Archive for the ‘CAREER POLITICIANS’ Category

EUROPEAN UNION CREATED DEBT AND WILL DO AGAIN AND AGAIN.

Thursday, May 4th, 2017

So vote carefully if you want Macron or May and more of the same EU Austerity tax, Unemployment or Mass Economic Immigrants?

 

It destroyed manufacturing. It taxed populations into poverty. Then created austerity to starve creativity. Then enforced mass immigration to lower wages. While the European Union forced through taxes on food medicines fuel and thousands of its new money making tax schemes that have caused hardship on a scale never seen before in most countries of western Europe.

 

The European Union, its central Banks, Insurers, Government and its corporate agencies, (International Monetary Fund) IMF, (European Central Bank) ECB, (United Nations) UN, (Bank of International Settlement) BIS. All are scheming criminals, vile crooks in suits, the supposedly lawful corporate company gangsters who have created debt, terrorism wars, and death and destruction on a mind-boggling scale just to enrich them and enslave everyone else.

 

All are profiteers that wear suits while destroying economies, Governments and peoples lives. Their deception corruption lies and fraud while collaborating with gangsters drug barons’ gunrunners the beasts of this bunch. Who destroyed every Country or Government they loaned money to or helped???? Arrange the sale of many countries national assets to cream off the most profitable businesses with the intention of creating even more debt for future generations of taxpayers to pay off.

 

 

Some of these corporate giants above and insurance companies have committed fraud and much worse worldwide on a gigantic scale crashing the Worlds economy several times and will do so again if not stopped. These vile corporate organizations have committed every crime imaginable nothing has been missed. Every criminal opportunity presented or invented has been abused to the point of their own self – destruction like now. Until taxpayers were forced to bail them out again and again against their wishes.

 

These corporate companies! Well these are just monopolies, corporate gangsters, banksters, government and insurers with hundreds of subsidiaries that own huge corporate enterprises on every high street and trading estate. Who use your account its information and business plans, to compete against you or your business. Underbidding contracts just won, “then suddenly cancelled” is a prime example that you never find out why, until it’s to late. Or giving untruthful damaging references for future blue chip contracts is another example used by the Banking giants.

 

Put simply the European Union is a protectionist society only there to help if you are a Huge Monopoly, Bank, and Insurer etc.

 

Should you not believe this then check out for yourself and see if you can come up with any competitive benefit you, or anyone receive being a member of the EU. Apart from huge farm subsidies paid to farmers producing food intervention stocks (food stores) nobody wants, just to keep prices artificially high. Because it usually all ends being dumped.

 

Small Business, businesses and individuals competing for business worldwide! Have been destroyed by European Union Tax, Vat, Austerity and Duty. Now we cannot compete with the rest of the World, who do not have EU TAXES {20% to 28% VAT} {5% to 100% or more Duty} Corporation Tax, Business Rates, Licences, Directives, Regulations, Laws, Guidelines and millions of mind boggling pieces of Legislation costing businesses £trillions which is passed on to the consumer.

 

When you vote over the next few weeks and months ask yourself this question. DO YOU WANT MORE OF THE SAME? Because if you vote for the same European Union > Banksters, Gangsters, Crooks in suits, MPs, Ministers, Political party giants, and bankers.

 

You will get just the same. Austerity, Economic Migrants, Taxes, Vat, Duty, and a lifetime of having your wealth stolen by the European Union spiral of taxation.

 

 

Nigel Farage resigns as leader of UKIP.

Monday, July 4th, 2016

A man of his word he has done exactly what he said he would do and taken Great Britain out of the European Union and resigned as the leader of UKIP.

:

:

He led Great Britain out of the clutches of an imposed political union of multi-nationals and big banks who owned most of the media who spawned a daily dose of lies. To protect their own interests

:

:

Just like most British and European career Politicians.

:

:

Mr Nigel Farages own words to the European Parliament were probably correct and nearer the truth, most probably never had a proper job.

:

:

NIGEL FARAGE has done HIS BIT.

:

:

He is not a career politician.  He did what he said.

:

:

HE IS A LEADER NOT A LIAR.

 

It is a pity he his not running Great Britain, because the two boom and bust Parties and their career politicians are not fit to run a pi– up in a pub.

And many millions of ordinary folk and generations to come owe him a very gratious debt of gratitude, Thank you Sir.

 

Nigel Farage, only leader seen speaking to British people.

Friday, June 24th, 2016

The other leaders are absent, after his astonishing campaign WIN, to lead Britain out of the European Union.

 

Their absence says it all. — Now they are all fighting each other to keep their jobs and fat salaries and expences and perks from corrupt practices “most engaged in” as career politicians.

 

 

 

 

OUT VOTE, SAYS NO CONFIDENCE IN “UNDEMOCRATIC EUROPEAN UNION”.

Friday, June 24th, 2016

The majority have voted out, there is no confidence in Conservative or Labour.

 

Boom and bust party leaders have no leadership mandate from “British citizens”.

 

Britain needed leaders not liars, both main party leaders have lost the confidence of the majority of its common people.

 

A decisive vote of no confidence in the Conservative Government or its leader David Cameron.

 

Corruption and immigration control has won – the British people are not racist, this was an excuse used to often by the————————-.

1% elite who wanted to profit from creating low wages, using migrant cheap labour.

 

 

WE NEED LEADERS NOT LIARS.

Monday, June 20th, 2016

Chilcot inquiry will be released, “after referendum”.

SILENCE IS GOLDEN ?.

….

….

389 MP’s = Expenses Scandal = greed = none arrested or convicted for fraud ?

…..

…..

 

These are “criminals” making our laws. “Which we have to obey” ?.

…..

…..

 

PM, Margaret Thatcher = Pedophilia Cover Up = Banking regulations removed = 2008 Banking collapse = Austerity = Britains Banks insolvent = You pay off their debt ?

…..

…..

BBC, celebrities, civil servants, clergymen, councillors, barristers, judges, journalists, police officers, lawyers, newspaper key executives, plus many high-profile figures have been implicated or convicted or involved in the cover up of many crimes including pedophile rings and alleged killing of chidren.

…..

…..

EU LAWS, HYPE ,CORRUPTION, TERRORISM, CONTROL, AUSTERITY, IMMIGRATION, BANK BAILOUTS, BANK BAILOUTS, MORE BANK BAILOUTS, MORE IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION, WHAT A SHOCKING BUNCH OF IDIOTS WE HAVE IN CONTROL OF THE EU?

…..

…..

This not about being anti establishment. It is about change, every day we are being lied to by our leaders for many reasons. But none of these lies are for our benefit.

…..

…..

WE NEED LEADERS NOT LIARS.

Itsfraud. com

IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION, IMMIGRATION ?

Monday, June 20th, 2016

Do you honestly think the EU bureaucratic fools and idiots can be trusted with immigration or distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants, or Britains unemployed, students, or those employed on zero hour contracts. Or future generations that will be pushed out of a job and home by immigrant cheap labour

 

15.6.2016   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 157/23


COUNCIL DECISION (EU) 2016/946

of 9 June 2016

establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Sweden in accordance with Article 9 of Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and Article 9 of Decision (EU) 2015/1601 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 78(3) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Parliament (1),

Whereas:

(1)

According to Article 78(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), in the event of one or more Member States being confronted by an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State(s) concerned.

(2)

According to Article 80 TFEU, the policies of the Union in the area of border checks, asylum and immigration and their implementation are to be governed by the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility between the Member States, and Union acts adopted in this area are to contain appropriate measures to give effect to this principle.

(3)

On the basis of Article 78(3) TFEU, the Council adopted two Decisions establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece. Under Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 (2), 40 000 applicants for international protection are to be relocated from Italy and from Greece to the other Member States. Under Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 (3), 120 000 applicants for international protection are to be relocated from Italy and from Greece to the other Member States.

(4)

Article 9 of Decision (EU) 2015/1523 and Article 9 of Decision (EU) 2015/1601 provide that, in the event of an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries into a Member State, the Council, on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the European Parliament, may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the Member State concerned, pursuant to Article 78(3) TFEU. Such measures may include, where appropriate, a suspension of the participation of that Member State in the relocation as provided for in those Decisions, as well as possible compensatory measures for Italy and for Greece.

(5)

Sweden faces an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries into its territory because of a sharp shift in migratory flows. On 8 December 2015, Sweden formally requested the suspension of its obligations under Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601.

(6)

The considerable increase in irregular border-crossing into the Union and in secondary movements across the Union has led to a sharp rise in Sweden in the number of applications for international protection, mainly from individuals who entered the Union via Italy and Greece.

(7)

Eurostat figures confirm a sharp increase in Sweden in the number of applicants for international protection. The number of applicants for international protection increased by more than 60 % from 68 245 applicants for the period from 1 January to 31 October 2014 to 112 040 applicants for the period from 1 January to 31 October 2015.

(8)

The monthly number of applicants for international protection has recently reached an even higher level: it doubled between August (11 735) and September (24 261), and reached 39 055 in October 2015 (an increase of 61 % from September).

(9)

Sweden had by far the highest number of applicants for international protection per capita in the Union in 2015, with 11 503 applicants per million inhabitants.

(10)

Sweden is also facing a difficult situation because of the recent significant increase in the number of unaccompanied minors, with one out of four applicants claiming to be an unaccompanied minor.

(11)

The current situation has put a very significant strain on the Swedish asylum and migration system, with serious practical consequences on the ground as regards reception conditions and the ability of the asylum and migration system to deal with applications. In order to help alleviate the significant pressure with which Sweden is confronted, the obligations of Sweden as a Member State of relocation under Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 should be suspended for 1 year.

(12)

The suspension of Sweden’s obligations should be complemented, where appropriate, by operational support measures coordinated by the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) and by other relevant Agencies.

(13)

Sweden should present to the Council and to the Commission a roadmap setting out the measures that it will take in order to ensure the effectiveness of its asylum and migration system and to resume its obligations under Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 once the suspension of its obligations ceases to have effect.

(14)

Since the objectives of this Decision cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States but can rather, by reason of the scale and effects of the action, be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU). In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Decision does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.

(15)

This Decision respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

(16)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 21 on the position of the United Kingdom and Ireland in respect of the area of freedom, security and justice, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, and without prejudice to Article 4 of that Protocol, those Member States are not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and are not bound by it or subject to its application.

(17)

In accordance with Articles 1 and 2 of Protocol No 22 on the position of Denmark, annexed to the TEU and to the TFEU, Denmark is not taking part in the adoption of this Decision and is not bound by it or subject to its application.

(18)

In view of the urgency of the situation, this Decision should enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

Subject matter

This Decision establishes provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Sweden, in order to support it in better coping with an emergency situation characterised by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries.

Article 2

Suspension of obligations under Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601

The obligations of Sweden as a Member State of relocation under Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 shall be suspended until 16 June 2017.

Article 3

Operational support to Sweden

In order to enable Sweden to better cope with the exceptional pressure on its asylum and migration system, operational support shall be provided to Sweden, where appropriate, through relevant activities coordinated by EASO and by other relevant Agencies.

Article 4

Complementary measures to be taken by Sweden

By 16 July 2016, Sweden shall present to the Council and to the Commission a roadmap setting out the measures that it will take in order to ensure the effectiveness of its asylum and migration system and to resume its obligations under Decisions (EU) 2015/1523 and (EU) 2015/1601 once the suspension referred to in Article 2 ceases to have effect.

Article 5

Entry into force

This Decision shall enter into force on the day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Done at Luxembourg, 9 June 2016.

For the Council

The President

G.A. VAN DER STEUR


(1)  Opinion of 26 May 2016 (not yet published in the Official Journal).

(2)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1523 of 14 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and of Greece (OJ L 239, 15.9.2015, p. 146).

(3)  Council Decision (EU) 2015/1601 of 22 September 2015 establishing provisional measures in the area of international protection for the benefit of Italy and Greece (OJ L 248, 24.9.2015, p. 80).


 

 

Brexit do you want the EU to Destroy Britain?

Friday, June 10th, 2016

Its not in the publics interest or

**

Britain to remain in the

**

European Union.

***

****

Its only in their interest.

***

****

The rich and famous, Politicians, Celebrities, Banks and bankers, Financiers and Financial institutions, the Media, BBC,ITV, B-SKY-B etc and most Newspapers.
The Financial Hub of London Corporations and huge Monopolies own most trading estates and high street chains and many supermarket giants.

Britains 1% in the City of London, a private city and county within London control London and Britain from within the UK?

It is shocking that the corrupt crooks in suits above are attempting to Control by fear using television News Broadcasts.

Its appalling that they are spreading fear and lies just to protect their own wealth, at the expence of the young who have not experienced the lies wars and corruption caused by the Politicians, Bankers and the 1% who own 98.5% of britains wealth at your and the next generations expence.
For example in 2011- 57% of the population of Britain was white British.

Now because of EU open borders immigrants arrive by the thousands swamping all britains services.
And worse still no health checks are carried out on immigrants arriving in the EU or the UK, this is stupidity in the extreme.

Just for cheap labour at the expence of future generations and the publics fear is well founded, since Britain is being overun with immigrants, murderers, rapists, peodophiles, terrorists, gangsters and traffickers who profit from child abduction.

These vile people are arriving and living in our midst so it is not racist to be concerned about our Country our Health and our Safety.

Britain has many drug resistant diseases like Tuberculosis being carried back to Britain by UK immigrants, who are immune and now carriers of drug resistance strains.

If you are a British Citizen and trust the Government or the 1%.

You can still vote for the corruption to continue.

After all of the,

Child abuse

MPs expences

Iraq war

2008 crash

911 twin towers

London Bombings

UK crashes out of ERM

Black monday

Cash for questions

EU corruption €billions missing

Oil wars

Fuel strike’s

3 day week

Miners strike

VAT hikes

Tax hikes

Duty hikes

Bank bailouts

Insurance giant bailouts

Country bailouts

Corporate bailouts

EU law by the thousands

ECB bailing out central banks €80 Billion a month

Austerity from EU, IMF, BIS, and Germany

EU road tolls

EU mass immigration

Child trafficking

Child sexual explotation

Financial fraud

Bank fraud

Insurer fraud

Contract fraud

Rate rigging

Bid rigging

War crimes Tony Blair

Expences scandal

Flipping Homes

Pedophiia cover up

Child Kidnapping

All records of MPs expences scandal before 2010 destroyed by Commons authorities

No MPs jailed and No Paedophiles, figure it out

Barristers, lawyers, police, judges, clergymen, Lords, Peers, and the massive criminality by the houses of Parliament elite. Form one of the most staggering bunch of political criminals involved in treason, terrorism, torture, arson, theft, perjury, conspiracy, asset stripping, rape, tax evasion, corruption, insider trading, drug trafficking, indecent assault, bribery, murder, money laundering, and the list goes on.

If you want to vote for the remain in EU camp and Westminster criminals. You will get more of the same (check it out) see for yourself if its truthfull.

Itsfraud.com

 

 

So who was telling the truth? Are PM Cameron’s In EU camp lies?

Saturday, April 16th, 2016

27 Nov 2013 : Column 77WH

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 27 November 2013

[Mr Clive Betts in the Chair]

Bradford & Bingley plc

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(John Penrose.)

9.30 am

Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I hope you will convey my thanks to Mr Speaker for granting this debate.

As the Member of Parliament for the Shipley constituency, which includes the towns of Bingley and Crossflatts, where Bradford & Bingley was based, I have asked for this debate on behalf of the nearly 1 million Bradford & Bingley shareholders and bondholders who still do not know how or why their company was expropriated in a way that destroyed it as an ongoing business, unlike what happened to banks such as the Royal Bank of Scotland and Halifax Bank of Scotland, which had far weaker balance sheets.

I have also called the debate on behalf of the employees of Bradford & Bingley, many of whom had worked there for many years and were also shareholders. This debate is also important for the local community in Bingley and across the Bradford district, which has lost a highly valued brand from the high street. Bradford & Bingley had been in existence since 1851.

I thank many hon. Members for their support, both those here today and the many unable to attend. I particularly thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames), who has been extremely helpful and supportive. He is a champion of the many shareholders in his constituency who lost out when Bradford & Bingley was nationalised in the way it was.

On Friday 26 September 2008, in the foyer of the Oval Office of the White House, the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), made the decision to nationalise Bradford & Bingley during a telephone conversation with his Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling), who was in the UK. That decision was extremely disappointing for the shareholders, many of whom remain outraged by what they consider to be legalised theft. Indeed, it is a shame that neither right hon. Gentleman is here today to explain the part they played in the scandal.

Days after the telephone call, the Cabinet Office stated in response to a freedom of information request from a shareholder, Mr Jonathan Bloch, that it had no files whatever. David Blundell, the chairman of the Bradford & Bingley shareholder action group, whose main objective throughout has been to secure the truth on the nationalisation—he is also a director of the UK Individual Shareholders Society, a voluntary organisation whose main objective is to protect the rights of private investors—said to me at the time that he had difficulty believing that the Cabinet Office statement was true, and so it has proved.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 78WH

After further freedom of information requests, the Cabinet Office finally admitted in 2011 that it did possess the relevant records, but it refused to release them on the grounds of public interest. The Cabinet Office also refused on the grounds of public interest to state whether the nationalisation decision had secured Cabinet approval. I put on the record my admiration for David Blundell’s tireless work on behalf of the Bradford & Bingley shareholder action group and his determination to get to the bottom of the events surrounding the nationalisation.

Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con): I put on the record my thanks to my constituent, David Blundell. He is fighting for the small person who invested their life savings in those shares and is now faced with nothing because of the decisions made at national level by the then Government. They have had no answers.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I know that he has been particularly helpful to the Bradford & Bingley shareholder action group. I thank him for all the help and support he has given to the many shareholders.

Surely the public interest demands full disclosure of the facts to secure the truth. How can the refusal even to release whether the nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley was ratified by the Cabinet ever be in the public interest in a democracy? Surely voters are entitled to know, let alone shareholders, bondholders and employees.

How do we know that the Cabinet Office’s original statement was untrue? I am probably one of the few people—I am sure you are another, Mr Betts—who has read the relevant part of “Beyond the Crash” by the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, in which he admitted his part in the sorry mess. The shareholders would otherwise still be in total ignorance of the nationalisation process.

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. I have had a vast amount of correspondence from just one constituent. I concur with him that the situation is bad enough, but the lack of openness for savers and investors means that they remain frustrated. It is vital that we make the information public.

Philip Davies: I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s support. I am sure her constituent, who is a shareholder who lost everything, is also grateful for her support. Her point on the lack of transparency is absolutely right.

The full picture of how the banking crisis developed probably goes back to 2003-04, when there were small changes in accounting standards, but the main catalyst was the introduction of the international financial reporting standards, including international accounting standard 39, by the then Government in 2005. IAS 39 proved to be a catastrophically defective standard that may even contravene UK law.

The Local Authority Pension Fund Forum, the universities superannuation scheme, Threadneedle Asset Management and other investor groups sought the opinion of leading counsel George Bompas QC. His opinion suggests that company directors must override the international reporting standards to comply with company law and may need to ignore the advice obtained

27 Nov 2013 : Column 79WH

by the Financial Reporting Council. The opinion also states that the defective financial outcomes of the standards, which are still in place, should be overridden by invoking the true and fair view requirement of the law. Those problems remain, as highlighted by the failure of the Co-operative bank and Britannia building society, both of which were audited by KPMG.

The concerns on accounting standards are widely held. In November 2012, the then Governor of the Bank of England, Sir Mervyn King—now Lord King—argued for a £35 billion capital raising by British banks. He is on record as saying:

Bank accounts are dishonest because Britain’s accounting rules are faulty. Reckless lending, inflated profits, irresponsible bonuses have all been possible, not just because of greedy bankers, but because of the rules themselves—and a failure of regulators and politicians to recognise the problems.”

The banks used IFRS and IAS 39 from 2005 onwards, and it appears that the then Government were content to receive corporation tax from the inflated profits rather than exercise a duty of care towards savers and investors. People have blamed the lack of regulation for the excesses of the banks, which led to their demise. That is too simplistic. It was not the lack of regulation—banks had mountains of regulations to meet—but the lack of regulation on important things that was the problem.

I will now address the sequence of events prior to the nationalisation. The Bradford & Bingley 2007 accounts were published in April 2008. The auditors passed Bradford & Bingley as a going concern and a dividend was paid. In August 2008, a rights issue was completed at a price of 55p less than eight weeks before the nationalisation. The auditors KPMG completed extensive audit work on the rights issue, and the interim results announced on 29 August 2008 supported a solvent, well capitalised bank. With net assets of £1 a share and a tier 1 capital ratio of 9.1%, shareholders were entitled to believe that Bradford & Bingley was a going concern when the reality was that it was “going, going, gone” just one month later.

Within days of the nationalisation, the Government provided more than £60 billion of support to the two Scottish banks. Bradford & Bingley had a far stronger balance sheet than those banks, as shown in the banking crisis post mortem published by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum. Furthermore, the public statements of the board emphasised the balance sheet strength of Bradford & Bingley on 29 August and 25 September 2008, a day before the nationalisation decision. That strength was again confirmed by Messrs Kent and Pym, the chairman and chief executive respectively, at a Treasury Committee hearing on 18 November 2008. Their statements conflict directly with the justification of the nationalisation decision by both the Government and the tripartite regulatory authorities. So who was telling the truth?

In the week after the nationalisation, the savings book and retail branch network were sold—arguably at a fire-sale price—destroying the company as an ongoing business. What shareholders, bondholders, employees and my local community want to know is why Bradford & Bingley was singled out in that way, in stark contrast to the treatment of other banks.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 80WH

Every other bank bailed out at the time is still a going concern—even Northern Rock. Shareholders in some of the bigger banks at the time, such as HBOS, still have shares that have value. Why was Bradford & Bingley, uniquely, closed down, especially given that its financial situation was certainly no worse—indeed, all the evidence suggests it was better—than that of the others? Does the Minister not believe that people are entitled to know the answer to that simple question?

Whereas other banks were considered too big to fail, was Bradford & Bingley seen as too small to save? With constant speculation in the media at the time, was it felt that, if Bradford & Bingley was taken out, the speculation about the health of the banking sector would subside? Whatever the reason, and however little we like it, I hope the Minister agrees that we are entitled to know it.

The Treasury appointed Peter Clokey of PricewaterhouseCoopers as independent valuer for the purposes established under the Bradford & Bingley plc Compensation Scheme Order 2008. His nil valuation was published in July 2010, two months after the general election. Like the shareholder action group, I believe that his terms of reference were far too narrow and that the Labour Government concealed the fact that the bank had received funding support before the nationalisation, pretending for many months that the valuation would be fair and independent, when they knew it would not be, because the in-administration approach of the order ensured a nil valuation and prejudiced legal claims and submissions to the independent valuer and the upper tribunal review body.

Many shareholders—the former owners of the company —believe the valuation exercise was a cynical attempt to dampen media, press and public interest, thus kicking the matter into the long grass. I know that David Blundell has a high regard for Peter Clokey and his colleague James Worsnip. He respects their integrity and appreciates the assistance they provided, within the limits of their remit. In his view, their behaviour may be compared favourably with that of certain Ministers, the Treasury, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Cabinet Office. I met Peter Clokey at the time, and I felt he was sympathetic to the plight of shareholders, but the terms of reference the Labour Government gave him left him no alternative but to give a nil valuation.

The Government’s position on the valuation was that Bank of England support through the special liquidity scheme was not ordinary market assistance, despite more than 30 banks having, and some continuing to have, the use of that facility. That interpretation was a key factor in the nil valuation. However, the European Commissioner’s statement giving clearance to state aid following a request from the UK Government in the early part of the financial crisis in banking markets included the following:

“The UK authorities accept that the recapitalisation scheme and guarantee scheme contain State aid elements. In their view the extension of the SLS”—

the special liquidity scheme—

“is part of the essential role of the Bank of England and therefore not a state aid. In the event that the Commission concludes that the Liquidity Measures do contain aid elements, the UK Government submits that they form part of a wider package to remedy a serious disturbance in the economy of the United Kingdom which is compatible with the common market.”

27 Nov 2013 : Column 81WH

Therefore, the UK Government argued to the EU that the special liquidity scheme was part of the normal workings of the Bank of England, but they specified the exact opposite in respect of the Bradford & Bingley valuation. Is that a further example of the double standards that have applied in this nationalisation process?

Since the 2008 nationalisation, there have been hundreds of freedom of information requests to Ministers, the Cabinet Office, the Treasury, the FCA, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Bank of England, but the shareholders still do not know how and why their company was expropriated. The treatment to which they have been subjected has been at best incompetent and at worst mendacious.

