UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Simon Clarke – 2022 Comments on the New Public Sector Fraud Authority

    Simon Clarke – 2022 Comments on the New Public Sector Fraud Authority

    The comments made by Simon Clarke, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, on 3 August 2022.

    The launch of the new body will put a laser-like focus on fraud and renew our efforts to combat people taking advantage of our public services and support.

    It will reinforce wider investment in government to crack down on fraud and mis-claiming, including £210 million for HMRC to further tackle fraud, and £510 million for DWP to target welfare fraud in 2021.

    Tackling fraud will drive efficiency, saving taxpayers’ hard-earned money which is even more important as we know people are struggling with the rising cost of living.

  • Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Comments on the New Public Sector Fraud Authority

    Jacob Rees-Mogg – 2022 Comments on the New Public Sector Fraud Authority

    The speech made by Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Minister for Government Efficiency, on 3 August 2022.

    Public sector fraud is not an attack on a single person, and so to many the pain feels less sharp than when directed at individuals. But fraud attacks on government are attacks on money earned by much put-upon taxpayers.

    They are an attack on the emergency services whose funding they deplete, similarly they steal money from infrastructure projects.

    As criminals develop more sophisticated tools, we too must adapt and modernise.

    So we’re attracting the brightest minds and equipping them with tools to detect, prevent and deter those who seek to steal money intended to fund vital public services.

  • Conor Murphy – 2022 Comments on Cost of Living Crisis in Northern Ireland

    Conor Murphy – 2022 Comments on Cost of Living Crisis in Northern Ireland

    The comments made by Conor Murphy, the Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, on 1 August 2022.

    We have repeatedly told the British government that they must act to support workers and families through the cost-of-living crisis as they struggle to pay their bills.

    They should start by calling time on big energy companies – whose profits are through the roof – and ensure they pay their way and aren’t ripping off ordinary people.

    Executive departments need more money to deal with the rise in inflation and the huge spike in living costs. The British government must step up and provide more money to ensure that can happen.

    They have failed to help businesses under pressure with rising costs, they need action now to keep their doors open and protect jobs.

    This is the big challenge facing workers and families this winter. We need an Executive up and running immediately so we can start putting money in people’s pockets.

    The DUP should end its boycott, rejoin the Executive and work with the rest of us to put the interests of workers and families first.

  • John Swinney – 2022 Comments on Liz Truss Claiming Scottish First Minister Should be Ignored

    John Swinney – 2022 Comments on Liz Truss Claiming Scottish First Minister Should be Ignored

    The comments made by John Swinney, the Deputy First Minister in Scotland, on 1 August 2022.

    People in Scotland, whatever their politics, will be absolutely horrified by the obnoxious remarks that Liz Truss has made tonight.

    The unionist campaigners suggest Scotland should be at the heart of the United Kingdom and how Scotland can be expected to be at the heart of the UK when the democratically elected leader of our country is, in the view of the person most likely to be the next prime minister of the UK, somebody that should be ignored is completely and utterly unacceptable.

    I think Liz Truss has fundamentally with one, silly, intemperate intervention, fundamentally undermined the argument she tries to put forward: that Scotland, somehow, can be fairly and well treated at the heart of the United Kingdom.

  • Tom Clarke – 1988 Speech on Bahadur Singh

    Tom Clarke – 1988 Speech on Bahadur Singh

    The speech made by Tom Clarke, the then Labour MP for Monklands West, in the House of Commons on 8 July 1988.

    This debate concerns the treatment of the late Bahadur Singh in Barlinnie prison. Even as I speak these words, I find it difficult to contemplate that a man 26 years of age, who lived for a short time in Coatbridge in my constituency and for whom I had been making representations from mid-winter until spring this year, died on 12 May—the day after his release, following six months in Barlinnie prison. Time after time, as his solicitor took up the case, his friends the Banga family in Coatbridge came to see me. I can still hear them saying, as they frequently did, “They will kill him, they will kill him.” Throughout, they had a lack of faith in the administration of British justice which many now think proved chillingly perceptive.

    I consider the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), to be one of the most humane of hon. Members, with a fine record as a Back Bencher interested in penal reform issues. I have to say, however, that after a number of representations and warnings, I cannot regard Mr. Singh’s death on a bus on the way home in the Punjab as a coincidence. There are far wider implications—of civil liberties, of basic human rights, of racism in Scottish prisons and, until recent times, a lack of Scottish Office concern about the problem—and I believe that these should be urgently addressed.

