Budget Resolutions

James Berry Excerpts

Thursday 9th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Norman Lamb (North Norfolk) (LD)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I should like to make an apology straightaway. I alerted Mr Speaker earlier to the fact that I have a long-standing engagement at the University of East Anglia this evening, and I hope that it will be okay with the Front Benchers if I miss the end of the debate.

I agreed with an awful lot of what the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) said, other than his assertion that it was the role of the Labour party to confront the issues set out in the Budget. I shall focus on the aspects of the Budget that relate to social care and to the health service, and I want to make it clear that the £1 billion announced for social care for the next financial year is wholly inadequate to meet the needs of the social care system and the people who rely on it.

The Health Foundation has estimated that the gap in social care is in the region of £2 billion a year. That is partly due to the increase in the national minimum wage, which will cost the social care system about £900 million in the next financial year. That means that there will be no real-terms increase in the amount available to the system.

As the Care Quality Commission recently confirmed, the social care system is close to tipping point—that comes not from politicians, but from the regulator. Many providers are now considering whether to withdraw from this country’s publicly funded social care market, while other providers are at risk of going out of business. It is alarming that there is little investment, if any, in new social care facilities in the north of England because the finances simply do not stack up. The only parts of the country in which investment in new social care facilities makes sense is where providers can cross-subsidise from wealthy self-funders, who are paying for the provision of care to those who rely on the state.

We are witnessing an increasing and simply unacceptable divide across our country in the quality of social care. It is estimated that the care needs of more than a million older people are not being met, either wholly or in part, as a result of the reduction in the availability of publicly funded social care. That is disastrous for those people, but it is also stupid, because it inevitably means that in the next financial year—from April—more older people will end up in hospital unnecessarily because there is no care package available to keep them in good health at home. More people in hospital unnecessarily means more pressure on the NHS. We have seen considerable increases in the income of acute NHS hospitals over the past five or six years, but demand has increased even more due to the inadequacies of the social care system. We are lurching from one crisis to another, and there must be a better approach.

The Government say that there will be a Green Paper to address the funding of social care, but it was in 1999 that the previous Labour Government set up a royal commission to look into social care, so the issue has been pushed into the long grass for far too long. The coalition Government actually went out and sought the advice of a leading expert, Andrew Dilnot. We consulted on his advice, and then implemented through the Care Act 2014 a cap on care costs, which would have introduced greater fairness into the funding of social care. The Conservative party’s manifesto contained a commitment to introduce a cap on care costs, but it abandoned that commitment within weeks of its re-election, just as it is now abandoning the commitment not to increase tax. The Government said that the cap would be delayed until 2020, but no one believes that it will be introduced then and it has quite clearly been abandoned. A Green Paper—a discussion document—is not what is needed; we need a greater sense of urgency.

We were told about a £325 million boost for capital spending in the NHS, but capital spending has been cut in this financial year by £1.2 billion, which has been raided to fund the clearing of deficits. However, we were told that only between six and 10 pioneer sustainability and transformation plan areas will benefit from that £325 million, meaning that the rest of the country will see no increase at all in capital investment. The Health Service Journal indicates that there is likely to be another raid on capital budgets in the next financial year, making the situation even worse for the rest of the country. During the referendum campaign, those advocating Brexit argued that leaving would give this country £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. Instead of £350 million a week, the Budget offers this country £2.7 million a week in capital funding—a wholly inadequate figure. Provider deficits across the country stood at £886 million at the end of quarter 3, after the injection of £1.8 billion to clear the deficits from last year. The Institute for Government confirmed today that 90% of hospitals in this country face deficits, which are now endemic across the system.

The Budget is inadequate for social care and disastrous for the NHS. There will be a 1% increase in NHS funding in 2017-18, but that compares with an increase in demand of about 4%. In the next financial year, there will be a reduction in real-terms spend per head in the NHS. Wherever we are on the political spectrum, this makes absolutely no sense at all. At a time when demand is rising rapidly, it is nonsensical to reduce spending per head on healthcare in this country, and it amounts to a reduction in the proportion of national income that we are choosing to spend on health and social care.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman brings a lot of experience from his time in office. Before the Budget, his party was advocating £2 billion of immediate spending on adult social care and £2 billion of immediate spending on the NHS. The sum of £4 billion is a lot of money. I have no doubt that he has arguments for why that amount is needed, but will he enlighten the House as to how the money would be raised?

