Archive for the ‘EUROPEAN UNION’ Category


Sunday, July 23rd, 2017

Since the European Union silenced televised reports showing economic migrants massing at the borders of northern Europe the media has been very quite. But the immigration problem has not gone away its got worse.

The European Union ordered a EU wide dispersal of migrants away from the eyes of residents and the Media in 2016. Now an increasing number of migrants are arriving again by sea into Europe, it’s completely out of control and much higher than previously thought.

These latest arrivals are causing fear – Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, are like most of Europe in the grip of a massive depression and who cannot afford to take in such huge numbers without a grave risk to society.

There are supposedly 9 million migrants living in the UK, it’s a much wealthier but small country with 68 million residents that do stretch its resources to breaking point. And an obviously far greater number of young unskilled illegal residents economic migrants that caused Britain to leave the European Union. (Brexit)

In contrast, we are the greater part of the EU and these new arrival migrants are mostly economic migrants and refugees much older with health problems arriving from undeveloped war ravaged regions of Central Asia and North Africa with an average age of 40 to 70.

Now there are rumours again of immigrants being removed from cities and then forcefully distributed in small rural towns and villages all over the EU away from the prying eyes of social media and regardless of our concerns or the risk to small communities.
This mass immigration forced on us by the European Union cannot be sustained without conflict and the mass exodus of wealth and skills.


Thursday, June 8th, 2017




















Please see article uploaded 2015  below,


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 stealthfully 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
  • 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 on the streets of Britain.

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 London – in 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 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 and our British values and way of life.

  • 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.
  • The current Prime Minister Theresa May is repeating the same mistakes. She wants you to trust her— like hell we should.






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.




Thursday, February 23rd, 2017

The Media have relentlessly attacked President Trump for His stance on Immigration from certain Muslim dominated countries.

Their silence now is because the majority of the American people agree with him and so do the vast majority of Europeans.

Those tycoons spreading lies and paying for concocted stories or leaks need to think very carefully about trying to change things against the will of the people.

There will be huge changes all over Europe and America. Immigration and corruption will be curtailed.

Most of the population of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union because of immigration, terrorism, corruption and Muslims abusing our laws and our hospitality. We once made them all welcome.

Now for good reason people have not forgot 9/11, Paris or London bombings.

It was Muslims who carried out 95% of all suicide bombings. The Islamic teachings of hate against non Muslim (Kaffir’s) “white Europeans is extremely disturbing. The leaders of many Mosques preach of creating an island society within Britain, where Muslims take over and control all wealth. Muslims are advised to trade only with its Muslims brothers and profit from non-Muslims, by never giving business or profit to non-Muslims.

The Muslim hatred of “white Europeans is deeply ingrained in Muslim society and reflects the majority of its population, who’s intent is to take over each country one by one forming a future world of Muslims owning everything.

The above is based on documentary fact. Like the majority I am not for or against any race of people.

The problem is Muslims believe the teachings of fanatics, who want to destroy or kill anyone who opposes their belief. ——- I personally believe you should treat people like they treat you?

Therefore like the majority of Europeans I do not want Muslim immigrants or their teachings of hatred.

The European Union, our Governments and our Politicians, need to listen to its people “now” or face the consequences.


This is not about need it’s about greed by banks.

Thursday, September 29th, 2016

Wells Fargo Fraud,

Then CEO dumps its stock, after illegal sales practices going back to 2007 are exposed and admitted before Congress for the second time.

It was a massive fraud on a scale unprecedented resembling a pyramid scheme where bank employees opened accounts without the knowledge of its customers. It was a scheme known to the CEO where Wells Fargo employees stole its customers money deposits without their knowledge.

This corrupt selling mania by Banks opening 2 million accounts phony accounts is the tip of what is fraud, fraud on a scale that makes 2008 crash a minor violation.

This is alarming fraud by the to big to fail banks, who are to big to control and to big to jail. Bank chairman and CEO Stumpf of Wells Fargo was penalized every year since 2007 and fined every year since for fraudulent acts. Congressmen laid into the CEO over this leaving him stuttering as he admitted bank employees stole from its customers. Then afterwards send in collection agencies to collect fees the bank charged fraudulently for what is effectively identity theft.

Republican Congressman said: your problems are coming when prosecutors get hold of you. This is a course of actions which you were aware of for over five years, 550,000 credit cards were opened in the name of your customers, this racketeering was all done with your knowledge and is time to break up the Banks.