    Bahadur Singh had been languishing in Barlinnie prison after his arrest for a breach of the immigration laws, for not having proper documentation. Last year, he went to stay in Scotland with his friends, restaurant owner Autar Banga and Mrs. Jasbir Banga. In November, he was reported to the immigration authorities and arrested. He appeared in Airdrie sheriff court on Monday 9 November, when he pleaded guilty to a contravention of the Immigration Act 1971. He was fined £120 but because he had no money on his person, he was sentenced to 28 days and sent to Barlinnie pending the outcome of an appeal.

    I first took up his case with the Home Office on 18 November 1987, as Mr. Singh had sought political asylum. He was kept in prison while his application was processed. The inevitable questions arise: why did it take so long for the Home Office to make a decision and why, during the decision-making process, was he kept in prison? Those matters are diminished in importance by the most basic question of all: how was Bahadur Singh treated while he was in Barlinnie prison?

    I first drew the Government’s attention to allegations of violence against Bahadur Singh when I wrote to the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton), on 11 February and again on 26 February 1988. I understand that Mr. Singh changed his mind about appealing for political asylum from time to time, but as I said then in my letter to the Minister, Mr. Singh’s

    “indecision over his appeal results from … bullying and abuse which has caused very great distress.”

    The Minister’s written reply, received more than a month later, directed me to the Scottish Office, while the Minister proposed

    “to maintain his detention in view of his previous disregard for … immigration control.”

    Allegations of violence and racism continued, so on 28 March I wrote to the prison governor, Mr. Walker, that from the outset of Mr. Singh’s

    “committal to Barlinnie, I have had reports from his visitors of physical and cruel verbal abuse.”

    After a brief acknowledgment, the governor replied on 21 April, nearly a month later, in the following words:

    “I have had the allegations investigated by a member of my senior management team. Mr. Singh speaks virtually no English and it was necessary to interview him through another inmate who was acting as an interpreter.”

    In that interview, according to the governor’s letter, Mr. Singh apparently stated that he

    “had no particular problems at that time”

    and no real fears for his own safety, although a few slogans had been daubed on his cell door. That account of the investigation is strongly disputed and I shall return to it later.

    I would have expected that a matter as serious as this, raised by a Member of the House, would have been personally investigated by the governor and not delegated as a matter of little importance. Moreover, a letter from the governor to Strathclyde community relations council a few weeks later implied that there had been no problems with the treatment of ethnic minority prisoners. In the words of the council, his reply was “complacent” and “misleading”; it was not consistent with the facts.

    I was still very unhappy as allegations continued to mount, so I wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland on 3 May 1988. One of the most unacceptable aspects of the whole affair is that the Secretary of State’s office did not reply to my letter until Thursday 2 June—the day when, by another remarkable coincidence, the Glasgow Evening Times broke the news to his office that Mr. Singh had died several weeks before. I believe that the House is entitled to an explanation for that insensitive delay from t he Secretary of State. At the very least, his role seems to represent administrative incompetence which cannot be dismissed lightly in view of the tragic consequences.

    I have now had the opportunity to speak at length to crucial witnesses of the alleged events. Mr. Mohammed Sattar is a young Pakistani who at one point shared a cell with Bahadur Singh. It should be said in passing that Mr. Sattar had a fracas with his girl friend—now happily his wife—which led to a short stay in prison. There is a conflict of evidence between Mr. Sattar and Mr. Walker, the prison governor. Whereas Mr. Walker had said—I return to my earlier point—that Mr. Singh had made no complaint, Mohammed Sattar insists—and I can confirm that his English is very fluent—that he acted as an interpreter for Mr. Singh in the presence of the governor’s representative, and that Mr. Singh did, indeed, complain about beatings and racist behaviour. In my conversation with Mr. Sattar he repeated the allegations that he had first made in the Glasgow Evening Times when he said:

    “They were just banging at them with steel bars and Bahadur and the other man were on their knees trying to protect themselves.”

    I can do no other than underline that conflict of evidence in the hope that the matter will be investigated.

    I have also talked, with the help of an interpreter, to another key witness, Mr. Vijay Kumar. Mr. Kumar had also alleged that he had suffered racial harassment while an inmate in Barlinnie prison, again as a result of a breach of immigration rules. However, on 16 June 1988, when his case came before Lord Weir in the Court of Session, Mr. Kumar was set free. Lord Weir used the following words:

    “It was not in the tradition of the Scottish administration of justice for someone to be detained for months and months in such circumstances.”

