International Investment Summit

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I will not have a cross-Chamber discussion with the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will make a contribution to the debate.

This Government are determined to increase the number of good, well-skilled jobs, to embrace the opportunities of technology and innovation, and to improve productivity across the country. At the international investment summit, we demonstrated that the UK has tremendous strengths. We have a dynamic, ambitious and globally connected economy that has long been at the forefront of global exploration, invention and innovation. We have a global language, a central time zone and a renowned legal system. We have a high-spending consumer market that benefits from an open economy. We have trade deals with over 70 countries, and we have world-class talent supported by our globally recognised higher education system, with four of the world’s top 10 universities.

One of my favourite moments of the summit was a panel chaired by our fantastic Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the creative industries and sport. I was delighted to have a photograph with Gareth Southgate, which I showed to my boys when I got home. In all seriousness, Gareth Southgate talked about how the Premier League was once just an idea and how it has been built and marketed into a world leader, creating great investment into our economy. I am sure the whole House will support that sentiment—

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Hear, hear.

[Emma Reynolds]

The shadow Secretary of State is demonstrating that from a sedentary position—it is the first time I have said that in a debate for some time.

When we took over from the last Government, we recognised that there were issues we needed to address to improve the UK’s competitiveness. That is why we have already announced a series of steps to improve our business environment, such as driving through planning reform to get Britain building, removing the ban on onshore wind farms and giving the green light to key solar and data centre projects. We are also undertaking a pensions investment review, which the Chancellor has asked me to lead, to harness the potential of our £2 trillion pension industry to unlock new capital for our innovative businesses, to drive growth and to improve outcomes for future pensioners.

We have launched Skills England to boost the nation’s skills and fill job vacancies by bringing together businesses, trade unions, mayors, universities, colleges and training providers. We are also resetting our relationship with our closest partners in the European Union.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I welcome the Minister back to this place and to her new position? I assure her that I am very happy to work with her to further the best interests of the United Kingdom.

I very much welcome what happened on Monday. Having 300 investors come to this country is very welcome; this country is clearly open for business. We are keen to help the Government to succeed, because it is in everybody’s interests. I speak not only as a constituency MP, but as a former businessperson.

I was also pleased to hear the Prime Minister talk about cutting red tape and regulation. We would all welcome that, although I have some questions. We know that there is a bottleneck in our economy, particularly in planning and infrastructure, so we will welcome any changes that the Government can successfully make to accelerate the projects that have been held up by problems.

We also welcome the work—for which I understand the Minister is responsible in her other role as Minister for pensions—on the Mansion House compact and the Mansion House reforms, which could liberate £75 billion of capital into our productive economy. That is much needed: only 3% or 4% is invested today in equities, compared with 50% a couple of decades ago, so it is very important that we continue the reforms started by the last Government.

We were pleased to see all the positivity on Monday, despite the gloom and doom that we have heard from Government Members in recent weeks. It is good to hear investors saying that now is the right time to invest in the UK. We can see why. [Laughter.] No, it is not necessarily because there is a Labour Government. It is because inflation is running at below 2%, whereas it was running at 11% only two years ago. In this country we have only 4% unemployment, our economy is growing as fast as any other in the G7 and our deficit stands at 4.4%. That is what we handed over to the Minister’s Government. The deficit was higher than we would have liked, but in 2010, by comparison, it stood at more than 10%.

We constantly hear from Labour Members the refrain that they inherited the worst economic situation in history, but that is simply not the case. I am happy to take an intervention from the Minister, or any other Government Member, on that point. If they can name a single metric that is worse today than in 2010, I will be happy to hear it.

[Liam Byrne]

rose—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee is going to give us one.

[Liam Byrne]

The hon. Gentleman gives way with characteristic generosity. The truth is that the International Monetary Fund forecast growth for this year at about 0.5%, that families were about £1,200 worse off on average at the last election than in 2019, and that since 2010 the national debt has more than doubled, to £2.3 trillion. I suggest that those three metrics represent not a good inheritance, but a bad one.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

There is no doubt that we have been through a difficult time, given the effect of covid and the cost of living crisis on a services economy, but the right hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that back in 2010 the deficit was more than 10%, whereas today it is only 4%. In real terms, adjusted for inflation, that is a difference of about £160 billion, the equivalent of the health budget. The inheritance left for the present Government is much better than the one we received in 2010.

[Emma Reynolds]

The shadow Secretary of State is being generous to a point. I suggest kindly that in 2010 the outgoing Labour Government did not leave a £22 billion in-year hole in the public finances, as the Conservative Government bequeathed to us.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister is a very sensible person with experience both in the private sector and in politics, so I am surprised that she mentions that figure. Of the £22 billion, £9 billion was a result of her Government’s actions in lifting public sector pay without any commensurate productivity improvements and in scrapping the Rwanda scheme. It is fake news to say that there is a £22 billion black hole, I am afraid, and the Minister absolutely knows it.