[Norman Lamb]

Our spring conference is approaching and we will be coming up with proposals.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 17th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

rose—

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

A choice of Berries! A London Berry and a Lancashire Berry. Let us hear from London Berry.

[James Berry]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is a London-related question. Major infrastructure investment will form a vital part of our economy in post-Brexit Britain. Will my right hon. Friend confirm his support for London’s major infrastructure project—Crossrail 2?

[Mr Hammond]

The Government will, of course, consider all proposals for infrastructure investment on their merits. When the industrial strategy Green Paper is published, it will set out the Government’s approach to prioritising infrastructure to support the economy.

Christmas Adjournment

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 20th December 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

I start by thanking all the emergency services for their work over the Christmas period, especially those who will be working while we are enjoying time with our families. As I propose to speak on a Home Affairs issue, I pay particular tribute to the police.

I was out on a Walk the Met session with the Chessington safer neighbourhood team just last week and saw the excellent work they do for us day in, day out. Kingston is now the safest borough in London and I want to put on record my thanks to Chief Superintendent Glenn Tunstall, who retires in three days as Kingston’s borough commander with that accolade. I am pleased that I started my dealings with Chief Superintendent Tunstall with a campaign for more police officers in Kingston town centre and ended it with a campaign for automatic number plate recognition software on the A3 corridor, both of which he pushed for and our Conservative council is delivering.

Today I want to speak about a national challenge for the police—the rise of hate speech and extremism online. I will refer to Facebook and Twitter because they are the most widely used social networks, not because they are the only platforms on which these issues arise or the only companies that bear responsibility for them. Social media has revolutionised the way we communicate, the way we receive news and information and the way companies advertise. Undoubtedly, it has many social benefits and can be used as a force for good, but social media platforms are being abused by those who wish to do our society and individuals in our society grave harm.

It is important to remember at all times that these social media platforms are not established and maintained out of a sense of altruism. They are designed to make money for their owners, principally through advertising revenues. The revenues of Facebook in particular are enormous and I do not criticise the company for that.

Right now, in less than a minute, any Member of this House with an iPhone would be able to find copious amounts of hate speech on Twitter—racism, especially anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, homophobia and many other forms of discrimination, and not just language that would not survive the Equality Act 2010, but language that is downright abusive and would not survive our criminal law.

In the Home Affairs Committee’s recent report on anti-Semitism, we outlined how a Jewish colleague received 2,500 abusive tweets over a few days using the hashtag #filthyjewbitch. Two of her abusers have already been sent to prison for this. Now there can be no dispute that that hashtag is offensive, abusive and racist, yet if one searches for that hashtag now, as I did just a few moments ago, one will find it still on Twitter, not from two hours ago or even two weeks ago, but from two years ago. I say that that is a disgrace, especially after the matter has been raised by a Committee of this House.

Although hate speech makes up a very small proportion of the overall traffic on social networking sites, when we live our lives more and more online, and this speech exists online in a way that it does not exist in the street or in the way we speak to one another, there is a risk that it becomes normalised and gives a licence to others to repeat it and to do worse.

I turn to the other factor—extremism. The issue does not stop at hate speech. Just as social media are used by people to advertise holidays and beauty products, they are used by those who want to advertise terrorism. It is no exaggeration to say that Daesh has run the most successful propaganda campaign since Goebbels in Nazi Germany, yet Daesh has a much wider audience because of the reach of social media. It has managed to persuade people who enjoy all the rights and privileges that we enjoy in this country to travel to Syria to work with a barbarous medieval regime or to commit atrocities here in Europe, like those which we saw in Nice and appear to have seen in Berlin.

I am not going to overstate my case and blame all of this on social media, because that is certainly not the reality, but I am going to say that young people in Britain today are being radicalised in their bedrooms, and the gateway to a lot of the radical material online is the common social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook. In addition to being a conduit through which extremists are recruited, social media are used by Daesh and its supporters to generate propaganda to attract support and funds. Social media platforms that are used by millions of our constituents every minute of every day are being abused by people who want to peddle extremism and hate. What are social media companies doing about that? The answer is, far too little. I have not heard one Member of this House demur from that proposition.

I am not sure that we, as a society, should accept the proposition that organisations such as social media companies should be allowed to create something to make money that has the potential to do harm, or at least to facilitate harm, and then claim that because it has become so big, it is unreasonable to expect them to do more to prevent that harm. I say that the polluter should pay.

