UKPOL.CO.UK

Blog

  • Lord Agnew – 2022 Resignation Statement in the House of Lords over Coronavirus Fraud

    Lord Agnew – 2022 Resignation Statement in the House of Lords over Coronavirus Fraud

    The statement made by Lord Agnew, the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office and Treasury, in the House of Lords on 24 January 2022.

    I thank the noble Lord for his important question. I am here to defend the Government’s record in the deployment of counter-fraud measures over the last two years or so. However, I will only be able to do that in part. The assertion made by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the Commons debate last week that the priority was speed of distribution of funds is absolutely correct, but what has followed has been nothing less than desperately inadequate. Given the time available, I will focus on one or two emblematic failures, but these issues run far wider.

    The oversight by both BEIS and the British Business Bank of the panel lenders of the BBLS has been nothing less than woeful. They have been assisted by the Treasury, which appears to have no knowledge of, or little interest in, the consequences of fraud to our economy or society. Much store has been given to the extra money allocated to HMRC, but it took a year to happen, and this department was already the most competent and well-funded in that discipline; whereas at the beginning of Covid, BEIS had the grand total of two counter-fraud officials on its staff, neither of whom were experienced in the subject. They refused to engage constructively with the counter-fraud function that sits in the Cabinet Office, has considerable expertise and reports directly to me.

    Schoolboy errors were made: for example, allowing more than 1,000 companies to receive bounce-back loans which were not even trading when Covid struck. They simply failed to understand that company formation agents hold in stock companies with earlier creation dates. I have been arguing with Treasury and BEIS officials for nearly two years to get them to lift their game; I have been mostly unsuccessful.

    We move now to a new and dangerous phase: banks’ ability to claim on the 100% state guarantee for non-payment. We do this without implementing a standard bar of quality assurance on what we expect as counter-fraud measures; we know that we have serious discrepancies. For example, three out of the seven main lenders account for 87% of loans paid out to companies already dissolved. Why is the ratio so skewed? Two of the seven account for 81% of cases where loans were paid out to companies incorporated post-Covid, as I referred to a moment ago. One of the seven accounts for 38% of the duplicate BBL application checks that were not carried out after the requirement was enforced. Bizarrely, it took six weeks to get the duplicate check into place, during which time 900,000 loans, or 60% in total, were paid out, bearing in mind that some £47 billion has been paid out.

    If only BEIS and the British Business Bank would wake up, there is still time to demand data and action on duplicate loans. Why will they not do it? Despite pressing BEIS and the BBB for over a year, there is still no single dashboard of management data to scrutinise lender performance. It is inexcusable. We have already paid out nearly £1 billion to banks claiming the state guarantee. The percentage of losses estimated to be from fraud rather than credit failure is 26%; I accept this is only an early approximation, but it is a very worrying one. I will place in Hansard a copy of my letter to the chairman of the British Business Bank, sent on 16 December, addressing some of these points. I have still not received an answer.

    I have at least four differences of opinion with Treasury officials: first, on urgent improvements in lender performance data, I simply want the bar to be set at what the best of the panel banks can deliver—to repeat, there is not even a common definition of fraud to trigger the payment of the guarantee; secondly, far greater challenge of lender banks when we uncover inconsistency in data; thirdly, educating Treasury officials as to why reliance on audits is far too reactive and generally happening well after the horse has bolted; fourthly, a failure by Treasury or BEIS officials to understand the complete disjunction between the level of criminality—probably hundreds of thousands of pounds—and enforcement capability. For example, NATIS, a specialist agency, can handle around 200 cases a year; local police forces might double that.

    Noble Lords can see that it is my deeply held conviction that the current state of affairs is not acceptable. Given that I am the Minister for counter-fraud, it feels somewhat dishonest to stay on in that role if I am incapable of doing it properly, let alone of defending our track record. It is for this reason that I have, sadly, decided to tender my resignation as a Minister across the Treasury and Cabinet Office with immediate effect. I would be grateful if my noble friend would pass this letter to the Prime Minister at his earliest convenience. It is worth saying that none of this relates to far more dramatic political events being played out across Westminster. This is not an attack on the Prime Minister, and I am sorry for the inconvenience it will cause. Indeed, I think any Prime Minister should be able to reasonably expect that the levers of government are actually connected to delivering services for our citizens.