There is no doubt that there are tough spending decisions and tough choices to be made, but it is very disappointing that one of the Government’s tough choices has been to scrap the winter fuel allowance. Let us see what their other choices will be.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Does the shadow Secretary of State acknowledge that the cost of Government borrowing that this Government have inherited is roughly double what it was in 2010? That is, in part, a direct result of the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is simply not true—just read what the Bank of England said about that time. All the numbers went back to normal within a month of that fiscal event. The hon. Gentleman can choose his opinions, but he cannot choose his facts.

Let us look at some facts. Of course we welcome the £63 billion that has been announced, but as the Minister and her Government stand on a platform of honesty and transparency, let us put some honesty and transparency around the numbers. The Amazon £8 billion was announced on 20 March this year. The Blackstone investment of £10 billion in a data centre was announced on 23 April this year. Of the £63 billion announced, £36 billion was announced prior to the investment summit or initiated via things like auctions by the previous Government. Only 20% of what was announced was not already in the pipeline before the investment summit. The reality is that much of it was already baked in. There is bound to be an overlap when a new Government come in, but let us have some transparency and honesty around the numbers.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

By spring this year, financial markets had already priced in the fact that they expected a large Labour victory, and that was what gave businesses and the markets so much confidence in the future stability of our economy. Will the shadow Secretary of State explain why?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I will come on to confidence in a second, if I may.

The reality is that the UK has always been a good place for foreign investors. For the past three years, it has been No. 3 in the world for foreign direct investment; the only countries ahead of us have been the US and China.

The Minister referred to the wonderful event at the Guildhall. We have wonderful places to host international events, and we support what they do to show the best of Britain to our international investors. I was pleased, but perhaps surprised, to see Elton John entertaining the audience; I was expecting Taylor Swift. Was that ever on the agenda? There is obviously a very strong relationship there. But when I thought about it, and when I heard about the reversal of position on the DP World investment, I thought, “Well, it’s obvious why they’ve done that: they’ve asked Elton and the Transport Secretary to join in a duet of ‘Sorry Seems to Be the Hardest Word’.” Interestingly, a No.10 press release on this mentioned a rogue operator—I was not sure whether that meant the Secretary of State or the company—so I am not sure where that all landed in the end, or whether that was just a rogue comment by the Secretary of State.

None the less, we welcome the investment and we will absolutely support any successes that the Government can achieve, but, as the Opposition, it is right that we challenge where challenge is due. We have many concerns about some of the things to which the Minister refers. She is absolutely right to say that stability is the key. It breeds confidence in investors, which breeds investment. That is why we are particularly concerned about the changes to business taxation. Some were floated months ago and have been left hanging in the air. We know that this is now affecting investment, particularly around capital gains tax and around business relief—it used to be called business property relief—which is very close to my heart.

Business relief gives private businesses and businesses listed on AIM the ability to pass on their assets to the next generation without inheritance tax. There are a number of questions around whether that relief will be continued. It is hugely important that the Government do continue it, because it affects some of this country’s fantastic family businesses, which generate around £200 billion of tax receipts every single year and employ nearly 14 million people. That business relief is there for a reason. It is not a tax loophole; it is an incentive for family and intergenerational businesses to pass on their assets from one generation to the next. Similarly, that happens with agricultural property relief.

We are also concerned about the Government’s unwillingness to confirm that there will be no rise in national insurance for employers. Members on both sides of the House have described that as a jobs tax, and that is exactly what it is. All the uncertainty around business taxation will mean a suspension of investment and a reduction in the amount of hiring, particularly when it is seen in conjunction with the potential workplace changes that the Government are making, which we will debate in the House on Monday and about which we have great concerns. In particular, those relating to union powers could take this country back to the 1970s. I know that many Members in this place will not remember the 1970s, but I do and it was not a good place to be.

In the Prime Minister’s statement, he talked about cutting red tape. If, as currently drafted, the 28 new regulations—particularly those for small and medium-sized enterprises—are added to the Employment Rights Bill, it would seriously damage growth, investment and SMEs. But the Minister does not need to take my word for that. Let me read out some of the comments about the changes that the Government are thinking of making that will damage investment. The Federation of Small Businesses said that its members are viewing the measures coming down the line with “trepidation”. Tina McKenzie described them as

“clumsy, chaotic and poorly planned.”

She said:

“There are already 65,000 fewer payroll jobs since Labour took power, and the new Government is sending out troubling signals to businesses and investors.”

Those are her words, not mine.

The Institute of Directors said that confidence is fizzling out. Its index in relation to investor appetite has gone from plus 30% in June 2024 to minus 7% in October 2024. That is in just four months. The CBI said that 62% of employers say that the UK will be a less attractive place in which to invest. Ernst & Young said that

“60% of asset management (private equity) clients have asked them to start work on moving abroad.”