Leaving aside the Cabinet Office’s original untrue statement, the shareholders have been subjected to refusals on the grounds of cost and public interest, which, combined with further untrue statements and failures to reply to requests, have made a mockery of the Freedom of Information Act. The action group has made requests to the Cabinet Office and the Treasury for internal reviews in respect of their failure to provide the information requested, and it has appealed to the Information Commissioner’s Office in respect of the FCA’s failure to provide the records we all know it had.

The latter point is of particular interest, as David Blundell has a DVD recording of a telephone conversation in which a Financial Services Authority officer reassures a shareholder of the company’s financial strength just six days before the nationalisation. To date, the FCA has denied knowledge of any such records, which is rather incredible, as the DVD was sent to the shareholder by the FCA.

There is also strong evidence of a substantial level of communication between John Kingman at the Treasury and Robert Peston of the BBC, whose coverage of Bradford & Bingley caused a run on the shares and deposits. The Treasury stated it did not have such information and that Mr Kingman’s records had been cleared. In the interests of balance, I should make it clear that Mr Kingman denies being responsible for leaking any information to Robert Peston, although, as Mandy Rice-Davies said, “He would, wouldn’t he?”

Mr Kingman believes that the sole reason for the allegation is that he worked with Robert Peston at the Financial Times in the 1990s. An FOI request to the BBC was refused on the grounds that Mr Peston’s records were for journalistic purposes. The fact of the matter remains that someone at the Treasury leaked the situation to Robert Peston and to the Telegraph, precipitating a run on the bank from which it did not recover. The suspicion is that that was done deliberately to clear Bradford & Bingley from the decks so that the Treasury could focus on saving the bigger banks.

Recent letters to the then Chancellor, the then Prime Minister and the current Prime Minister have asked whether the decision to nationalise was correct and consistent with the treatment of other financial institutions at the time. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West suggested writing to a local MP—a particularly inadequate reply, as he was party to the nationalisation decision. The current Prime Minister passed the request to the Treasury, which responded with the usual stale excuses, similar to those of the past five years. The previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for

27 Nov 2013 : Column 82WH

Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, has not replied at all. It would appear that the spirit of Sir Humphrey is alive and well in Whitehall and Westminster.

Three key questions remain unanswered. First, what was the exact reason for the expropriation of the company? Secondly, should the rights issue have been permitted to proceed, and were shareholders wrongly induced to subscribe to it? Indeed, many employees paid their hard-earned money into the rights issue to prop up their company. Many of them lost not only their jobs, but their savings. The Government of the time were encouraging other financial institutions to support the rights issue, only to ensure that they then lost everything as a result of the way the banks were nationalised and a nil valuation was guaranteed. No wonder people do not like dealing with Governments. Thirdly, were the comments from the directors, the investor relations department and the FSA concerning the strength of the company only days before nationalisation true?

The shareholders of Bradford & Bingley believe the nationalisation of their company was a flawed decision made in haste and inconsistent with the treatment of other banks. When the Government confiscate the property of their citizens without reason, explanation or compensation, particularly when they may be seen as at fault in their duty of care to savers and investors for not adequately regulating the companies involved in the banking crisis, all concepts of democracy and equity are laid aside. I submit that that has damaged the Government’s reputation.

I would like the Minister to tell us what the future holds for UK Asset Resolution and the staff at the headquarters in Crossflatts, in my constituency. The mortgage book is being gradually wound down, but what happens then? Many people still rely on UKAR for their jobs, and there is vast experience and expertise there that should not be lost to the banking sector. The Government state they wish to see more competition among the banks, so will the Minister commit to look at whether a new bank—a modern-day Bradford & Bingley—could be born from UKAR and be seen on high streets, bringing much-needed competition to the banking sector and protecting the remaining jobs in my constituency?

In conclusion, an independent inquiry into the nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley is long overdue. The Bradford & Bingley shareholders, bondholders and employees, and the local community, are entitled to know the truth. The Prime Minister has claimed, many times, that he is committed to open and transparent government, and he has opened an inquiry into the Co-op bank failure. I believe it is not too late for the Government to do the same—open an independent inquiry—with respect to the Bradford & Bingley nationalisation. That was, arguably, the best example of what went wrong in the banking crisis, particularly in relation to the flawed accounting standards that are still in place. Justice and the British sense of fair play demand such action, and I hope that the Minister, who is a good man, will do the right thing and agree to it.

The Government rightly claim to be on the side of hard-working people. Hard-working people were the shareholders, bondholders and employees of Bradford & Bingley who all lost out. By agreeing to an independent inquiry and making all the relevant Government papers available to it, the Government can show that they will, indeed, stand up for hard-working people.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 83WH

9.50 am

Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con): It is a pleasure to speak in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for securing this important debate on behalf of thousands of Bradford & Bingley investors. It finally gives us an opportunity to speak up for those among our constituents—and there are many in Calder Valley—who have been affected by the nationalisation.

The issue has perplexed and bemused many of my constituents who bought shares in the company in a rights issue in 2008, only eight weeks before the Government of the day nationalised it. They bought shares not because they were high rollers who invest in the stock market to make a quick buck, but because many of them are shrewd pensioners who thought they were making safe, long-term investments for their future in retirement. One might say, “Well, if you invest in the stock market, you should be aware of the risks. You should expect the peaks and troughs and be prepared to take the rough with the smooth.” Every one of my constituents who contacted me from Calder Valley has highlighted that very point; but they have gone on to say that the balance sheets of the bank were good, and were definitely in a stronger position than those of many banks that the Government of the day decided to bail out.

One might also argue, as Lord King did a year ago, that it was Britain’s faulty banking accounting rules that failed investors. My constituents would argue that in that case the same faulty rules applied to all banks. Even so, the Bradford & Bingley was still showing a stronger balance sheet than many of the banks that were bailed out. We know that from the banking crisis post mortem published by the Local Authority Pension Fund Forum.

It seems ludicrous that within eight weeks of the bank’s rights issue in 2008, the Government nationalised it. It is even more staggering that within days they provided a further £60 billion of support to two Scottish banks that had weaker balance sheets than the Bradford & Bingley. As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley mentioned, his constituents, like mine, and thousands of other investors from west Yorkshire and beyond, believe that the decision to nationalise the Bradford & Bingley was a flawed one, made in haste and not consistent with the treatment given to other banks.

How must those investors feel, after the revelations of the past week about low-cost loans secured by a political party and party political donations from yet another failed bank, whose chairman is disgraced? How must they feel when they read the allegations that the Royal Bank of Scotland, one of the very Scottish banks bailed out by the previous Government, forced some customers out of business? Only yesterday I presented the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills with clear evidence of an attempt to do just that to the business of one of my constituents. How would you feel, Mr Betts, if you had invested in an organisation that was treated totally differently from other banks that have failed or are failing, I expect you would feel pretty miserable and furious. I expect you would feel abandoned by the previous Government and helpless before the current Government, who seem unwilling to launch an inquiry.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 84WH

Perhaps I can sum up those feelings in the words of a 65-year-old Calder Valley resident who invested for his retirement. He wrote to me:

“after being encouraged by the Bradford & Bingley rights issue in 2008 I was staggered at the nationalisation that took place only eight weeks later. Since the mortgage books are now in good health the treatment that I have received as a member of the public in 2013 with all of the talk of honesty and transparency does nothing to help me explain to my grandchildren why they should be good members of society. Especially when their role models in government have behaved so atrociously personally with regard to their use of public money for their own ends, in ensuring the protection of our societal structures and in taking accountability for establishing the truth about many travesties that have taken place over the last few decades.”

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on his impressive speech. The opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) were equally impressive. My constituent, John, a forestry worker on low agricultural wages, was bequeathed 2,400 Bradford & Bingley shares by his late father. They were worth about £11,000 and are now effectively worthless. We talk about the billions of pounds that have gone into saving some of Britain’s banks. However, in the case of the Bradford & Bingley, ordinary people lost sums that to them were very large, although they are inconsequential compared with the billions that the former Prime Minister and Chancellor doled out at the time.

Craig Whittaker: My hon. Friend is right. Many small investors, not just in Calder Valley but around the country, lost hard-earned cash that they had saved all their lives to invest in what they hoped would be a better future in retirement. That is exactly what I am talking about. My constituent whose words I quoted, Mr Anthony Ottery, suffered in exactly the same way as John did.

Mr Ottery’s comments are a small sample of the feelings of many of my constituents who feel badly let down by what happened. It does not help that many questions remain unanswered. People have struggled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, to get the information through freedom of information requests. The Bradford & Bingley action group seems to be thwarted at every turn. There are, as my hon. Friend also noted, three key questions that remain unanswered. What was the exact reason for the expropriation of the company? Should the rights issue have been permitted to proceed, and were shareholders wrongly induced to subscribe to it? Finally, were the comments of the directors and the investor relations department about the strength of the company, made only days before nationalisation, at best misleading and possibly untrue?

When, to coin the phrase of my hon. Friend, a Government confiscate the property of their citizens without reason, explanation or compensation—particularly when they have a duty of care to those citizens—surely that alone is a reason to call for an inquiry into what happened. Governments can call inquiries—there are currently three on Co-op bank matters. Surely the citizens who cannot get answers with respect to the failed Government who failed to regulate the banking industry and took away their assets should at least be given those answers and an inquiry into the seeming scandal of the Bradford & Bingley.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 85WH

On behalf of my constituents in Calder Valley and thousands of investors in west Yorkshire and beyond, I join my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley in asking the Minister for an inquiry into what happened at the Bradford & Bingley.

9.59 am

Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op): I have listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), whom I congratulate on securing this important debate, and of the hon. Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker). I was struck by the fact that both referred to a duty of care. I therefore hope they will see fit to support the work that I and colleagues have done to try to get a fiduciary duty of care written into legislation. I have tabled amendments to that effect to financial services Bills on various occasions.

Let me return to some of the issues that have been raised. Hon. Members will no doubt be disappointed that I was not in Parliament or a member of the Government at the time of Bradford & Bingley’s nationalisation, and I am therefore not able to speak from personal experience. The collapse of Bradford & Bingley came about during the worst global economic downturn since the great depression, and we must remember the serious situation that the then Government were facing, which, to be fair, hon. Members have recognised. It is also worth remembering that we had seen just 12 months earlier the first run on a bank for 80 years at Northern Rock. I recall queues of people outside the bank’s branches seeking to withdraw their money, with police having to be deployed in some instances. It was the duty of the Government of the day not only to secure an agreement on the future of Bradford & Bingley but to steady the financial system and to ensure that the country would get through those turbulent times.

We should also remind ourselves of the surrounding circumstances at that time. It was important to take account of the 2.5 million people who had a total of £22.2 billion invested in Bradford & Bingley. A million people had a mortgage with the bank. It had also been particularly exposed to the falling house market after specialising in buy-to-let and self-certification mortgages. I am tempted to go off on a slight tangent and discuss how housing bubbles are created, but that would do a disservice to those concerned about this particular debate, so I will not at this point.

Bradford & Bingley had fallen £26.7 million into the red in the first six months of 2008, so the circumstances were serious. Bad loans increased by 86% between January and June 2008 compared with the same period the previous year. Shares had fallen some 93% in the year before nationalisation, dropping to just 20p the week before. In the first six months of 2008, more than 9,000 customers had their homes repossessed or were more than three months behind with their payments, which was twice the average. Some 370 jobs had been lost, with a further 3,000 at risk. At that time, following various plans to raise funds from shareholders, the confidence of the City had been lost.

Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): I do not envy the position that the hon. Lady finds herself in today. I appreciate that we cannot do anything about what occurred in 2008, but we can today do something about

27 Nov 2013 : Column 86WH

the culture of secrecy that followed. Will she commit to the hon. Members gathered here that she will speak with her Scottish colleagues—the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), and the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling)—and ask the two of them to provide answers to the questions posed both here and by our constituents about what happened between the rights issue and the nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley?

Cathy Jamieson: I have not, to date, spoken directly to the previous Prime Minister or the former Chancellor on this particular issue. I was interested to hear what the debate would be about today, and I look forward to what the Minister has to say about any action that the current Government will take. If there is something useful to be gained from my discussing the matter with the previous Prime Minister and the former Chancellor, I would be more than willing to do so, but I do not know whether that would produce the result that the hon. Gentleman seeks.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she says, and I hope that she will pursue the previous Prime Minister and the former Chancellor. In the unlikely and catastrophic event that there is a Labour Government after the next election, the one thing that the hon. Lady could do is to promise that a Labour Government would actually release all the relevant papers and hold an inquiry. She might not be able to say anything about what happened back then, but she can certainly say what she would do if she had the chance. Will she commit to that?

Cathy Jamieson: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware of the conventions relating to previous Governments. I am pretty sure that I will not be in a position, even in the likely event that there is a Labour Government the next time around, to discuss releasing papers from a previous Government. I understand that that is the convention irrespective of political parties. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about the action that the current Government can take.

At the time of Bradford & Bingley’s problems, the Government of the day wanted not only to try to preserve the country’s financial stability but to ensure that ordinary savers were protected. My understanding is that they did that in good faith and believed it to be the correct thing to do. I am sure that it was not an easy decision, but following the Financial Services Authority declaring default on the bank’s borrowings, the Government took decisive action. It is also worth noting that it was not only the previous Government who thought that that was the correct decision. People who were in opposition then and who are now part of the coalition also believed that it was right. The right hon. Member for Twickenham (Vince Cable), who was then the Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman, said that if there was no private sector rescuer for Bradford & Bingley, which of course there was not, the Government were right to step in. He said at the time:

“In these circumstances, nationalisation is the least worst option. The UK Government is getting these assets for free, so it could turn out to be quite a good deal.”

27 Nov 2013 : Column 87WH

Philip Davies: There is a big difference between stepping in to help and obliterating a high street bank. Northern Rock is still out there. People can still visit a Northern Rock branch. That is not the issue, however. The issue is that Bradford & Bingley was treated completely differently from every other organisation. It is not about stepping in to help; it is about how that supposed help was given.

Cathy Jamieson: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He has been a powerful advocate on behalf of his constituents, and I am sure that he will have other questions, but it is important to understand the context. The then Treasury director general wrote in the March 2012 “Review of HM Treasury’s management response to the financial crisis”:

“The Treasury drew on the experience of nationalising Northern Rock to resolve subsequent failing financial institutions, such as Bradford & Bingley, more quickly and decisively.”

That suggests that people thought not only that it was the right decision, but that action had to be taken quickly to avoid further damage to savers and the wider economy.

Craig Whittaker: In light of what the hon. Lady has just said, will she enlighten us as to why Bradford & Bingley was treated entirely differently from other banks, some of which received more than £60 billion in taxpayer money only a short time later?

Cathy Jamieson: I said at the beginning that I was sure that hon. Members would be disappointed that I would not be able to describe the day-to-day dealings of the previous Government. I am looking at the case on the basis of the information currently available.

The role of the European Commission was also mentioned. The Competition Commissioner has said:

“The Bradford & Bingley decision illustrates once again the positive contribution of EU state aid policy to ensuring orderly and effective solutions to tackle the financial crisis. The UK authorities’ market-oriented solution has avoided any disproportionate distortions of competition while enabling the preservation of the viable parts of the business.”

At the time, people seemed to be of the belief that the correct decision was made. It was not easy, but it was taken in good faith and because people thought that it was the right thing to do.

Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): I appreciate the hon. Lady’s position—she was not a Member of Parliament at the time. However, given the context five years ago, which she is outlining in some detail, and the problems with the Co-op bank now, will she commit to a fully independent investigation into how and why it came about, and put in place steps to ensure that it never happens again?

Cathy Jamieson: I want to come on to some of the things we can do to continue to ensure that the things that happened in the past and recently do not happen again. We need to restore confidence in the banking world for customers, consumers and the wider economy. It has given me no pleasure to see yet more allegations and accusations about the practices in RBS in the past few weeks. Various inquiries are looking into those practices.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 88WH

As hon. Members are aware, I am a Labour and Co-operative MP, and I have had a long involvement in the co-operative movement. It gives me no pleasure to see the situation that the Co-operative bank is in. I am sure that the inquiries will give us further clues about what we need to do to ensure that such things are not repeated in the future. I understand that what I am saying will not be much of a consolation to those who lost their jobs during the Bradford & Bingley situation, or to the shareholders who lost their money. I understand that the hon. Member for Shipley, who has worked hard as a constituency MP, continues to raise these issues to ensure that his constituents get answers.

The Bradford & Bingley shareholder action group, which speaks on behalf of the former shareholders, has run a lengthy campaign. We must ensure that no one else goes through what the people who lost their jobs and those who lost out in the crisis went through. That is why it is important that we work harder to reform the banking system, to ensure that such situations never happen again, and, as we discussed many times in Committee on financial services Bills, to future-proof against anything that could happen in the future. That is why I am making these points.

I am somewhat surprised that the Government have not given their full support to many of the recommendations of the cross-party Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and the Vickers Independent Commission on Banking, which the Government set up. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill was a pretty thin volume in Committee, although it increased exponentially in size thereafter. Labour Members tabled various amendments during the passage of the Bill to ensure more protection for taxpayers and to rebuild consumer choice, financial inclusion and a diverse market. Crucially, we aimed to reform banking standards and the high-risk culture, while boosting the economy. It was disappointing that the Government either watered down or ignored the recommendations of the commissions and voted against most of our amendments. However, there was one victory in the other place yesterday.

I note that in the past couple of days we have heard that the Chancellor has now written to the Bank of England to review the Financial Policy Committee’s powers on leverage ratios. Although it is good news that the Chancellor has belatedly seen the importance of that issue, now that the Bill is in its final stages in the other place, it is a shame that it has taken him so long to do so.

I hope for some leadership from the Minister this morning—I know that he has a thorough understanding of the banking sector. I hope that we will see more of a change of heart from the Chancellor on wider banking reform, so that we can ensure that a similar crisis can never happen again. The Opposition will continue to press for that.

I will conclude on the point with which I started. The hon. Members for Shipley and for Calder Valley talked about a duty of care, which is important for everyone in every sector of the financial services markets. Whether people are in banking, insurance or other institutions, they must realise that they have a responsibility to the customers whose money they look after. I hope that the Government will support the call for a fiduciary duty of care that we have made on many occasions. Will the Minister comment on that, as well as answering the questions that other hon. Members have put to him?

27 Nov 2013 : Column 89WH

10.15 am

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr Betts. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) for securing the debate and for his continued commitment and effort in tirelessly pursuing the issue on behalf of his constituents. I have not been long in Parliament, but one thing I noted right from the start, which has been reaffirmed today, is that few colleagues so assiduously pursue their constituents’ causes as my hon. Friend. He is an example to us all. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Calder Valley (Craig Whittaker) for his tireless work on behalf of his constituents, as we have seen today.

Before I get into the specifics of Bradford & Bingley, I will give some context on the time, the policies that we have heard reference to today, which contributed to the banking crisis, and this Government’s response, which hon. Members have spoken about during the debate.

The nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley was one of the key outcomes of the financial crisis. The crisis was the biggest failure of economic management and banking regulation in this country’s history. Let me remind hon. Members of the events preceding the crisis. Over the decade before the crash, Britain experienced the biggest increase in debt of any major economy in the world. The total of household, corporate, financial and public sector debt reached a staggering 500% of GDP. UK banks became the most leveraged in the world.

None of that, however, caused concern or invited intervention under the failed tripartite system of regulation created 16 years ago. The Bank of England was stripped of its historical responsibility for regulating the banking system, which was given to a new Financial Services Authority. Let me quote a warning from 16 years ago by the then shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley). During the passage of the Bank of England Act 1998, which created the failed tripartite system, he said:

“The process of setting up the FSA may cause regulators to take their eye off the ball, while spivs and crooks have a field day.”—[Official Report, 11 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 732.]

Sixteen years later, the consensus is clear. There were fundamental flaws in the tripartite system right from the start, which are today painfully apparent to the whole world.

I respect the comments of the shadow Treasury Minister, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson), and I accept that she was not responsible for the actions of the previous Government. However, she was close to some of the key decision makers at the time, and I hoped that we would hear an apology from her on behalf of the previous Government—that was wishful thinking.

The situation that I have described is why this Government have embarked upon a fundamental reform of our system of financial regulation. We have introduced domestic legislation to increase the resilience of financial institutions to shocks. The Financial Services Act 2012 fundamentally reformed the previous, failed tripartite system by giving the Bank of England clear responsibility for maintaining financial stability; establishing the Financial Policy Committee within the Bank as a strong and

27 Nov 2013 : Column 90WH

expert macro-prudential authority; creating the Prudential Regulation Authority, a new micro-prudential regulator, as a subsidiary of the Bank of England; and creating a new independent conduct of business regulator, the Financial Conduct Authority.

Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con): The Minister is outlining a tightening up of the regulatory regime, which I am sure all our constituents would welcome. However, does he recognise that those who have been let down by the Bradford & Bingley scandal and other financial scandals feel that regulators go native, stand back and, instead of being on the side of consumers, are too close to the people they are supposed to be regulating?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend makes a good point that has been brought up by many hon. Members. With the reforms we have implemented, and some that we are still in the process of implementing, the Government have created a stronger, more rigorous system, with regulators with a lot more teeth and a greater degree of independence.

The Government have also set up the Independent Commission on Banking, or ICB, to recommend further reforms to enhance financial stability. The Government accepted the recommendations of the ICB and are putting them into law this year through the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill. The Government also supported Parliament in setting up the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards and have accepted that commission’s main recommendations.

I turn now specifically to Bradford & Bingley. Following the difficulties Bradford & Bingley experienced in 2008, the previous Government transferred its retail deposit taking business and branch network to Abbey National after a competitive process; its mortgage business was brought into public ownership. At the time of the nationalisation of Bradford & Bingley, the UK was in the grip of a rapidly evolving crisis, as we have heard today. I cannot speak for the actions that the previous Government took to deal with the crisis, as I was not privy to the relevant discussions; nor, rightly, have I seen the papers that relate to the previous Administration, although I understand that the Treasury is handling all freedom of information requests in the proper manner.

Extensive information is already in the public domain: events leading up to the nationalisation have been looked at by both the National Audit Office and the Treasury Committee. But on the matter of information, I have to agree with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, and, in particular, with the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames), who asked the shadow Minister to use her good offices to speak to the former Prime Minister, the former Chancellor and others who were Ministers under the previous Government and closely involved in events at that time. That is a reasonable request; I hope she will act on it and get back to my hon. Friend about it. It could lead to further information that many stakeholders would find useful.

Following the transfer of Bradford & Bingley into public ownership, the previous Government made the Bradford & Bingley plc Compensation Scheme Order 2008, which

27 Nov 2013 : Column 91WH

was debated and approved by each House. The order provided for a mechanism through which compensation for former shareholders would be assessed by an independent valuer. As we have heard, after conducting a robust and rigorous process the independent valuer determined that no compensation was payable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley asked whether it was right that the valuer should have been asked to work on the basis that there was no Government support. I believe that it cannot be right, or in the best interests of the taxpayer, that the valuer should have been asked to compensate for value that existed only by virtue of support that taxpayers themselves were providing.

Following the determination, all affected parties had the opportunity to submit requests for the valuer to reconsider his decision. The valuer considered all requests before concluding that no compensation was payable. That decision was further upheld in the upper tribunal review.

I believe that due process has been followed at every stage. Transparent and independent arrangements for compensation have been put in place and there has been a proper process in the courts. As I mentioned, there have also been investigations by the NAO and the Treasury Committee. I have to say to my hon. Friend that I have looked at the matter closely using the limited information available to me, and from what I have seen I am not persuaded that there is a case for a further investigation or inquiry.

Before I conclude, I want to respond specifically to a number of my hon. Friend’s questions. He talked about the rights issue that took place just before nationalisation. From the information I have seen, I can tell him that the Treasury had no involvement in that rights issue at all; as we have heard, the rights issue was conducted in the summer of 2008, prior to nationalisation, and was a matter solely for Bradford & Bingley’s board and senior management. Like many banks and building societies at that time or thereabouts, Bradford & Bingley was required to meet FSA regulatory capital requirements in order to continue with those regulated activities.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of accounting standards, and in particular IAS 39, which he said was problematic and could perhaps take some blame for the financial crisis. He is right to raise accounting standards and the contribution they could have made to the crisis. The issue has been looked at extensively by authorities around the world, including the International Accounting Standards Board. The board has proposed a series of changes to IAS 39 and other, similar accounting practices. Those changes essentially mean that, in future, banks will have to hold more capital or take losses earlier on problematic loans.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 92WH

My hon. Friend also rightly expressed his concerns about the future of a number of his constituents who were transferred to UKAR during nationalisation and are currently UKAR employees. He was absolutely right to say that those people have considerable expertise and experience in an important sector. My understanding is that currently over 2,000 staff are still employed in managing the closed mortgage books of both Bradford & Bingley and Northern Rock, and are doing an excellent job.

