Chris Coghlan MP: speeches

Speeches

• 6 Jan 2025 · Frozen Russian Assets: Ukraine · Hansard source

  More

  I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) for securing this vital debate. There are many veterans in this Chamber; one in nine Liberal Democrat MPs has served in the armed forces. We know the price of freedom—many of us have seen it written on the grave of a friend. There are tens of thousands of Ukrainians paying that bitter price right now, which will all be in vain if we falter in our support. With the looming Trump Administration, that risk is real. As the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) has said, if Ukraine fails, the consequences for our security would be catastrophic. In the same way that our failure to show resolve on Syria perhaps encouraged Putin to attack Crimea, our failure to show resolve on Ukraine might encourage him to attack the Baltic states, test NATO’s article 5, and shatter the peace in Europe. That does not need to be our future. If the G7 seizes the $300 billion in Russian assets, we have the opportunity not only to keep Ukraine in the fight, but to win. Many are worried that seizing that $300 billion could undermine the global financial system; I am here to argue that that is not the case. As Lawrence Summers—the former US Treasury Secretary—and many others have pointed out, those fears are overblown, because when those assets were frozen in the first place, there were no observed consequences in financial markets. It has been made clear to financial markets that the assets of a sovereign aggressor are at risk when they are on deposit in a G7 country, as they should be. The risk that those assets will be seized should already have been substantially priced in, reducing the possibility of capital flight from a negative surprise. In any case, where would that capital fly to if the G7 countries act together? The pound, dollar, euro and yen amount to almost 90% of the world’s reserve currencies. China is not an option because of capital controls, so there are no other viable reserve currencies for countries to deposit their reserves in. As a former hedge fund manager, I spent years investing professionally in financial markets, and I can assure the House that investors will not be discouraged from investing in safe and attractive G7 currencies for two simple reasons: fear and greed. Today, the west spends $105 billion annually on Ukraine’s defence, including $45 billion from the US. The $300 billion in Russian assets could fund the lot for three years, or the US portion for six years if Trump withdraws his support. Many think that Russia’s resources are inexhaustible, yet according to the Royal United Services Institute, Russia is going to run out of artillery ammunition and armoured vehicles next year. It has already suffered 700,000 casualties, so Russia’s capacity to wage war will fall dramatically in one year’s time, but only if we can keep Ukraine in the fight. If Ukraine can end this war on terms that demonstrate that it is victorious, the consequences for our security will be profound. The threat from Russia will be greatly diminished, China will think twice about challenging a liberal world order, and the narrative of the decline of the free world and the rise of dictatorships will be decisively set back. Imagine what the free world could then achieve in the 21st century. As such, I urge the Government to seize that $300 billion in frozen Russian assets to keep Ukraine in the fight, and I salute the Ukrainian soldiers who are laying down their lives, not only for their country’s freedom but for our freedom too.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to speak in this debate as a member of the Treasury Committee. After suffering the highest fall in living standards since records began, the United Kingdom desperately needs economic growth, yet the OBR forecasts that the policies in the Government’s Finance Bill and Budget will have no impact on growth over the next five years. The recessionary impact of the tax rises, combined with a focus on current spending that crowds out the private sector, largely offsets the fiscal stimulus of one of the largest fiscal events in recent decades, and of borrowing an extra £32 billion a year. There are potential upsides to the growth forecasts in the Budget, mainly from the impact of planning reform, but this Budget and Finance Bill are a missed opportunity for growth. That matters, because there are chronic structural problems in the British economy that we must address. Indeed, given that public sector net debt is now approaching 100% of GDP, the Government’s ability to borrow to invest in the future, or to cope with an unforeseen shock, is severely constrained. Many Labour Members have spoken about the importance of public investment, which I agree with, so I would like to address the following points. Since the 2008 financial crash, the UK economy has been hampered by productivity growth collapsing to 0.6% per year—the second worst in the G7. Unless and until we solve the productivity crisis, the UK will not escape its downward economic spiral of higher taxes, an ageing population, ever crumbling public services and ever higher debt. A key cause of that is chronically low public and private investment. In 24 of the last 30 years, the UK has had the lowest total investment of any G7 economy, yet as the OBR testified, under the Budget, public investment will remain flat as a share of GDP, so the Budget is unlikely to help solve the productivity crisis. This is why the OBR is forecasting that for every £1 borrowed by the Government, the economy will grow by only 60p next year, and that these effects will reverse in five years.