It is clear this level of fraud is perpetrated by some of the largest banks in the world. Where CEO and Chairmen cannot see fraud or be aware of $10.8 Billion in fines. This is not about need it is about greed a cross selling fraud and business as usual for Wells Fargo Bank.

This leaves now only one option open to authority.

Break up the banks, the Italian banks will break up the European Union so will the German banks along with most western EU countries anti austerity groups.


Monday, September 12th, 2016

Interest rates set to rise, European Central Bank capitano Mario Draghi at helm has exhausted its bond buying capability keeping interest rates artificially low. But for how much longer can protectionist ECB instruments exist if there is no navigator steering the ship out of stormy water. His last course has failed and with it no realistic hope of any policy provisions that could help the ECB or EU out of the appalling course he steered. Hopefully and quite soon he will lose his job just like Merkel.

Nothing is working, more importantly no-one can help, while he remains fixated on his tube mentality sight full of his own self importance. Europe is in depression people are unemployed, living standards are appalling, wages are lower now than during the 60s. Even with lower fuel prices, real inflation is running around 16%, food and medicines are shockingly high. Millions are homeless, Millions more are flooding into Europe from third world countries like Africa and Asia. The shocking fact is that each day thousands more arrive and the European Union with its vast reserves and cash is powerless and incompetent to stop it.

Immigration, austerity, inflation, unemployment, homelessness, low wages, and downright mistrust of the ECB, EU, Banks, Government, MP’s and Ministers.

Throughout western Europe the vast majority of residents (huge numbers) do not want the corruption any longer and are intent on following Britain’s lead out of the European Union. People do not want enforced immigration and the terrorist maniacs it brings to their towns and cities. The Government, Media and Police need to realize Robo Cop tactics to stop public demonstrations and stifle unrest is not going to work, it has gone too far already!

EU open door policy has fueled astronomical distrust and hatred, its not true that ordinary citizens are racist. Color, race, and creed are being used by the EU to enforce mass immigration to the EU. This lowers wages and increases the number of taxpayers contributing into the EU filling its own voracious appetite for everyone’s money, bypassing ordinary citizens democratic rights.

The European Union is certainly not helping any country out of the shocking state of affairs they created to save the banks. Its directives laws and recommendations are just revenue collection tools for it to squander.

Not once has the writer experienced or seen a EU law that helps ordinary citizens. More to the point the laws coming out of Europe have removed the right to justice for ordinary people. Now its just another tax to pay if you can afford the massive increase in Court fees.

The ECB, well its just a central bank for central banks. Banks that voted among themselves to take control of the EU and its banks and central banks for the ECB– (you got it a bank)!

Now we have capital controls on our own money. That is if its in a bank, in which case its not your money anyway, but lets not be that concerned, the bank will inflate away your money

Ask you friendly bank manager if he can explain just exactly what BAILIN means ( : > Anwer they just steal your money to stop the banks becoming insolvent and bankcrupt.

This law was passed YOU GOT IT by the European Union,???????????

Helicopter Money = More Bank Bailouts,

Wednesday, August 10th, 2016

Just how much more money is going to the banks financial elite from taxpayers without political and taxpayer unrest.

Bank of England policy is clearly to ruin public finances and small business.

More bank bailouts, cuts, further austerity and devaluation of the pound will have no effect but destroy Britains economy, just as it has in Europe;

Meanwhile banks withold the truth about how more £trillions are needed from taxpayers as well as helicopter money from central banks.

This seems strange because policy makers including the ECB IMF and EU are complicit in this together stealing from pensioners purses, to feed the financial elite parasites, who pay no tax;

This is a deliberate plan to keep interest rate low to loot depositers money from their bank accounts.

Do the BOE think people will stand for this without revolt or a challenge to the legality of Central bank power.

The public are not going to wait for article 50 to start the 2 year exit process from the EU. Its likely politicians will be taken of guard with this, as well as the pending child abuse!!!    Not forgotten.

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.






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.




Wednesday, June 22nd, 2016

Do you trust the EU to look after the common people of any EU Country.


Type into your browser.

The EU and British Government-has allowed this Muslim polygamy website above.

Polygamy is illegal in the UK, but apparently not for Sunni Muslims. Will the UK Government allow stoning of unfaithful wives next or child marriage or public executions.  Its quite clear that – Muslim illegal activity gets Government approval. And will obviously pay (Taxpayer) benefits to multiple wives of Muslim men?

