Tag: Tom Clarke

  • Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Clarke on 2014-06-25.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, if he will ensure that his legislative proposals aimed at creating a public register of beneficial ownership ensure that information in the register has undergone verification.

    Jo Swinson

    The Government recognises that register integrity is an important issue. This Department is carefully considering with Companies House and others what checks are necessary to ensure integrity of data and that the registration of company information in the UK remains quick, simple and inexpensive.

    The current UK register is one of the most open in the world, and is accessed over 240 million times a year. This means the information is policed on a significant scale by the public, who report anomalies to Companies House for follow up.

  • Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Clarke on 2015-01-15.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, what proportion of claimants of personal independence payments waited more than 16 weeks for a face-to-face assessment by each provider since the introduction of that payment.

    Mr Mark Harper

    I refer the Rt. Hon. Member to the answer I gave on the 12 January 2015 to Question UIN 220004.

  • Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Clarke on 2014-06-04.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, what his policy is on a minimum monetary threshold for a late payment which affects an individual’s credit rating.

    Matthew Hancock

    Credit ratings will take into account a number of different variables, including late payment, but it is a commercial judgement taken by Credit Reference Agencies.

  • Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the Department for Work and Pensions

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Clarke on 2014-06-12.

    To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, if he will create an independent panel to review and assess the effectiveness of the employment and support allowance and work capability assessment tests.

    Mike Penning

    The department has already conducted four independent reviews of the WCA, the most recent of which was completed on 12 December 2013 and is published online at the following address: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-capability-assessment-independent-review-year-4

    A fifth and final independent review is currently underway and is due to be completed by the end of the year.

    In addition to these independent reviews the Department has conducted an Evidence Based Review of the WCA in which the descriptors for mental health and fluctuating conditions were examined by an independent panel against an alternative assessment designed in conjunction with representative groups and charities. On 12 December 2013 the Department published the results of this online at the following address: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/work-capability-assessment-evidence-based-review

  • Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    Tom Clarke – 2014 Parliamentary Question to the HM Treasury

    The below Parliamentary question was asked by Tom Clarke on 2014-06-04.

    To ask Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, for what reason the threshold charge payable for a type 2 machine for the purposes of calculating machine gaming duty was set at £5.

    Mr David Gauke

    I refer the Rt Hon Member to the Explanatory Note for Clause 117 of Finance Bill 2014, which can be found at:

    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/298680/ENs_Finance_Bill_2014__1_.pdf

  • 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.

  • Tom Clarke – 1985 Speech on the Mobility Allowance

    Below is the text of the speech made by Tom Clarke, the then Labour MP for Monklands West, in the House of Commons on 18 July 1985.

    I am particularly grateful for this opportunity to debate the case of Michael Starrs, and I welcome the interest which the Minister’s Department has shown and look forward to the hon. Gentleman’s response.

    Michael Starrs is a father, aged 47. Clearly he is very severely disabled and an extremely ill man. Until his first serious illness struck in 1965, the year when a fateful operation for a duodenal ulcer was performed, Michael was extremely fit and far from work shy. As a national service man, he served in the 15/19 King’s Royal Hussars in Northern Ireland in the late 1950’s. Apart from that period, and until his illness, he worked as an apprentice and then as a welder in Tollcross foundry.

    Prior to his illness, Michael’s average weight was 10 stone 7 pound. Now it is just 8 stone. He has twice applied for mobility allowance and had been refused on both occasions.

    Tonight I have to ask the Minister why and, grateful though I am that the hon. Gentleman is present to reply to the date, I have to tell him that I shall listen very carefully, as will my constituents, to his reply, because it is a case which has baffled many people and continues to baffle me.

    I have to ask the Minister why there should be a refusal in the case of a man who is qualified for and has been given a wheelchair by the National Health Service, presented by Belvedere hospital. Why should there be a refusal in the case of a man who was informed by letter on 8 March 1983 by the Ministry of Transport that the restricted condition of his legs meant that his driving licence would cover hand controls only? Why should a man who is fed intravenously or who is otherwise dependent on baby food or a liquid diet be judged so harshly? Why, when a man suffers from such obvious fatigue that his walking is considerably impaired and when it would be cruel in the extreme to make demands beyond his present limited capacity, is this not taken into account?

    Those questions are also being asked by my constituents, 3,500 of whom have petitioned me to insist on a full inquiry into the whole of Michael Starrs’ case, including his medical history, and some of those people themselves receive mobility allowance. Some of them are the same constituents who got together in a local social club and presented Michael with a hand-controlled car, which gives him the little comfort that he has when he can afford to run it.
    Last year the local newspaper in my constituency, the Airdrie and Coatbridge Advertiser, published a prominent article headed

    “Michael’s 19 years of hell.”

    It reflected, quite properly, the views of those in my community and strong views generally that those involved in social security have not yet found a satisfactory conclusion.