    I cannot stress too strongly that it is of the utmost importance that no steps should be taken to deport Mr. Kumar from this country before he has the opportunity to give evidence to an inquiry into the scale of racial harassment in Scottish prisons and, in particular, the death of Bahadur Singh. My hon. Friends and I hope that the Under-Secretary can give us an assurance to that effect today. Let me add that it is a tragic pity that Lord Weir was never given the opportunity to reach the same conclusion in the case of Bahadur Singh.

    Having spent four hours last Sunday listening to Mohammed Sattar and Vijay Kumar, I am convinced that they are telling the truth. I understand that the Minister has already taken some steps, and I thank him for that; but I insist that the problem warrants a full and open public inquiry. The Scottish Office must demonstrate that it takes the issue of racism seriously by responding to that call.

    The allegations are serious ones. They are that Mr. Bahadur Singh was subjected to a series of harrowing racial attacks while in one of Her Majesty’s prisons; that Mr. Singh, a timid man who spoke virtually no English, was beaten up in his cell by five white inmates carrying metal bars and kitchen knives; that he was attacked while he mixed with other prisoners; that he had hot tea and soup thrown at him and was struck by a metal tray in the dining room; that racial slogans and threats were daubed on his cell door; and that the wardens specifically responsible for that part of the prison pretended not to notice any of this. It could hardly have helped that there is the suggestion—and I can go no further than that—that Mr. Singh was kept for some of his stay in a cell for 23 hours per day with a light on permanently.

    I have been told by the Under-Secretary that Mr. Singh was medically examined on 28 April. But even if that was so, it does not explain what happened between that date and 12 May when he was released.

    There are other questions to be answered. Why did it take six months to deal with such a case? Are there other similar cases in Scottish prisons at the moment? Why, after such delays, was he rushed straight on to a plane and deported without being allowed to let friends and relations know what was happening? Is it true that he spent his last night in Scotland, not in Barlinnie, but in a police cell in Strathclyde police headquarters, and if so, why was he moved and why did his friends not have access? What precisely was the state of Mr. Singh’s health at that time and, frankly, was he fit to undertake that long flight?

    Why do we lock up illegal immigrants beside violent criminals in our toughest jails? Why do we run that risk of racist intimidation or, to put it another way, condemn people, whose only crime was to want to live here, to long periods of solitary confinement for their own protection?

    Why is there no purpose-built detention centre for immigration cases in Scotland, or at least a special arrangement with low security prisons? In a recent reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie), the Minister said that there are so few such cases in Scottish prisons that special arrangements are not neccessary. Surely the Minister accepts that if the numbers involved are so small, the establishment of a special detention centre would be so much simpler. It might be even less costly than present arrangements.

    What special arrangements exist in our prisons for religious worship by minorities? What proportion of our prison officers come from ethnic minorities, and what steps are the Government taking to boost recruitment? What arrangements for special diets exist in Scottish prisons, and how sensitively are cultural questions tackled by prison administrators? Are there any members of ethnic minorities who are prison visitors in Barlinnie, and will the Under-Secretary tell us how he plans to increase their number around Scotland? I understand that the Home Office in England and Wales has recommended that each prison should have a race relations policy and senior management given proper training. Has any such policy even been talked about by the Scottish Office? Is racial harassment a problem in its own right or does the Scottish Office treat it as just another breach of prison rules?

    For all those reasons, I have called for an official inquiry into Bahadur Singh’s detention and subsequent death. I try not to underestimate the problems of administering Scottish prisons and I have no difficulty in accepting that the vast majority of prison staff are thoroughly decent people. But that cannot, on its own, be enough. If there is something wrong with the system we must try to put it right, and what is wrong is the absence of a clear, central anti-racist policy.

    Bahadur Singh is dead. But there are, I hope, many lessons that we can learn from his short life—particularly the last six months of it. We must face facts and tackle racism in our prisons and in wider society as a matter of urgency. This is, I believe, the least we can do in tribute to a young man whose love for this land was greater than we could return.

  • John Prescott – 1988 Speech on Piper Alpha Explosion

    John Prescott – 1988 Speech on Piper Alpha Explosion

    The speech made by John Prescott, the then Shadow Secretary of State for Energy, in the House of Commons on 7 July 1988.

    We on the Labour side of the House very much welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. We offer our deepest sympathy to the families and all involved in the tragic event. We should like to express our deepest appreciation—and, yes, admiration—for the excellent rescue services that are provided in these most difficult circumstances and for the onshore response by the police, hospital, and other services. It reminds us how much those people contribute in difficult circumstances. Those are not simply words, but express great admiration.