Then check this site below Yikes, it’s your EU’. If you have several years to figure it out. Then read some of the many reams of legislation being passed each day, to help you out of cause ?

A very nice lady on television last night spelt it out very clearly. When she said “it takes ten year” for the EU to organise anything. And it was incapable of ordering even a takeaway curry”.


EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Types of documents in EUR-Lex

Help Export PDF Print this page

You can use this table to build CELEX numbers. The Celex number is the unique identifier of each document in EUR-Lex, regardless of language. Read more about Celex numbers on our Help pages.

All documents (except from sectors 0 and 7) may have one or more corrigenda. A corrigendum has the same Celex number as the original act, with a suffix “R(xx)”, where “xx” is the sequential number of the corrigendum.

Sector 1: Treaties

Sector Descriptor Type of document
1 K Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC Treaty) (1951)
A Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (EURATOM Treaty) (1957); EURATOM Treaty consolidated versions (2010, 2012)
E Treaty establishing the European Economic Community (EEC Treaty) (1957); EC Treaty Maastricht consolidated version 1992; EC Treaty Amsterdam consolidated version 1997; EC Treaty Nice consolidated version 2002; EC Treaty Athens consolidated version 2006; Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union consolidated versions (2008, 2010, 2012)
F Merger Treaty 1965; Treaty amending budgetary provisions 1970
B Accession Treaty 1972 (UK, Denmark, Ireland, Norway)
R Treaty amending certain financial provisions 1975; Treaty amending certain provisions of the protocol on the statute of the European Investment Bank 1975
H Accession Treaty 1979 (Greece)
I Accession Treaty 1985 (Spain, Portugal)
G Greenland Treaty 1985
U Single European Act 1986
M Treaty on the European Union, Maastricht (1992); EU Treaty Amsterdam consolidated version 1997; EU Treaty Nice consolidated version 2002; EU Treaty Athens consolidated version 2006; EU Treaty Lisbon consolidated versions (2008, 2010, 2012)
N Accession Treaty 1994 (Austria, Sweden, Finland, Norway)
D Treaty of Amsterdam 1997
C Treaty of Nice 2001
T Accession Treaty 2003 (Czech Republic, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia)
V Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (2004)
S Accession Treaty 2005 (Bulgaria, Romania)
L Treaty of Lisbon 2007
P Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (2007, 2010, 2012)
J Accession Treaty 2012 (Croatia)

Sector 2: International agreements

Sector Descriptor Type of document
2 A Agreements with non-member States or international organisations
D Acts of bodies created by international agreements
P Acts of parliamentary bodies created by international agreements
X Other acts

Sector 3: Legislation

Sector Descriptor Type of document
3 E CFSP: common positions; joint actions; common strategies (pre-Lisbon title V of EU Treaty)
F Police and judicial co-operation in criminal matters (pre-Lisbon title VI of EU Treaty)
R Regulations
L Directives
D Decisions (with or without addressee)
S ECSC Decisions of general interest
M Non-opposition to a notified concentration
J Non-opposition to a notified joint venture
B Budget
K ECSC recommendations
O ECB guidelines
H Recommendations
A Opinions
G Resolutions
C Declarations
Q Institutional arrangements: Rules of procedure; Internal agreements
X Other documents published in OJ L (or pre-1967)
Y Other documents published in OJ C

Sector 4: Complementary legislation

Sector Descriptor Type of document
4 A Agreements between Member States
D Decisions of the representatives of the governments of the Member States
X Other acts published in OJ L
Y Other acts published in OJ C

Sector 5: Preparatory acts

Sector Author Descriptor Type of document
5 Council and MS AG Council common positions
KG Council assents (ECSC Treaty)
IG Member States – initiatives
XG Other documents of the Council or the Member States
European Commission PC COM – legislative proposals, and documents related
DC Other COM documents (green papers, white papers, communications, reports, etc.)
JC JOIN documents
SC SEC and SWD documents
EC Proposals of codified versions of regulations
FC Proposals of codified versions of directives
GC Proposals of codified versions of decisions
XC Other documents of the Commission
European Parliament AP Legislative resolutions of the EP
BP Budget (EP)
IP Other resolutions of the EP
DP Internal decisions of the EP
XP Other documents of the EP
European Court of Auditors AA ECA Opinions
TA ECA Reports
SA ECA Special reports
XA Other documents of the ECA
European Central Bank AB ECB Opinions
HB ECB Recommendations
XB Other documents of the ECB
European Economic and Social Committee AE EESC Opinions on consultation
IE Other opinions of the EESC
AC EESC Opinions
XE Other documents of the EESC
Committee of the Regions AR CoR Opinions on consultation
IR Other opinions of the CoR
XR Other documents of the COR
ECSC Commitee AK ECSC Consultative Committee Opinions
XK Other documents of the ECSC Committee
Other organs XX Other documents