Who is left to pick up the pieces? The police. With the Home Affairs Committee and the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who was then our Chair, I visited Scotland Yard to see the unit where dozens of officers spend all day every day going through Twitter, Facebook and other social networking sites to flag up this material. They do that not really for any law enforcement purpose—they are not there to apply for a court order—but merely so that they can tell Twitter, in particular, that something violates its own in-house terms of use. To its credit, Twitter often removes that material, but why should the police have to do the searching? The Committee also visited The Hague, where Europol has a similar unit for non-English language material. My question is this: why should our constituents’ taxes be used to fund our police to do the work that social media companies should be doing themselves?

My father, who passed away three years ago this week, was fond of quoting Margaret Thatcher. I have not been able to verify this quote, but she once said that she did not like people coming to her with problems but no solutions. I will therefore present three options in the few minutes remaining. The first is to consider legislation. The most straightforward approach would be to make social media companies liable for what they allow or enable to be published on their platforms. For other reasons, including libel and copyright law, that would be devastating for those companies; they do not want it to happen. The German Government announced only last week that they will consider legislating for fines of up to half a million euros for social media companies that fail to remove within 24 hours posts that breach Germany’s hate speech laws. We can be emboldened by the fact that our friends and allies in Europe are considering legislation.

The second option is to encourage social action. Social media companies rely on their members seeing the advertising from which they make money. If we voted with our feet, they would not be able to survive. If we, as users of social media—most, if not all of us are —made it clear that we would not stand for hate speech or extremism on those platforms, that would send a very clear message.

The third option, which I favour, is that social media companies get their own house in order, take a bit of responsibility and, for once, show some real leadership. They could establish, or at least fund, a not-for-profit organisation that employs people to identify and remove offending posts, that uses and develops their technological brilliance in order to filter out that material for manual checking, and that has police officers stationed there, paid for by that organisation, to gather intelligence and progress any cases that need legal input. There is a model for that in the National Centre for Missing & Exploited Children in Washington, DC, which I have had the fortune to visit. It is a not-for-profit organisation, funded by the technology sector—in large part by Facebook and Google—that tackles, among other things, online child exploitation. Why can that not apply to online hate speech and extremism?

I suggest that social media companies go away for Christmas, have a long, hard think and come back early in the new year with a proper proposal for an organisation of that kind, so that they can tackle online extremism and hate speech. If they do not do so, they should expect to be scrutinised in this House and for there to be concerted calls for legislation to make them do so in 2017.

On that note, I wish you, Mr Speaker, and everyone else present a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

Leaving the EU: Financial Services

James Berry Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the effect of the UK leaving the EU on financial and other professional services.

I start by thanking the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate and for giving us time on the Floor of the House to discuss this important issue.

The UK’s financial and related professional services are critical to our economy. Together they account for almost 12% of GDP, employ more than 2 million people and contribute £66 billion a year in tax revenues. That is 11% of the total annual tax take, which is the largest contribution of any sector and essential for funding our public services.

While London benefits hugely from those sectors, two thirds of the jobs in financial and professional services are based outside Greater London. Some 160,000 people are employed in Scotland, with Edinburgh’s economy more reliant on financial services than any other UK city, including London. More than 54,000 people are employed in those sectors in Wales. Elsewhere, major employers include Citigroup in Belfast, Deutsche Bank in Birmingham, Aviva in Norwich, American Express in Brighton, and J.P. Morgan in Bournemouth. Overall, there are 22 towns and cities in the UK that each employs more than 10,000 people in financial and professional services, including Manchester, Leeds and Liverpool, Sheffield, Reading and Bristol, and Norwich, Portsmouth and Poole.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that keeping the financial services passport is vital for many people who work in the sector, not least a lot of my constituents, and that people in business would be the first to say that in financial negotiations it is not wise to give a running commentary?

[Liz Kendall]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s first point and I will come on to the issue of passporting later. I believe that businesses really want certainty, which is why it is right that hon. Members raise issues in the House.

In my own fabulous city of Leicester, almost 7,000 people are employed in financial and professional services, including by HSBC, Santander and Hastings Direct. Those people are not the extremely wealthy bankers or hedge fund managers that we often read about in the papers. They are ordinary people on modest wages who work in customer services, call centres and office administration, and who pay their taxes and spend their money in the local community.