    Considering the magnitude of the tragedy, we fully endorse the Secretary of State’s decision to hold a public inquiry. However, does he accept that that inquiry should be open and wide-ranging and that its scope should not exclude anything in examining the safe operation of such installations? Although this is not in his statement, will the Secretary of State confirm that the Health and Safety Executive will conduct its own investigation into the technical causes and effects of the tragedy so that it can reach a conclusion quickly while we await the longer public examination?

    Will the Secretary of State confirm that the public inquiry will address itself to the following issues: the increasing number of accidents and dangerous occurrences in the industry in the past few years; the reduction in inspections and maintenance in the past few years, which have been highlighted and drawn to our attention by the Select Committee on Energy; the increasing pressures on costs and safety practices, and the low level of expenditure on training in what is clearly a profitable industry? Will he also address the issue of no-fault compensation, which has been raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, and which should be considered by an inquiry and considered for inclusion in any statutory system?

    Finally, will the Secretary of State confirm that health and safety legislation does not fully apply to this industry, highlighting the conflict between his Department’s responsibility for production and for safety? Will the right hon. Gentleman now give further consideration to making safety the first priority? Will he now review that conflict of interest and consider whether the Health and Safety Executive should extend its powers and responsibilities to that North sea industry?

    Mr. Parkinson

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous tributes to the emergency services. I shall take up his points one by one. Of course, the inquiry will wish to be far-reaching and to discover the fundamental causes to make sure that if there are any wider implications from this particular event and any lessons to be learned for other operators, that information will be disseminated as quickly as possible. It will be a deep and far-reaching inquiry.

    The Health and Safety Executive has responsibilities in this area but, by agreement, it delegates them to the inspectorate in my Department, which is recognised worldwide as being technically one of the best qualified inspectorates. Therefore, it is not true to say that the Health and Safety Executive is not involved. It does have rights and duties but delegates them to my Department’s inspectorate.

    On the question of the increasing number of accidents, it is simply not true that accidents are increasing in the North sea. In fact, last year the number of serious accidents reported fell from 101 in 1986 to 59, although 59 is still far too high a figure and we wish to keep the pressure on to ensure that that improvement is maintained.

    On the question of the reductions in surveys, I advise the hon. Gentleman that it is not only the inspectorate of my Department which attends the platforms. It may interest him to know that an inspector finished the most recent inspection of that platform on 28 June. Lloyd’s Register of Shipping is also under a responsibility annually to certify the platforms and equipment and the Department of Transport must also check the safety arrangements and safety equipment on board. Therefore, the platforms are under continuous inspection, not just from my Department acting on behalf of the Health and Safety Executive, but also from other Government Departments which themselves have duties, and independent bodies, such as Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, which has a duty to carry out the full certification.

    On the question whether my Department should continue to carry out this work as agent for the Health and Safety Executive, as he knows, this was carefully examined by the Burgoyne committee, which reported in 1981. That committee said in its majority report that the present arrangements were, in its opinion, the best possible. I accept that there was a minority report which disagreed, but the majority report, whose recommendations the Government accepted, felt that the present arrangements were the best.

  • Cecil Parkinson – 1988 Statement on Piper Alpha Explosion

    Cecil Parkinson – 1988 Statement on Piper Alpha Explosion

    The statement made by Cecil Parkinson, the then Secretary of State for Energy, in the House of Commons on 7 July 1988.

    With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the explosion and fire on the Piper Alpha platform last night.

    At about 10 o’clock last night a serious explosion occurred at the platform. The coastguard service was informed and an emergency control centre was established. All emergency services were immediately alerted. Royal Navy, Royal Air Force and coastguard helicopters and surface vessels in the area, including a NATO detachment, were committed to the search for survivors. Occidental, the operators of the platform, activated its emergency centre to control the fire and oil and gas flows.

    The explosion appears to have been so violent that the platform was effectively destroyed. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State went early this morning to Aberdeen. He has kept me in continuous touch with developments. My latest information is that there were 229 people on the platform at the time of the explosion, of whom 65 are known to have survived. There were three people in a small boat involved in the rescue, of whom one is known to have survived. Sixteen people are known to be dead and 150 are at present unaccounted for.

    Her Majesty the Queen has asked me to convey to all those concerned her heartfelt sympathy for the injured and bereaved and her admiration for the gallant efforts of the firefighting, rescue and medical services in preventing even greater loss of life. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join in expressing our sympathies and in paying tribute to the efforts of the emergency services.