[Mr Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Member agree that he is now guilty of talking down the entrepreneurial spirit and the ability of UK companies to cope with an exciting new Government?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am very keen not to do that. That is my point. It is gloom and doom from the Opposition —sorry, I mean the Government; I have to stop doing that—and it is brought on by these significant changes. These are not my comments, but the comments of sensible business representative organisations, which are representing their members. We should listen to the voices of business in this context. Even Richard Walker of Iceland Food, one of the Government’s supporters, says that the changes must happen slowly to avoid a “disastrous impact”.

I realise that we have a lot to get used to these days. I have to get used to calling those on the Labour Benches “the Government”, and I also have to get used to being a backseat driver. It is even more frustrating being a backseat driver when the learner driver in the driving seat does not know the difference between the brake and the accelerator.

Importantly, stability is one of the key levers that the Government have at their disposal. Winston Churchill once said that some people see “private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Some see it as a cow that they can milk. Few people see it for what it really is—the strong horse that pulls the whole cart”. It is hugely important that we get behind private enterprise in this country. It is hugely important that we get that stability in tax policy, workplace policy and the employment relationship. It is hugely important that we continue to level up this country. I note that levelling-up seems to have disappeared as a departmental aim, but that is still hugely important to all parts of this country, not least to the part of the country that I represent. It is also hugely important that we control energy costs. We know that that is a key concern to many businesses around the UK. Another key concern is that we cut the red tape for our larger companies.

The area that I focused most on as a business Minister was SMEs, which are the backbone of our economy. The No. 1 area that they struggle with is access to finance. I would really like to see some different measures in that area.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

On that point about finance, I was pleased to see that JP Morgan, which has its headquarters in my constituency, joined other big banks in the world to back the push to invest in the UK ahead of the summit. Does the hon. Member agree with JP Morgan and those banks that we should be optimistic about the future of the British economy following the election?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I would not necessarily say “following the election”, but, generally, we should be very positive about our economy. I set out earlier some of the economic conditions that would make it conducive to invest in the UK, and we should be proud of that situation. I welcome the Minister’s comments about the change of priorities of the British Business Bank, specifically in relation to the pathfinder initiative. That piece of work was started by my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Bourne (Gareth Davies) when he was in the Treasury. Again, that will help to ease the flow of finance into our SMEs.

As I look, with a mixture of sadness and joy, at the now redundant Conservative party manifesto, I can see that there were some really positive ideas in there about easing finance for SMEs. In particular, I am referring to things such as regional mutual banks, which is a policy that the Labour Government should adopt, and the open finance and smart data revolution for our economy, which could transform the opportunities of SME finance, making it much easier for SMEs to shop around. However, the key thing that I would reiterate to the Minister and her team is that they need to make sure that we have stability in terms of not just work, but business taxation, capital gains tax, and business relief. I say no to a jobs tax, but, yes to stability and business taxes. I say no to taking us back to the 1970s, by giving unions more power, no to doom and gloom, and yes to a positive and optimistic view of the UK’s future in the world.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call Jade Botterill to make her maiden speech.

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

I pay tribute to those who have made their maiden speeches today. I think we all felt the passion and emotion in the beautiful speech by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs Russell). She has given me an idea: when I am out in Keston this weekend, I might recommend to the residents that we get ourselves a village bear—although I can hear my daughter recommending that we get ourselves a village Harry Styles; that would probably be preferred. The hon. Member for Ossett and Denby Dale (Jade Botterill) spoke passionately about representing the place that she called home. The idea of “Pie Hard” is what I am looking forward to—a Bruce Willis remake in the rolling hills of Yorkshire would be most enjoyable. I congratulate both Members on their maiden speeches.

I will continue being nice to the Opposition—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Government!

[Peter Fortune]

Yes, the Government—I have picked up that habit from my hon. Friend and I do apologise.

I am impressed by what has been achieved at the international investment summit. Within weeks of allegedly receiving the worst economic inheritance of any incoming Government since the second world war, Labour has supposedly secured billions of pounds of investment. That is frankly unbelievable, and not because I doubt our country’s ability to attract investment. Britain is a tremendous place to invest, as a wealthy, free, fair and talented nation where people can do business and thrive. That is why Britain’s foreign direct investment stock grew to more than £2 trillion throughout successive Conservative Governments—more than France, Germany and Italy combined. My scepticism is about the idea that the Government, who appointed a Minister for Investment only four days before the summit, secured every penny of the investment. As anyone in business will tell us, the devil is in the details, and a quick inspection will confirm that most of the investment was in progress thanks to the last Conservative Government.

Let us look at clean energy, for example. Britain secured much of the investment that the Government claim credit for thanks to a Conservative policy: contracts for difference. Without that market mechanism, under which investors bid for a guaranteed price, we would not have secured as much investment as cheaply for bill payers. It is why we have the world’s four largest offshore wind farms off our coast, why renewables generate 44% of our electricity today compared with 7% in 2010, and why the UK was able to close its last coal-fired power plant this year. That is a Conservative record, as much as Labour might envy it.