Concentrix

James Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Jane Ellison]

I will take one more intervention. I have not taken one from—

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Jane Ellison]

Well, I have not taken one from my hon. Friend, but I will take one from the Scottish National party and then I will progress to the end of my speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jane Ellison]

Far from saying that this is all Concentrix, I think there are lessons to be learned all round. I should signal now that, because I think there are lessons to be learned all round—for HMRC, for Ministers and certainly for Concentrix—the Government do not intend to divide the House on the Opposition’s motion. I want this to be an exercise in understanding the problems and learning the lessons. I will take one more intervention, for balance from my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (James Berry), and then move on to the end of my speech.

[James Berry]

I have two Concentrix cases from single mothers, one of whom was required to disprove a relationship she plainly never had with a former tenant of her house, evidence she could not possibly provide. Does my hon. Friend agree that what is important now is that the Concentrix contract has been ended and a system for investigating mistakes and a hardship fund have been put in place? That is what is important.

[Jane Ellison]

My hon. Friend rightly brings us back to the human factor. He is right to highlight that the heart of what we want to do is to get people back in payment, where they should be, and to relieve hardship. I will now move quickly towards the end of my remarks. Mr Speaker has been very indulgent.

Among the discussions happening at the moment, HMRC has agreed to the transfer of Concentrix staff to HMRC. Concentrix has begun consulting its staff on this point and anyone transferring to HMRC will be supported through further training to help us deliver a quality public service.

It is also right, as the motion suggests and the shadow Minister challenges, that we look long and hard at what went so wrong with Concentrix’s performance. Not only do we owe that to all those who were caused worry or distress as a result of these failures, but it is also of huge importance that we learn from what happened and prevent any similar issues arising in any future contracts across government. That is why HMRC will be looking at how the contract with Concentrix was managed. It accepts it has lessons to learn. It has given evidence to one Select Committee already and will be giving evidence to at least one other—learning lessons and undertaking analysis of the claims.

Members will be keen to see an unbiased, independent assessment. As has been alluded to already, the independent National Audit Office, which scrutinises public spending, has announced it will be conducting an inquiry into the Concentrix contract. HMRC will work and co-operate with the NAO very closely to support that inquiry. The investigations will undoubtedly include, as the motion suggests, a consideration of the knock-on effects that may have been caused to other services provided by HMRC. As I have outlined, HMRC has needed to deploy extra staff to address the problems encountered, but I reassure the House that it is currently managing the increased workload effectively. Again, that is a testament to the efforts of its staff. It is also a reflection of the flexibility HMRC possesses. It is a large organisation capable of moving staff around quickly and dealing with peaks of demand, which it is accustomed to handling at various points in the year.

During the debate we have touched a number of times on the point about mitigating suffering. As I set out, our first course of action is to ensure that we get people’s tax credit claims back on track. HMRC is working hard to get the information needed from claimants to put anyone entitled to tax credits back into payment, including paying any arrears to which they are entitled. In parallel, HMRC is taking forward any requests for reviews of Concentrix’s decisions. Indeed, many decisions have been overturned. I have made inquiries and it is fair to say that, largely, they have not been due to original errors, but have followed the provision of additional information that has been obtained through the process of the mandatory review. So many of these problems have been caused because people did not, or were not able to, respond to the first timetable they were given. They have now provided that information—the hon. Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) asked about this earlier—and we have been able to reassess their claims.

We have also made it a priority to address urgent cases of hardship through the usual mechanisms, but I will look at the point made by the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee. If anyone has been caused undue distress or financial loss following errors or wrongdoing by Concentrix, they should contact HMRC. Such complaints will be taken very seriously, with a thorough examination of all the evidence. Where mistakes have been made, HMRC will not only make sure claimants are now being paid correctly, but pay compensation where appropriate.

It may be helpful for colleagues to know that I have asked to be told on an ongoing basis the issues that Members are bringing up with HMRC. Someone used the phrase “early warning signal”. Members’ complaints—Members from both sides of the House have been assiduous in representing their constituents—are a very good early warning signal for when things might not be right.