    Oil and gas production in the hostile environment of the North sea demands the greatest attention to safety. Safety is the first priority of the Government and the operators. We apply the highest safety standards to all phases of development: design, construction and operation. We have also established procedures to be followed in the event of an emergency. These are regularly rehearsed.

    The Government are determined to establish urgently the cause of the explosion and the lessons to be learned. Nearly 30,000 people work in the United Kingdom sector of the North sea. They and their families have the right to expect the fullest possible investigation. The Government will therefore be setting up a full public inquiry as soon as possible.

  • Tom Pendry – 1988 Speech on Strip Searches at Greenham Common

    Tom Pendry – 1988 Speech on Strip Searches at Greenham Common

    The speech made by Tom Pendry, the then Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, in the House of Commons on 6 July 1988.

    On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to bring to your attention and to the attention of the House what I consider to be a serious breach of ministerial and parliamentary conduct. On 24 May 1984 I asked the Secretary of State for Defence

    “for what purposes the Ministry of Defence police are carrying out strip searches at Greenham common; how many strip searches have taken place there; what was found; and if he will make a statement.”

    The answer was supplied by the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Mr. Stanley), who is now the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. He stated:

    “No such strip searches have been carried out at RAF Greenham common.”—[Official Report, 24 May 1084; Vol. 60, c.552.]

    I was prompted to ask the question by a constituent of mine who alleged that six months earlier she had been strip-searched at Greenham common. As I believed that the Minister’s word was honourable, I told her that I could not pursue the matter in a parliamentary sense.

    Fortunately for her, she persevered. Yesterday, at Newbury county court, she was awarded £2,000-plus damages and about £6,000 costs at the expense of the Ministry of Defence because she had been strip-searched at Greenham common.

    I believe that the Minister should account for his misleading answer from the Dispatch Box. He should apologise to me, and, more importantly, to my constituent, Stella Mann-Cairns, and all other women who have had to put up with this indignity. Although he has moved to another Department, he should assure the House that the Government no longer pursue that policy.

    I have given notice of this matter to the Minister and to the Leader of the House, and I am surprised that neither of them is present. I hope that the Minister will apologise. If he does not, he should do the honourable thing and resign.

  • David Martin – 1988 Speech on the Abolition of Gazumping

    David Martin – 1988 Speech on the Abolition of Gazumping

    The speech made by David Martin, the then Conservative MP for Portsmouth South, in the House of Commons on 5 July 1988.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent gazumping in connection with buying and selling homes.

    The disgraceful practice of gazumping has been raised in the House on several occasions over the years, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle). It has also been the object of attention by the Law Commission and, from time to time, by the legal profession’s magazines and the press. A remarkable number of right hon. and hon. Members have shared with me the experiences of their constituents, and I have been helped by them.

    The word “gazump” is based on “gazoomph,” which is a graphic Yiddish word meaning to swindle or to cheat. It applies when the purchaser and the vendor of a home have agreed on a definite price and then, before contracts are exchanged, the vendor raises the price to that purchaser or sells at a higher price to someone else. It does not apply to the converse case of the purchaser withdrawing before exchange of contracts. That is a nuisance and the breaking of an agreement, but it is not gazumping. I have some ideas on that, too, but I have only 10 minutes in which to speak, so they must be developed at another time.

    Gazumping has been described as a method of parting rich men from their money—and it certainly does that. The greater problem is that it also parts the relatively less well off from theirs, especially young people and first-time buyers.

    Scottish law and practice is far nearer to what I would like to see happen in England and Wales. It has been said that nothing stops us operating the same system. That may theoretically be true, but it will never happen without legislation.

    First, my main aim it to give 14 days to a purchaser to exchange after the price has been agreed. During those 14 days, if the vendor backs out, the vendor would have to pay the purchaser 5 per cent. of the agreed price, plus any specific and reasonable costs incurred by the purchaser during that time. Any sum less than 5 per cent. would not be a deterrent, because gazumping is in multiples of thousands of pounds these days, even on less expensive property. Therefore, as in Scotland, the price would be fixed at the outset. In England and Wales exchange would follow in a short time and certainly would exist at an earlier stage. The parties could then agree either a long or short period for completion, depending significantly on the need for the purchaser to sell his or her home in the meantime.