The Government have done the easy bit in tallying the figures and taking credit for someone else’s work. Admittedly, that is a harder task when No. 10 is in such disarray and the Minister had only two days to prepare for the summit. In fairness, only time will tell if the summit was a success and the relationships built there lead to more investment beyond what was already on its way. But that is the hard bit, because to secure more investment and compete globally, Britain needs to be light on regulation and low in taxes. Although the Prime Minister talked about removing “needless regulation” and being “open for business,” his Government’s actions say otherwise. Despite Labour’s explicit manifesto pledge not to increase national insurance, the Chancellor is drawing up plans to hike the tax for employers. Make no mistake: that would be a tax on jobs, and would make it more expensive for firms to hire, which would impact on businesses big and small, including in my constituency—from Bombardier in Biggin Hill to pubs and cafés in Hayes and the Churchill theatre in Bromley.

The tax hike may fall on employers, but working people will pay the price as job opportunities shrink and pay rises are limited. The hands of businesses will be tied further by what the Government themselves brand the biggest increase in employment regulation in a generation. While the Government plan to tax jobs and pass French-style union laws, a Cabinet Minister took a more explicit anti-business approach. The Transport Secretary admitted that she has been boycotting a ferry company for two and a half years, and encouraged others to do the same. While the Prime Minister glad-handed investors— promising less red tape and openness to business, and was careful to mention tax only once—his Government are delivering exactly the opposite.

Britain faces a more significant problem: keeping up as technology advances. Leading on artificial intelligence, quantum, engineering biology or semiconductors is vital to our future prosperity and security, but we face considerable challenges in doing so. For example, Britain is home to the largest number of foundational models and generative Al start-ups in Europe, but we lack the compute power that we need to build and run Al models. The previous Conservative Government recognised that problem and planned to build a new supercomputer in Edinburgh 50 times more powerful than our current top-end system, but Labour has now cancelled that £800 million investment. That is yet another example of Labour’s actions not matching its rhetoric.

The Government cannot be in favour of growth while cancelling investment. They cannot cut regulations while planning huge increases in red tape for employment. They cannot support jobs while preparing to tax their creation. And they cannot claim to have the worst economic inheritance while copying and championing the work of their Conservative predecessors. If the Government do not get their story straight, investors will almost certainly stay away.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sarah Jones]

I am always happy to meet and to talk about what more we can do in our next 100 days, and indeed—we hope—our next five to 10 years in government.

Some Conservative Members have questioned whether some of these investments were teed up under the last Government. They know perfectly well that business confidence can rapidly change investment decisions. All the announcements included are of new, firm commitments being made by companies to invest in the UK either when final investment decisions have been taken or when announcements have been accelerated or unlocked because of actions taken and support provided by this Government.

I am sure that Conservative Members will have seen the letter, published in The Times at the start of the week, from five of the world’s biggest banks, joined by private equity firms, insurers and tech giants, saying that it was

“time to invest in Britain”,

and that Britain’s “greater stability” had increased its attractiveness to investment, which was of course a reference to Labour’s decisions when we took office. They concluded:

“We are optimistic about the future of the economy, and believe it is time to invest in Britain.”

The fact that scores of investors attended our summit on Monday, with tens of billions of pounds being firmly committed to new projects, shows that under this Labour Government, business and investors have a great deal of confidence in our growth mission.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Minister is talking about confidence, but if confidence is rising, can she explain why the Institute of Directors has stated that confidence has gone from plus 30 in June to minus 7 today?

[Sarah Jones]

The shadow Minister knows that we are working very closely with businesses, business organisations and others to ensure that the changes we bring in grow our economy. We have huge confidence from a raft of people. For every quote the hon. Gentleman can find, I can find 10 that say the opposite. He can pick on one if he wants to, but I suggest that £63 billion does not lie. Let us not forget that our summit on Monday was organised in a matter of weeks. The Conservative party had two years between their investment summits, yet we secured double the amount of investment compared with its summit last year.

To respond to a couple of other points, the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), rightly mentioned business rates. We are looking at that and will deliver on the commitments in our manifesto. She was right to raise skills, which are a huge challenge for us. We see huge opportunities for growth across the entire country but we must ensure that we have the skills landscape, which is why we are setting up Skills England. She also talked about the national wealth fund and its ability to crowd in funding for the green sector and green technologies; it absolutely will do that.