• 27 Nov 2024 · Finance Bill · Hansard source

  More

  As the hon. Member will know, the Liberal Democrats have alternative measures for raising those revenues, but my fundamental point is that, yes, I welcome public investment, but it is flat in the Budget; it is not enough, in my view, and furthermore, it is not focused on the right areas. By contrast, economists have found that optimal forms of public investment are able to raise GDP by £1.50 for every £1 invested. The best public investments for raising economic growth are investments in intangible capital such as knowledge, research and development, patents and licenses. That can bring greater gains in productivity because knowledge can build on existing knowledge, and it can crowd in private investment, as it lowers the financial risk of participation for private investors. Indeed, the most effective form of R&D is targeted on a specific goal. For example, the Kennedy Administration in the ’60s had stunning success in increasing US productivity and growth by having the very specific goal of the moon landings. I was excited to see that R&D to solve targeted problems was in the Budget, on page 76, but then I saw that of the £70 billion in spending in the Budget, only £25 million will be spent on the best type of R&D to drive economic growth. That is about double the budget of my local district council. That is not really appropriate for the world’s sixth-largest economy. We stand on the cusp of a new industrial revolution in artificial intelligence, and this country has just one chance to gain the first mover advantage, and to harvest the productivity gains and growth that could result. Indeed, combined with innovations in the life sciences and climate technology, which are mentioned in the Budget, this could be our route out of this downward economic spiral, yet in the 164-page Budget, the words “artificial intelligence” appear once. I call on the Government to redouble their efforts on public investment and R&D, because I would like to live in a country that has the resources that it needs to provide opportunities for our citizens, and this Budget is a missed opportunity to do that.

• 16 Oct 2024 · Access to Primary Healthcare · Hansard source

  More

  The NHS dental contract is so flawed that it punishes dentists for overperforming, so they cannot meet patient demand even if they are ready and willing to do so. During the election campaign in my constituency, I was struck by how many dentists contacted me to tell me that the system is broken. One dentist took me for a coffee in Dorking, and she told me that she had quit as an NHS dentist because the sums simply did not add up. It was costing her more to treat NHS patients than she was receiving under the NHS contract. That is why so many dentists are leaving the NHS contract. As we have heard from so many hon. Members, the consequences for children in particular are devastating, because they end up at A&E. Just last week, a constituent contacted me to tell me that they had been unable to afford private dental care for broken teeth, so they had accessed a cheaper teledentistry company. The result was a botched job, with them having permanent ligament and bone damage. This crisis will end only when we reverse the previous Government’s cuts to dental care, because everyone should be able to access affordable high-quality dental care. The Liberal Democrats have a plan to fix our dental deserts, and I urge Members to support the motion.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Financial Fraud and Economic Crime · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, in this brilliant and necessary debate. I commend the hon. Member for York Outer (Mr Charters) for securing this debate on financial fraud and economic crime and for his professional expertise in this area. I should declare an interest: I spent 11 years working in financial services and also worked in the Foreign Office on counter-terrorism, so I know how vital this debate is. The hon. Member for York Outer made really interesting points in his seven proposals, particularly on the link between tackling fraud and economic growth and his call for a national anti-fraud centre based on the Australian model. The Liberal Democrats called for an online crime agency in our manifesto, so it is something we would be interested in supporting. We need a dedicated body to tackle online crimes such as personal fraud; our police forces are overwhelmed. Local forces lack the specialist skills required to combat the complexity of modern online crime. Although the National Crime Agency focuses on the most serious offences, we need an agency specifically equipped to deal with online fraud.

• 11 Sept 2024 · Financial Fraud and Economic Crime · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I agree that there should be more emphasis on that area. I also thought that the hon. Member for York Outer made a really interesting point about the lack of FCA regulation of the Post Office, and I agree that that appears to be a gap in our existing regulatory framework. We heard some really moving personal accounts about the cost of these online scams in the speech made by the hon. Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson). We are also calling for the naming and shaming of the banks that have the worst records on preventing fraud and reimbursing victims. They should be held accountable. Financial institutions have a duty to protect their customers and we need to call them out when they do not. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the power of social media scams, and we are also calling for a public awareness campaign. We need to empower everyone to spot, avoid and report fraud and scams. But let me be clear: the onus should not be on individuals to prevent fraud. Victims should never be blamed for falling prey to sophisticated scams. This issue is about building a society that protects citizens and not one that burdens them with responsibilities that should lie with institutions. As we have heard, the numbers involved are staggering, both in terms of the billions of pounds that have been lost to fraud and the sheer volume of crime that is now online. Despite those facts, however, the previous Government’s response was lacklustre. I was moved by the hon. Member for York Outer’s point that 40% of crime is fraud, including online fraud, yet only 1% of police resources is dedicated to tackling fraud. The previous Government treated fraud with such little seriousness that they did not include it in crime statistics. Will the Minister commit to including fraud in crime statistics to demonstrate the new Government’s seriousness about this issue? The Government must also recognise that economic crime poses a significant threat to our democracy. For too long, the previous Government allowed oligarchs to treat the UK as their personal playground, so that they could funnel dirty money into our economy and undermine our values. The Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to begin seizing frozen Russian assets and to use the proceeds to support Ukraine; to close loopholes in economic crime legislation, which allow associates of authoritarian regimes, such as Putin’s cronies, to funnel corrupt funds into our country; and to properly resource the NCA to ensure that it has the tools to tackle complex financial crimes. We are also calling for an audit of UK-based assets owned by officials from countries with troubling human rights records, such as China and Iran, to ensure that we are not enabling regimes that abuse their own citizens. As a former counter-terrorism officer, I know how important cross-border co-operation is. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge) really brought out the importance of such co-operation when she made the point that the people conducting these scams are not necessarily all in the same geographical location. I also know the damage that Brexit caused to our cross-border co-operation on serious and online crime. Will the Minister commit to improving co-operation with our European allies and with other countries more widely on financial fraud and economic crime? I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the debate. It was a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair for this debate, Ms Vaz, and I again thank the hon. Member for York Outer for securing it.