    Secondly, considerations of time would be more important. My Bill would promote a speeding up of the all too ponderous and needlessly mystifying processes of conveyancing. For all the welcome increases in home ownership in recent years, in many respects we are still in the age of the quill pen when it comes to law and practice. Solicitors, in particular, must grow more used to the idea that they are in a commercial world. Their negative attitude to advertising is revealing. The advent of licensed conveyancers has helped to bring the profession face to face with commercial reality. Many have recognised and seized the opportunities to co-operate with or to operate property shops, but more needs to be done.

    Thirdly, home purchase would be helped by insisting on more, and more accurate, information in the agents’ particulars. That is a subject in itself. I have seen particulars offering me

    “a modern system of central hating”,

    “gilt” spelt “guilt” and even

    “rent and rat free accommodation”.

    Fourthly, the vendor would be required to provide far more information to a purchaser when he puts his property on the market. He would be required to provide a survey from a surveyor with proper professional qualifications. No honest vendor should object to that. If the purchaser wished to be more thorough, he could obtain a further survey on his own. At the same time, the vendor would also be required to provide the usual standard searches and inquiries.

    Local authorities should be able to produce all the relevant information quickly and efficiently. This week, Portsmouth city council is pioneering a new computer system, as too is Wigan. The system will be part of a national network, where solicitors, estate agents, banks and others will be able to obtain direct answers to the usual searches and inquiries. One third of Portsmouth property is now held on computer, and the aim is for complete coverage by the end of 1989. We have tolerated for far too long too many expectations of delay in what ought to be a quick and simple process.

    I understand that the current ministerial response is that law reform should stay out of this area, that the remedy lies in the hands of those involved in house buying rather than in the law, and that there is nothing to stop people in England and Wales using the Scottish system if they want to. The trouble with that line is that it is far too complacent. Unless we have legislation, ordinary house buyers will never be able to bring about any significant change in the practices and customs of professionals, just as they could not tackle the scandal of the conveyancing monopoly without legislative help.

    All that is lacking is the political will to legislate. I hope that my effort today, added to those of many others of all parties, will have its effect. My system is not perfect, but it would make things better. That is no more or less than most legislation can hope to achieve.

    A gazumper is a swindler, a cheat and a racketeer. The present state of the law and practice allows him or her to operate without sanction of any kind and regardless of the damage caused to innocent parties. That is neither ethical nor just. It cannot be right. My Bill would provide some redress. I commend its introduction to the House.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. David Martin, Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mr. Barry Field, Mr. Ian Gow, Mr. John Heddle, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Richard Livsey, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. Rhodri Morgan and Miss Ann Widdecombe.

  • Allan Roberts – 1988 Speech on the Privatisation of Girobank

    Allan Roberts – 1988 Speech on the Privatisation of Girobank

    The speech made by Allan Roberts, the then Labour MP for Bootle, in the House of Commons on 5 July 1988.

    I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,

    “the privatisation of Girobank in the light of the Government’s recent refusal to allow parliamentary scrutiny of the proposals and the circumstances of purchase.”

    This is a specific matter, because on 7 June the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster announced that Girobank would be privatised by tender, and I raised on a point of order the fact that to privatise Girobank no legislation or parliamentary scrutiny was necessarily required. You pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that it was not for you to advise on tactics, but went on to say that there were ways of raising these matters.
    We took your advice, Mr. Speaker, and sought at the request of the Bootle work force a meeting with the Secretary of State or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. We were refused a meeting with the Ministers. We were able to secure agreement from the Trade and Industry Select Committee that it would inquire into Girobank’s future, but today Ministers have made it clear that they intend to privatise Girobank before the Select Committee reports.

    It was in the light of assurances about the Select Committee inquiry and parliamentary scrutiny of the privatisation proposals that the work force voted against strike action but wished to obtain through Parliament assurances about their job security and the safeguarding of Girobank’s separate and continuing entity. The Government’s refusal to debate or discuss the issues and the details of their privatisation proposals is an insult to Parliament, and gives credence to the belief that Ministers have already earmarked a specific financial institution to take over the bank. Why else will they not give assurances that the bank will not be sold and then asset-stripped?

    The matter is urgent because it is not just about the future of 6,000 jobs on Merseyside. Giro is a national employer with regional centres. This is a national issue. It is also about the future of the nation’s network of post office counters, which depend on Girobank business and are also at risk.

    It seems, Mr.Speaker, that the only chance of parliamentary scrutiny is for you to grant a debate. The Government are playing Wall street roulette with 6,000 jobs on Merseyside by the way in which they are dealing with Girobank’s privatisation, and they should be called to account.