To summarise, across the House we are united in the belief that Britain needs to facilitate growth. Let us face it, we have been severely starved of it. Only through growth can we keep taxes lower for working people, invest in our public services and create secure, well-paid, high-skilled jobs. Of course, this is against a backdrop of the poor economic inheritance left by the Conservative party, who lurched repeatedly from Prime Minister to Prime Minister, gave us seven growth plans in 14 years, made millions of people pay the price of a Trussonomics Budget and saddled the people of Britain with a low-growth, low-productivity, low-investment economy. The steps that this Labour Government have taken in just 100 days show that we are overturning the Conservatives’ legacy of inaction, stagnation and deterioration, and creating a country of stability, innovation and prosperity.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the International Investment Summit.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 13th December 2021 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

I forgot to welcome the former shadow Secretary of State for Health to his new position. The right hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that his party opposed extra funding for the NHS through the health and social care levy, which we voted for. The different elements of trying to get people into work are key to lifting many more children out of child poverty. We should also flag up the £1 billion of child maintenance we have collected in the last year; we will keep doubling down on that to ensure deadbeat dads pay for their kids and help to lift their children out of poverty.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

T2. I was surprised to learn that child benefit ceases at the age of 16 for somebody starting an apprenticeship. That is clearly a disincentive for some parents to recommend that their children follow that route. Will my right hon. Friend look at this policy and consider making changes?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)]

I believe it may be more appropriate for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education to respond to this question, but I will happily flag up to the DfE anything that deters young people from entering apprenticeships and the labour market, and being able to move into long-term work.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 22nd September 2021 Commons Chamber

In previous stages, the Government have claimed that the exact details of London Capital & Finance’s mis-selling and ultimate collapse were unique, and that that is why there is a compensation scheme for its victims but not for the victims of other schemes.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making some good points and has been very vocal in this Chamber to draw attention to the bonds of a similar nature that were also mis-sold. However is not subsection (5)(a) of his amendment, which would require,

“an assessment of the regulatory failures”

already covered by the Gloster report? Is not that exactly what that does? Has the purpose of his amendment not already been achieved through that in-depth and welcome report?

--- Later in debate ---

[Peter Grant]

We have to remember that we are dealing with a large number of people. It is not just one company with 50 or 60 people who are victims; there are thousands of victims that we know of and probably many more than we do not know of, and the amounts of money that they have lost individually are life-changing for them. Someone who has worked for 20 years on a Member of Parliament’s salary probably has £20,000 or £30,000 they can afford to lose; these people did not. The amounts they have lost individually are significant; the amount that has been stolen collectively, as I said, is almost certainly over £1 billion. If people stole £1 billion out of a bank vault, law enforcement would not stop until every last one of them was behind bars for a very long time, and would, if need be, change the rules to make sure that it could not happen again. We should regard the theft of £1 billion out of people’s pension funds just as seriously as the theft of £1 billion of gold bullion out of the back of a Securicor van. All this amendment asks is that the Government recognise that as an issue and start to put answers in place as to how they can protect our constituents from falling victim to these scams in future.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to debate these issues. The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) is interesting. Certainly I very much support the broad principle of greater scrutiny of the FCA, but I cannot support his amendment because I do not feel that it is effective, not least regarding the issues I raised earlier. Some of the issues in it have already been addressed. The regulatory failures were clearly identified in the excellent Gloster report. The report also—this was welcome—named individuals in the FCA who had failed and who tried to have their names redacted from it and exempted from any specific criticism. One of the cultural issues with the FCA is the lack of individual accountability either in the organisation itself or the organisations they regulate.

In subsection (5)(e) the hon. Gentleman talks about why we are compensating only 80% of the losses of individuals who lost money in London Capital & Finance. That speaks to a broad principle. Many of the investments people make have to be subject to the principle of caveat emptor. Especially with a relatively high-risk investment, it is incumbent on any investor to look at it and judge the risk for themselves. Some form of protection from the regulator is also required, but the regulator cannot be all things to all people and cannot be in all places at once. I had a constituent come to me who had lost a significant amount of money in London Capital & Finance investments, and they were quite clear that they understood that as they were getting an 8% return, whereas in a bank they would probably get 0.5% maximum in interest, there was a risk involved in such investment. It is quite obvious to most people that that is the case, whether they are sophisticated or unsophisticated investors. The broad principle of an investor having to look at the investment and judge for themselves is very important.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I accept the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but does he also accept that many small investors were actually misled—the Gloster report shows this—by the advice they were given by people in the FCA who indicated that the company was covered by the FCA and therefore they were guaranteed to get £5,000 if the firm went bust? That information was wrong, so some people made an informed investment decision on the wrong information supplied by the regulatory agency.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Anybody reading the report will be appalled by the regulator’s performance in this case, given not just the number of complaints about LCF but the lack of joined-up thinking within the FCA. This was some years down the line; it happened after Andrew Bailey had taken over at the FCA. He knew there were problems right at the start, but there was no joining of the dots and there were the clear allegations of inappropriate conduct within LCF. The independent financial adviser who drew attention to it was a very competent person; he was not simply raising the issue saying, “I don’t like this company.”