In conclusion, it is undoubtedly the case that there remains too much fraud and error in the tax credits system. It is a complicated system and it is very easy for many honest people to get it wrong. Error and fraud stood at £1.37 billion in 2014-15, so it is right that the Government—any Government—are determined to spend taxpayer money sensibly and sustainably, and take action to address that. We want to ensure that those who are entitled to tax credits get them, but, as we all know, it is vital we prevent overpayments that will then need to be paid back. We have all seen the enormous distress that this causes to vulnerable people. Often, just through not supplying the right information and getting muddled up about a form, people end up owing a lot of money, and that causes a lot of distress.

Progress is being made. Error and fraud in the tax credit system are now close to their lowest levels since its introduction in 2003. We are not going to take a step back in our efforts to ensure we have a fair tax system that tackles non-compliance in all its forms. We announced an extra £800 million in funding last year to do so, but that has always got to be balanced by the need to keep providing both the financial support and quality customer service that people, whatever their income level, are entitled to. On this occasion, the balance was not appropriate. It is for that reason we have taken the action I have outlined to put the situation right. We want to support people who are struggling with their claims and we want to reinstate payments to those who are entitled to them.

I am sure that many of the comments that have been made so far, and will be made in the debate that follows, will be fair. I will not agree with all the points made, but there has been much fair comment. For that reason, we will not oppose the motion. Above all, we want a fair outcome for everyone affected and we want to learn important lessons to ensure this sort of thing does not happen again. We must ensure that these important public services work for the most vulnerable in our communities.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 7th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Just to be clear, the text of the anti-tax avoidance directive has not been finalised. It was discussed at the ECOFIN meeting a couple of weeks ago and will be discussed again in a week’s time, on 17 June. It has not been finalised. What I can say is that the UK Government’s position is very clear: we want something strong and effective, and that is the case that we have been advocating in the Council of Ministers.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

T3. The devolution of business rates, allowing local areas to shape their own future, will be of a real benefit to my constituents in Kingston, who pay some of the highest council taxes in the country and receive one of the lowest Government grants in return. Will my right hon. Friend confirm when the first business rate devolution deals will be rolled out and whether Kingston can be at the front of the queue?

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend and his local council have been at the forefront of calling for this major reform of local government finance, which is, of course, now being undertaken across the whole country. I can confirm that London will be moving ahead of many other areas and we will start the retention of business rates in local areas from April 2017.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I completely agree, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the comments of the FSB. The reductions in corporation tax will help small businesses and large businesses, and they will help to drive a competitive and dynamic economy.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is easy to trot out phrases such as “tax cuts for companies”, but it is vital that we have low corporation tax to attract investment into this country and to ensure that we have jobs here? The Chancellor has repeatedly encouraged companies to pass on tax cuts to workers, which is where they should go.

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that. All taxes are ultimately paid by people, but business taxes that discourage investment discourage the economic growth we need in this country, and that growth is what this Government are determined to deliver.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

James Berry Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

There is much in the Budget that I welcome. Before coming to my main point, I will mention four particular things: measures to reduce childhood obesity; money to tackle homelessness that shames our city and our country; a freezing of fuel duty; and the cutting of taxes for small businesses and corporation tax. I remind Opposition Members, who sometimes make crass political points about corporations being favoured over people, that it is companies that create the jobs our constituents rely on.

I welcome the funding for Crossrail 2. I campaigned in the general election, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith), for Crossrail 2 to come to as many stations as possible in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames. I am delighted that the plans include the intention to come to every station in our borough. Since my election, I have taken every opportunity to make sure this project is realised, but it is certainly not something I or my party have done alone. It has been a cross-party effort, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who led the all-party group on Crossrail 2 with real aplomb.

I was delighted last week when the National Infrastructure Commission gave its backing to Crossrail 2. I am even more delighted now that the Chancellor has given it a green light in the Budget. Crossrail 2 asked for two things from the Treasury: funding for the pre-legislative work, and a commitment to introduce a hybrid Bill in this Parliament to allow the project to get off the ground. The Budget has granted £80 million, along with that commitment.

[Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)]

As well as the benefits this project will provide to my hon. Friend’s constituency and constituents, does he recognise that freeing up potential extra capacity in Waterloo station will be of huge benefit for those coming up from the south-west, particularly from my constituency of North Dorset?

[James Berry]

My hon. Friend is right. This is not just a London project. I heard the cat-calls from Members on the Opposition Benches saying, “What about this or that part of the country?” This is not just a London-centric project. It helps people across the south of England. Anyone coming into Waterloo will see a huge change, with a huge amount of space freed up because trains will be diverted to Victoria. Equally, people living Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire will see much better connectivity into London. As always, my hon. Friend is right.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

A recent ONS study of my constituents found that one third had never even been to London.