    I hope that, as a virtually unknown Minister beyond this place, giving up my career might prompt others more important than me to get behind this and sort it out. It matters for all the obvious reasons, but there is a penny of income tax waiting to be claimed here if we just woke up. Total fraud loss across government is estimated at £29 billion a year. Of course, not all can be stopped, but a combination of arrogance, indolence and ignorance freezes the government machine. Action taken today will give this Government a sporting chance of cutting income tax before a likely May 2024 election. If my removal helps that to happen, it will have been worth it.

    It leaves me only to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, for his courteous but attentive role as shadow Minister of my portfolio, and to thank noble friends, many of whom I know will carry on their scrutiny of this important area. Thank you, and goodbye.

  • Jim McMahon – 2022 Comments on Water Privatisation

    Jim McMahon – 2022 Comments on Water Privatisation

    The comments made by Jim McMahon, the Shadow Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary, on 24 January 2022.

    After a decade of Conservative rule, vital services continue to be stripped back thanks to cuts, while the pockets of shareholders are cushioned from any blow and working families made to pay the price.

    The system is clearly broken and the government is refusing to listen to Labour’s calls for higher fines for water companies, proper annual parliamentary scrutiny of Defra, Ofwat and the Environment Agency, as well as a proper plan for reducing raw sewage being discharged.

    Labour’s contract with the British people for prosperity, security and respect, will see an end to sewage dumping to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas.

  • Rachel Reeves – 2022 Comments on Resignation of Lord Agnew

    Rachel Reeves – 2022 Comments on Resignation of Lord Agnew

    The comments made by Rachel Reeves, the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 24 January 2022.

    This is a damning indictment of the Chancellor and the Government’s failures on fraud.

    That the Government’s own anti-fraud minister feels he is unable to defend the Government’s record on billions of pounds of taxpayer cash gifted to criminals tells you all you need to know about the incompetence of this government.

    It should be a source of enduring shame to the Chancellor that he has so casually written off £4.3bn of taxpayers’ money that is now in the hand of criminals and gangs.

    Coming on top of billions spent on crony contracts and billions more lost in loan fraud schemes, these levels of waste destroy any claim the Conservatives have to careful stewardship of the public finances.

    Labour would treat every pound of taxpayer money with the respect it deserves.

  • Denis Healey – 1972 Speech on Rhodesia

    Denis Healey – 1972 Speech on Rhodesia

    The speech made by Denis Healey, the then Shadow Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 January 1972.

    May I first thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and ask him for an assurance that he will make a further statement to the House tomorrow in the light of any information he may receive between now and then?

    May we be told the names of the three Africans who have been arrested with Mr. Todd and his daughter? I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friends are not just concerned but are appalled by the arrest of Mr. Todd and his daughter, particularly against the background of the firm promise conveyed to the House by the right hon. Gentleman from Mr. Smith that normal political activities would be permitted throughout the period of consultation.

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that Mr. Todd is one of the few Europeans in public life in Rhodesia who has won the confidence of the Africans, that he is an ex-Prime Minister aged 63, that Mr. Smith may have taken a step which will lead to the very violence that he purports to hope to avoid and that many of us will feel that this may well have been his purpose in carrying out the arrests, for it is already evident that all the evidence produced to the Pearce Commission by Africans in both the urban and tribal areas shows that there is overwhelming opposition to the proposals for a settlement?

    Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my hon. Friends and I must rely entirely on newspaper reports for our understanding of what is happening in Rhodesia at this moment? Is he further aware that reports in newspapers which cannot be considered to be hostile to Her Majesty’s Government—newspapers like the Daily Telegraph and the Financial Times—make it clear, first, that all the shootings and bayonetings which have taken place in Rhodesia in recent days have been carried out by the security forces responsible to the Smith régime and not by the Africans; secondly, that the violence in Gwelo followed and did not precede the use of tear gas against a peaceful demonstration by Africans who were seeking to present their views to representatives of Her Majesty’s Government in the Pearce Commission inside Gwelo; and, third, that all the newspaper reports show that representatives of the African National Council did their best.
    even after the use of tear gas by the Rhodesia forces, to prevent the use of violence by the demonstrators?

    Has the Pearce Commission yet had an answer to the question it put to the Smith régime almost a week ago about the complaints made by the African National Council of interference by the Smith régime in its attempted activities in the tribal and urban areas?

    Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that unless Mr. Smith can produce satisfactory evidence that Mr. Garfield Todd, his daughter and the three arrested Africans have already taken action calculated to disturb public order in Rhodesia, he will insist on their immediate release.

  • Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on Rhodesia

    Alec Douglas-Home – 1972 Statement on Rhodesia

    The statement made by Alec Douglas-Home, the then Foreign Secretary, in the House of Commons on 19 January 1972.

    With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement.

    Since I last spoke in this House on Rhodesia, hon. and right hon. Members will have been concerned at the reports of violence from different parts of that country, especially in the Gwelo district.

    It is in the Government’s view essential that the Pearce Commission should be enabled to carry out its task of testing Rhodesian opinion in conditions free of intimidation and violence, in which normal political activities are possible.

    Against this background, the House will have been concerned, too, to have received the news of the arrest of Mr. Garfield Todd, his daughter and three others. On hearing the reports last night I immediately sent a personal message to Mr. Smith seeking to establish the facts behind these arrests.

    In his reply Mr. Smith has said that they are cases of preventive detention arising from the internal security situation that has developed in the midlands area of Rhodesia during the last fortnight, under the 1970 Emergency Powers Regulations.

    He has said that the reasons for detaining Mr. Todd and his daughter were not based on their publicly stated opposition to the settlement proposals, but that the decision was, on the contrary, taken solely on the grounds of security and the need to maintain law and order in Rhodesia, without which, as recent events in Gwelo have shown, it is not possible for the Pearce Commission to carry out its task.

    It is, of course, for the Commission, which has the advantage of being on the spot, to satisfy itself that normal political activities are being permitted in Rhodesia, provided, as the proposals for a settlement make clear, that they are conducted in a peaceful and democratic manner. Lord Pearce, who has himself issued a statement in Salisbury expressing deep concern at these detentions, and has asked the Rhodesian Government for their reasons, will no doubt be considering the position in the light of Mr. Smith’s reply and other information available to him in Salisbury.

    I am arranging to send to Salisbury tonight the Head of the Rhodesia Department in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that he can, in consultation with our liaison officer there, and after discussion with all concerned, let me have an up-to-date assessment of the situation in the light of the recent events which have caused general concern.

    In a matter of such importance I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it would not be right for me to say more about these arrests until I have received further full information from Rhodesia. I will keep the House informed.

  • John Parker – 1972 Speech on Banning Cigarette Advertising

    John Parker – 1972 Speech on Banning Cigarette Advertising

    The speech made by John Parker, the then Labour MP for Dagenham, in the House of Commons on 19 January 2022.

    I beg to move,

    That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the advertising of cigarettes; and for purposes connected therewith.

    Since 1962, we have had a succession of reports from the Royal College of Physicians on the question of tobacco smoking generally, and particularly cigarette smoking. Each of them pointed out more strongly the dangers arising from the increase in cigarette smoking and demanded drastic action, but no effective action has been taken either by this House or by the Government.

    The problem is very serious. There has been a very big increase in the smoking of cigarettes. Cigarette smoking is the problem rather than tobacco smoking in other forms. In 1940, 25,000 people died from tuberculosis and 5,000 from cancer of the lung. In 1970, hardly any people died from tuberculosis but nearly 50,000 died from lung cancer. Cigarette smoking has become the killer disease in this country.