The IFA was called Neil Liversidge. He wrote to the FCA setting out exactly what was going wrong with the designation of unsophisticated investors as sophisticated, the encouragement to class themselves as sophisticated, and where some of the investments were going. It was pretty clear what the problem was at LCF, and the FCA failed to act. That is simply unacceptable. That is why I welcome the compensation. However, it still has to be down to investors to make an educated decision. Certainly my constituent and others I have seen could see that this was not a Government gilt they were investing in; there were obviously some risks attached.

[Rehman Chishti]

My hon. Friend says that he welcomes the compensation that is being made. Of course, so do I and so does everybody else here, but linked to the question of compensation is justice and the delay in bringing the perpetrators to account through the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. I would be grateful if the Minister or my hon. Friend could say why there is such a delay in to bringing those perpetrators to account, because people want compensation but they also want justice and to have the perpetrators brought to account.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I could not agree more. The UK has a pretty poor record in terms of bringing forward fraud prosecutions. There are a number of things we need to do that are not really within the scope of this Bill. Not the least of them —the Government are committed to this—is bringing forward an offence of a failure to prevent an economic crime. That would make it far easier for the SFO to bring forward prosecutions. I would welcome my hon. Friend’s joining my campaign to bring that legislation forward, because it would make a huge difference to the SFO’s ability to bring forward speedy prosecutions.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am very happy to support my hon. Friend’s campaign to ensure that justice is done in this case.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

That is very welcome.

The key point in the amendment is about oversight. I am concerned that the FCA is not as accountable as it could be to this House. With repatriation, a number of regulations and regulatory oversight of the FCA have now passed back to us domestically whereas before there was accountability through the EU institutions. I am concerned that we have proper oversight of what the FCA does. The hon. Member for Glenrothes and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas) are quite right: the jury is still out on the FCA. It has made some bold claims that it is reforming and becoming more effective. I welcome the fact that only a couple of weeks ago it set out some clear targets for a reduction in the number of investors investing in high-risk investment and being subject to scams. There are some specific criteria that the House can now hold it to account for; I am just not clear how we do so. I can see how the Treasury does so, but it is important that the House can, too.

In the work that I have done on the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, we have seen numerous cases in which the FCA has not been proactive or used the mechanisms at its disposal to sanction the people responsible. That is simply unacceptable. The FCA must be a much more proactive organisation and, for it to be held account for such proactivity, we need a clear line of responsibility between it and the House and its Members. The amendment is a good attempt, but not one that I can support.

[Gareth Thomas]

I am sympathetic to the broad thrust of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glenrothes (Peter Grant) and his concern, which I alluded to in my intervention, that the Government, and certainly the FCA, appear to be saying, “Don’t worry—we’ve had a change of leadership and everything is going to be all right now. You don’t need to worry about the quality of the regulation of investment firms going forward, or the implementation and enforcement of consumer financial regulation, whether in this case or more generally.” I have some sympathy with the point of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) that we should be sceptical about such a claim. It is good that Treasury Ministers will be having a more regular dialogue with the FCA, partly as a result of this scandal.

As the House knows, I have taken a particular interest in the demutualisation of Liverpool Victoria. That is very different from the case of LCF, so it would not be appropriate for me to go into the particular details, but there are parallels in the treatment of Liverpool Victoria consumers and those of LCF products. Some of those parallels relate to the culture that appears to exist within the FCA. The all-party parliamentary group for mutuals received a letter from the FCA and one from the PRA, and they reveal that there have been almost 60 meetings between the regulators and the board of Liverpool Victoria, but not one meeting with its consumer-owners on its demutualisation. I wonder whether there is not a frog in hot water-type problem here, with the FCA so close to the Liverpool Victoria board in this case—and potentially to other financial firms—that it fails, perhaps accidently, to do its job on behalf of consumers with sufficient robustness.

I welcome the Dame Elizabeth Gloster report, which was excoriating in its findings. To pick out some key concerns, it said that there were “unclear” policy documents for use by FCA staff, a

“flawed approach to the Perimeter”

and a “failure to consider” the behaviour of particular businesses holistically. It also said that there was insufficient training of staff and pointed to confusion between Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the FCA—our regulators—over the handling of particular issues.

I appreciate that the FCA has not only had a change of personnel but brought forward proposals for a consumer duty to try to rebuild some confidence. However, my problem with the duty, which it consulted on until the end of July, is that there is no sense of understanding the difference between consumers who also own a business—a mutual in this case—and consumers per se, or a willingness to take additional actions for consumers who are also owners. I worry about whether that additional duty will be robust enough.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gareth Thomas]

I am not sure I need to respond other than to thank the hon. Member for his intervention.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

I am sure that many other people in the House often get frustrated, as I do, at unaccountable independent bodies or arm’s length bodies, and I might mention not least the FCA, possibly the Environment Agency and perhaps the NHS as well. Would it not be better for the FCA to have a direct line of accountability to those who are elected by the people of this country and for the body the hon. Member recommends to be made up of parliamentarians from either House?