My hon. Friend may take some comfort from knowing that those people’s skills are such that it seems they will face growing demand for them: the Council of Mortgage Lenders recently said that mortgage lending in the third quarter of this year was at its highest level since 2007 and is growing strongly thanks to the Government’s policies and the economic growth we are experiencing. I am sure that the value of the skills they hold will give some comfort to the constituents he mentioned.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, although clearly I am disappointed that he does not believe that there is a need for an inquiry: we are still no further forward when it comes to knowing why Bradford & Bingley was treated so differently from other banks and building societies.

In the light of the comments my hon. Friend has just made about the future of Bradford & Bingley, will he go away and think about whether a new Bradford & Bingley could be born out of what is there at the moment to be a new challenger to the banking sector on the high street and to introduce the competition that we all want?

Sajid Javid: I will give a commitment to my hon. Friend that I will think about that further. In fact, I will do more: he will know that UKAR is part of United Kingdom Financial Investments Ltd, the agency that acts as the Government’s shareholder in the former assets of Bradford & Bingley, and of the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds and others. I will write to the head of UKFI and to the head of UKAR to ask them to consider the case that my hon. Friend has made today.

I congratulate my hon. Friend once more on securing this debate. This is an issue that he, rightly, feels very strongly about. I assure him that we are taking what we believe are the right steps to ensure the future stability of our banking system.

Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair): I now suspend the sitting until 11 o’clock, although if the hon. Member responsible for the next debate and the Minister responding both arrive a little early, I am happy to start the debate a few minutes earlier.

10.28 am

Sitting suspended.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 93WH

Skills (North-East)

10.56 am

Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and a great privilege to introduce this debate about how we create skills and apprenticeships in the north-east.

The north-east has a proud manufacturing heritage. We are home to Stephenson’s trains, Armstrong’s hydraulics, ships and artillery, Swan’s electric light bulbs and Parsons’ steam turbine, to name but a few of the great key inventions derived from the north-east. Today, we need to ensure that the next generation have the training and resources to put skills in manufacturing and engineering, in all its forms, once again at the heart of our growing private sector economy.

Those great engineers of the north not only built our region, but shaped Victorian Britain. This matters. It is great that the North East local enterprise partnership is one of only three LEPs in the country to pilot the new approaches to skills development. The key point is that the north-east is showing the way, whereas sometimes in the past, it is fair to say, we have been at the back of the bus. We have, I suggest, little to fear from our co-pilots: the Stoke-on-Trent and Staffordshire LEP and the West of England LEP. Frankly, we welcome the competition—but I would say that, wouldn’t I?

In the north-east, we have a number of strong sectors: manufacturing, engineering, subsea, oil and gas, and renewable construction—I could go on. The success of the skills pilots must be in matching the appropriate skills to the relevant sectors, where the growth and the jobs will be. This pilot will, I believe, allow that to happen, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, in his response to the House today, to set out the details in relation to the skills pilot, so that we can fully understand the direction of travel and what he wishes us to do. I want to address the Minister also on the issue of a university technical college in Northumberland, Tyne and Wear.

For me, this debate is part of a personal crusade. I was the first Member of Parliament to hire, train and retain an apprentice—Jade Scott, who is now the business administrator in my Hexham office. Along with Jacqui Henderson, I opened the new Hexham office of Northumberland college in 2012. It is a state-of-the-art local facility in rural west Northumberland and provides a multitude of courses, including hairdressing. I have taken the plunge and had a haircut there myself—I probably need another one now.

We have also led the charge with Ministers. I was pleased to welcome my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), when he was the jobs Minister, to the Fuse media centre in Prudhoe for a jobs summit. I then invited the present Minister to Kirkley Hall on 9 February this year to preside over the apprenticeship awards, with the wonderful Jacqui Henderson and her team, and hear at first hand about the difference that apprenticeships are making in the north-east.

I regularly meet representatives of Newcastle college, and only two months ago I sat down with Angela Allan and her team to discuss how we can help them, both from the skills point of view and on the issue of international student visa numbers. I also took this

27 Nov 2013 : Column 94WH

Minister to see for himself the huge investment going into Newcastle college. The building that he and I looked around in February of this year was a shell; it is now up and running and a thriving, bustling hub for students.

I will give three specific examples from business later in my speech, but I want to start with a strategic overview of where we are and where we have come from, and the lessons we can learn from the past three years. Apprenticeships are, as everybody acknowledges, key to securing the prosperity of the north-east economy. We are moving in the right direction. The number of apprenticeship starts in 2011-12 in the north-east was 38,340, an increase of 11% since 2010-11. That, in turn, was up from 18,510 in 2009-10 and 13,500 in 2005-06. In my constituency, the number of apprenticeship programme starts rose from 430 in 2009-10 to 800 in 2011-12, which is the last fully assessed year. There is not a single one of the 29 constituencies in the north-east in which apprenticeship starts have not increased dramatically since 2010.

James Wharton (Stockton South) (Con): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is incredibly important for our region. Does he agree that we need not only a high number of apprenticeship starts, but the right types of apprenticeships to replenish the skills base that has built the industry in the north-east over so many years? It is welcome that numbers are up, but it is also welcome that we are starting to get the right sort of apprenticeships, because of the good work that the Government are doing.

Guy Opperman: With amazing ability, my hon. Friend has touched on the next key point of my speech. It is not just about numbers; it is about the quality of apprenticeships. It is also about the skills pilot that we have managed to secure in the north-east matching the types of apprenticeship starts to the sorts of businesses in the north-east, to ensure that they are specifically focused and provide what business needs. The Adonis report talked about exactly that point.

In preparation for the debate, I blogged, tweeted and invited comments on the matter. Who says that social media do not work? I was deluged with ideas and contributions, and I thank everyone for taking the trouble to get involved. I was contacted by businesses, trade organisations such as the north-east chamber of commerce, health trusts and even the Department for Education, which was keen for me to advance and support some of its ideas. I spoke to three businesses in particular. SCA is the second largest manufacturer in my constituency. It employs some 400 people, and it is a manufacturing success. Richard Sutcliffe, the factory manager at SCA, has said:

“There is a need to acknowledge that the technical skills/engineering skills that are needed in manufacturing are not currently in place; we are continually striving to encourage and develop the young talent of today.

As the number of apprentices over many years has reduced and many employees come towards their retirement we have a challenge in industry as a whole to plug these gaps. By linking with schools and educational establishments we are keen for people to realise and see that an apprentice scheme is a great/equivalent alternative to university and we must remove the stigma that still exists in some areas.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 95WH

An apprentice at SCA can also move on after their initial training to complete a degree, giving the person a solid footing in a working environment, a keen skill that can take them in many directions and the opportunity to start life without the burden of excessive debt. We need to encourage and help people realise apprentice schemes are key, current and available for all types of people, whatever their ambitions might be.”

I could not have put it better myself.

I want to give examples of two other local businesses. The first is Egger, in my constituency, which is the biggest private sector employer in Northumberland, with more than 550 employees. Recently, £4 million has been invested in an engineering academy for more than 40 apprentices and other engineering staff, which I opened last month with Michael Egger. He clearly sees his employees as the key to the future prosperity of the business, and the academy is the latest phase in more than £100 million of investment in the Hexham plant over the past six years. Egger’s importance cannot be overstated; it is responsible not only for 550 local jobs, but for 1,500 other jobs that are linked in through forestry and other businesses. I was lucky enough to work on the factory floor as part of Children in Need. I was not very good, but it was a great experience. I particularly liked meeting the apprentices, who were, by and large, from Hexham. They had started in Queen Elizabeth high school and been on away days and visits to the factory, after which they followed the apprenticeship path, which enabled them to get a local job with a local firm and live at home. That, surely, is the way forward.

Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall. Are the valuable apprenticeships that he has mentioned ones that last for three or four years, in which apprentices work on the shop floor and in college, and are guaranteed a job at the end? In other words, are they indentured apprenticeships as we knew them, or do the apprenticeships last only six months, with only the possibility of the job at the end?

Guy Opperman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution; it is a perfectly fair point, which the Adonis report deals with. The north-east skills pilot is an attempt to achieve that. Some are shorter apprenticeships—no one would deny that—but the majority are exactly what he and I, who are of venerable years, would understand to be a traditional apprenticeship. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is looking at me as though I am ageing him too much. I am sure he is still a stripling.

Yesterday I spoke to Bob Paton, another of my constituents from the Hexham shire, who took time out to come and talk to me on exactly that issue. He described the apprenticeships offered by Accenture, a big multinational of which he is a director. Accenture’s IT apprentices spend three years in the business and complete coursework and college work on a repeated basis, at the end of which they can achieve a university degree. The apprentices are working and learning, and they achieve both an apprenticeship and a degree.

Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD): In this context, is it not vital that we ensure that further education linked with apprenticeships is spread more readily around

27 Nov 2013 : Column 96WH

the rural parts of Northumberland? Access to further education is essential to making good apprenticeships work.

Guy Opperman: I thank my right hon. Friend for that point. He was not quite in his place when I said that my key desire arising out of this debate was for a technical college for Northumberland, Gateshead, Tyne and Wear. At the moment, there is the potential for a college linked to Hitachi in Durham, but we need something in the northern part of the north-east to address the skills gap between school and a job, which is central to fulfilling the manufacturing and engineering demands of our businesses.

Ian Lavery: I apologise for missing the start of the debate; I was not late, but it started slightly early. I have not heard the hon. Gentleman mention Northumberland college in Wansbeck, which has developed into a really good force for further education, apprenticeships and meeting the skills gap. We really need to encourage Northumberland college and the Kirkley Hall campus in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, because the college has great potential.

Guy Opperman: It is in no way the hon. Gentleman’s fault that he missed my elaborate description of how wonderful Northumberland college is, because we started early. The Minister and I went to Kirkley Hall and visited parts of the site. As the hon. Gentleman knows, another branch of Northumberland college has opened in Hexham, so quite a small hub has expanded to other parts of the region. That addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point and that made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith).

When Bob Paton came to see me yesterday, he told me that Accenture is not only increasing its job numbers, but recently took on 38 new IT apprentices, working with the local college. He reckoned that he had

“the biggest and best…higher level IT apprenticeships in the country,”

and the programme is expanding. We do not just need manufacturing and engineering apprenticeships, but IT apprenticeships. We need to encourage people to take on such jobs.

I could give other examples, but I do not want all my speech to be about the fact that Nissan is offering enhanced apprenticeship programmes, enabling new recruits to work in manufacturing production; the fact that Sembcorp Utilities UK is recruiting 100 new apprentices aged 16 to 18 to do three-year apprenticeships from 16 onwards; the fact that we need more work like that of the North East Skills Alliance for Advanced Manufacturing, chaired by Nissan and the Engineering Employers Federation; or the fact that the North East Skills group does good work.

I cannot praise enough the campaigns run by The Journal and my constituent, Brian Aitken, who has pushed the excellent “Proud to Back Apprentices” campaign in the past year. Nor can I praise enough events such as the north-east engineering and manufacturing careers conference, which brings teachers from across the region together to hear first hand about opportunities in the sector, or schemes such as the primary engineer scheme, which encourages girls and boys from a very young age, in first and primary schools, to become the engineers of

27 Nov 2013 : Column 97WH

the future, by forging links with local businesses. I welcome the work of the local NHS trust and the Department for Education in boosting schemes such as the apprenticeship bursary scheme for the early-years profession.

I want to turn to the North East local enterprise partnership, because we cannot discuss skills and apprenticeships without addressing the role of the LEP and the Adonis report. I pay tribute to everyone involved in both the organisation and the report—in particular, Ed Twiddy, Paul Woolston, Justin Welby and Andrew Hodgson, the latter of whom specifically addressed the problem area of skills.

We in the north-east welcome the fact that we have been chosen for the skills pilot. That sends a message that the north-east is not only open for business, but a skills hub and a destination for the sorts of jobs we wish to see. I call on the Minister to set out what the skills pilot is doing and what the next steps will be if it is successful. How can key local businesses and stakeholders influence the development of the skills revolution in the north-east? We do not need a route map set in stone by Government, but we do need a clear direction of travel, allied to the Adonis report, setting out the hurdles we need to cross along the way.

No other region has addressed its strengths and weaknesses as the north-east has with the Adonis report. It was business-led, written by experts, apolitical, hard-hitting and realistic. It pulled few punches. It celebrated the region’s assets and successes, but acknowledged that successive Governments have struggled to improve job numbers, the skills deficit and university starts, or to grow the regional economy, which was such a powerhouse in days gone by. At the heart of the report lies a desire for more and better jobs. It identified the crucial lack of private sector employment, but, to quote from the report:

“More jobs alone will not re-balance the economy. The North East needs higher skilled and higher paid jobs to produce an economy which matches others and provide the quality of opportunities its residents and young people need to prosper.”

An alternative way of looking at the problem was provided by the recent debate on how Governments, of any form, can address the cost of living as the election approaches. I was interested by the comments of Ross Smith from the North East chamber of commerce and industry, who tweeted, following an article in the New Statesman:

“My answer to this is ‘it’s skills, stupid’—alas that doesn’t fit with easy election messages or election cycles.”

That builds on the famous Bill Clinton comment—“It’s the economy stupid.” I asked Ross to expand on his comment yesterday, as part of the consultation for my speech, and he said:

“The most important factor in raising living standards in the long term is to increase skill levels, so that people can play a more productive part a stronger economy, and be rewarded accordingly.”

He is right and his tweet was right.

My copy of the Adonis report is well thumbed and much written on. I urge everyone interested in addressing the problem to read the report. We need action from big employers, and I have set out what some have been doing. We need the support of media and key partners; it is welcome and expanding. I will address university technical colleges briefly in a moment.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 98WH

We also need a north-east schools challenge, based on the successful London challenge, to support local partners to achieve a step change in local education. I support the efforts of the local authority seven, and we will talk in the House on another occasion about how the LA7 should be fully supported by one and all. I will, however, make one particular point now. There is a slight problem for small businesses, which are struggling to get the niche, tailored skill sets for their apprenticeship demands. Given the lack of time, I will write to the Minister on that point to set out the issue in more detail.

I shall finish on the point about university technical colleges or UTCs. We need to encourage more people to build vocational skills and not to stop doing so at 16. A key solution in the Adonis report is the creation of UTCs in the north-east. The Adonis report demands four UTCs, but frankly I would take two. We have one in Durham, and I would very much like one in Northumberland or Tyne and Weir. As UTCs have been established across the UK, their success has been dramatically transformative. I will make it my mission to see a UTC created in the northern part of the region. I hope that is something for which the Minister can offer his support. Although the south of the region is making progress, the message is obvious: we need far greater links between business and schools. UTCs make a difference, so we need one.

We can be in no doubt that skills, and apprenticeships in their many forms, are the key to the further improvement of every bit of the north-east, job numbers and growth. The north-east is the cradle of manufacturing, engineering and much more. We are powering the country out of recession. We are the only region with a positive balance of payments. Give us the tools to do the job.

11.16 am

The Minister for Skills and Enterprise (Matthew Hancock): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I will respond to as many of the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) made in his excellent speech as I can. He is a passionate supporter of not only Hexham, but the whole north-east. He made a strong case in an important debate. One particular reason why it is good news that we are debating the north-east approach to skills and apprenticeships is that the region is blazing the trail and is at the forefront of some of our policy thinking, which I shall come to later.

I thoroughly enjoyed my visits to Newcastle college and Northumberland college earlier this year with my hon. Friend. We were photographed in an empty shell of a building and I very much look forward to seeing the college now the new building is up, running and, I understand, buzzing with learners. That is just as well, because the number of over-19s in further education in the north-east went up by 6% in the last year for which figures are available. There is clearly an increasing demand for education and skills at that level, among not only employers—we heard a lot of stories that corroborate the evidence I have on the demand from employers—but students as well.

My hon. Friend mentioned the need for university technical colleges in the area. We warmly welcome all applications for UTCs. We approve those proposed by

27 Nov 2013 : Column 99WH

the strongest groups in areas where new schools are needed most and those that have rigorous education and recruitment plans. I am sure he agrees that it is important to ensure that new provision is rigorous and responds to the needs of local employers, not least because UTCs provide the opportunity for employers and universities to work together, and therefore drive up the standard of technical education between 14 and 18. We are considering the south Durham UTC application, with others we have recently received, and we have interviewed the applicant group. Applicants will be notified of the outcome in the new year. Lord Nash and the Secretary of State will make the decision in due course.

My hon. Friend also talked about the need to improve standards and quality in the skills system. I strongly endorse that point. Last month’s report by the OECD, comparing skills levels across the whole developed world, was a stark reminder of how much more we need to do. We—England and Northern Ireland—were the only country in which the skill level in maths and English of our 15 to 25-year-olds was no higher than that of our 55 to 65-year-olds. In the long-running debate about whether more exam passes mean better education, that is extremely strong independent evidence that we have to stop that flatlining and start improving our standards, because every other country in the developed world is doing that. That is hugely motivating in the task of driving up standards, especially when youth unemployment is far too high, although thankfully it is now falling. At the same time, there are increasing skills shortages, some of which my hon. Friend mentioned.

We have introduced faster and more robust intervention processes for failing colleges and we driven up the quality of provision through a new and more rigorous Ofsted inspection framework. We are reforming qualifications so that we fund only those that employers sign off. I do not know whether my hon. Friend has managed to read Nigel Whitehead’s report, but its recommendations are sensible and are about driving rigour and responsiveness through the adult qualifications system.

That brings me to the proposal by the north-east LEP. My hon. Friend mentioned that it is one of three LEPs through which we are piloting a new mechanism to ensure that there is local influence over the use of the skills system. He said that he was thrilled that the north-east LEP was chosen for the pilot. I would go further: the north-east LEP invented the idea and brought it to us. We were impressed by it, and two other LEPs came on board to ensure that the mechanism was piloted in more than one area. The north-east LEP is not only a leader on piloting; it is a thought leader on how we can ensure that the skills system is responsive to local need.

My hon. Friend asked for details on how the proposal will work. The proposal is that 5% of funding for all adult provision outside apprenticeships will be allocated if, and only if, the provision is in line with LEP priorities. The LEP will have sign-off. Rather than giving 5% of the funding to the LEP, we have instead said that the LEP will have the final say over what is essentially a quality payment—the final 5% of all adult skills funding outside apprenticeships. That will ensure that the whole provision is targeted at LEPs’ needs. There is good

27 Nov 2013 : Column 100WH

collaboration in the north-east between the LEP and colleges, and the proposal will help to incentivise education providers to look to the strategic needs of business—not only directly but through the LEP—and ensure that the LEP focuses on that. Our job is to ensure that there is enough flexibility in the funding system to allow providers to switch provision according to the needs of local private or public sector employers. That will ensure that the system is filling skills shortages.

In the past, when there have been shortages of training in one area, people have come to the Minister and said, “There is a shortage in this area. Can you fix it?” There is one thing I know for sure, and that is that I do not and cannot know, through a central bureaucracy, the skills needs of every area. It is far better to try to make the system responsive to local need, instead of trying to direct solutions to skills shortages from Whitehall. The proposal is about making it easier for colleges to respond to the needs of employers.

The proposal is also about providing capital for skills provision. Capital funding will follow LEP priorities from 2015-16. Very recently, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced that we would be financing a further £330 million of skills capital in 2016-17, which provides the long planning horizons that many crave. Those horizons have been too short term in the past.

I pay tribute to the work of all those involved in getting the pilot with the north-east LEP up and running as a policy. It will hit the ground running from September 2014. That policy is part of a broader attempt at making the skills system more responsive to employers. I mentioned that it does not cover apprenticeship funding, which is because we have a broader set of reforms on how apprenticeships are funded to ensure that funding is directly responsive to employers’ needs. We will be working through employers. The taxpayer rightly pays a subsidy towards apprenticeships, because if someone is in an apprenticeship, they are not only doing the job but learning. Apprenticeships benefit the employer, the apprentice and wider society. Recognising that, the taxpayer subsidises apprenticeships. We are changing how they are delivered so that the employer has more of a say over what training happens within an apprenticeship. That will ensure that the training fits the needs of the apprentices and the employer, which will drive up standards.

My hon. Friend quoted the views of a local site manager and talked about spreading the word on the benefits of apprenticeships. As the Minister responsible, I could not agree more. It is just as competitive to secure an apprenticeship at a top employer, such as Rolls-Royce or BT, as it is to get into Oxford or Harvard.

Ian Lavery: Does the Minister, like me, welcome the announcement by Northumberland county council earlier this week that it has an ambition to double the number of apprentices linked to the council? It is looking to employ 360 apprentices directly with the council. Some 23 apprenticeships will be immediately created, adding to the total of 134 already on the council’s books already.

Matthew Hancock: I had not heard that, but at face value that sounds absolutely terrific. We have a goal of making it a norm in this country that every young

27 Nov 2013 : Column 101WH

person who leaves school goes to university or into an apprenticeship. Rather than trying to push them one way or the other, we want to ensure that there are good choices available on either side. Increasingly, employers, whether private or public sector—including Northumberland county council—are introducing an apprenticeship stream in addition to a graduate scheme. The civil service has just brought in an apprenticeship fast stream to match its graduate fast stream. This week, MI5 and MI6 announced that they are introducing an apprenticeship scheme in addition to their more traditional graduate recruitment. That is happening across different businesses and different parts of government. Someone can now become an apprentice spy, which is interesting, although MI5 and MI6 have not yet told me all the details that someone would learn.

We have an ambition, but we will only be able to persuade people that it is the right ambition so long as we continue to drive up the quality of apprenticeships. The very best apprenticeships are world class, but we have to ensure that quality goes up across the board. We have brought in some tough measures to increase quality by ensuring that all apprenticeships last a minimum of a year, that the English and maths requirements are stronger and that there is actually a job. In the past, some apprenticeships happened without a job attached. Those measures have meant that we have had to remove some low-quality provision. In the medium to long term, that is undoubtedly worth it and will ensure that the apprenticeship brand remains strong.

I agree strongly with the point that several hon. Members have made, including my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), that apprenticeships need to reflect the whole economy. The old industries in which apprenticeships were strong, such as engineering and manufacturing, are important, but it is also important that apprenticeships cover the whole economy as it is today. They should include professional services and computing, for instance, in a way that they did not in the past.

The north-east LEP is one of our thought leaders, and we listen carefully to its suggestions. I am watching the pilot’s progress closely to see whether it should be spread more broadly. There is no stronger advocate for the passion with which the north-east is coming together to deliver on skills training and ensure that everyone reaches their potential than my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham, although my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South and all the other hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are strong advocates, too.

11.29 am

Sitting suspended.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 102WH

Tuberculosis

[Jim Dobbin in the Chair]

2.30 pm

Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab): Let me start in the past. In 1821, Maria Brontë died of consumption. Two of her daughters died of the disease in infancy and her four older children—Bramwell and his famous sisters, Anne, Emily and Charlotte—also died of it. According to the history books, they became

“ill from dampness and terrible living conditions”.

Consumption, or tuberculosis, is a disease that many people believe belongs to the past. Nothing could be further from the truth. TB kills more people in the world today than any other infectious disease. Every day, 3,800 people die from it. Sunday is world AIDS day, so it is worth remembering that TB is the leading killer of people living with HIV. At least one third of the 35.3 million people living with HIV worldwide are infected with latent TB. People co-infected with TB and HIV are about 30 times more likely to develop active TB disease than people without HIV. Given the devastating synergy that exists between the two infections and the impact that they have on people living in the developing world, it is absolutely vital that resources are stepped up now so that we not only effectively tackle TB-HIV co-infection but ensure that the health-related millennium development goals are achieved. The Department for International Development is about to launch its policy review paper on HIV/AIDS. I hope that it will make clear the importance of linking the approaches to TB and HIV, and that it will have clear commitments to tackle those diseases.