• 2 Sept 2024 · Technology in Public Services · Hansard source

  More

  Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make my maiden speech in this debate. I was moved by the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner)—particularly her devotion to her constituents. I already have some Stoke-on-Trent pottery in my kitchen, and I am always open to more. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Sir Paul Beresford. He significantly tightened the legislation around child protection, and I—a father of three little girls—and parents across the country are grateful to him for it. I am hugely honoured to be the first Liberal MP for Dorking and Horley in over 100 years. It is my home: I grew up in Peaslake, just half a mile outside the constituency. Growing up, I was astounded by the beauty of our Surrey hills—from Leith hill to Box hill—and I still am. When I visit places across my constituency, I often think about my mum. She visited those places, too, and I know that they bought her great joy. She died of ovarian cancer three months after I was born. That is why the Liberal Democrat 62-day cancer treatment guarantee is so important to me. Growing up, I developed a passion for public service, which helped me to move beyond the pain of her loss. It is why, when I saw that ISIS was murdering people, I joined the Foreign Office and Army Reserve, and served in Iraq. It is why I left my job in a hedge fund to start a charity training African entrepreneurs with Violet Busingye, a Rwandan refugee from the genocide. It is why I am here now. Statistics show that one of the worst places in the country for the special needs crisis is Surrey. A headteacher in Horley wrote to me to say that she has to take special needs children even though she does not have the specially trained staff to support them, as is their right. One mum wrote to me to say that her son had been out of school for two years, with no tuition and no placement in between, and that she is now having the same struggle with her daughter. They are just one of hundreds of such families across Surrey. Imagine the impact of missing two years of school on that little boy’s life chances. Imagine if he had instead been in a nurturing educational environment—one that was integrated with employers who cater to the unique talents of autistic people, such as above-average analytical capabilities, attention to detail and conscientiousness. Indeed, perhaps we should consider the contribution that autistic people could make to the technology that we need in public services—the topic of today’s debate. Sadly, the outcome can all too often be very different, as I discovered some years ago when I went back to my old house in Peaslake. Fiona, who had bought it off my dad—she is in the Public Gallery today with her daughter, Cara—showed me every room in the house, except my old bedroom, which, strangely, had my name, Christopher, written above the door. On my next visit, Fiona told me what had happened to her autistic son, Christopher. As a young man living alone in Leeds, he had been unable to get the support that was his right. Horrifically, he was exploited and murdered by a man who had just been released from jail. Of the many things that went terribly wrong in Christopher’s case, one was that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 provides for a presumption of capacity, which can prevent the NHS and social services from intervening when they should. In fact, in a post-legislative scrutiny report, a 2014 House of Lords Select Committee found that the Act is failing those who it was designed to protect and empower. Ever since Christopher’s death, Fiona has been campaigning to change this law, and it is my intention that she will succeed in doing so. I am proud that Fiona’s MP, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Jeremy Hunt), and I are working on this together. Christopher’s MP was the right hon. Member for Leeds South (Hilary Benn), who of course is a Cabinet Minister and as such is bound by collective responsibility, but Fiona has been full of praise for the support that he has given her and her family. I believe it would be right and honourable for Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs to change this law together, because that change would bring comfort to Fiona and console Cara. It would mean that in 10, 20 or 30 years’ time, if another little boy or girl is born in Christopher’s circumstances, they might avoid Christopher’s fate. That is why I came to this place—for those who need to move beyond pain to peace.