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Hollinrake]

The Treasury deserves great credit for introducing this compensation scheme in the first place. It is a pity that the Minister responsible—my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary—is not on duty today, because he deserves personal credit for that, but the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) is an excellent stand-in.

Warren Buffett once said that what we learn from history is that we do not learn from history. The key lesson that we have to learn from this sorry episode—a damning assessment of the Financial Conduct Authority’s capability as a regulator at the time—is the need for scrutiny of the regulator. As many Members know, I do quite a lot of work trying to hold banks to account in the all-party parliamentary group on fair business banking, but I still do not know how this place holds the regulator to account. I know that the Treasury has some direct influence, and the Treasury Committee can write reports and conduct inquiries, but I still do not know of a direct mechanism that can be used by this House to address regulation and regulations.

Now that we have repatriated the oversight function from the European Union, various different suggestions have been made as to how that might happen in this House. One of the most interesting proposals is for something along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee—a regulatory accounts committee, supported by a version of the National Audit Office, so that professionals would sit behind a parliamentary committee made up of elected parliamentarians. Whoever holds the regulator to account should be accountable to the public; they should not be an independent body of appointees. There must be a mechanism to make sure that the regulator does the right thing, makes good on its future commitments and ensures that episodes like this do not happen again.

The Gloster report, which led to the compensation scheme that we are putting in place today, made very damning criticisms of the then governor of the FCA, Andrew Bailey, who is now the Governor of the Bank of England. I have experience of dealing with the FCA and Andrew Bailey—I asked him four times whether he had followed the FCA’s own whistleblowing procedures when handling the case of Sally Masterton’s whistleblower complaint with HBOS Reading and Lloyds. He refused to answer that question, which I find horrendous. Both the FCA and the whistleblowing legislation were established by statute, yet we as parliamentarians cannot hold the regulator—which we put in place—to account. We need a better system of regulatory oversight.

[Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

Residents in Hastings and Rye have been victims of London Capital & Finance. Does my hon. Friend agree that if people do something in good faith, get the right advice and the right system is in place, there should be measures in place to ensure that they do not end up on the back foot?

[Kevin Hollinrake]

As I said on Report, it is incumbent on investors to check out investments. If something is paying out 8% when they can get 0.5% from their bank, they must say, “Well, this is more risky than simply putting it in the bank.” We cannot lose sight of that principle. However, the least we can expect is a regulator that is proactive. In 2015, a number of people were raising concerns about LC&F, including an independent financial adviser who wrote in detail to the FCA to say what was happening at LC&F, but the FCA did nothing for four years, which is totally unacceptable. People deserve a higher standard of regulation.

On the Online Safety Bill, London Capital & Finance spent £20 million on Google advertising. It is clear that platforms are playing a role in this. This was not even seen as a scam. We can argue that it was a scam, but it was to some extent regulated by the FCA. UK Finance has released a report today saying that online scams are now a national security risk. We must take seriously its calls for more action to be taken. The Online Safety Bill must be the right place to legislate to require the platforms to at least establish whether the investment companies—the people who are advertising investments—are bona fide organisations, and not simply people impersonating them.

With that, I will conclude. I am keen to hear the Minister’s words in his summing up.

Compensation (London Capital & Finance plc and Fraud Compensation Fund) Bill

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 8th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

Yes, I believe that is the case. The Treasury and the FCA are working together. The FCA is under new management, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, and there is an acceptance by the FCA of all the findings in Dame Elizabeth Gloster’s report. More particularly there is fresh thinking, one hopes, that will be applied going forward.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Guy Opperman]

For the last time, and very briefly.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Powers are one thing, willingness is another. The FCA has shown a remarkable reluctance to hold people to account for incompetence or bad actors, as the Minister said. Will not those failings simply continue unless the FCA starts identifying individuals, within its own ranks or within the banks, for those failings, and holds them to account?

Supporting Disadvantaged Families

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 9th November 2020 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

If somebody comes to make a universal credit claim, they can get money pretty quickly—within about three or four days. Yes, that is an advance but there is an earlier payment of the sum that would generally be available over the year. Instead of getting 12 payments, a recipient will get 13. It is important that if people need help, they get it, but then the payment will be spread over the rest of the year.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

As co-chair of the all-party group on poverty, may I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement? Despite protestations from the Opposition, I do not remember any similar package of support being available in 2008-09, when millions of people faced similar hardship. It is important to take a strategic approach, so will my right hon. Friend outline how this strategy will dovetail with the national food strategy, which was commissioned by this Government in 2019 and has made similar recommendations?