In the UK, we can be tempted to believe that TB no longer poses a threat to public health. There is a widespread belief that the BCG vaccine is effective and that today TB only affects other countries. However, in a connected world of global travel, TB is never far away. That came home to me forcibly when an English student returned from foreign travel with the disease and subsequently infected other students attending the college of which I was principal. Students and staff found dealing with the anti-TB drugs to be an ordeal. For a standard, non-drug-resistant case, the treatment regime can require a six-month course of a cocktail of four drugs. Those “front-line” drugs are more than 40 years old now and have unpleasant side-effects. It was a challenge for me as college principal, working with the local NHS, to get people to take the drugs they had to take. It must be an even bigger challenge to help patients in the developing world who not have access to the type of care and support offered by the NHS.

The stigma attached to the disease here was a barrier to patients accessing treatment. In sub-Saharan Africa, the stigma is even greater. Dr Simon Blankley, a Voluntary Services Overseas chest physician working in Uganda, reported that patients could often be locked away in cupboards or forced to leave their villages, and that health care workers were worried for their own health when TB patients were admitted to wards. TB needs to be tackled in a sustainable way that reassures people and builds community resilience. Dr Blankley was able to use a team of VSO volunteers to provide education and reassurance, and to get TB patients in and around

27 Nov 2013 : Column 103WH

Kampala to complete their eight-month course of treatment. The team’s work drastically increased completion rates. He then expanded the work, adding work on TB to the community health education that was already in place. That sustainable approach can be replicated elsewhere.

Dr Mario Raviglione, director of the global TB programme at the World Health Organisation, said just last month, when he launched the WHO’s global TB report in partnership with the all-party group on global tuberculosis, that

“at the current rate of progress, we will not be rid of TB for over a century.”

The efforts of the global health fund and its partners have made fantastic progress against TB, HIV and malaria, and the Government are to be applauded for their recent pledge of up to £l billion for the fund. However, we need absolute urgency, unremitting determination and co-ordinated effort to tackle TB.

Andrew George (St Ives) (LD): I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I also warmly applaud the Government on the contribution and the commitment that they have made to the global health fund, which continues the work of the previous Government.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the HIV position paper, which in fact was published only moments ago. He may be disappointed to note that the Government appear not to be putting quite as much emphasis on ensuring that they make the connection between HIV and TB. Will he insist that the Government continue a commitment to TB REACH and other programmes that address that serious problem?

Jim Dobbin (in the Chair): Order. I suggest that when we have interventions, they are short.

Nic Dakin: Thank you, Mr Dobbin, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I am sure that the Minister will reflect on his point when he responds to the debate. It reinforces the point that I made earlier about the importance of the Government taking the opportunity to co-ordinate their efforts in relation to both HIV and TB, and the Minister will have heard those points.

Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab): Is my hon. Friend aware that 750,000 TB cases—the most lethal ones—come from South Africa’s gold mines, and contribute 9% of the global total of TB cases, which are often linked to HIV? If so, does he agree that it is vital for the British Government to talk to British-owned companies that are mining gold in South Africa to try to resolve that terrible epidemic?

Nic Dakin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right that the Government have a leadership role to play both globally and in relation to British companies involved in South Africa and elsewhere. I am sure that the Minister will also pick up on that point when he responds to the debate.

Dr Raviglione said that it would take more than a century to get rid of TB. Waiting a hundred years to get rid of this disease is just not good enough. Dr Raviglione

27 Nov 2013 : Column 104WH

also drew attention to the shameful fact that one in every three TB cases on the planet is not properly diagnosed or treated, which equates to 3 million people every year going undiagnosed, the majority of whom will have infectious pulmonary TB. Many of them are estimated to have drug-resistant strains. That is 3 million people a year going undiagnosed for the past six years—that is not good enough, either. Until everyone in the world with TB is diagnosed and correctly treated, we will never succeed in bringing the global TB epidemic under control and it will continue to blight our world, ruining millions of lives every year.

TB has killed more people than every other pandemic in history combined, by a margin of several hundred million. It is a global disease of the here and now. It affects every country, and every country must have a role to play in tackling it. It requires global leadership from our Government and every other Government. Tackling it requires support and investment through multilateral organisations such as the global health fund, as well as through targeted interventions. We need important technical and co-ordinating agencies, such as the WHO’s global TB programme and the Stop TB Partnership, to work together to enhance co-operation and cohesion across the world’s responses to TB. We need the brightest and the best of the scientific and business communities to work with high-burden countries, in order to step up the fight against this disease and save as many lives as possible.

Consumption, or TB, is a disease of the present. It is a scourge on our humanity and deserves the full force of all our efforts. Although new tools to tackle HIV and TB are badly needed, if we scale up the use of the tools that are already available we have the opportunity to save an additional million lives in the next few years.

I hope that the Minister, when he responds to the debate, will take the opportunity to reaffirm the Government’s commitment to ensuring full replenishment of the global health fund; to continuing to fund TB REACH to a level that allows it to carry on supporting new and innovative projects to find “the missing 3 million”; and to continuing to push for the development and uptake of better diagnosis, treatment and prevention treatments for TB, in a way that can be sustainable.

Finally, let us recognise the work done by all those people across the globe on the front line of the fight against this terrible disease. Their effort is a call to arms for us and a call for us, as policy makers, to step up to the mark and provide them with the tools and the wherewithal to eradicate TB and place it firmly in the past.

2.40 pm

Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this debate. I am delighted to be taking part in it, particularly as I have resumed the co-chairmanship of the all-party group on global tuberculosis, now that I am free to do so. It is, quite properly, a cross-party co-chairmanship, which reflects growing concern in the House about what is often a “Cinderella” disease—one that is not talked about as much as some other diseases that are still claiming lives today.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 105WH

We are, properly, concerned about the terrible tragedy in the Philippines and the loss of thousands of lives and we are, properly, marking world AIDS day on Sunday and the millions of lives that have been claimed by that disease. There is a strong overlap, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, between HIV and tuberculosis, which many still believe is essentially a disease of the past. Indeed, before I became involved in this movement, I thought so too. In the 19th century, tuberculosis—consumption—was regarded sometimes even as a romantic disease, as featured in many operas of that era, yet one in four people in Europe were dying of consumption at that time. It was only with the advent of modern medicine—antibiotics—and the west’s attack on poverty in the late 19th and early 20th century that the disease was brought under control.

There are some sobering observations to make about the rate at which TB—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, has now resurged here, as a disease of the present—is being tackled, compared with the rate at which the west dealt with it in that era. At the current level of progress that the west in making in dealing with a disease that is still claiming 1.3 million lives a year—unnecessarily, because in the main it is easily and cheaply curable—we will have to rapidly step up the efforts that are being made, because the incidence of this disease is currently declining by 2% a year. If we continue at this rate, it will take more than a whole lifetime—a whole generation—and it will be more than 100 years before we tackle this disease properly and get it under control. That will mean that millions of lives will needlessly be lost.

On top of that, there is a growing threat—one that now amounts to a serious issue for this country as well—of drug-resistant TB, the emergence of which is entirely a reflection of the ancient way in which we treat this disease. Were it not for the fact that people with TB require lengthy treatment with antibiotics, because the drug regimens are old-fashioned and no new drugs have been developed, and were it not for the prevalence of counterfeit drugs and the inadequacy of health regimes, drug-resistant TB might not have developed with such ferocity. However, it is now a serious matter of concern, and not just in developing countries, where people unlucky enough to be diagnosed with drug-resistant TB—and few are—almost always face a death sentence. Acquiring drug-resistant TB in a developed country with an advanced health system would still require an expensive and extremely painful course of treatment over months and years.

Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP): While the right hon. Gentleman is elaborating on the complications that follow diagnosis, does he agree that there is a shocking compounding of the problem worldwide, because in some countries lung cancer is being diagnosed to a considerable degree in people who are subsequently diagnosed with TB?

Nick Herbert: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. The starting position has been that we need the means to diagnose this disease.

Let us face up to the fact that if the resurgence of this disease had been in the west, it would already have been tackled by now. The pharmaceutical companies would have had a commercial interest in developing better diagnostics and tools, better drugs and, indeed, a vaccine. Another common misconception is that a vaccine is

27 Nov 2013 : Column 106WH

available to deal with TB, but only the BCG vaccine exists, and that is generally ineffective for most forms of TB and works for children for a limited time. Had this disease resurged in the west, by now we would already have these things, but we do not, because the drug companies did not have a commercial interest in developing them, essentially because the disease was found in developing countries without the economies or the wherewithal to pay for these new tools.

There can be no better example of the necessity for intervention by wealthy western Governments, who have the resources to ensure that such a disease can be tackled, not just in the interests of ensuring that lives can be saved—there is a profound moral reason to tackle this anyway—but in the west’s interests in securing the economic development of high-burden countries that are afflicted with this disease, which is a tremendous brake on economic development. Of course, TB is a disease that knows no borders, and with migration, and so on, we face the prospect of it resurging in our country. We have higher rates of TB in this country now—although they are low by comparison with high-burden countries in the rest of the world—than in the rest of Europe. We have failed to reduce rates in the past 10 years, as compared with the United States, for example, which has got on top of the problem. This is a pressing public health issue in this country.

There are lots of reasons for western Governments to be concerned about this issue. Therefore, I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George) said about the UK Government’s recent commitment, which has not been sufficiently noticed, to replenish the global health fund. That is a fantastic commitment, not just because of the absolute sums pledged to the global health fund—which is an effective means of tackling TB and is responsible for 80% of the funding for TB programmes across the world—but because it sends a powerful message, ahead of the replenishment summit next Monday, to other potential donor countries about the value of stepping up our efforts at this time.

The west faces a choice. We have the opportunity, with the potential emergence of new treatments, diagnostics, and so on, to get on top of this disease. If we relax our efforts and fall victim to the idea that, at a time of austerity, the west might pull back from some commitments that it is making, our efforts to tackle TB would go into reverse. This is an important moment to step up to the plate. Britain has done so admirably. I commend the work of the Secretary of State for International Development and Ministers in making that commitment, and I encourage other countries to do the same.

Andrew George: Again, I congratulate the Government on their efforts regarding the global health fund, which sets the tone, but is my right hon. Friend and co-chair of the all-party group aware that just before this debate the Government published the HIV position paper, which appears to suggest that the UK’s contribution to eradicating TB can largely be delivered through the global health fund, whereas for HIV it can also be delivered by a significant strategy pursued by the Department?

Nick Herbert: I hope the Minister has noted my hon. Friend’s point, because TB control programmes rely on funding from the global health fund. We need to send

27 Nov 2013 : Column 107WH

that message to the global health fund as it determines resource allocations and to other countries as they consider replenishing their support.

My final point is that although the Government’s support for the global health fund is welcome, it is important to understand that that is not the only thing we need to do if we are to get on top of TB globally. Setting aside the action that needs to be taken domestically—Health Ministers are making progress on what needs to be done through a TB control programme—we cannot rely on the generous commitment to the global health fund for the international effort that is needed.

I want to raise the cause of an important programme run by the Stop TB Partnership called TB REACH, which addresses the problem of the missing 3 million cases to which the hon. Member for Scunthorpe referred. Until we find those who are affected by TB, we have no chance of treating them or getting hold of the disease. The power of TB REACH is that it funds innovative programmes on the ground that are finding new ways to go out and identify the missing 3 million cases. TB REACH has been robustly evaluated and shown to deliver value for money. It is relatively cost-effective, but its funding is coming to an end. TB REACH was largely set up with funding from the Canadian Government and now does not have sufficient funding to identify all the necessary cases. TB REACH has helped to identify some 500,000 cases in the past year, and it needs to do more. If we are serious about the level of the challenge we face, it would be worth while for the Government to seriously consider contributing to the ongoing work of TB REACH to ensure that the programme can survive.

Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): Earlier this year I was a member of the parliamentary delegation that visited TB REACH in Awasa, in Ethiopia. TB REACH is doing outstanding work to find those missing people. I concur with the right hon. Gentleman and add my support. Hopefully the Government can find money to put into TB REACH, as it is not funded through the global health fund.

Nick Herbert: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because that is precisely the point I am trying to make. I understand that TB REACH has helped to identify some 750,000 cases of TB and prevent those people from becoming infectious, as they would otherwise have continued to infect others.

The budget of TB REACH is relatively small. It is asking for $40 million a year. In the overall scale of the interventions that the west is now making to control the major diseases of HIV, malaria and TB, the funding is relatively small, although obviously it is not insignificant. The programme is worth while; I therefore ask the Minister to address that point. I have just written to the Secretary of State for International Development and hope to meet her to discuss TB REACH at this important moment, as the programme’s future is being considered.

I am grateful to the Government and to hon. Members on both sides of the House for the interest they have shown in TB. A few years ago, very little interest was shown in the disease, despite the huge interest shown in other international development issues. That has changed. I believe that the work of the all-party group has

27 Nov 2013 : Column 108WH

helped, as have the many non-governmental organisations that are supporting us—in particular, Results UK has played an important role in raising the profile of TB. We have a moral imperative to tackle the disease, and doing so is within our reach. It is now essential that we step up the efforts to ensure that it is not another 100 years before we beat a disease that the west once thought it had beaten.

Several hon. Members rose

Jim Dobbin (in the Chair): Order. We have five speakers left, and I intend to call the shadow Minister at 3.40 pm.

2.54 pm

Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin.

In the last three Westminster Hall debates that I have attended—on the privatisation of the east coast main line, the privatisation of blood products laboratories and free schools—I have found myself at loggerheads with Government Members. Unusually, however, today I find myself nodding in agreement with the excellent contribution of the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for securing this timely, important and significant debate.

I echo the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs in paying tribute to the work of the all-party group on global tuberculosis and its members and officers, including the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), who has been an absolute stalwart of the group for a number of years.

I will concentrate on one aspect of this terrible condition that is close to my heart. As Members know, I have the pleasure of representing Easington in east Durham. Easington is a coal mining constituency with a long and distinguished history as one of the great heartlands of the north-east coalfields. I thought it would be poignant in this debate to reflect on why our pits were closed and why Britain now imports more than two thirds of the coal burned in our power stations, when once we imported none.

The UK coal industry was modern, efficient and very health conscious. My right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr Hain) spoke about the incidence of TB among South African miners, which is relevant. I have just come from the annual general meeting of the all-party group on coalfield communities, where we talked about the problems that we face in coal mining communities, the physical legacy of pollution and the ill health associated with mining. That is another reason why this debate is close to my heart.

Although, by its very nature, mining will never be completely safe—it is an extractive process—our mines were about as safe as they could be, and the health, safety and well-being of miners was paramount. There are those who would argue that that drove up costs.

Today, much of the world’s coal production has been offshored and outsourced to countries where health and safety standards are minimal and labour is cheap. There is still blood on the coal, but nowadays it is more likely to be the blood of miners in Colombia, China or South Africa. The price of the irresponsible pursuit of profit and cheap labour is the health and safety of mineworkers worldwide.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 109WH

Mining is one of the biggest employers of men in South Africa. Tens of thousands of those miners are migrant workers, from neighbouring countries such as Mozambique, Lesotho and Swaziland, who work and live in crowded townships in mining areas. As has been said, diseases such as malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS are rife. South Africa’s mining industry has been the subject of intense international and national media scrutiny due to the recent industrial unrest. Members will be aware of the appalling shooting of striking miners by armed police in scenes reminiscent of the worst days of apartheid. Mining is one of the driving forces of the South African economy; it contributes some 20% of the country’s gross domestic product and is a major employer.

What has not been subject to the same degree of media attention is the devastation caused to miners and their families by TB. The disease remains the leading cause of death in South Africa today. One third of all cases in sub-Saharan Africa have a link to the mines. TB is an airborne disease, spreading through the air when people who have it cough or sneeze, and it is often fatal if left untreated. Rates of TB among South African mineworkers are estimated to be as high as 7,000 per 100,000. That huge figure is 28 times the World Health Organisation’s definition of a health emergency and is the highest such figure in the world.

As we have heard, TB is closely linked to HIV, which is also a challenge in the mines. It is estimated that people with HIV are 21 to 34 times more likely to develop active TB. As we approach world AIDS day, it is important to reflect on that and on the interactions between the two. Such high HIV infection rates, coupled with cramped living conditions and exposure to silica dust, which damages miners’ lungs, creates a perfect breeding ground for the disease. The effects are devastating not only for the families of the many miners who die from TB, but also for communities, companies and Governments.

From a commercial point of view, the disease dents productivity—the issues I am raising are relevant to the British mining companies involved in South Africa—puts a drain on health budgets and spreads far into the rural areas that miners migrate from. Migration also means that the problem is not exclusive to South Africa, which is one reason why sub-Saharan Africa is not on track to meet the target of reducing deaths from TB by half by the expiration of the United Nations millennium development goals in 2015.

Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP): I apologise for not being here earlier; I had other business and could not get here any quicker.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned world figures for TB, but the exact number of TB sufferers is not known and many of them cannot be found. How does he think we can best address that problem?

Grahame M. Morris: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that relevant point. An estimated 3 million people with TB in southern Africa have not been reached, but programmes, such as TB REACH and those supported by the Department for International Development, exist to identify those people and to secure treatment for them. My point is about the incidence of known TB among miners in South Africa.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 110WH

TB is curable with drugs, and the costs are relatively modest. Spending £15 a person should be easily affordable. Global underinvestment and indifference mean that the disease killed an estimated 1.3 million people globally in 2012. The failure to deal decisively with TB has allowed drug-resistant strains of the airborne disease to develop, which are much more difficult and significantly more expensive to treat.

Earlier this year, members of the all-party parliamentary group on global tuberculosis, including me, met the Secretary of State for International Development. I want to echo the words of Government Members and compliment the Minister and the Secretary of State for their commitment on this issue. We met them to put TB at the forefront of their dealings with major Anglo-American mining interests, particularly in the gold mining industry, which has a high incidence of TB as well as high rates of HIV. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath mentioned, an estimated 750,000 cases—I had to check that incredible figure, as I thought it was a printing error—of TB each year, 9% of the global total, come from South Africa’s gold mines.

Colleagues who represent former British mining communities, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), and I are determined to push the battle against TB up the political agenda here in the UK. Along with the South African mining unions, I want to see the British Government make the British mining companies involved in South Africa sign up to a new protocol launched by the South African Department of Health. That would help ensure that mining companies abide by a legal framework governing the treatment and compensation of occupational TB.

In the past, too many stricken miners simply returned to their towns and villages to die lingering and often painful deaths. In the 21st century, it simply cannot be acceptable that mining companies, or any other employers, should systematically endanger the health of their workers. Rates of TB in the mines have been estimated at 28 times the World Health Organisation’s definition of a health emergency. This is a global health emergency. We need Governments, employers and drug companies to act accordingly.

People do not have to live in a mining constituency to know that keeping the lights on should not come at the expense of the health and lives of South African miners and their families, or those in any other countries. That is simply wrong. Global mining operations headquartered in the UK must accept their social, moral and ethical obligations to address the issue as a matter of urgency.

3.5 pm

Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate. Discussing the link between tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS is particularly pertinent given our proximity to world AIDS day.

I would like primarily to focus on the need to ensure the consistent global provision of cheap, effective, high-quality drugs. I also want briefly to reflect on the past in a slightly different way from other hon. Members. More than 50 years ago, I actually caught TB, just while I was waiting for my BCG vaccination. If the timing had been otherwise, my life would obviously have been rather

27 Nov 2013 : Column 111WH

different. It is important to reflect on the fact that the BCG vaccination is over 90 years old, and it seems incredible that we do not yet have an effective vaccination. I really want to stress that aspect of the problem today.

I was in the sanatorium for seven months and can still remember the awful drugs, which I think are exactly the same as those given today. Day after day, I received injections and the most appalling tasting medicine. To make things slightly better for us young teenagers, we were given a book to read about how TB was treated in this country at the beginning of the 20th century, which was also pretty awful. Things moved on pretty quickly from the time when I was ill, however, and it was not long before the sanatorium was closed down and TB stamped out. That experience drives my interest in tackling worldwide TB.

It seems incredible that, as we have heard, an estimated 1.3 million people died from TB last year. It is most distressing to think that we are still relying on the same drugs for standard TB. We need rapid developments across the range of drugs. As has been mentioned, drug-resistant TB and extreme drug resistant TB also exist, both of which require a cocktail of drugs with horrendous side effects. The duration and difficulty of treatment represents a major challenge to patients completing treatment and therefore being fully cured. I was fortunate enough to go on a trip with the organisation Results UK to a village in Rwanda to meet patients who could not afford the transport to access the slightly more advanced drugs. There is so much more to be done.

We must also look at diagnosis. For the most part, just as when I had TB, the diagnosis is through sputum smear microscopy, which can take months, does not detect drug resistance and is ineffective at diagnosing TB in children and among HIV-positive patients. A new machine, GeneXpert, can detect some forms of drug resistance and can provide an accurate result in two hours. It has been approved by the WHO and rolled out across the world, but it is heavily dependent on local infrastructure. A point-of-care, cheap, easy-to-use diagnostic remains absolutely vital to achieving the quick diagnosis required to reduce transmission.

I, too, congratulate DFID and the Government on making a real commitment to UK aid overseas and, in particular, on topping up the global fund. However, what we are really saying, beyond congratulating the Government, is that much more needs to be done. Every year, 3 million TB patients globally are not officially treated, so we need other countries to add to the contribution we are making. We need to support important programmes such as TB REACH, which other Members have mentioned. We need the maximum provision of high-quality drugs at affordable prices. The Government must use their connections at the highest level to encourage countries to take a harder line on the quality control of drugs.

Global drug provision remains a challenge. The UK needs to increase the number of countries engaged in pooled procurement programmes such as the Global Drug Facility. That will increase demand and draw together a fragmented market, thus helping to ensure a more economically appealing market for manufacturers and suppliers.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 112WH

Poor health is a driver and a consequence of poverty; we can look back at our history and see that, and we see it today worldwide. The Prime Minister co-chaired a UN high-level panel on the post-2015 framework, which reported earlier this year. Its report revealed that TB case finding and treatment was the most cost-effective intervention measured, returning £30 for every £1 spent. With its record, the UK is in a unique position that enables it to continue giving leadership and to do much more to tackle this big global problem.

3.11 pm

Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on applying for and securing the debate. We have heard some of the dreadful statistics on TB throughout the world, and I want to spend a few minutes looking in detail at the cost of treating TB when it has not been caught first time round.

Last year, there were an estimated 450,000 cases of multi-drug-resistant TB. It is believed that 10% of those involve extensively drug-resistant TB and are, effectively, impossible to treat. Drug resistance is really a man-made problem resulting from the misuse of anti-TB drugs and the poor management of the disease. Drug-resistant TB can be passed from person to person in the same way as TB that is not drug-resistant. Clearly, early and rapid diagnosis and treatment completion are essential to control TB. As many Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe, have said, TB is the leading killer of people living with HIV/AIDS and accounts for one in five AIDS-related deaths.

Drug-resistant TB develops primarily because it is treated with a number of drugs taken over six to nine months. If medication is taken incorrectly or stopped prematurely, the TB bacteria can re-emerge and become resistant to the drugs used to treat TB. That sometimes happens because of the provision of substandard drugs, because patients do not complete their treatment or because the drugs are available only intermittently.

Multi-drug-resistant TB is a form of TB that does not respond to the standard treatment using first-line drugs and that is extremely difficult and expensive to treat. As I suggested earlier, extensively drug-resistant TB occurs when resistance to second-line drugs develops on top of multi-drug resistance. Drug-resistant TB can take two years or more to treat with drugs that are less potent, more toxic and much more expensive than those used to treat a standard case of TB. The drugs are toxic and are commonly associated with severe side effects, of which permanent deafness is the most common. Almost all of them have limited effectiveness, and most are more than 40 years old, as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) said. Fewer than 50% of multi-drug-resistant TB cases are successfully treated and considered cured.

On costs, multi-drug-resistant TB can be up to 450 times as expensive to treat as a standard case of TB. In all 27 high-burden multi-drug-resistant TB countries, the treatment cost is greater than the annual average income. If multi-drug-resistant TB is not correctly treated and develops into extensively drug-resistant TB, the chances of someone being successfully cured are less than one in 10. The world needs to recognise that. Extensively drug-resistant TB patients are practically

27 Nov 2013 : Column 113WH

impossible to treat, but they often remain infectious and capable of transmitting the disease to others. That scenario is often described as a time bomb.

Jim Shannon: Everyone is aware of the high prices of the normal drugs, but a number of countries—India is one—can produce similar, effective drugs more cheaply. Should we source those similar, cheaper drugs to help spread the cost?

Mr Barron: I am sure that is the case; indeed, the global fund does do that. However, that does not prevent the supply of drugs, even if they are affordable in part, from becoming intermittent. As a consequence, we end up with the more extreme cases of TB.

