against the public interest. The bank must demonstrate specific and actual prejudice, and its claims of potential damage to “trust” and “relationships” are purely speculative and carry little weight.
- The Public’s Right to Know Trumps Speculation: The bank claims that confirming the loans would lead to “speculation and unfair targeting of a business”. Our rebuttal counters that the public interest in transparency is paramount. The public interest is not about gossip, but about accountability and deterring misuse of public money.
- A Loan to a Company is Not a Private Affair: The bank also relies on a personal information exemption, Section 40(5B)(a)(i). We argue that information about a corporate loan is a business matter, not a personal one. When a company does business with a government-backed scheme, there is a reasonable expectation of greater scrutiny.
The bank’s refusal to confirm or deny the information in this context is a breach of public trust, and a legal tactic to protect the financial details of an MP’s firms from public view.
Background to the Investigation
James McMurdock, a newly elected Reform UK Member of Parliament, suspended himself from the party whip following our initial investigation which confirmed that two companies he is linked to, JAM Financial Ltd (10453134) and Gym Live Health & Fitness Ltd (10554054), were listed as dormant or reported minimal activity during the period the loans were allegedly awarded.
The Tameside Independent will continue to demand transparency on behalf of the public, who ultimately paid for this scheme. The silence from the British Business Bank, a development bank wholly owned by HM Government, will not deter this investigation.