[Dr Coffey]

My hon. Friend is right to point out that the Government continue to try to support people through this challenging time. They have put their money where their mouth is to get that direct support to families, as well as to businesses and communities more generally. On the national food strategy, Henry Dimbleby has produced his initial review, and once we get phase 2 of his work and suggestions, the Government will develop a food strategy. We are united in ensuring, particularly through Healthy Start vouchers, that the food that young children and expectant mothers have is nutritious, because that is important for the development of our young children.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Justin Tomlinson]

As I have set out in previous answers, we are now spending an additional £6 billion through personal independence payments to support some of the most vulnerable people in society. Under the work capability assessment, we have 92% satisfaction, and under PIP it is 82%. We are ambitious for more and will continue to work with claimants, stakeholders and charities to improve the experience.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

16. What steps she is taking to provide support for people who require additional help transitioning to universal credit.

[Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)]

20. What steps she is taking to provide support for people who require additional help transitioning to universal credit.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)]

The Department is working with a range of organisations to support claimants transitioning to universal credit, building on the success of the Help to Claim scheme, which is delivered by Citizens Advice and has helped more than 180,000 people. From April 2020, a new £10 million transitional fund will provide extra help to the most vulnerable, improving access to welfare and labour market opportunities.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

If someone is on a four-weekly payment cycle, they will be paid twice in one month every year. That cocks up their universal credit claim as well as their cash flow. Until we fix the system, would a simple solution not be to give an interest-free loan to tide them over that period?

[Will Quince]

I am getting a strong steer that Members would like me to take a good look at this policy area, and I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. As he knows, we are always looking at ways to improve the UC system. The amount of UC paid to claimants reflects as closely as possible the actual circumstances of a household during each monthly assessment period, and those periods align to the way that the majority of employees are paid. I am of course willing to look into the issue, though, and am happy to meet my hon. Friend in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 7th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Guy Opperman]

If the individual case is sent to the Minister with responsibility for UC, they will take that up and respond accordingly.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

If people are paid on a four-week cycle, once a year they get paid twice in the same month, which disrupts the UC payment for two months. Will the Minister meet me to see what we can do to prevent these cash flow issues?

[Guy Opperman]

I take the point that my hon. Friend makes, in his usual astute way, and I know that the Minister concerned will be happy to have a meeting with him.

Department for Work and Pensions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd July 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alison McGovern]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Conservative leadership election feels like the reversal of politics as I had come to know it. I had always expected that Labour would be on the defensive when it came to public spending. I thought that my party would always have to prove that we were the ones who would deal responsibly with the economy, that we would always be on the defensive and the Tories would always be on the attack. But those competing in the Conservative leadership election seem to want to reverse that principle. They seem to want to be accused of splashing the cash. Given that one of the candidates found nearly £10 billion to be spent on tax cuts, I suggest that the debate should never again be about whether austerity was necessary, but should instead be a simple question of political priorities.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

The hon. Lady is making some powerful points, many of which I agree with, and I am also concerned by some of the pledges in the leadership contest about the spending of taxpayers’ money. What does she think about Labour’s election manifesto pledges of £1 trillion of spending?

[Alison McGovern]

The hon. Gentleman asks about the 2017 manifesto. I simply remind him that before the publication of the manifestos in that election most people expected the Conservative party to get a stonking great majority so that it could push through its version of Brexit based on the quality of their manifesto as opposed to ours. I point the hon. Gentleman to the historical facts, as it did not turn out at all like that.

Universal Credit

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 14th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

I am sorry that the hon. Lady feels unable to welcome the changes. The previous two Budgets have included additional support and, as I just said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston), we will see what more we can do where that is appropriate.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

Universal credit was rolled out in my constituency almost two years ago. The roll-out was largely successful, but there are issues, particularly with payment frequency. Will my hon. Friend commit to continue to listen, learn and make adaptations where necessary?

[Alok Sharma]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, because several of the other issues announced by the Secretary of State relate to looking at more frequent direct payments to private landlords and at alternative payment arrangements, including offering them proactively.

Oral Answers to Questions

Kevin Hollinrake Excerpts

Monday 7th January 2019 Commons Chamber

[Amber Rudd]

I am afraid the right hon. Gentleman is a little ahead in his fulsome praise for me, which I always appreciate. As I said to him in the Select Committee before Christmas, I will want to consider carefully when I bring to the House the vote for the 3 million managed migration, which is scheduled for 2020. I am still considering when to do that. I can reassure him that there will be a vote on that before it takes place. The 10,000-person pilot, which was announced some time ago, will, as always, inform us how we do that.

[Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

21. In Thirsk and Malton, some of my constituents get paid on four-weekly cycles. That means they can get paid twice in a month and can appear to be earning more than they actually do. What more can we do to ensure universal credit responds to such situations, so that people receive the right level of support at the right time?

[Amber Rudd]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. He has raised this issue with us before. He is right that we need to ensure that universal credit delivers on what it intends to do, which is to give real time financial support based on an actual month’s assessment. We have recently updated the guidance for universal credit so that work coaches can adjust to ensure that where the situation he describes occurs, appropriate adjustments are made.