The UK Government have played a leading role in the response to TB globally, investing in research and development on new tools to tackle TB, supporting efforts to increase the profile of the disease through the Stop TB Partnership and supporting key institutions such as the global fund, which accounts for more than 80% of donor funding to tackle TB in developing countries.

I mentioned in an intervention that I visited Ethiopia earlier this year. I went there with Results UK in the February recess, along with the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Sir Tony Cunningham) and two Members of the other place. In Addis Ababa, we visited St Peter’s hospital, which is Ethiopia’s national TB referral hospital. With support from the global fund, St Peter’s provides care for TB referral cases and patients with multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis. It also provides care and treatment to people living with HIV/AIDS, which is of course closely linked to TB.

The hospital demonstrated that, with proper funding, low-income countries can use minimal resources efficiently and effectively to respond to the threat of drug-resistant TB. As I said in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), we also visited Awasa and looked at the great work TB REACH was doing there to find the missing 3 million cases.

While we were in Ethiopia, we did not look just at TB, although that was our primary aim. We also looked at Ethiopia’s strong planning and innovative response to its human resource crisis. It is using its health extension programme, which quite a lot of our money has gone into developing. Funding to support such successful interventions has been provided by key multilateral organisations, including the global fund and TB REACH. I reiterate that, in addition to what they have done already, the UK Government have put £1 billion over three years into the global fund, and they are much to be credited for that.

Finally, I have travelled the Commonwealth on many occasions over the years. When we were out in Addis Ababa, we had a meeting with DFID—I say this because the Minister is here—and it was one of the most positive meetings I have ever had. The DFID people knew exactly where global fund money and our taxpayers’ money was going: to help people in dire need of an improvement in their health, as well as in their quality of life, through water supplies and things like that. We

27 Nov 2013 : Column 114WH

always hear negative views about what happens to taxpayers’ money when it goes to the developing world, so it is worth putting on record that that was the most positive experience I have had since becoming a Member of the House.

3.19 pm

Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con): I congratulate the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing this debate on tuberculosis, a disease that 8.6 million people catch, and of which 1.3 million people die, every year. It is a huge issue.

I was fortunate enough to join the Results UK delegation to Zambia last year, when we examined the link between HIV and TB. We visited Lusaka central prison. I do not know whether you have ever been to a prison in central Africa, Mr Dobbin, but, a couple of months before we attended, the vice-president of Zambia, Guy Scott, visited another prison and described it as hell on earth. I must say I have never been anywhere like Lusaka central prison. It was shocking.

The prison was built by the colonial authorities in the 1920s to house between 180 and 200 prisoners. Now it houses almost 2,000. We were taken to cells no bigger than my bedroom at home. They were designed to sleep between six and 10 people, but now there are 80 to 100 prisoners locked in those rooms for up to 14 hours a day. I looked at the room and wondered how they even fitted so many people in it. Apparently the sleeping arrangement is to line up 12 people against the wall, who crouch down with their backs to it. They sit down and open their legs and the next 10 or 12 come and lie between their legs, and so on, to cram them into all the available space. Mattresses and blankets are completely lacking. The toilet facilities are completely inadequate for the number of prisoners, and an open drain or sewer, containing a disgusting-looking brown liquid, runs through the middle of the courtyard. Medical facilities are lacking—the site has no health clinic and sick prisoners lack medicine—and so is food. There is one basic meal a day, which is completely lacking in protein. It is fair to say that the conditions in the prison are not conducive to general health.

Catching TB should not be part of someone’s prison sentence, but in that prison it was. At one stage the TB infection rate was almost 100%. TB is one of the fastest-growing epidemics in sub-Saharan Africa’s prison populations. It presents a threat not only to the inmates but to the wider population, because the prisons act as a reservoir for TB. It gets into the wider community through visiting, staff visits and the fact that prisoners who leave have been inadequately treated. TB does not respect prison walls.

There was a bright spot to the visit. We were taken to the prison by the commissioner of prison services, who was very open, and keen for us to see the reality. Several hon. Members have mentioned TB REACH, and we were shown a project that it had set up in the prison together with the Centre for Infectious Disease Research in Zambia. That programme included TB and HIV screening, treatment, and the introduction of isolation cells for prisoners with multiple drug-resistant TB. A prisoners’ drama group had been organised to teach prisoners to look for the signs of TB and understand how important it is for those with the disease to make

27 Nov 2013 : Column 115WH

people aware of it and get the required treatment. The programme was massively successful. The TB infection rate was down to 30%. That is still huge, but it is an awful lot better than it had been a year before.

Early diagnosis and treatment are essential for the control of TB. As we saw in Zambia, TB REACH runs pretty much the only mechanism designed to target and treat the 3 million missing TB victims we have heard about. One of its advantages is that it can react very quickly. It can provide fast-track funding for projects, to get them up and running quickly—often within six months. It is also willing to fund new and innovative approaches. That is important, because organisations such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria will fund projects only if they have been proved successful. They will not finance new ideas or do experimental things to see whether they will work.

We need new approaches. Many places that we visited in Zambia—whether clinics, hospitals, or community groups—were in isolated communities. There is a need for new, mobile technology, and we need to roll out new diagnostic tests. That can happen only when testing and experimentation has been carried out, and when an organisation such as TB REACH is willing to provide funding. We saw that process in action when we visited Kanyama clinic, run by the Zambia AIDS Related Tuberculosis Project. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), we saw the GeneXpert machine in action.

For hon. Members who do not know what the GeneXpert machine is, the relevant website describes it as follows:

“The GeneXpert System automates and integrates sample preparation, nucleic acid amplification, and detection of the target sequence in simple or complex samples using real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction”.

In basic terms, it is a diagnostic tool that can diagnose TB much more accurately than the use of a microscope, as well as more quickly—often within two hours. It can detect TB in HIV-positive patients too. That of course is a massive advantage in rural clinics, because people can have the test and wait for the result. At the clinic, people from the community were encouraged to become involved as volunteers and to help people by talking them through the process, the results, and what the treatment would entail, and by going out into communities to ensure that they continued taking the treatment in the weeks ahead.

The GeneXpert machine works well in some environments, but it is not perfect. It can be difficult to use in isolated rural areas, because it requires a constant electricity supply, so on our visit we looked at how alternative energy supplies such as solar power could be used to power medical equipment in rural areas.

On our visits to Kanyama clinic and Lusaka central prison we saw at first hand the effect of TB REACH projects—improving TB diagnosis and providing fast treatment. However, as we have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert), the project is time-limited, and new funding is required now that its grant is coming to an end. There is concern about how some of the projects can be integrated into national health care systems. TB REACH grants are for short periods, to get a new

27 Nov 2013 : Column 116WH

technique into use in a locality. For permanent solutions it is necessary to integrate an approach into the relevant national health scheme, or to reach a position where it can be funded by the global health fund or donor countries will be willing to continue to support it.

As we have heard, the majority of the TB burden is concentrated in countries that often receive less donor funding. Whether it is the burden of drug-resistant TB in eastern Europe, TB in prisons in Zambia, or the epidemic, on an enormous scale, in India, domestic Governments must step up their own response. The UK has a unique opportunity to use its global leadership position to call on those Governments to increase their investment in the fight against TB, especially given our strong links to southern Africa and India, which account for the greatest part of the missing 3 million—the ones missed by their health systems. TB is a global disease on which the UK can have an impact.

The Minister and DFID have done a fantastic job and have made Britain a world leader in the battle against malaria. The UK Government should also use their position to become a global leader in the fight against TB, which is another of the top infectious disease killers. Global political commitment to that fight has so far been missing.

3.29 pm

Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin; I thank you for giving me the time to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) on securing the debate, which is close to my heart, as I am the co-chair of the all-party group on global tuberculosis. I also congratulate and thank the many agencies and non-governmental organisations that work in this field, which have helped to raise the issue and bring it to the top of the world agenda.

There is an urgent need to address TB worldwide, but we must not forget that it is still a big concern in the UK, where the rate of TB cases is the highest in western Europe, with 9,000 cases last year alone. My constituency has the second highest rate in the country—156.8 cases per 100,000 people, roughly six times higher than the UK average and equivalent to the rate in Tanzania. It is important to remember that TB is very much a public health threat in parts of the UK, and that it affects people’s health every day, often with long-lasting consequences.

One of the key barriers to treating and eliminating TB in this country is stigma. TB is an airborne, infectious disease, which is deemed incurable and is associated with poverty. Many people are reluctant to tell their families, partners and community when they have the disease, which means they are much less likely to be treated. In the UK, stigma is a barrier that prevents people from seeking treatment when they start to feel ill. It also makes it difficult for health workers to identify other people who might have been exposed, because patients are often reluctant to admit to the possibility of their having infected others.

We cannot afford to ignore TB. It needs to be prioritised and talked about so that people do not feel marginalised and ashamed. We need to ensure that they are aware that TB can be treated and that they seek treatment when they fall ill.

27 Nov 2013 : Column 117WH

We have a great health centre in Southall that offers TB screening, diagnosis and treatment. However, a third of patients in the area had a delay of more than three months between symptom onset and diagnosis. Although the proportion of people completing treatment was similar to the London average, slightly more were lost to follow-up.

We need to support social outreach projects in high-risk areas as a means of engaging directly with the community, rather than wait for people to come to the health services. That will help to raise awareness and stymie stigmatising, and will enable us to diagnose and treat TB earlier in at-risk communities. Case finding needs to be an active process to ensure that cases of TB do not fall between the cracks and remain untreated.

On a local and community level, outreach projects are crucial, but it is essential that we also have a national strategy on TB. The all-party group on global tuberculosis led the way in calling for a national strategy on TB. It is encouraging that Public Health England is currently developing such a strategy, which will be published in 2014. The national strategy will drive best practice throughout the UK’s clinical and social care for TB, but we must ensure that it is closely integrated with other Government policies on TB, including those of the UK Border Agency and the Department for International Development.

An interdepartmental ministerial group on TB performed that task at the turn of the century, but unfortunately it produced only one report before folding. That group should be revived. TB affects a wide range of Departments, and efforts must be made to enhance co-operation and co-ordination across their policies and interventions to provide the most effective response to TB in this country. A formalised, recognised structure with appropriate support is the best way to make that happen.

TB has been neglected for too long. It is a disease that people do not talk about and have forgotten, which increases stigma and reduces the likelihood that those in need will receive treatment and care. The UK does not need to commit finances to make a difference to how the disease is perceived, but it does need to show leadership and commitment domestically and abroad. It can do that by reaffirming that TB is a serious threat and a priority, and by committing to a local community strategy accompanied by a national, co-ordinated interdepartmental approach.

Jim Dobbin (in the Chair): I have enjoyed the debate very much. In a former life, I worked in an infectious diseases hospital, specialising in TB.

3.36 pm

Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dobbin. I was going to mention your experience, which I am well aware of. Perhaps you should have spoken in the debate, rather than being in the Chair.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin)on securing such an important debate. The unity that we have heard in the contributions is telling. We often spend our time disagreeing, but today we have not. That should be a message to everybody who cares about this incredibly important issue.·

EUROPEAN UNION TAX RULES, AND AUSTERITY, IS ALL ITS DONE FOR YOU?

Monday, August 24th, 2015

EUROPEAN UNION TAXES, FUEL DUTY, IVA/VAT, AUSTERITY, QUANTITATIVE EASING, BAILOUTS FOR BANKS, FINANCIALS, CORPORATES, INSURERS AND GOVERNMENTS.

THEN GOVERNMENT CONTROL BY FEAR,

ABUSE BY THE STATE, DECISION MAKER FRAUD, MISSCONDUCT IN PUBLIC OFFICE, MINISTERIAL CRIME, MPs EXPENCES SCANDLE, GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION. PAEDOPHILES IN CABINET, CHILD KILLING ALLEGATIONS, INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF BODILY HARM.

These offences by the above and public officers within Local and National Government Departments without justification has led to viable public mistrust and concern at the level of abuse being carried out by authority.

 

This link is a good example, copy to browser,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1248648/MP-expenses-Shaming-389-greedy-politicians-went-far.html

 

While these officials of Governments have been enjoying the good life on good salaries and lavish expenses. The ordinary and ageing population who paid for Ministers and MPs lavish income and lifestyle. Pay as well for their politicians criminal bad behaviour.

 

These decision makers (the Government) have created out of incompetence, deliberate act or wilful neglect an economy based on borrowing and debt.  Where because manufacturing output is falling, the working population the middle income and low paid have no money to spend. Even though they are still working, this is because the concentration of wealth is held by the few hoarded in offshore accounts  and not re-distributed back to the working population of SME middle income and low paid.

 

This has created an indifference towards Bank Borrowing and Lending or buying the products workers once produced themselves in volume for export.  Moreover it’s shocking to see Government Ministers still imposing draconian tax- Austerity measures on workers, while they still gorge themselves.
But then then most are career politicians. The crooks in suits in the pay of huge banking corporates the so-called experts, the few who cocked up the financial system and ruined the global economy.

 

That you and the next 5 generations will pay for.

Conservatives did not win a Majority.

Sunday, May 10th, 2015

They stole this election from the majority who did not vote Conservative.

Democracy cannot exist in Britain while the present first past the post election system exists, put in place to favour the Conservatives.

The recent shock that conservatives won another term in power is quite staggering considering that a huge percentage of the population, the majority, did not vote for the conservative party.

Proportional voting is fair democratic and representational of the public majority in any vote or debate.

Conservatives did not win this election, it was stolen, and clearly an injustice to the majority of Britain’s population.

This rigged election will unite the ordinary public Mr Cameron. Protest’s will follow, as will a demand for change, to a system that gives everyone a vote. This meaning the party with the most percentage of votes wins. I.E. One Man One Vote.

The present system of constituencies is not a true representation. Some constituencies have less others have a far greater voting % of the population able to vote.

An example is the Scottish National Party it only required 25,000 votes to win a seat. UKIP. Could never challenge any party under the present unfair outdated voting system,

Because UKIP won nearly 5,000,000 votes

This worked out as requiring 3,500,000 votes from members of the public, to win only 1 seat.

That is 25 thousand votes for SNP to win a seat. 25,000.

Or 3 million five hundred thousand votes for UKIP to win a seat 3,500,000.

Corporate Enterprise of UK Government are Private Ltd Companies.

Monday, May 4th, 2015

Are you aware that these state institutions are Corporate limited companies, whom are running Government, NOT for You but for their company.  Also is not deception an offence, even the employees of these companies do not know they are Corporate companies.

Are you  unaware that MP’s and Ministers are being paid TWICE their job as an MP and as an executive of these companies below.

Career Politicians maybe, but the past years crimes by these bast–ds. Simply prove the majority of them are just Crooks in Suits.

Vote now for the smaller parties like Ukip, Green party, DO NOT WASTE YOUR VOTE ON : Labour, Conservative, Liberal,    ” Ukip is in touch with ordinary british people “. Just like other small parties, who also are against Austerity, Immigration, Corruption, and Fraud on a mind boggling scale by the European Union.

Financial-Ombudsman-Service-Directors-Report-2013-14

National-Audit-Office-Annual-Report-2013-2014

House-of-Lords-Business-Plan-2015-16

House-of-Lords-financial-report

Ministry-of-Defence_AR13-14_webversion

Metropolitan Police_statement_of_accounts_2012-13

NHS-Financial-Report-Accounts-13-14

NHS-Financial-Report-Accounts-13-14

HM-Courts-Service-annual-report-2013-14

Bank-of-England-Financial-Report-and-Annual-Accounts2014

Department-for-Work-and-Pensions-Annual-Report-Accounts-2013-2014

GET RID OF THIS CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENT  THEY JUST REPRESENT BIG CORPORATE BUSINESS THE GANGSTERS AND BANKSTERS 1% …

Conservative Back Door NHS Privatisation Not Made Public

Tuesday, April 28th, 2015

The Health and Social Care act was passed 27 March 2012. Crucially and most seriously, it removes the UK government’s obligation to provide universal healthcare in England, something so fundamental it amounts to the abolition of the NHS. As Dr Jacky Davis, co-chair of the NHS Consultants Association says: “After the passage of the unwanted, unneeded and deeply undemocratic NHS bill, we no longer have a national health service.”

 

There was overwhelming opposition to the H&SC Act from the medical profession – for instance, from the British Medical Association and all but one of the 26 royal medical colleges. This was not communicated to the public by the mainstream media, particularly the BBC. Although the NHS affects every man, woman and child in England, most people remain in the dark about what has happened.

The government has played a big role by repeatedly concealing the purpose of the bill – to make possible the gradual dismantling of the NHS and its replacement in a few years by a market system, based on ability to pay rather than need. According to Michael Portillo: the Tories did not believe they could win an election if they told you what they were going to do [to the NHS]”. In 2009, David Cameron even promised there would be “no top-down reorganisation of the NHS”. In fact, it has been described – by Sir David Nicholson, former chief executive of NHS England – as “a reorganisation so big you can see it from outer space”.

The government also used mis-information to justify its reforms. According to Portillo, the Tories had to do something about the “incredible inefficiency” of the NHS. The truth is the NHS is one of the fairest, most efficient and cost-effective healthcare systems in the world. Recently, it was ranked number one in international comparison of healthcare systems. It has about half the per capita costs of the US health system – which is not universal – and has a higher life expectancy and lower infant mortality.

The government even defied a Freedom of Information act ruling to make public the risk assessment of the bill, despite the commissioner’s verdict of “exceptional public interest”. And there was a massive conflict of interest, with 1/4 of the MPs and Lords who voted for the Bill having financial stakes in private health companies that stood to benefit by from the bill’s passage. “Care UK”, a private health company donated significant money to the office of health secretary Andrew Lansley.

In addition to removing the universal right to healthcare, which has existed since 1948, the H&SC Act also opens the door for charges without limit for NHS services. It permits private providers to take over any NHS services. And it allows up to 49% of the business of NHS hospitals to be private. Quite apart from the fact that the intention is almost certainly to eventually increase this percentage to 100% – ie: create a US-style insurance-based system – this will create a health system with two queues: one for the poor and one for the rich. In a cash-strapped system, a rich person with a minor ailment will be treated over a poor person with a more serious ailment. “Care will never again be according to need but ability to pay,” says Dr Clare Gerada, former Chair of the Royal College of GPs.

The Faculty of Public Health’s risk assessment warns of 1) Loss of a comprehensive health service, 2) Increased costs, 3) Reduced quality of care, 4) Widening health inequalities. In a nutshell: the NHS is integrated, comprehensive, cost-effective, accountable. A mix of providers is fragmented, unaccountable, expensive, only profitable services.”  ‘Integrated’ means that data is shared – something which was not the case with the private companies involved with the recent breast implant scare – and that patients receive care from a multi-disciplinary team of doctors, nurses, physios, district nurses, and so on. ‘Comprehensive’ means that all people and all ailments are treated. ‘Accountable’ means that problems are made public and not concealed by commercial contracts.

But the risks highlighted by the Faculty of Public Health are all short term. The NHS is being removed gradually – no government would dare remove it in one go since, at the last election, it had the highest-ever public approval rating. However, the end-game is an insurance-based system like the US where, without health insurance, you will not be able to get treatment for you and your family. The term NHS will be meaningless. “The NHS will be reduced to a logo, a budget and a few qangos,” says public health physician, Dr Alex Scott-Samuel.

Most people remain in the dark about what the H&SC Act does because of failure of the mainstream media. As has often been said on Twitter, if the BBC covered economics like it has health, nobody would know there had been a global financial crisis. On the day the Act was passed the strap-line across the bottom of BBC News broadcasts said “Bill which gives power to GPs is passed”. It would be difficult to find a GP who agreed with that.

At a time of severe financial pressure, huge sums of money – estimated at more than £3 billion – are being diverted from patient care to fund the reorganisation necessary to implement the H&SC Act.

The implementation of the HSC Act is creating huge amounts of duplicated bureaucracy – the principle cause of the high cost of the US healthcare system.

Gradually, the government is starving the NHS of money. This is deliberate. As hospitals run out of money – and the exorbitant repayments on PFI deals are a major factor here – they become prey to takeovers by private companies. This has already happened, with Serco taking over Newmarket Hospital.

Not only does a private company cherry-pick profitable services but it gains infrastructure paid for by the taxpayer. It can also give preferential access to equipment such as kidney machines, blood and organs that were specifically donated by the public to the NHS for use by everyone. And private companies can simply pull out of providing services when they are deemed “unprofitable”, leaving patients in the lurch. This was the case with Hinchingbrooke Hospital in Cambridgeshire when the private health company, Circle, pulled out in early 2015.

NHS services must be put out to tender. The core business of the transnational corporations that are bidding is winning government contracts, as they have the experience, deep pockets and legal expertise to do so. Small enterprises and local GPs cannot compete with them in tendering for services as has already been seen in the Virgin takeover of community services in Surrey and children’s’ services in Devon. When private companies fail, such as the company with the contract for GP services in Camden, London, patients are high and dry.

The starving of the NHS of money to force the pace of its sell off to private companies is forcing the imminent closure of 4 out of 9 A&E departments serving NW London. It is forcing the closure of Lewisham Hospital A&E and maternity unit, despite the fact that they are highly rated as centres of excellence.

Trusts are getting together in cartels to force down nurses’ pay, though nurses have experienced a pay freeze (ie: pay decrease, taking into account inflation) for several years now. Dr Peter Carter, Chair of the Royal College of Nurses is predicting the loss of 56,058 nursing jobs.

Lastly, the fragmentation of the NHS is reducing data sharing. This means it is even becoming more difficult to assess just how healthcare is worsening.

Cameron’s destruction of the NHS is arguably the worst crime committed by a UK government against its people in generations. He is dismantling a much-loved and precious institution while lying that he is not. And he is doing at a time when Barrack Obama in the US is moving his country from a disastrous market-based health system to a universal system of healthcare similar to the NHS. Cameron is doing it with no mandate and he is doing having concealed his health policy prior to the 2010 election. The NHS represent everything the British people hold dear. It is integral our culture and, as Danny Boyle demonstrated at the 2012 Olympics, defines Britain, symbolising fairness and working together for a common good.

by Marcus Chown

Source: www.opendemocracy.net

 

 

Vote For Conservative 1% Elite.

Friday, April 17th, 2015

VOTE FOR THE CONSERVATIVE ELITE 1% (THEY

WILL STARVE THE 99%).

 

Into working part time on zero hour contracts until 75 years old for less than £2 an hour. Filling shopping bags, shelves, or collecting supermarket trolleys. While being forced to beg bread from food banks.

 

Remember the 1% are importing more immigrants to create even more unemployment and low pay,  £1- a day.

 

LIB, LAB, CON, 1% Elite, Choose any for more of the same !  NONE WILL SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESS.

 

Update: Today Cameron has said he will guarrantee no VAT increase !!! Has he forgot, [ He needs EU permission ]

 

Or you could be foolish and just intelligent vote Ukip……

 

To stop third world and eastern block criminal immigrants swamping public services. And get rid of the EU at same time who are going to increase VAT to 30%. And use electric toll payment for all UK roads.

U.K. Government rejects immunity for public officials who blow whistle on child sex abuse

Monday, March 23rd, 2015

 

 

U.K. Government rejects immunity for public officials who blow whistle on child sex abuse

U.K. Government rejects immunity for public officials who blow whistle on child sex abuse

U.K. Government rejects immunity for public officials who blow whistle on child sex abuse

Yes Its repeated. Our Government has blocked the granting of immunity for public officials who blow whistle on child sex abuse.

What this blocking indicates is that officials of our Government at the very highest level are involved in the child sex abuse scandal.

It also shows that our Government and its officials are criminals of the worst kind and are still being protected. When they should all be held culpable including all of the MPs who voted this down.

They work for you, SACK THEM ALL.

USE YOUR VOTE, CHOOSE THE SMALLER PARTIES. THIS WILL SPLIT THEIR VILE PLANS. DIVIDE AND RULE THEM INSTEAD.

 

Members of Government, who voted — YES

To implement Labour MP John Mann’s amendment bill, seeking immunity from prosecution under the Official Secrets Act. For officials that blow the whistle and expose child sex abuse, regardless of where this is.

 

—Conservatives: 8– Thank you.

John Baron-Guto Bebb-Peter Bone-Sir Peter Bottomley-Zac Goldsmith-Philip Hollobone-Jeremy Lefroy-Charlotte Leslie—

—Liberal Democrats: 3– Thank you.