    In March 1965, at the age of 26 years, Michael was admitted to Hairmyres hospital, East Kilbride. He underwent an operation for a duodenal ulcer. From that date until now he has never had a normal meal because his ​ digestive system cannot cope with one. As it was not in his nature to be voluntarily without work, he applied for and was given a light job in the Gartcosh strip mill from 1965 to 1970. However, even that became too much for him and his consultant wrote to British Steel and told them so. After a lengthy period as an out-patient and sometimes as a in-patient, yet another operation, the third in all, took place in 1970 to deal with the complications which had arisen from the earlier operation in 1965. It is a matter of medical history that a piece of silk, which lingered from Michael’s first encounter with surgery, had to be removed. Michael tried to resume work but found that his condition had deteriorated so badly that he experienced a burning sensation every time that he attempted to swallow, a condition which persists to this day.

    Michael finally accepted early redundancy and left his employment with £800 for his 20 years’ service. With that he was left to face the future. Michael has existed on invalidity benefit since then. It is not surprising that his faith in social services has been somewhat shattered. Astonishing though it may seem, in 1976 he was called before a medical tribunal and his invalidity benefit was discontinued. He appealed to the health commissioner, who restored it. That establishes that tribunals are not always right, and certainly have not been so in Michael’s case.

    The first tribunal that heard Michael’s application for mobility allowance sat on 13 October 1980. It concluded:

    “We have considered the evidence and observed the claimant walking out of doors. He walks slowly with a hesitant gait and with the aid of a stick hut without apparent pain or severe discomfort.”

    The best person to make a judgment on his ability to walk and his discomfort is Michael. On that evidence, which is supported by all who know him, there is and has been considerable discomfort. I find it incredible that the tribunal could have reached such a conclusion.

    I gave evidence at the second tribunal hearing in January. It had before it a great deal of information, including the opinion of Dr. Ian Bone, a consultant neurologist, who said:

    “‘He walks in an extraordinary manner, bent forward as though walking on a treadmill. The walking is symmetrically abnormal but becomes more bizarre when the stick is held in the left hand. On general examination, he is a small emaciated man.”

    Having heard the evidence and made my contribution to the tribunal. I believe that my constituent suffered in the conclusions reached because of aconflict of medical evidence about his condition. There were several diagnoses from various doctors. Doctor No. 1 said that Michael suffered from multiple sclerosis, doctor No. 2 said that it was

    “post-gastric surgery debility: ataxia”

    and a third doctor concluded that Michael’s condition was caused by a psychosomatic illness.

    The doctor who knows most about the case is Mr. Starrs’ own medical practitioner, Dr. Edward McCabe, a man who does not use words lightly and thinks carefully before he reaches a conclusion and offers it for consideration. He said:

    “Mr. Starrs suffers from a difficulty in locomotion which I feel qualifies him for a mobility allowance.”

    That is the unreserved view of a doctor who knows Michael and has seen the condition develop and Michael’s health deteriorate.

    Unfortunately, the tribunal did not share that opinion. It concluded: ​

    “We have observed the claimant walking a distance in excess of 100 yards outside. The claimant can walk such a distance, as was confirmed by Mr. Clarke, slowly and gingerly with frequent short pauses for no apparent reason and without any evidence of distress.”

    I found that conclusion astonishing and I regret to have to say that it was a distortion of the evidence that I gave. I made it clear that on a very cold winter’s morning I walked 100 yards with Michael Starrs and I had to stop with him on five or six occasions. He was unable to continue and was caused considerable distress. I was cold and Michael, in his condition, must have felt much colder. How the tribunal could have reached that conclusion is a mystery which still invites an explanation.

    I have discussed all the papers in the case and the facts known to me with my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who introduced the legislation that provided the mobility allowance. He would have spoken in the debate. but unfortunately he has to be out of the country on parliamentary business. However, he has encouraged me to say that he finds it astonishing that Michael Starrs has not been given a mobility allowance. He would have supported my case, and I find that support a great comfort.

    On the basis of the evidence in this case, there must be a suspicion that applicants for the allowance, at least in Scotland, if not elsewhere, are being subjected to more stringent tests than many people would feel are desirable. I know of the independence of adjudication authorities, yet there is a clear injustice in the case of Michael Starrs and it worries me that similar injustices might be occurring in other cases.

    If the Minister tells the House that he cannot intervene in the case, there will be considerable disquiet amounting, yes, to disgust in Coatbridge and throughout my constituency.

    I invite the Minister to share my contempt for the procedures which have condemned Michael Starrs to immobility and dependence whereas with the allowance which the thousands of people who know him think he should have he could be mobile and independent.

    I cannot believe that a man and his family who are experiencing such stress and pressure will not be compelled later to make even greater demands upon the National Health Service. No saving is made by not granting the allowance.
    I say to the Minister and to the adjudicating authorities that I cannot accept their view. I cannot accept that Michael Starrs should be treated in this way. The fight will continue beyond this debate.

    I sought the opportunity to ensure that we had an Adjournment debate on the issue because I profoundly believe that the case speaks for itself and invites correction. I should be delighted if the Minister responded positively, not just in the interest of Michael Starrs and his family, important though that is, but in the interests of humanity.