    It is important to compare the figures with the figures for deaths from other causes. In 1970, as many people died in this country from cigarette smoking as were killed in our bomber crews in the whole of the last war. Four times as many people were killed by cigarettes in 1970 as were killed in road accidents. Far more people died from smoking cigarettes than from taking drugs. There is an enormous campaign in this country against the sale of drugs and drug peddling, but no one organises against the “pushing” of cigarettes.

    Sir Gerald Nabarro (Worcestershire, South)

    I do.

    Mr. Parker

    I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, but there has not been a campaign against cigarette smoking comparable with the big campaign which has been, quite rightly, mounted against drug pushing.

    The great increase in the incidence of lung cancer is not the only result from the smoking of cigarettes. There has been a big increase in the incidence of cancer of the stomach and the very painful cancer of the bladder. The figures for coronary thrombosis have been affected by the increase in cigarette smoking. Most important of all, the incidence of chronic bronchitis—the “English disease”—has been very much on the increase. We have had clean air legislation to deal with the atmosphere, but in many public places the increase in cigarette smoking has increased the liability of many people to suffer from chronic bronchitis. Many people are dying painfully and many people are dying young who might otherwise have led useful lives.

    What should be done? I am well aware that on both sides of the House there is a great deal of support for what is called “the new liberalism”.

    In other words, the right of the individual must be asserted on all possible occasions. But there are occasions on which the right of the community as a whole needs to be stressed, particularly when we are considering what action should be taken.

    Many people may say that a man has the right to kill himself by smoking cigarettes if he wishes. I do not quarrel with the right of a man to kill himself in that way if he so desires. But we must look at the consequences of that. What happens to the family of a man who dies in his early forties? The community must keep his wife and children. There are 50,000 people a year dying from this disease, who thus make a call on the National Health Service. This means that the whole National Health Service must be organised to meet the needs of this section of the population when the rest of the population may well require other sectors of the National Health Service to be given greater priority.
    I mentioned the question of chronic bronchitis. The extreme consumption of tobacco by cigarette smokers can affect the health of people with whom they come in contact. That is something which must be considered from the community’s point of view. My case is that the community has the right to take certain action in order to halt the spread of this habit and to ensure that young people, in particular, do not become addicts of the cigarette.

    Hence this proposed Bill to prohibit cigarette advertising. If passed, it will prohibit the advertising of cigarettes, whether in the Press, in magazines or on radio, as has happened in connection with television. It will prevent the sponsoring of sporting events by cigarette companies and prohibit cigarette advertising on billboards. It will make a clean sweep of advertising in cinemas and theatres. It is an extreme action, I agree, but it will have one big advantage: no great army of bureaucrats would be required and no red tape would be necessary to enforce a law of this kind. It would be very effective.

    Last year, the tobacco interests spent £52 million on promoting the sale of tobacco, particularly of cigarettes. However, only £100,000 was spent on health education in this respect. The tobacco companies would not spend £52 million unless it showed results. If we prevented advertising, there would undoubtedly be a very big drop in the sale of cigarettes, which is the object of the exercise. It would be very effective in checking the enormous death roll from tobacco smoking.

    Up to now, the only action which the Government have effectively taken is to get the tobacco companies to agree that a warning about the dangers of smoking should be put on cigarette packets. That has been tried in the United States. In the first year after the law was introduced in America, the consumption of cigarettes declined by 1 per cent. It is now higher than it was before the law came into force. No effective results will ensue from such action taken by the Government of this country.

    The Government are frightened at the possible loss of revenue if there were a very big drop in cigarette smoking. They should be prepared to face that loss and to make it up from other sources if necessary. The ending of large-scale cigarette advertising would not only affect cigarette smoking. Young people would no longer feel that it was the right thing to do or that prestige was to be gained from cigarette smoking. That is another point which should be borne in mind.