Duncan Hames-John Hemming-Tessa Munt—

—Labour: 207— Thank you all

Diane Abbott-Debbie Abrahams-Bob Ainsworth-Rushanara Ali-Graham Allen-David Anderson-Jonathan Ashworth-Adrian Bailey William Bain-Ed Balls  -Kevin Barron-Sir Hugh Bayley-Margaret Beckett-Hilary Benn-Luciana Berger -Clive Betts-Hazel Blears-Tom Blenkinsop-Paul Blomfield-David Blunkett-Ben Bradshaw-Kevin Brennan-Nicholas Brown-Russell Brown-Chris Bryant-Karen Buck-Andy Burnham-Liam Byrne-Alan Campbell-Ronnie Campbell-Martin Caton-Jenny Chapman-Vernon Coaker-Ann Coffey-Michael Connarty-Rosie Cooper-Yvette Cooper-Jeremy Corbyn-David Crausby-Mary Creagh-Stella Creasy-Jon Cruddas-John Cryer-Alex Cunningham-Jim Cunningham-Sir Tony Cunningham-Nic Dakin-Simon Danczuk-Alistair Darling-Wayne David-Ian Davidson -Geraint Davies-Gloria De Piero-Thomas Docherty-Brian Donohoe-Frank Doran-Jim Dowd-Gemma Doyle -Jack Dromey-Michael Dugher-Angela Eagle-Maria Eagle-Clive Efford-Julie Elliott-Louise Ellman -Chris Evans -Jim Fitzpatrick-Robert Flello-Caroline Flint-Paul Flynn-Yvonne Fovargue-Hywel Francis-Mike Gapes -Barry Gardiner-Pat Glass-Mary Glindon-Helen Goodman-Tom Greatrex Kate Green-Lillian Greenwood-Nia Griffith-Andrew Gwynne-Peter Hain-David Hamilton-Fabian Hamilton-David Hanson-Harriet Harman-Tom Harris-Dai Havard-John Healey-David Heyes-Meg Hillier-Julie Hilling-Margaret Hodge-Sharon Hodgson-Kate Hoey-Jim Hood-Kelvin Hopkins-George Howarth-Tristram Hunt-Huw Irranca-Davies-Glenda Jackson-Sian James-Dan Jarvis-Alan Johnson-Diana Johnson-Graham Jones-Kevan Jones-Susan Elan Jones-Dame Tessa Jowell-Mike Kane-Sir Gerald Kaufman-Liz Kendall-Sadiq Khan-Ian Lavery-Mark Lazarowicz -Chris Leslie -Emma Lewell-Buck-Ivan Lewis-Andrew Love -Ian Lucas-Fiona Mactaggart-Khalid Mahmood-Seema Malhotra -John Mann -Gordon Marsden-Steve McCabe-Michael McCann-Kerry McCarthy-Siobhain McDonagh-Andy McDonald-John McDonnell-Pat McFadden-Alison McGovern-Dame Anne McGuire-Liz McInnes-Ann McKechin-Iain McKenzie-Sir Alan Meale-Ian Mearns-Edward Miliband-Andrew Miller-Austin Mitchell-Madeleine Moon-Jessica Morden-Graeme Morrice-Grahame M. Morris-George Mudie-Meg Munn  -Paul Murphy-Lisa Nandy-Pamela Nash-Fiona O’Donnell-Chi Onwurah-Sandra Osborne-Albert Owen-Teresa Pearce-Toby Perkins-Bridget Phillipson-Stephen Pound-Lucy Powell-Yasmin Qureshi-Steve Reed-Emma Reynolds-John Robertson-Mr Geoffrey Robinson-Steve Rotheram-Mr Frank Roy-Dame Joan Ruddock-Anas Sarwar-Andy Sawford  -Alison Seabeck-Virendra Sharma-Barry Sheerman  -Gavin Shuker  -Dennis Skinner-Andy Slaughter-Andrew Smith-Angela Smith-Nick Smith-Owen Smith-John Spellar-Graham Stringer-Gisela Stuart-Gerry Sutcliffe-Mark Tami-Emily Thornberry-Stephen Timms-Jon Trickett-Karl Turner-Derek Twigg-Stephen Twigg  -Chuka Umunna-Valerie Vaz-Joan Walley-Tom Watson-Dave Watts-Alan Whitehead-Chris Williamson-Phil Wilson-David Winnick-Rosie Winterton-Mike Wood-John Woodcock -Shaun Woodward-David Wright-Iain Wright—

—UK Independence Party: 2–

Douglas Carswell-Mark Reckless— Thank you

—Green Party: 1–

Caroline Lucas— Thank you

—Social Democratic and Labour Party: 2– Mark Durkan-Margaret Ritchie— Thank you

 

—Democratic Unionist Party: 4–

Jeffrey Donaldson-William Mc’Crea-Jim Shannon-Sammy Wilson— Thank you

—Scottish National Party: 4–

Angus Mac’Neil-Angus Robertson-Mike Weir-Edith Whiteford— Thank you

 

THE NO VOTE AGAINST THE BILL, below speaks volumes of a Government.

Who care only about protecting oneself, and the PAEDOPHILES amongst them. Should be ashamed for their loss of sanity. No doubt the voting public will take note at the coming General Election.

 

NO Vote Total– 254 Conservatives: This is insanity.

Nigel Adams-Adam Afriyie-Peter Aldous-Sir David Amess-Stuart Andrew-James Arbuthnot-Richard Bacon-Steve Baker-Sir Tony Baldry-Harriett Baldwin-Stephen Barclay-Gregory Barker-Gavin Barwell-Henry Bellingham-Richard Benyon-Sir Paul Beresford-Jake Berry-Andrew Bingham-Bob Blackman-Nicola Blackwood-Crispin Blunt-Nick Boles-Karen Bradley-Graham Brady-Julian Brazier-Andrew Bridgen-Steve Brine-James Brokenshire-Fiona Bruce-Robert Buckland-Aidan Burley-Conor Burns-Simon Burns-David Burrowes-Alistair Burt-Dan Byles-Alun Cairns-Neil Carmichael-Sir William Cash-Rehman Chishti-Christopher Chope-Greg Clark-Geoffrey Clifton-Brown-Therese Coffey-Damian Collins-Oliver Colvile-Geoffrey Cox-Stephen Crabb-Tracey Crouch-David T. C. Davies-Glyn Davies-Nick de Bois-Caroline Dinenage-Nadine Dorries-Jackie Doyle-Price-Richard Drax-Sir Alan Duncan-Iain Duncan Smith-Philip Dunne-Michael Ellis-Jane Ellison-Tobias Ellwood-Charlie Elphicke-George Eustice-Graham Evans-Jonathan Evans-Nigel Evans-David Evennett-Michael Fabricant-Michael Fallon-Mark Field-Liam Fox-Mr Mark Francois-Mike Freer-Richard Fuller-Sir Roger Gale-Sir Edward Garnier-Mark Garnier-Mr David Gauke-Mr Nick Gibb-Cheryl Gillan-John Glen-Robert Goodwill-Richard Graham-Helen Grant-James Gray-Damian Green-Justine Greening-Dominic Grieve-Ben Gummer-Sam Gyimah-Robert Halfon-Stephen Hammond-Matthew Hancock-Greg Hands-Mark Harper-Richard Harrington-Rebecca Harris-Simon Hart-Sir Alan Haselhurst-John Hayes-Sir Oliver Heald-Chris Heaton-Harris-Gordon Henderson-Charles Hendry-Nick Herbert-Damian Hinds-Mark Hoban-George Hollingbery-Sir Gerald Howarth-John Howell-Jeremy Hunt-Nick Hurd-Stewart Jackson-Margot James-Sajid Javid-Bernard Jenkin-Robert Jenrick-Gareth Johnson-Joseph Johnson-Andrew Jones-David Jones-Marcus Jones-Chris Kelly-Simon Kirby-Sir Greg Knight-Kwasi Kwarteng-Mark Lancaster-Pauline Latham-Andrea Leadsom-Jessica Lee-Phillip Lee-Oliver Letwin-Brandon Lewis-Julian Lewis-Ian Liddell-Grainger-David Lidington-Peter Lilley-Jack Lopresti-Tim Loughton-Sir Peter Luff-Karen Lumley-Theresa May-Jason McCartney-Karl McCartney-Anne McIntosh-Patrick McLoughlin-Stephen McPartland-Mark Menzies-Stephen Metcalfe-Maria Miller-Nigel Mills-Anne Milton-Andrew Mitchell-Penny Mordaunt-Nicky Morgan-Anne Marie Morris-David Morris-James Morris-Stephen Mosley-David Mowat-David Mundell-Sheryll Murray-Andrew Murrison-Robert Neill-Brooks Newmark-Sarah Newton-Caroline Nokes-Jesse Norman-David Nuttall-Stephen O’Brien-Matthew Offord-Eric Ollerenshaw-Guy Opperman-Sir Richard Ottaway-Sir James Paice-Neil Parish-Priti Patel-Mark Pawsey-Mike Penning-John Penrose-Andrew Percy-Claire Perry-Stephen Phillips-Eric Pickles-Christopher Pincher-Daniel Poulter-Mark Prisk-Mark Pritchard-Dominic Raab-Sir John Randall-John Redwood-Jacob Rees-Mogg-Simon Reevell-Andrew Robathan-Sir Hugh Robertson-Andrew Rosindell-Amber Rudd-David Ruffley-David Rutley-Laura Sandys-Lee Scott-Andrew Selous-Grant Shapps-Alok Sharma-Alec Shelbrooke-Mark Simmonds-Keith Simpson-Chris Skidmore-Chloe Smith-Henry Smith-Julian Smith-Sir Nicholas Soames-Anna Soubry-Caroline Spelman-Andrew Stephenson-Bob Stewart-Iain Stewart-Rory Stewart-Gary Streeter-Mel Stride-Graham Stuart-Julian Sturdy-Desmond Swayne-Hugo Swire-Robert Syms-Edward Timpson-Justin Tomlinson-David Tredinnick-Andrew Turner-Andrew Tyrie-Paul Uppal-Edward Vaizey-Shailesh Vara-Martin Vickers-Theresa Villiers-Charles Walker-Robin Walker-Dame Angela Watkinson-Mike Weatherley-James Wharton-Heather Wheeler-Chris White-Craig Whittaker-John Whittingdale-Bill Wiggin-David Willetts-Gavin Williamson-Rob Wilson-Sarah Wollaston-Jeremy Wright-Tim Yeo-Sir George Young-Nadhim Zahawi—

NO Vote Total– 40 Liberal Democrats: Disgusting

 

Norman Baker-Sir Alan Beith-Gordon Birtwistle-Annette Brooke-Jeremy Browne-Sir Malcolm Bruce-Lorely Burt-Alistair Carmichael-Mike Crockart-Mr Edward Davey-Lynne Featherstone-Don Foster-Andrew George-Stephen Gilbert-Sir Nick Harvey-Martin Horwood-Simon Hughes-Julian Huppert-Charles Kennedy-David Laws-John Leech-Stephen Lloyd-Michael Moore-Greg Mulholland-John Pugh-Alan Reid-Dan Rogerson-Sir Bob Russell-Adrian Sanders-Sir Robert Smith-Sir Andrew Stunell-Ian Swales-Jo Swinson-John Thurso-David Ward-Steve Webb-Mark Williams-Stephen Williams-Jenny Willott-Simon Wright—

 

—Independent: 1– ???????

Mike Hancock—

 

 

Bankers: Freedom From Prosecution Shame,

Monday, February 16th, 2015

Bankers: Freedom From Prosecution Shame,

 

HSBC, RBS, Barclay’s, Lloyd’s etc and hundreds of others worldwide. These: Too Big To Fail, Banksters, Corporations, Insurers etc. Are all criminally involved and intertwined with thousands of other financial institutions.

 

Screwed up Banks, Insurers, Financial Institutions, Corporate Blue Chips, Authority, Police, Courts, Government, Officials, MPs, Ministers, Lawyers, Government Corporate Organisations of Government, and so on.

 

And the crash and the failure in 2008 of many of the worlds largest Banks, Insurers, and Corporate Giants. Have seen Scandal after scandal hit the headlines involving all of the above organizations and its officials.

 

Bailouts, Bail-ins, Libor, Rate Rigging, Bid Rigging, Fraud, Deception, Lies, Abuse, Money Laundering, Gun Running, Drug Trafficking, People Trafficking, Child Prostitution, Child Grooming Gangs, Paedophile Gang allegations in Government. And the list of unbelievable abuses go on and appear endless from most of the above.

 

This to big to fail to big to jail mentality and immunity from prosecution must end. Else we have a two tier society enforced on us by the wealthiest, where the weakest and poorest in society [only] get prosecuted and jailed.

 

It is not enough that these organizations get fined for their crimes, {Banks} should have their [Licenses Removed]. And those officials involved in criminal activity should be prosecuted and jailed with sentences befitting their criminal activity.

 

But it should not end just here.

 

It is enshrined so deep in Corporate Organisations of Government that the crimes corruption and fraud will continue, unless ordinary businessmen and citizens alike: Take back the control and power of money from Government. And these Gangsters and elitists who think nothing of- killing (off ) millions of people to keep their wealth power and control.

 

And from the known Banks that are implicated in helping Launder Money for Terrorists, Islamic Extremist, Hezbollah, Muslim Brotherhood, Drug Barons, Traffickers. The worst criminal organisations imaginable who kill without conscience.

 

But it also doesn’t end there either, it is also clear that huge private organisations like the IMF, The World Bank, the ECB, the BIS, the European Union, and many other organisations are funding war-in factions wars and criminal activities so monstrous its unbelievable. But horribly true. And this is done in the pretext that they are protecting our democratic safety and security. Which is partly true. .

 

Though closer investigation reveals a more sinister tactic of using fear to indoctrinate us into believing we need protection from terrorists. When clearly this is not always the case, {since most actions} by the organisations above} are just to lay claim to the spoils of war, commodities, natural resources, wealth, and power from poorer nations.

 

For those who have experienced the depravity of some of the poorest nations like Africa. Whose wealth includes Diamonds, Gold, Platinum, Uranium, Oil and many of the rarest elements on earth. You will understand. That the exploitation by the wealthiest extends to not only. The poorest nations, but also to the wealthier nations of Europe, in particular by the ECB and [European Union] – {who is hell bent on stealing}. What little, [wealth we have]. Now, Prime Minister David Cameron is involved in offshore funds,

This is the Prime Minister who is spending £9 million  of taxpayers money. Your money, on. His “friends in greed” leaflets, telling us we must remain in the European Union. This corruption by our leaders must stop do not believe the rubbish from Government, they and most within it and the EU are nothing better than Crooksinsuits. Do your own research on the internet then use your own commonsence, its much better to trust yourself. Your vote in the EU referendum is your only chance to change things and get rid of these thieves.

The American public need to think carefully, Clinton is known to lie, if you want more of the same vote for Clinton. The USA needs a leader not a liar, (Trump is your only other candidate maybe) he will Jail Her.

Its a very similar situation to Britain where just about everyone we should be able to trust, are no better than the convicts in jail convicted of robbery.

The only difference is (convicts will tell the truth) sometimes?

 

 

 

 

 

“Anti-Bailout-Anti-Austerity” Gathers Momentum As Spanish Protesters Mass In

Saturday, January 31st, 2015

 Madrid as European Union Austerity

Kills Citizens

Dignity.

Whilst ECB Keeps Stealing Their Savings.

 Update: Now, Countries want exit from EU, the Euro, Corruption, Austerity and Bank Bailouts.

The European Union has created unrelenting misery with its Austerity, Bank Bailouts and Uncontrolled Immigration to lower wages.

Spain, France and Britain now see the ECB as a threat and want out of the European Union, Euro and Immigration. The cause of Islamic Terrorism.

While the European Central Banks, TO BIG TO FAIL BANKS – get – BAILED OUT,  Greece finds out the European Central Bank has restricted funding in a fast dangerous game of poker. This act of stupidity by the ECB has alarmed markets and the population of Europe. Since it has brought about a very serious collapse of confidence.

This Gambling with Greece is about to bring down the entire European Union Experiment in a Dornbusch prophecy.

The EU failed Euro experiment controlled by Member State Central Bankers the ECB has several times since 2008 using its own mandate of authority Bailed Out Insolvent Banks using Depositors and Taxpayers Money.

 

Greece, Spain, France, Italy, and Ireland’s population was lied to, like most other member states. Then its ordinary citizens were forced to pay off the banks debts with Austerity measures that destroyed the economy of those countries, as it always has before in history.

 

Now Greece has elected an anti Austerity Government, and has an Ace card. This first being that other countries populations like Spain, Portugal, France and Italy, are following Greece in its Ant-Austerity stance and protests. Spain for example has seen Madrid have today a huge gathering of anti austerity protesters, with reports off 300,000 people demonstrating against Bank bailouts and Austerity.

 

These protests are gathering pace with looming elections and are strengthening . Because a (whatever it takes) European Unions experimental Banker Mario Draghi. Has destroyed any hope for them or their future generations. When again the debt burden of huge insolvent Banks was passed to ordinary citizens to pay off with his € Trillion + Quantitative easing measure (bailing out banks) giving €60bn each month for two year, to (counter deflation) a now stagnated European economy in deep depression.

 

This last ditch €trillion plus give away to banks by Mario Draghi. And their hopes to inflate away EU Government debts, who have guaranteed or (bought insolvent banks debts)— (using taxpayers money) in the slim hope that Europe’s population will spend any money they have money left. And then pay higher prices forced on them for everything, including food, will fail since repeated bouts of (Austerity has destroyed most of Western Europe’s Economies.

 

Greece unwittingly has amongst other Austerity destroyed Countries created a snowball effect and it will be extremely dangerous for the IMF, Troika, ECB, UN, World Bank, BIS, or any other to threaten EU Governments and its population with measures designed to benefit Banks or make its people capitulate. History will not help politicians this time since most paid for politicians and old school buddies will need a new occupation.

 

In a few month the UK electorate will vote, the obvious result will spell out the reasons for dissent amongst its people.

Government Fraud, Government Child Abuse allegations, Immigration out of control, Pakistan male Muslim child molesters, Grooming Gangs, Muslim Terrorist Fanatics amongst UK population, Third World Immigrants Swamping Public Services, Eastern Block EU Countries Immigrants over-whelming UK towns,cities, and all services.

 

But Immigration — Police not acting on Child abuse — Government and Local Authorities for 20 year plus ignoring 2000 or more Child abuse cases in an alleged Government cover up exposed today on SKY, will see the end of Government — controlled by — Insurance Companies, — Corporate giants — Immigrant criminal gangs, and their prolific use of religion, dress and racism excuses, will not work any longer.

 

The electorate will win this campaign.

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION, MPs EXPENSES.

Tuesday, January 6th, 2015

 

 

GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION.

 

Just remember this, 24,815 islamic terror attacks since 9/11. Ask for a public debate on Muslim Immigration.

Immigration Out Of Control, MPs Expenses, Bank Fraud, Insurer Fraud, Child Sex Abuse, Race Relations One Sided Against British Citizens. Update: Today, the killings in Paris by Islamic Religous Fanatics.

    We have Muslim grooming gangs all over the UK preying on young children, child prostitution, child trafficking, gang rapes, killings, religious hatred, and disappearing woman and children and now more killings because cartoonists made a joke of Islam

Yet Muslim leaders claim Muslims are not terrorists-even though evidence exists that the vast majority of terrorists are Muslim and huge numbers are Paedophiles.

    Muslims are slaughtering Christians and other beliefs and minorities all over the world daily.

Islam fanatics ISIS- tells all Muslims to wage war on the infidel – Kaffirs “in their own countries”!

    And are carrying this out by mowing them down, using cars, vans and trucks all over Europe. There has be recent examples in France where innocent victims were mowed down  by Muslims born in Western Europe…………..

Muslims have stealth- fully enlisted our own Governments to oppress the indigenous peoples free speech ramming Racism, Islam and Halal down our throats. Then Islamic leaders play the minority innocent victims, when a Muslim beheads a Kaffir or gang rapes a young woman. Muslims have become a danger to free speech and democracy and are not a minority any longer.

    Facts are they are breeding 10 ten times faster than the white indigenous population.

Muslims chant or use quotes from the Quran, or scream Halla Ak-bar before slaughtering some innocent journalist. It is not uncommon and is clearly an act of religious belief-quoting scriptures as they carry out their barbaric act.

    Our own Prime Minister David Cameron now allows every Muslim whim – Sharia law, Mosques, Halal Meat- Food, Sharia Courts. Yet Halal is a sacrifice to their God. And now its reported that our PM David Cameron wants to see a future Muslim Prime Minister in Britain. “Perhaps he would like to see another 6000 Mosques in Britain. WHILE MUSLIMS STONE WOMEN FOR INFIDELITY.

Sources state that Britain’s Muslim population rose from about 82,000 in 1961 to 553,000 in 1981 to 2 million in 2000—a demographic change roughly representative of Western Europe as a whole during that period. According to the London Times, the number of Muslims in the U.K. climbed by half a million between 2004 and 2008 alone—a rate of growth ten times that of the rest of that country’s population.

    Update these figures with those reported in the recent Government Accounts which only account for recorded lawful immigration. Then add ten + million and you have an idea of the scale which is mind boggling and extremely shocking and must be stopped NOW!

Then there is the financial impact of uncontrolled immigration, this is the unspoken taboo within Governments BBC media and the so called British free press who are shackled by “Racial Threats”- from Muslims its leaders and Government.

    Muslims are the largest immigrant group, swamping all services and have become such a burden that Government have dramaticly increased cutbacks in other public services. To keep pace with benefit payments – shutting down NHS Direct cutting staff numbers at hospitals, local services, clinics, libraries, recreational facilities, the police and the armed forces etc.

    Then on the day when 12 innocent people in Paris France were slaughtered by Muslim fanatics for drawing cartoons supporting our right to free speech and expression.

The BBC website was removing any comments by the public mentioning Muslim Killers France, Muslim Slaughterers, Paris killers etc.

    These actions explain more about the Governments indoctrinating BBC media reports than their controlled news coverage ever did.

Religion and Racism are the excuse used by Muslims. Who then use the Human Rights act to extort money or revenge on innocent remarks made by anyone.YET NO MUSLIM OR ISLAMIC COUNTRY IS A SIGNATURE TO THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT.

    “One thing is for sure – if we don’t have a public open debate now! about Muslims and Immigration – free from State interference.

The role of Government and the shape of the State will have changed beyond our recognition, please look at www.islamicfinder.org

And this should shock the living daylight out of everyone. Todate: Islamic terrorists have carried out more than 24,815 Deadly terror attacks since 9/11.

 

Diana Killed, Iraq Oil War, Blair’s Lies, Brown’s Gold Sale, Royal Family Allegations Denial,

 

NHS Killing Elderly, Hospitals Unsafe, Appalling Neglect Filmed, Institutional Sex Abuse, Sex abuse by doctors and consultants,

 

Pakistani Child Sex Abuse Rings, Church Paedophiles, Doctors Nil By Mouth Deaths, Gang Rapes Of Non Muslim Girls, Forced Prostitution,

 

Care Home’s Abuse, Muslim Decapitations, Suicide Bombers, Bombs On Buses Planes And Trains, British Born Muslims Killing Young Soldier.

 

Bank Bailouts, Insurer Bailouts, Corporate Bailouts, EU Control Freaks, VAT Increases, Camera Operated Toll Roads (Brisa) America- Enforced By EU, Immigration Out Of Control EU- Enforced On All Member States– To Lower Wages Using Mass Unemployment

 

Austerity, Massive Price Increases, Devalued Pound, Overvalued Euro, EU Bureaucracy Gone Mad,and Now QE ( quantitative easing ) Giving Taxpayers money to Banks and huge Corporates.

 

Spy Cameras Everywhere, Illegal Use Of Terrorism Laws, Illegal Home Repossetions, English Law Abused To Collect Revenue,

 

Court Bailiffs Illegal Enforcement- Terrifying Pensioners, Illegal Parking Fines, Government Abuse Of Common Law, Local Authorities Abusing Citizens Rights, Illegal Fines And Enforcement Action.

 

Ministers And MPs Convicted Of Serious Crimes, 2008 Crash, An Endless List Of Fraud And Worse.

 

A Conservative Thatcher Government That Removed Controls From Banks And Banking. Leaving The Corrupt Banking And Insurance Gangsters To Manipulate And Steal Britain’s Wealth + The Worlds Wealth.

 

Now Another Conservative Government is Stealing Money From The Poorest Sector Of Society. Forcing Them To Rely On Food Banks. While Governments Gives £trillions To Banks.