[James Berry]

The place my family come from is not far from Bishop Auckland. I hope they take the opportunity, which will be much improved with HS2 and Crossrail 2.

The project is not due to open until 2030. That may seem like a long way off, but we will never get there unless we do this work now. Indeed, for many of my constituents Crossrail 2 cannot come too soon. This morning, if I had not got on the 6.35 am train, I would have been on a packed carriage with many other hard-working local people. They have to pay high train fares to stand in a packed carriage on the way into London. That is just not acceptable. Network Rail’s route study shows that peak time trains from my constituency require 20% extra capacity just to deal with current overcrowding. By 2043, 60% extra capacity will be needed to deal with additional passengers. That would be a challenge on any route, but it is an impossibility on the south-west route into Waterloo. Network Rail’s analysis is that no further trains can go into Waterloo at rush hour and other peak times. A new route is needed and, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, Crossrail 2 will divert trains from Waterloo, through a tunnel currently planned to be at Wimbledon, to Victoria, Tottenham Court Road, Euston, St Pancras and on to Hertfordshire.

Every station in my constituency will be upgraded to a Crossrail 2 station. Every station will have step-free access, which is important for disabled people, people with buggies and those who find it difficult to walk. There are shockingly few stations in my constituency that currently have that kind of accessibility. Overcrowding will be massively reduced. The proposals are definitely needed and I am pleased that they have been included in the Budget. I am not saying that the plans that Crossrail 2 has laid out so far are perfect. A lot more detail is needed. I submitted a detailed response to Crossrail 2’s consultation, as did more than 3,000 of my constituents.

Local concerns needed to be addressed, but the important things today are that that did not hold up the announcement of funding, and that the Chancellor, in the Budget, has backed Crossrail 2 for London and the south with the pre-legislative funding needed and the legislative time to ensure that the project can stay on track and go forward. For that, I thank him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

They say that the first casualty of war is truth, and sadly, that seems to be the default position of the Conservative party. The country, however, has a right not to be misled by this Tory Government and by the previous Con-Dem Government, whose mantra was, to a man and to a woman, that the financial crisis had been created by the Labour party. The Government know full well that it was caused by, among other things, the sub-prime mortgages in the United States of America and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, and that many other countries faced the same financial crisis.

I hear some sighs and moans from Conservative Members. Perhaps I should take them on a trip down memory lane. When Labour came to power in 1997, the ratio of GDP to national debt was 40.4%. By 2007-08, after 10 years of Labour government, it was 36.4%. However, by 2011 it was 60%. In 1997, the total public sector debt was £352 billion. What do Conservative Members think it is now? It is £902 billion. What was the level of Government borrowing in 1997-98? It was £7.8 billion. What do Conservative Members think it is now? It is £145 billion. When Conservative Members tell us how prudent they are with the economy, that is just plain rubbish. The facts do not bear it out.

The Chancellor talks of trying to cut the national debt. It currently stands at £1.5 trillion, which is 82% of GDP. So much for the Government’s economic competence. Again in pursuit of a falsehood, the Chancellor said that the United Kingdom had the fastest-growing economy in the world. Absolute rubbish. The IMF has said that the economies of the USA, Spain and Ireland have grown the fastest. One reason why they have grown so fast is the fact that their Governments invested in their economies. The USA’s financial stimulus package is worth £831 billion, so it is not surprising that its economy recovered.

Another missed opportunity in the Budget was the opportunity to help regenerate our economy. The Chancellor cut capital gains tax, but I should have liked him to put money aside for the building of more affordable homes. When Labour came to power in 1997, it inherited millions of derelict homes that were not fit for human habitation. It spent £25 billion on trying to repair those homes, which created jobs—proper, solid jobs that allowed people to pay income tax. Of course, the building of homes does not just provide jobs for labourers; it provides jobs in related sectors supplying cement, pipes, electric wiring, baths and toilets. I suppose the Government could not care less, because to them an affordable home is a home that costs about £450,000. I am not sure that many Labour Members, or many voters in this country, could afford homes of that sort.