    This is a moral issue. We are fighting for the younger generation. It is right that we should take steps to prevent them from becoming addicts. This House has fought such battles in the past. I ask hon. Members to remember the very important battles over the question of the abolition of the slave trade and slavery itself as a result of back-bench Members raising the matter. Back benchers forced legislation on the Government of the day and against powerful vested interests who fought back hard on their own behalf. We have the tobacco barons fighting hard now to keep the existing law. I hope the House will be prepared to fight the tobacco barons as our predecessors were prepared to fight the slave traders in the past.

  • Steve Barclay – 2022 Comments on Civil Servants Returning to the Office

    Steve Barclay – 2022 Comments on Civil Servants Returning to the Office

    The comments made by Steve Barclay, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, on 22 January 2022.

    Now we are learning to live with COVID and have lifted Plan B measures, we need to move away from a reliance on video meetings and get back to the benefits of face-to-face, collaborative working.

    I’m grateful to the Civil Service for managing the challenges of the last two years. It is important that we now see the maximum use of our office space being made from next week, as we build a strong recovery after the disruption of the pandemic.

  • Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on Appointment of Richard Meddings as Chair of NHS England

    Sajid Javid – 2022 Comments on Appointment of Richard Meddings as Chair of NHS England

    The comments made by Sajid Javid, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, on 22 January 2022.

    I am delighted to confirm Richard Meddings CBE’s appointment as the new Chair of NHS England, I want to thank Lord Prior for his invaluable contribution over the last few years.

    Richard brings to the role a wealth of experience in both the public and private sectors, including years of management in the financial services industry.

    I look forward to working with him as we support the NHS to recover from COVID-19, tackle the backlog, and back our incredible healthcare staff.

  • Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Russian Involvement in Ukrainian Politics

    Liz Truss – 2022 Statement on Russian Involvement in Ukrainian Politics

    The statement made by Liz Truss, the Foreign Secretary, on 22 January 2022.

    The information being released today shines a light on the extent of Russian activity designed to subvert Ukraine, and is an insight into Kremlin thinking.

    Russia must de-escalate, end its campaigns of aggression and disinformation, and pursue a path of diplomacy. As the UK and our partners have said repeatedly, any Russian military incursion into Ukraine would be a massive strategic mistake with severe costs.

    A press release added:

    We have information that indicates the Russian Government is looking to install a pro-Russian leader in Kyiv as it considers whether to invade and occupy Ukraine. The former Ukrainian MP Yevhen Murayev is being considered as a potential candidate.

    We have information that the Russian intelligence services maintain links with numerous former Ukrainian politicians including:

    Serhiy Arbuzov, First Deputy Prime Minister of Ukraine from 2012-2014, and acting Prime Minister in 2014

    Andriy Kluyev, First Deputy Prime Minister from 2010-2012 and Chief of Staff to former Ukrainian President Yanukovich

    Vladimir Sivkovich, former Deputy Head of the Ukrainian National Security and Defence Council (RNBO)

    Mykola Azarov, Prime Minister of Ukraine from 2010-2014

    Some of these have contact with Russian intelligence officers currently involved in the planning for an attack on Ukraine.

    The UK’s position on Ukraine is also clear. We unequivocally support its sovereignty and territorial integrity within its internationally recognised borders, including Crimea. Ukraine is an independent, sovereign country.

  • Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on the Service Charges Charter in London

    Sadiq Khan – 2022 Comments on the Service Charges Charter in London

    The comments made by Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, on 21 January 2022.

    Shared ownership properties can be a helpful first rung on the housing ladder for Londoners. However, too many homeowners have faced a confusing set of fees and charges. Where service charges are incorrectly administered, leaseholders are often drawn into a time-consuming process to challenge.

    Our new Service Charges Charter will help shared owners have a better experience of home ownership, reducing stress and worry. Housing providers also recognise the benefits that following Charter can bring – leading to more efficient services, and a reduction in complaints.

    I’m proud to have hit every single one of my delivery targets in the current Homes for Londoners: Affordable Homes Programme 2016-2023 and I’m determined to continue leading by example, by doing everything I can within my powers to help leaseholders and improve the shared ownership experience for Londoners.