 

Government is corruption full stop. The two main parties have had their own way for generations sharing the spoils of the corrupt gravy train between them.

 

Now you have the best opportunity ever to remove the corrupt main parties from power.

 

Give the next generation ‘your children, the opportunity of a fairer society without institutional Government fraud and corruption.

 

We now have the opportunity to change the system, that’s been abused and corrupted by the wealthy LIB, LAB, CON, Government Barons. Lets now bring fairness into the election process for future generations.

 

IF NOT!!

 

Then inflation and currency devaluation and increased VAT will destroy those with incomes of less than £60,000 a year.

 

UK Banks need more capital, Government needs more revenue, EU Banks, the EU and ECB needs more revenue. This will increase Austerity, Tax’s, Vat, Duty, and Inflation to pass the Governments debts to its taxpayers in the form of increasing costs and lower wages.

 

Do our Goverment care,

 

Note for example – UK Government does not give a damn about anyone north of London, until election time.

 

Then all of a sudden they start their electioneering north of Londonin Carlisle.

 

Remember how all three main party leaders turned up in Scotland to protect there backsides when the Scottish Referendum looked like losing them their parasitic seats of Government.

 

THEY DO NOT CARE ABOUT THE ELECTORATE,

 

They only care about their wealth and powerful positions, where corruption wealth and power go hand in hand.

 

UKIP is without doubt the only political party spelling out the truth about the European Union and Immigration. We need to help the small parties like UKIP to take us out of the clutches of the corrupt EU Banking Gangsters.

 

Government created the Islamic takeover of our towns and cities. Now its time to take Government back.

Not all Muslims are terrorists, but many are supportive of Sharia Law. But clearly most terrorists are Muslim. We cannot allow Islamic fanatics to become the threat to our freedoms or liberty.

We are the Indigenous Population, we cannot allow European citizens of Non- European Origen to abuse our hospitality. By threats. — Notice how many countries like Britain France Germany now have a majority birth rate of males with the name MUHAMMAD.

 

And Governments own figures clearly show UKIP is correct, it is out of control. And worse still the UK Government is advertising in Third World Countries for more immigrants to invade Britain’s already swamped services.

 

The European Union on the other hand is quite simply a revenue raising enterprise for Banks, who control print raise and steal customers money for Banks headed by the ECB’s ( European Central Bank).

 

 

Check out the facts . What has the European Union done for you.

 

Its uncompetitive, it destroys businesses with added legislation that Taxes You and adds VAT and DUTY to benefit Banks and Banksters,

 

But have you benefited by joining the EU.

 

Because Britain lost its laws sovereignty power and control of its borders while the EU enforced cheap labour and criminal gangs on an otherwise buoyant British economy that exported most of its products all over the world. (WITHOUT ANY- EU) Help.

 

We stupidly swapped our £ sterling -240 pence worth, for its Euro 100 cents worth. This had the immediate effect of more than doubling the cost of everything.

 

And then the EU enforced VAT on every invoice as well.

 

Just remember they are going to increase Vat again, so choose wisely who you – want to Govern Your Government, and Control everything you need or do.

 

UKIP seems a good choice check them out, ask them.

 

!The final choice is your future! Now have your say! The other three main political party parasites are so corrupt, they no longer realise it.

 

PS the author has no political connection it is my own opinion based on doing business with corrupt Government officials and Ministers.

 

 

British Chancellors Message – “More Of The Same”.

Wednesday, December 3rd, 2014

 

Stay the course for prosperity. What a load of Hype.

 

But Mr Osborne, will try to reason with a disgruntled public that Government borrowing is under control and payable under his Government. And will explain he his going to increase borrowing further.

 

But under his Chancellorship he has given £billions of taxpayers money to Banks at the expense of the British Public and Small Business.

 

It is this simple fact. His continued protection of the Banks using taxpayers money has left Britain with an UN-payable debt for foreseeable generations. His policies also do not appear to give a clear indication how the Huge Interest Payments are going to be paid.

 

So its clear later today he will inform us that we will have no tax cuts, (its not a surprise) And its obvious Government tax revenue is much lower. Again (no surprise) but he will still allow Huge American Corporate Giants to Pay (little) or No Tax.

 

Mr Osborne you have had enough time to deal with the British Economy, instead you have squandered our future protecting insolvent corporate entities who should have been liquidated and their Assets Sold Off. Instead of paying off an Unknown Debt Owed by Banks and Insurers.

 

Your Growth message is based on Borrowed Money. (That is clearly unsustainable). But will you take on the too big to fail (insolvent) Insurers and Banks, (who caused this crisis) No!  Its much easier to take from the weakest sector of society. Those less well off.

 

 

Your reliance on people spending will not work, No-one has spare money. Your ownAusterity policies have destroyed the British publics spending power. And your / our own ability to generate tax revenue.

 

Therefore. (Before you devalue the £pound) borrow more money and (create inflation), so that the public pays off your DEBTWith more inflated tax increases on everything, be warned you cannot inflate away the publics dissent.

Update: The inflation clawback is now out of the bag, Middle England will pay more for their Mortgages (the Conservative voting supporter- now gets slaughtered as well)

 

We will vote UKIP.

 

Because we are not going to tolerate Your cheap labour immigrant import policy– (More of the Same ) from your EU partners. Its too late Mr Osborne, to defuse lies broadcast by the Government and other main Parties.

 

Political (give a ways) (Electioneering) will not work now! Its also to late to impliment the next increase in Vat that was proposed.

Its also to late to stop the commodities crash.

Devaluation has commenced, huge monopolist groups will not survive the price crash. The kingfisher can only eat its fill.The masses left spawn, live longer, grow and attack the predator.

 

UKIP triumph and Cameron’s quick law to stop immigrants,

Sunday, November 16th, 2014

Its amazing laws “can be introduced” to stop immigrants,

“just before a General Election”.

 

  • The Conservative party leader David Cameron after meeting EU officials declared he would stop immigrants claiming benefits.

 

This is good news for the 60 + million Electorate. A generation that has screamed at Government for years, “that immigration was swamping our services” and was, “out of control”. Yet nothing was done. Now with an Election looming, all of a sudden, the Conservatives Party leader pulls out of the hat new laws to curb immigrants abusing our health, social services and benefits system. See Document below which highlights which ethnic groups claim more benefits.

2.  This document constitutes PRIAE’s submission to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee inquiry “to examine the standards of service delivery to people from black and minority ethnic communities within the benefits system and the systems in place within the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure equal treatment and the elimination of discrimination”.[21] The Institute welcomes the Committee’s desire to improve provision of services to BME communities.

  3.  In line with the remit of PRIAE, this submission focuses solely on the position of older people from ethnic minority communities, although it is recognised that some of the hurdles experienced by this constituency apply to ethnic minority individuals of all age groups. The distinctiveness of the experiences of BME elders resides in “the source of supply of care, the level of developments in care and a constant existence on the margins”.[22]

  4.  The needs of the current and impending generations of BME elders are pertinent to the Committee’s inquiry as PRIAE’s research and development work confirms that this group is more heavily reliant on income support and welfare benefits than the majority group. One third of Bangladeshi and Pakistani people aged 40-59 in 2000 received Income Support, compared to 8% of the White group in this age range (see Table 1).This poverty later in working life also translates into lower retirement income, carrying a number of implications for pension provision.

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

5.  PRIAE welcomes this inquiry, as there has been a dearth of developments in this area for too long. The Institute was established in 1998 as an independent UK and European charity amid ongoing concerns that the needs of this group are being overlooked by policymakers in the context of rising elderly population facing disadvantage and fragmentation in services. The issues outlined in this submission are gaining increasing pertinence in light of the “age bulge”[23] that the UK will experience as minorities—once migrants from the post-war years—age en masse (see Table 2). It is vital that services provided by the DWP and other relevant government departments cater for this growing constituency.

 

Table 2 England and Wales—breakdown of population by age and ethnic group

 Age 0-14 15.29 30-44 45-64 65-74 75+
White 18 18 22 25   9   8
All BME groups 23 26 25 18   5   3
Asian
Indian 21 27 25 20   5   2
Pakistani 33 31 20 12   3   1
Bangladeshi 36 32 18 10   3   1
Other 22 26 27 19   4   2
Black
Black Caribbean 19 18 33 19   8   3
Black African 28 26 32 11   2   1
Other 36 25 28   8   2   1
Chinese 17 34 25 19   3   2
Irish   5 13 22 35 15 10
Other mixed 48 25 17   7   2   1
Other 14 29   9 19   5   4

BME (Black Minority Ethnic) . I assume White is the majority- though added figures appear to show white population is in serious decline?

 

  • As well as other Good News, laws to be introduced in 2015 stopping the abuse of Payday Loan Parasites. Its even more amazing how Banks and Financial Services and the “completely corrupt Insurance sector”, a bedrock of support for the Conservative Party. Are suddenly being being fined huge sums of money. This was aired on BBC the Government controlled television channel, as a fine of 1.7 £billion on banks. This is a huge sum but split it amongst the banks etc. and it amounts to small change, £200 to £600 million. And still not a single Banker has been jailed. mmm One law for Joe Public, NO LAW for Bankers.

 

The arrogance of the 3 main Political Parties is astonishing. If any or all think for one minute the Electorate will trust any Political Party with the prize of Government, “again”then forget it. Its not going to happen. This time the public has seen the Banks Bailed Out and Propped Up with Taxpayers Money by Government while it unleashed Austerity on the Population, (Massive Tax Increases) Inflation and Currency devaluation.

 

  • No matter what promises. Are Televised, none will have any effect on the Electorate who now know Politicians from most Political Parties are Liars, and in Politics for their Own Benefit only. But paraphrasing using their speech / hype. Are economical with the truth. That say one thing and do the reverse, and never answer any question with a definitive answer, like yes or no.

 

Take for example our membership of the European Union that Cameron Clegg and Milliband benefit from. It costs British Taxpayers £18 to £20-billion each year. This is money that could build hundreds of new hospitals and new roads as well as employ several million of the unemployed on decent wages. You only need look at the recent £700million budget increase for the NHS broadcast by David Cameron listing how many doctors nurses and hospitals this would pay for, its staggering. But instead £billions is being wasted on a “European Integration Experiment” “controlled by Politicians and Bankers, that has gone wrong”.

 

  • The EU and Immigration is a powder keg. That all party Politicians have ignored. Now its about to – Blow Up In Their Well Fed Faces, now Ukip has scored another win from the Conservatives. How many MP’s will defect before his own party realises he has destroyed what support he had, (the majority) and SME retirees now voting UKIP.

 

When those Ordinary Citizens the Electorate they Forced to Endure Loss of Income, Homes, Jobs, Heating, Food, Transport, Health, Welfare and Benefits. Shell them out like peas, “Out Of Power”. IDS, (Ian Duncan Smith) wanted for the crime of destroying the faithfull voter. Most whom were Middle England and SME, Conservative’s. WHO WILL LOSE HIM HIS SEAT.

 

  • I for one would strip all Politicians of all the Perks and Power they Awarded Themselves, including the Huge Pension Entitlements. Cameron, Clegg and Milliband deserve everything the Electorate has in store for them.

 

Itsfraud.com

 

 

UNTRUSTABLE GOVERNMENT AND ITS ETON ELITE,

Friday, November 7th, 2014

Cameron and Osborn prevaricators of truth.

 

  • Deceive the British public into believing they had secured a 50% rebate from the EU £1.7bn payment.

 

The truth is Mr Cameron Prime Minister, Leader of the Conservative Party and Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr Osborn both lied.  Its clear Ministers and MP’s have been caught with their fingers in the expenses pot and lied before. “But not all were jailed”, which is a shame because members of the public think they should.

 

  • Using creative accounting to concoct and hide the truth. That the British Government its Taxpayers will pay in full the £1. 7bn to the EU.

 

This disgraceful lie to gain Political Power of Office is beyond excuse and extremely clear that the Conservative Party will use anything to con the voting public into believing they are the party to trust. “When the truth is” “they are not fit for any public office”. “Except a coalition of liars”.

 

  • This coalition of silver spoon fed grasping greasy Eton brats in power in Government spent their time in office making sure the Banks and Banksters whose crimes destroyed the Worlds Economy, flattening Britain in 2008. Were truly protected from prosecution.

 

Then while their Eton egos flourished with Political Power they plied Austerity on those who had less. While Banksters gorged on the money stolen from taxpayers in the biggest Government heist in history, given to them by this Government Coalition of Eton Fed Parasitic Bred Elite.

 

  • “If ever there was a preferred method of re-balancing the corrupt Political System in Britain”. Then the Conservative Party is the perfect example. Power Corrupts, and now they will pay the price. IN THE GENERAL ELECTION.

 

And a very good reason to vote in UKIP to remove. “The Liars” in power. And get Britain out of the EU.

BEFORE THE EU INCREASES VAT TO 30%, INCOME TAX TO 50% AND DUTY TO 100%  AND LETS IN MORE IMMIGRANTS TO LOWER WAGES.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conservative supporter shocked by the ATTACK ON THE ELDERLY.

Monday, September 29th, 2014

Labour Liberal Conservative Rule Ends. UKIP LEADS THE WAY!

 

This Conservative Government whom I voted for over the years is terrifying and dangerous. They are demonising “Pensioners as a drain on society”. Who – when young, were forced by law, into contributing a large part of their income towards their Government state pension.

Yet this is simply not the truth. Retired pensioners had no choice of a private pension, except those “Non Contributory Pensioners” employed by the State. Because what wages were left  barely paid for food.

 

When young I was fortunate, I got on my bike to find find work, travelled extensively for the best wages. Paying Government taxes that changed like the seasons, taking most of my earnings and crippled any hope of saving for a rainy day. And is why I became self-employed, until ill health forced me into retirement in my late sixties.

 

Teenagers now have very few of the opportunities I had and are being exploited by Monopolies, Huge Multinationals and Government agencies alike that litter the high street.

 

The unemployed are now classed as scroungers and the young are supposedly layabouts who don’t want to work. “This is mostly lies”- the truth is: Incompetence by successive Governments failure to control Insurers and Banks has led to the complete collapse of the economy.

 

We are being robbed in every sense by this Government” to pay for its failure. Now it is stealing money from those most vulnerable: its young, the disabled its unemployed and pensioners to- pay to- keep insolvent Banks and Insurers afloat.

 

The facts are that pensioners like myself were forced by consecutive Governments to pay towards our pension without choice, paying tax at 30% to 75% a Superannuating tax that increased with earnings. This left us, now the elderly with no opportunity to save towards a private pension.  We were forced to pay Holiday Stamps, but never received a paid holiday, National Insurance Stamps etc.  We were lied to, the damn truth is they stole our savings our pensions and our liberty and they fed us a cocktail of untruths and lies.

 

We were told that north-sea oil fields would produced free gas, enough gas for 100s of years and that we would have the cheapest gas in the world making Britain one of the wealthiest nations.

 

Yet we have NHS Hospitals killing and mistreating the elderly and young while spreading MRSA and other vile diseases to patients with lowered immunity. Meagre increases in pensions that wont pay for a postage stamp, yet we have tax increases 50 to 180% above inflation for Gas, Electricity, Fuel, Water, Food, Insurance, Transport and Council tax, it costs more for example to travel by train than a pensioner receives, all which every year are burdening those least able to afford it. And it is deliberate and a threat to control the majority by fear.

 

For anyone who saw the Clegg, Farage interview televised it would not come as a surprise that afterwards all Government News channels and much of the £-billionaire Media appear to demonise Ukip as a bunch of racist buffoons. Government would love us to believe this, but it’s not true, it is just “market spin, by Government. The same Government who bailed out with taxpayer’s money- Insolvent Banks, Financiers, Insurers, and the City! With money they stole from us using Austerity (tax increases).

 

Fuel price increases, food, toll roads, and proposals to price per mile, parking fines, speed cameras, the list is endless. This Government has brought out thousands of new offences Laws designed to criminalize the ordinary law abiding citizen, “ to steal their money”. We are being used as cash cows for central Government to squander on parasites that lost our money, (the so called experts).

 

We the young and the old, paid for the benefits system, yet “this Government”, are squandering it on illegal immigrants and minority groups who have paid nothing. Just so Government can increase unemployment, and lower wages. It is waging a war using threats against its citizens.

 

The elderly in particular are being exploited, they fought the wars paid their taxes lost their lives yet this Government treats them, “like vermin” paying peanuts as a pension, while MPs paid themselves more in a day than pensioners get in a year.

 

This Government has allowed England to become the dumping ground for immigrants. The imported Government controlled criminals and terrorists who seek a better life on benefits paid for by the British Taxpayer.

 

While British citizens to ill or old to work “get means tested”- “deliberately” and defrauded of a meagre income they are entitle to, using reams of complicated questionnaires, impossible to answer. That no Government Minister has any knowledge of whatsoever

 

This Government doe’s not look after the people who have paid for their benefits; it is immigrants “here in Britain” now obtaining preferential treatment at “our expense” this must be stopped. Members of Parliament of all political persuasions must act now or face the consequences.

 

Are you aware that Government agencies are importing immigrants to fill unemployment places that do not exist or that Eastern block immigrants in Britain are claiming child support for children in Romania, Lithuania, Latvia, Poland etc costing the taxpayer £millions.  These same immigrants are also being paid by Government and its agencies to take low paid work.

 

Are you aware that Local Authorities and Central Government spend £ billions every year on anything expensive, just before the end of the financial year. To get rid of surplus cash.

 

Government allocates funding based on what each Authority or department spends in the current financial year. If they under spend by £10 million for example then this is deducted from the next years funding allocation. The simple truth” is there is no incentive to be prudent it’s only money, “taxpayers money!!

 

For example an enormous £200,000 +, satellite controlled combined harvester was borrowed from a manufacturer and observed on a Government farm in Cambridgeshire. The manager was told to hoodwink the Auditor General into believing this machine had been purchased in current financial year,  “it actually belonged to someone else. And can be verified.

 

All Government / authority/ department spending increases significantly “just before the end of the financial year and is normal practice. We all have seen examples of this “like road humps appearing, new footpaths, street lighting renewed, massive cleaning operations, and out of the ordinary roadwork’s. Typical is projects like new computers, air-conditioning or large building contracts “all ordered around November- December for completion” before end of financial year.

 

This is Britain today your hard earned money being taxed by Government, then being squandered”  £billions as though it was confetti. And this is only part of the truth. There are thousands of contractors and civil servants who see this every day, “its time to tell the truth!!  It is you and your families that are being cheated and raided by this System of Government.

 

Living or working near a farm you notice the huge sprayers and the herbicide, pesticide, weed killer smell, drifting into your homes causing untold misery and mysterious illnesses that debilitate and kill. If you are a spray operator, tell the truth, explain why you think you have cancer. Also let the public know how dangerous Paraquat is –sprayed to kill weeds thousands of tons sprayed yearly – killing everything including the wildlife. Explain why Farmers spray Sulphuric Acid on potatoes, sunflower seed crops and spray thousands of other unbelievably dangerous chemicals on food production crops.

 

It appears Government allows farmers to spray any cocktail of numerous mixed chemical poisons, with unknown effects anywhere with no law to stop them.  What’s more alarming, is Government and Farmers let “you” eat their spray-contaminated produce, without informing you of the danger.

 

Farmers in general don’t eat any produce they grow for market. They eat only organic produce from their own garden, aware of the risk- and a Pesticide link to Parkinson’s disease- and the poisoning of the environment and our food.  The Government simply looks after its own farming Ministers interests– not appearing to give a damn.

 

As a Businessman of many years a Government Contractor a Manufacturer and past Conservative supporter shocked by the ATTACK ON THE ELDERLY.

 

My vote is going to UKIP because it is the only party telling the truth about IMMIGRATION and the EUROPEAN UNION.

 

Blair and Brown Destroyed UK Economy.

Friday, September 12th, 2014

Both born in Scotland. Both UK Prime Ministers. Both created Debt. Both led Economy. Brown sold UK Gold.  Blair created Oil War. One was stupid. One acted illegally.

Both destroyed UK Economy.

Brown wants you to vote NO.  For Scotland’s Independence. Can career polititians be trusted.

No.

Vote  based on their past abysmal record and facts.

Update, Well the people of Scotland voted “NO, 

Now lets see if the three career Politicians kee-ep their promise ? Odds are against this.

Now watch these same 3 join forces again to create a third World War to keep their jobs, before UKIP and the electorate remove them all from office.

 

Career Polititians created the “European Union”. Now we have over 85% tax on fuel. And why the EU is so uncompetitive.

IT COSTS MORE TO TRANSPORT, SOME GOODS – THAN IT DOES TO MANUFACTURE .

Now we have the entire bunch of Career Politicians all in Scotland

– trying to dissuade the Scottish electorate to remain part of Britain.  Even the Queen has got in on the act, possibly prompted. But really, do they think that the threats and political hype from big business, drummed up by Ministers of Government will impact sensible citizens. Who have been lied to for a very long time by Londons Elite.

 

EU “says it’s not their fault”.

Tuesday, February 26th, 2013

EU “says it’s not their fault”.

 

But its leaders are now distancing themselves from the austerity they enforced on countries, even Drahi said EU austerity was a mistake, but now it is far to late to retrieve.

 

“The European Union” is a victim of its own greed and mistaken belief its citizens would tolerate austerity and massive fuel increases, the cause of the ongoing crisis.  “The EU is the problem and it has no solution” it is uncompetitive and maintains fraudulently an overvalued currency. The EU forced austerity on countries to create mass unemployment and hyperinflation to invent further taxes to inflate away the EU and ECB debts. That caused poverty, fueling hatred, that’s now stoked the fires of resentment. Soon too become clear after Italian voters vent their anger next week.

 

Its reasonably safe to assume the threat against the euro is imminent and 2013 will be the year its fate and the EU is decided by the public in mass demonstrations and votes of no confidence in the EU or its installed corrupt leaders “its citizens did not elect”, particularly so with German elections to follow as well.

 

Drahi said they would do what it takes (well it hasn’t worked) they bailed out banks with €trillions, gave us austerity, forced triple digit fuel prices, created electronic toll roads and peage tolls, which have hyper inflated the cost of “EVERYTHING”.

 

Now the public say “enoughs enough, GO TO HELL “THE EU IS DESTROYING EVERYTHING”.

On unemployment benefits,

Wednesday, August 1st, 2012

A future on unemployment benefits

 

 

Europe’s present teenagers and future generation have a wide-ranging and overriding mistrust of Police, Government, Politicians, Banks, Insurers, the Financial Institutions and the (Establishment in a general term.

 

Economic exclusion and financial deprivation and a future on unemployment benefits are the reality of day-to-day life for millions of youngsters. Their future eradicated by EU Government sanctioned Austerity, Taxes, VAT and the included Inflation, and Laws, EU (Directives, policy’s) designed to create a cheap labour pool.  Using immigrants from the third world to force unemployment and lower wages on EU citizens.

 

These policies have sown the seeds of hatred, and created a sense of injustice. Uniting teenage resentment towards all foreigners and a relentless fury towards the Police, Politicians, Government, Banks and Insurers, who they blame for their poverty.

 

Government must now realise this resentment and hatred is festering away underground and is not understood by those Ministers whose monthly income exceeds unemployment benefits by a factor of 48 or more.

 

Governments should also recognize that teenagers today are more computer literate and reactive to information technology and are years ahead of Authority. Also they can and will easily use it to considerable effect regardless of Government intervention and control.

 

This hatred and resentment will need to be addressed quickly without token promises. Policy undertakings must include economic benefits for the deprived and excluded and the unemployed youths of today.  A simple mistake now by Authority could easily turn rowdy protests into a riot where firearms could be used against the police in orchestrated riots that could defeat Authority.

 

Actions could include military service for the unemployed this could achieve several issues. Concerning the hatred of Authority, whilst at the same time building a sense of achievement and working towards a career.