The Government could also have taken the opportunity to invest in renewables. So much work was going on, so many companies were producing stuff, and that was creating jobs. But what did the Government do? They scrapped all that. Now they say that there is an energy crisis, and that in order to deal with it, they will start fracking all over the United Kingdom, even though it has been well established that most fracking is dangerous. Lancashire is a beautiful county, but it seems that the Government have overridden local people’s and local authorities’ objections and granted exploratory licences, so the whole of Lancashire will be wrecked. Moreover, given the geography of the county, there is a real risk that our water will be poisoned. The Government say that they are concerned about energy, but they could have taken steps that would have saved energy, and there would have been no need for the fracking that will ruin and pollute our country. But we know that a Tory politician recently said, “Go and frack in the north, where they don’t mind. Just don’t do it in my backyard in the south.”

It is reprehensible that this Government should take money from the most vulnerable disabled people while giving others tax cuts. It is surprising to see how they really do not care about the ordinary person.

There are many other things that I could say about this Budget, but I shall end with these points. Everyone knows that hundreds of millions of pounds has been wasted on academies in the past few years. Even though there are some fantastic schools, there is no record to show that academies have better standards. Even so, the Government want to force every school to become an academy. At the same time, they talk about wanting to give local people power. They say that they want to give local people a voice in their community, yet at every stage they override the wishes of local people. This hypocrisy—

[James Berry]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Yasmin Qureshi]

No, I am sorry; I am coming to the end of my speech.

The other fiction that exists is that of the northern powerhouse. As a north-west MP, I have not seen that. The electrification of our railways has been cancelled or delayed, and I do not see anything else happening. This Budget is all about smoke and mirrors.

Financial Conduct Authority

James Berry Excerpts

Monday 1st February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing the debate and on the work he has done on this subject over a lengthy period.

Hon. Members have come to this place with a range of concerns. My engagement with this issue was prompted by the lack of protection and compensation available to investors in the Connaught Income Fund, including some in my constituency. The Connaught case demonstrates how dysfunctional the regulation of investment services in the UK still is. The FCA line appears to be, “We’ve closed the loophole exposed by Connaught. These things can’t happen again,” but that misses the point: the rewards available from financial services will simply make people look for another loophole.

Members will be familiar with what might be termed the Ronseal test. What happens if we apply that test to the situation faced by ordinary investors—those who are neither high net worth individuals nor sophisticated investors under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000—caught out by the next loophole?

The Treasury paper on access to financial services describes the Government’s aim as

“to ensure the financial system enables people to access and manage their financial products with confidence and ease.”

The Government’s approach is to encourage people to prepare for their retirement and to manage their own finances, just as my constituent George Devon did. When looking for a secure investment for his funds, Mr Devon did as the Government suggest and approached an independent financial adviser for advice on investments that reflected his need to obtain an income with a low capacity for risk. He was advised to invest in the Connaught Income Fund, which was described as

“The Guaranteed Low Risk Income Fund”.

Helpfully, the information memorandum defined the risk level clearly. It also said that the document itself was not aimed at people such as Mr Devon, but at experienced or professional investors or at intermediaries such as Mr Devon’s adviser, who should have been able to provide sound advice on the investment’s suitability. However, in common with approximately 1,500 other investors, Mr Devon saw his funds disappear.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

One of my constituents, who is a financial adviser, and a number of his clients have lost significant amounts from investing in the Connaught Income Fund. Is the hon. Lady aware that an investigation has not even been commenced into one of the main parties, even though key information was provided to the FCA as long ago as 2011?

[Kirsten Oswald]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The delays inherent in this case are making it difficult for people in all kinds of situations to have justice and clarity.

Oral Answers to Questions

James Berry Excerpts

Tuesday 19th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

In answer to earlier questions I referred to the importance that we place on the team that will tackle illegal money lending. We have continued to support funding for debt advice, including through excellent organisations such as Christians Against Poverty, StepChange and Citizens Advice, to help individuals such as those mentioned by the hon. Lady.

[James Berry (Kingston and Surbiton) (Con)]

On Friday I visited Barclays bank in Kingston to hear about the fantastic Barclays life skills course, which teaches young people financial literacy, among other things. I can see some candidates for the course here today. Does the Minister agree that by making financial education more accessible, we can ensure that the financial sector itself supports young people and people throughout every stage of their lives?

[Harriett Baldwin]

I am delighted that my hon. Friend found his visit to Barclays in his constituency to be so helpful. I know that he, too, will welcome the fact that since 2014 financial education has been part of the national curriculum.