 

EU PIG TROUGH FOR THE CROOKS IN SUITS

Wednesday, July 18th, 2012


Total central government debt
As percentage of GDP
 Finance and investment: Key tables from OECD –  – ISSN 2075-8294 – © OECD 2011
‌‌ 2003‌ 2004‌ 2005‌ 2006‌ 2007‌ 2008‌ 2009‌ 2010‌
Australia 7.5 6.7 6.3 5.8 5.2 4.9 8.2 11.0
Austria 60.9 62.2 62.1 60.4 57.8 59.3 64.9 65.8
Belgium 95.4 92.8 91.8 87.6 85.3 90.1 94.9 96.8
Canada 35.9 32.1 30.2 27.9 25.2 28.6 35.7 36.1
Chile 13.0 10.7 7.3 5.3 4.1 5.2 6.2 9.2
Czech Republic 19.1 21.1 23.2 24.9 25.2 27.1 32.5 36.6
Denmark 49.6 47.0 39.3 32.7 27.8 32.3 37.9 39.6
Estonia 3.1 2.6 2.1 1.8 1.3 1.8 3.6 3.2
Finland 43.5 41.9 38.2 35.6 31.2 29.5 37.5 41.7
France 51.9 52.6 53.3 52.1 52.1 53.4 61.2 67.4
Germany 38.5 39.9 40.8 41.2 39.6 39.6 44.2 44.4
Greece 105.8 108.6 110.6 107.7 105.7 110.6 127.0 147.8
Hungary 56.2 55.7 58.1 62.0 61.6 67.7 72.8 73.9
Iceland 33.3 28.2 19.4 24.8 23.2 44.2 87.5 81.3
Ireland 26.9 25.3 23.5 20.3 19.8 28.0 47.1 60.7
Israel 97.8 96.6 92.1 82.7 75.9 75.3 77.7 74.7
Italy 96.7 96.3 97.7 97.5 95.6 98.1 106.8 109.0
Japan 140.9 156.8 164.5 161.8 164.5 180.8 183.5 ..
Korea 20.7 23.7 27.6 30.1 29.7 29.0 32.6 31.9
Luxembourg 1.7 1.4 0.8 1.5 1.4 8.2 8.5 12.6
Mexico 22.1 20.7 20.3 20.6 20.9 24.4 28.1 27.5
Netherlands 43.0 43.8 43.0 39.2 37.6 50.1 49.7 51.8
New Zealand 26.4 23.7 22.1 21.6 20.3 20.7 27.5 30.5
Norway 21.3 18.4 17.2 12.5 11.7 13.9 26.4 26.1
Poland 44.9 43.6 44.8 45.1 42.6 44.7 47.0 49.7
Portugal 58.3 61.0 66.2 67.7 66.6 68.9 78.7 88.0
Slovak Republic 35.1 38.4 33.1 29.2 28.1 26.3 33.7 39.1
Slovenia 26.9 27.1 26.9 25.8 23.2 21.2 33.6 36.0
Spain 40.7 39.3 36.4 33.0 30.0 33.7 46.0 51.7
Sweden 47.7 46.6 46.2 42.2 36.4 35.6 38.1 33.8
Switzerland 28.3 28.1 28.1 25.2 23.2 22.4 20.7 20.2
Turkey 62.2 56.6 51.1 45.5 39.6 40.0 46.4 42.9
United Kingdom 38.7 40.0 43.5 43.2 42.7 61.1 75.3 85.5
United States 34.9 36.0 36.1 36.0 35.7 40.2 53.6 61.3
Last updated: 23 December 2011
Source: Central Government Debt, OECD National Accounts Statistics (database)

doi: 10.1787/cgd-table-2011-1-en

ITS QUITE SHOCKING TO LEARN NOW THE UK HAS OVER 85% OF ITS TOTAL INCOME PER YEAR AS DEBT. I wonder what the real figures are today. Will bring up to date August 2014.

EU PIG TROUGH,

The European Union is a trough for Germany to overindulge on member states democracy. All state laws are overridden and dictated by EU and German command who control everything, for your good ?

Since the Euro was introduced Vat and Fuel Duty increases have rocketed prices. Forced austerity collapsed exports, domestic consumption dried up and manufacturing is 40% down increasing job losses to record levels.

The EU is a tyrannical scheme to manipulate control over the Euro zone currencies the Euro and people. If this is not the truth, then why has Fuel Duty and Vat not been reduced by at least 50%. To kick-start the EU member Countries destroyed by fuel cost.

Simple clear facts are that “everything used made or manufactured came by truck” (there is no exceptions. If you have it –it came on a truck and “high fuel cost”, “increases the cost of everything”, ( again no exceptions.

The €130 Bn bailout for Greece to service its existing debt is an example, it will be paid in instalments to hold up the 2012 default to 2014. In the meantime fuel cost and austerity is keeping the country and its people in debt and under control. Inevitably another bailout much sooner than Germany and the ECB would like is a foregone conclusion with fuel at the price it is.

UPDATE: It appears the comment below posted July 18th 2012 was quite accurate.

Germany and France will be the first to suffer, by 2014 EU and US debt levels will be impossible with an overvalued Euro and fuel cost inflation out of control. Nor will the EU or US have the time to print enough toilet paper money € or $ to counter hyper inflation.

EU leaders are terrified of the public. Also the ten Euro zone countries not using the Euro will be left feeling threatened.

The European Unions corrupt criminal authority, elite minority- rule, will self destruct before they get their hands on more of the Global economy. An ambition of a past German genocidal Nazi. 

The British public will not tolerate high fuel cost any longer and a recent Budget for the self indulgent fraud to continue may be the last straw. Most will join in unity to follow those like police who are unhappy with Government as they are with Insurers, Banks, Institutions, Corporates, Ministers and Members of Parliament the crooks in suits.         UPDATE: Look at the polls regarding UKIP now.

If you believe honesty, truth, democracy and fairness are values to live up to. Then you need to look at Draconian laws introduced by the European Union –for your well-being ? And immunity from prosecution for Judges, Barristers etc. Also privilege for Banks bankers and others who are now beyond the reach of the law.

Expect another war, again like the Gulf War created to control (you, the supply of Oil and the supply of money. And what you earn. UPDATE: Reasonably correct I thought.

For example when the Euro was introduced it was irrevocable fixed. It could only go up when other currencies went down. Had the Euro been based on an exchange rate mechanism like other major currencies it would now be valueless. If we used sterling base value today, and the Euro base value – against Sterling the Euro would be valueless, in fact minus 3.4 cent.

Since the Euro is irrevocably fixed at the same value it has not depreciated like all other currencies. Multiply 3.4 by Euros printed add a few zeros its now a guess and a figure similar to bank debts though not admitted. 

Is the Euro worth the toilet roll its printed on?  UPDATE: Answer NO!     

UPDATE: Don’t forget the term “Bailed in” or “Bail in”

What it means is that your money in a bank, “Is confiscated” and used by the bank, to finance itself? Which is an insolvent Bank. Just like Cyprus and its banks did, and now they are about to sell off the “bailed in banks”.      RESULT NOW : YOUR MONEY IN THE BANK HAS GONE?       DO You Trust Banks   “you would be very foolish if you did”.

We bailed out the banks. Gordan Finch© 

 

 COPY LETTER SENT IN

Can you imagine working for a company that only has a little more than 635 employees, but, has the following employee statistics.. 

29 – Have been accused of spouse abuse.

7 – Have been arrested for fraud.

9 – Have been accused of writing bad cheques.

17 – Have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses.

3 – Have done time in jail for assault.

71 – Cannot get a credit card due to bad credit.

14 – Have been arrested on drug-related charges.

8 – Have been arrested for shoplifting.

21 – Are currently defendants in lawsuits.

84 – Have been arrested for drink driving in the last year.

 

And collectively, this year alone, they have cost the British tax payer

£92,993,748 in expenses!!!

 Which organisation is this?

 It’s the British Governments 635 members of the House of Commons.

UPDATE: ITS MORE THAN POSSIBLE THERE ARE A LOT MORE SERIOUS CASES TO BE DEALT WITH IN 2014.

 

 

 

Lorry drivers fuel business

Thursday, June 21st, 2012

Lorry and driver make business.       Government destroy it with fuel duty and vat.

Politics alone cant shift Britain out of the mire, but lorry driver’s can. The public and politicians understand that all forms of transport are vital be it a car van truck train boat or plane. Yet politicians and members of the public, have no idea that without the lorry driver Britain stops dead.

 

Yet politicians Government and the public treat lorry drivers as unskilled replaceable labour and as such are paid peanuts.

 

Now for all those politicians the public and Government throwing scorn at lorry drivers who rarely complain about the poor pay and unsocial hours. Remember this, lorry drivers can take any other unskilled lousy job for the same or better money. And though you may be the owner of Rothchalds or have built a successful business. You would have no business without the lorry driver full stop.

 

Fact: there is no disputing the truth that without lorry drivers, Britain stops, and nothing moves.

 

Reason: there is no fuel, or any raw materials to drill the well to get oil out of the ground.

 

Why because the British Government has added VAT and Fuel Duty amounting to a tax burden of over 85% on every very expensive litre.

 

This is a tax on doing business in Britain and on every person who has to travel to work, even those on foot.

 

So why is the Government so dim-witted, and why is the lorry driver treat like sh-t  excuse me please. And why are we all so stupid for allowing this to happen. And ourselves to be taxed so heavily. 

 

The politicians tax us then steal money (ours) then get gold plated pensions that pay more in a minute than pensioners get in a week. And we stupidly let them set their (own) wage, pension, expenses, and perks.

 

What is wrong with you all don’t you believe what is going on, or are you just waiting to see what happens?

 

 If you are in the latter category Greece is the fate awaiting you, a debt for generations becoming unpayable. Look at the Banks Spain Italy etc. Your childrens future is in your hands, do something now or your children may starve.

 

Because taxpayers money is being given to insolvent (bankrupt) Banks by the Government. This is fraud and your silence is allowing the corrupt bankers who stole your money. Then lost it on bad bets to do the same.

 

These same banks and bankers are obsolete and not trusted and businesses like Paypal have taken their place. Change your bank use the smaller building society’s that are owned by depositers, or try Virgin. Put the power back in your hands don’t give the crooks in suits your money.

 

And now Fuel is being taxed so heavily that millions can’t afford to go to work and lorry drivers are in this category.

 

Add the thousands of tradesmen and small businesses and corporate giants that need cars vans and the lorry driver.

 

And all are now suffering a VAT and Duty- tax spiral of death. Only the Politicians and the Public can put a stop to this insanity now. Before Germany owns Britain as well as Greece.

 Add your voice, post your comment freely say what you think about the 80% + tax on fuel that is destroying everyone’s lives. The authorities only take notice when forced too by public protest.

I am just one individual, it takes: one million people to change the law. Please protest send your comment and say truthfully what you think.

Regards Gordan Finch

itsfraud.com

 

 

 

Deadbeat Department Gasbags

Friday, May 18th, 2012

Cameron’s Austerity fed Britain gives food to the wolves with his gullibility. Each time Britain appears to be climbing out of the mess create by corporate insurance fraud and gluttonous banks. The Government discourage any positive News statements and replace them with miserable hype from BOE brain Mervyn King.

 

 It is a fact that not once recently has the Government or the Bank Of England made any positive statement about Britain or its economy. It is also a fact that Britain is using austerity led inflation to inflate away its debts. This has meant misery for the poorest in society, who can no longer afford food or heating because of the massive increases brought about by austerity, inflation and exchange rate depreciation.

 

Fuel cost is also being deliberately used to dampen and depress the economy and Cameron knows this or his University education was wasted. It is the reason Britain is in a depression, (and the guilty party is Government? Who know that it costs more now to transport some goods than it does to manufacture them?

 

While his wealthy friends can claim back, pay little or no tax, the poor and small business is being taxed to oblivion. And he appears to not understand he is destroying Britain.

 

The trucking industry is a reliable indicator of a countries wealth, yet his deadbeat department gasbags seem to have no clue to what is happening. While US truck sales are up over 65% EU truck sales are down over 20% and Fuel Tax is fuelling the decline along with Carbon Tax, Air Passenger Duty and so on.

 

The austerity crap Cameron keeps harping on about will not wash with sensible citizens, we know the crap is being fed to him by his wealthy friends. Any reasonable person would question the destruction of an economy, to save the European Union and the Euro.

 

What we have in Europe is a one party state of Germany ordering draconian fiscal discipline for weaker countries like Greece. This has set in motion a downward spiral of debt riot and continued decline. If the British prime minister thinks he can convince the public to put up with this sort of crap. He has another problem (his job.

 

There are £billions being squandered in Britain, the Prime Ministers job is to release this money and get the economy running at full throttle. Cameron may not have been the architect of the crisis, but the public will have no sympathy for a Lamb led by the crooks in pin striped shepherd suits

 

Picking on the weakest doesn’t mean the public are as gullible as the leader in name only thinks.

 

Gordan Finch.

 

 

PLANNING CHANGES TODAY

Tuesday, March 27th, 2012

27th March 2012, PLANNING LAWS CHANGING TODAY,

 

Looking back there was no planning laws until 1968. What planning laws did was give a chance to graduates, to learn how to destroyed a vibrant UK economy, with leftist ideology. The school kid-teenagers just went to Uni, –school again, to be indoctrinated with left wing policies of tutors. Those who can do those who can’t teach? Others? To be planning officers.

 

From past experience many planning officers and associated staff in most town halls around the country were misfits.

 

These misfits in society jerks, were the senior planning officers, a typical example was a youth in his early 20s wearing for example trainers, jeans and a micky mouse T shirt, earrings in his nose, and Rastafarian tangled hair.

 

Again from experience these planning officers would wield their powers with unyielding potency knowing they had complete control. They were just power mad individuals who did untold damage to society with their nitpicking rules, mentality and personal belief (fed to them by University lecturers). These, it must fit in this box mentality idiots, who only ever worked in a school or university, and consequently can’t think outside the box, were teaching others.

 

Planning officers destroyed millions of peoples lives, killed off thousands of business start ups in every town and city in the UK. And worse still caused many people to lose their homes with illegal implementation and enforcement of planning laws.

 

There are examples of people driven to suicide and attempting to kill, and shooting planning officers. One planning officer in particular implemented his own death, (an opinion) by ordering the demolition of an old mans home.  This planning officer was shot death because he refused to allow his authority to be challenged by an old soldier. Opinion, no one should ever be placed in a similar position.

 

 This elderly man questioned the authorities planning officer. Apparently the man had lived in his home for many years and altered it without planning permission. He shot dead the planning officer and was jailed, what a waste, those left behind were innocent victims.   

 

Further examples of illegal enforcement and fraud in planning departments were rife once these misfits realised they could make huge sums of money. Examples of misuse of authority, was opinion reply letters from planning officers giving people reason to believe their plans would raise no objections by the planning authority. For example there was hidden (without prejudice) text within the planning officers (reply and went unnoticed by solicitors.

 

Nothing will have changed we can reasonable assume that new changes will only apply to large organisations that can afford the lobbying of top Government officials or a paid for lunch with the PM.  It is highly unlikely that individuals will benefit from changes in planning laws. Even though the hype advertised on Government media television indicates a mass change of bureaucracy.

 

Whilst any change is for the better, the small and medium enterprises and sole trader will still suffer at the hands of power crazed planning officers and officials in town hall who are too full of their own self importance and power. And until the planning system is open to scrutiny, to see everything, then nothing will change.

 

A power used by planning officers– is simply to say someone has complained, and when you ask for details of the complaint, or the name or details of the person or organisation complaining. You are met with a blank wall refusal to say who complained. Take the matter further and you will encounter rules like — it’s against the public interest. Quite simply planning officers place obstructions and years of delays to stop you getting at the truth. And usually there was no complaint; just the planning officers own self-prejudices or dislike of the person applying.

 

After once being faced with an Authorities enforcement officer, who told me I was running a garage repair business illegally. And then being issued illegally with an enforcement notice and forced to spend several years not being allowed to work. And then having to apply for planning permission wasting 18 month and then having permission refused. And then having to appeal, wasting another 8 month, then winning the appeal, to find out that I did not need planning permission, (the Council, Sheffield had acted illegally.

 

Sheffield Council Planning Department even stated a 5ft by 8ft greenhouse needed planning permission. The area enforcement officer if I remember was a Mr Williamson, most commonly known as a Jobs worth.

 

After years of being unable to earn a proper wage due to the enforcement notice and not being able to prosecute Sheffield Council I lost my business and home to repossession. The repossession was fashioned and caused by Sheffield City Council Planning officer’s illegal action. It was established that a business had existed there for over 150 years.

 

I also found out many years later from a Sheffield planning officer working for another council, that they knew the enforcement was illegal. It seemed a student friend of a planning officer lived opposite, he complained to the planning Authority about paint fumes, the rest you can work out for yourself.

 

It turned out repossession was a learning cycle for the good; I now never trust Authority, Government, Insurers, Banks, Corporate PLC, Ministers, MPs, Lawyers, and Accountants etc.

 

I trust? Zurich Municipal are the Councils Insurer, look under Zurich fined $billions and bailed out by US Government.

 

Always ask before signing anything (if you are entering into a contract by signing) never answer to your name or carry out an instruction (without asking the same above) this includes Courts Police Authority etc. If you do, you form and complete a contract.

 

Example: Am I entering into a contract your honour by giving my name (especially in a Court? Example two the judge tells you to take the chewing gum out of your mouth, DO NOT without asking the same above.

 

Silence is your best friend, if you do not like the answer, then just walk out in silence and remember example two, DO NOT TAKE OUT THE GUM.

CORRUPT GOVERNMENT WHAT £250K CAN DO FOR YOU

Monday, March 26th, 2012

A BANKER, A FINANCIER, AND A OIL TRADER HAD LUNCH AT THE HEART OF GOVERNMENT, A FEW MILLION CHANGED HANDS ? JUST DONATIONS WE ARE TOLD. DID THEY OR DO YOU BELIEVE IN FREE LUNCHES, OR JUST KNOW BETTER, OR JUST CROOKS IN SUITS.

THE PRIME MINISTER SAID, ? WE ALL KNOW HOW IT WORKS, MONEY BUYS POWER.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED WE ALL LISTENED TO THE HYPE AND BELIEVED IT. NOW ITS TIME TO HAVE CONTRACTS THAT MUST BE ADHERED TO BY GOVERNMENT, AFTER ALL WE VOTE THEM IN.

The 99% know politicians are just a bunch of gutless crooked gasbags

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

POLITICIANS LIKE CLEGG AND CAMERON CARE MORE ABOUT KEEPING THEIR JOBS, THAN HELPING YOU KEEP YOURS.

 

They do two things well: Nothing and Nothing Else.

 

Both of them disagreeing and spouting on about complacency and the worst excesses by Banks fall on deaf ears. There is no substance to the hype spilled to the media. Laws to break the fraudsters by Statute is wanted now, do not expect to keep your jobs. The 99% think Politicians are like Nappies and need changing (and for the same reason).

 

The Banking Sector should be split into 3 sectors, Investment, Business and Private (public retail). These 3 Bank Sectors should then be obligated to divulge the names of all subsidiaries, holdings and interests, and ultimate holding company (the parent) in all business transactions.

 

The Insurance Sector should also be split into 3 sectors, Investment, Business and Private. These 3 Insurance Sectors should then be obligated to divulge the names of all subsidiaries, holdings and interests, and ultimate holding company (the parent) in all business transactions.

 

Both these myriad company sectors are guilty of systemic fraud. The bonus culture and reckless fraud is the fault of gutless policies by past and present leaders. They cannot hype on about capitalistic policies unless they add substance to their words and stop the Banks and the Insurers in their tracks now by statute.

 

For most politicians like Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron leading Britain to disaster the truth is just an option. Until someone notice’s a gaff in the ‘news’. A politician told the truth.

 

Wake up to these facts. The 99% know politicians are just a bunch of gutless crooked gasbags looking after themselves first, then talk about the worst excesses of the Banks and Insurers. Yet just ponder removing a knighthood from a banking boss who cost Governments in the US and Britain $120,000,000000 in bailouts. Why is he not in jail for his deeds at the helm of RBS?

 

 

What Britain needs now are unemployed Politicians who are on the breadline without a job, just like the millions of youngsters Politicians put on the street? With mass immigration from third world countries. To keep wages low, by unemployment. To force the low paid to take the peanuts left after immigrants took their jobs.

 

THESE CORRUPT GROUPS SPEND OTHER PEOPLES MONEY, INSURERS, BANKS AND POLITICIANS

All THREE NEED SUPERVISION.

PERHAPS THE FRENCH AND GREEK ELECTIONS WILL MAKE THE CAREER GANGSTERS THINK HARD.

SHAREHOLDERS ARE NOW IN REVOLT AT CEO SALARY INCREASES WITH LOSSES FOR SHAREHOLDERS.

The protesting 99% have done so much damage to the 1%

Wednesday, January 18th, 2012

The protesting 99% have done so much damage to the 1% that career politicians Nick Clegg and David Cameron are now spouting on about a new capitalistic society in which employees will have rights to become shareholders. Nick Clegg called it responsible capitalism.

 

What this means is their well paid job travel perks expenses and fringe benefits may be safe, or so they hope.

 

 

Mr Clegg comments mention binding shareholder votes, but also said Micro businesses are probably not feasible for employee shareholders.

 

What this means is the stakeholders (the larger shareholder) will get more power. The small shareholders will get a minority say.

 

What Mr Clegg and Mr Cameron need to deal with is the transport infrastructure and cost to transport goods.

Lack of investment in Britain’s transport infrastructure has put Britain at least 50 years behind. We have paid for Europe’s transport infrastructure its bridges roads and railways. And they are competing and winning against our best efforts.

 

Then we have manufacturing, Britain is dying it now costs more to transport some goods than it does to manufacture them. Fuel duty and VAT is the culprit Britain is dying and now on its last legs. Removing or lowering dramatically these taxes would be like igniting a rocket under the rear end of industry.

 

What consecutive Governments have done over the last 60 plus years is destroy small businesses, while it cosies up to the corporate and financials who paid the corrupt politicians for favours.

 

No one trusts the Government or any part of it, especially the Ombudsman Service. They are just private limited companies without any legal power, or teeth. Paid for by the crooked corporate’s that are defrauding the public Insurers, Banks, Financials and Government Authority.

 

The jobcentre is just a private limited company to keep the low paid in low pay.

 

Government training centres are just jobs for the jobs worth staff, who can’t do the job, (those who can do, those who can’t teach, who give the trainee a worthless NVQ (no vocational qualifications) bit of paper.

 

MP’s lie, steals, commit fraud, and pay themselves whatever they decide, then legislate the lowest paid tax higher and income lower. Whilst pushing pennies to Pensioners. Ministers enjoy more pay in a day than Pensioners get in a year. Minister benefit from the banks Insurers and large corporate giants, then take bribes and commit all manner of crimes while robbing society and claiming extraordinary salaries expenses and travel perks.

 

We have Judges who are immune from prosecution. Barristers who cannot be sued Solicitors who are criminals. And Paid for Prime Ministers in the pockets of the corrupt.

 

The British Government doe’s not give a damn about the young, Britain’s next generation of employer’s scientists and engineers. It cares only about the Financial Centre of London and its corrupt crooks that pay bribes and pass gifts to Ministers of Government. And it wonders why they the young rioted, they have nothing no job no money no prospect and no future, thanks to the bunch of career criminals in Government who gorge themselves on vast salaries and expenses paid for by us all.

 

We have police who police themselves, steal, accept bribes, frame and have killed innocent citizens and are in the pay of criminals, and the corrupt Media.

 

The UK Government allows the elderly to be abused starved and killed in hospitals and care homes ran by the 1%

 

Britain allows private patients to jump the queue for payment, while Government bribes its doctors more in a few days than it pays pensioners for heating and warm clothing in 5 year

 

UK doctors are self regulated by its own Union and its own Association, they can do what they want.

 

Britain creates a brain drain of the brightest with low wages, while allowing foreign graduates with dubious qualifications to replace them.

 

The UK has created racial hatred with its policy of mass immigration from third world countries, to create mass unemployment and lower wages. This is the reason the school leavers have no job.

 

The UK for generations has allowed a make do and mend policy of repairs, it plugs holes it never completes a job. It pays for the cheapest, and then makes do when it fails, while it’s repaired at higher cost.

 

The UK brain dead Central Government pays its local authorities the same money it spent in the previous year plus increases. This is the reason your local authority spends £millions in December January February, because if they don’t spend it Councils lose the under-spend in the next financial year. Now you may be good with money while they are stupid, but are they, there is no incentive for any of Britain’s County Councils or Local Authorities to save money. While the Government gives them what they can spend?

 

The ECB (European Central Bank) admitted that Austerity measures don’t work and now Europe is in deep recession.

 

Meanwhile the UK continues with Austerity measures, cuts targeting the poor and lowest paid. While allowing obscene pay increases for Bankers, Insurers, Corporate CEO’s Directors and the Highest paid. Then to compound inflation the Bank of England deflates the £ to a value two thirds it once was. Then the BOE says it didn’t expect the resultant inflation.

 

Damn idiots or just crooks in suits, with sticky fingers in the honey pot.