Sector 6: Jurisprudence

Sector Author Descriptor Type of document
6 Court of Justice CJ Judgment
CO Order
CC Opinion of the Advocate-General
CS Seizure
CT Third party proceeding
CV Opinion
CX Ruling
CD Decision
CP View
CN Communication: new case
CA Communication: judgment
CB Communication: order
CU Communication: request for an opinion
CG Communication: opinion
General Court (pre-Lisbon: Court of First Instance) TJ Judgment
TO Order
TC Opinion of the Advocate-General
TT Third party proceeding
TN Communication: new case
TA Communication: judgment
TB Communication: order
Civil Service Tribunal FJ Judgment
FO Order
FT Third party proceeding
FN Communication: new case
FA Communication: judgment
FB Communication: order

Sector 7: National implementing measures

Sector Descriptor Type of document
7 L National measures to implement directives

National implementing measures have the same Celex number as the implemented directive, except that the sector is “7” instead of “3” and the country code (BEL, DEU, FRA, CZE, ESP, PRT, AUT, CYP, BGR, EST, FIN, GBR, HUN, IRL, LTU, MLT, LVA, SVN, SWE, GRC, POL, DNK, ITA, LUX, NLD, SVK, ROU, HRV) and a split ((01), (02), …) are added at the end (as several national measures are possible for a directive). Examples: 72004L0039GBR(03), 72010L0001BEL(01)

Sector 8: National case law

Sector Descriptor Country
8 BE Belgium
BG Bulgaria
CZ Czech Republic
DK Denmark
DE Germany
EE Estonia
IE Ireland
EL Greece
ES Spain
FR France
HR Croatia
IT Italy
CY Cyprus
LV Latvia
LT Lithuania
LU Luxembourg
HU Hungary
MT Malta
NL Netherlands
AT Austria
PL Poland
PT Portugal
RO Romania
SI Slovenia
SK Slovakia
FI Finland
SE Sweden
UK United Kingdom
XX Other countries, EFTA Court, European Court of Human Rights

Sector 9: Parliamentary questions

Sector Descriptor Type of document
9 E Written questions
H Questions at question time
O Oral questions

Sector 0: Consolidated documents

Sector Type of document
0 Consolidated texts: non-official documents integrating acts of sector 3 with their amendments and corrections

Consolidated documents have the same Celex number as their basic acts, except that the sector is “0” instead of “3”.

Sector C: Official Journal C series

Sector Type of document
C Other documents published in the Official Journal C series

These documents don’t have a descriptor. They are identified by the year, the OJ number and a sequential number of publication in the OJ. For example C2009/321/04 is the 4th document of OJ C 321 from 2009.

Sector E: EFTA documents

Sector Descriptor Type of document
E A Agreements between EFTA Member States
C Acts of the EFTA Surveillance Authority
G Acts of the EFTA Standing Committee
J Decisions, orders, consultative opinions of the EFTA Court
P Pending cases of the EFTA Court
X Information and communications
O Other acts


Monday, June 20th, 2016

Chilcot inquiry will be released, “after referendum”.




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.






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.




Itsfraud. com


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




Official Journal of the European Union

L 157/23


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


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),



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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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).


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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,


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


(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).




Monday, June 20th, 2016







Official Journal of the European Union

L 149/1


of 6 June 2016

amending Regulation (EU) 2015/323 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund as regards payment of the instalments


Having regard to the Treaty on European Union and to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to the Internal Agreement between the Representatives of the Governments of the Member States of the European Union, meeting within the Council, on the financing of European Union aid under the multiannual financial framework for the period 2014 to 2020, in accordance with the ACP-EU Partnership Agreement, and on the allocation of financial assistance for the Overseas Countries and Territories to which Part Four of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union applies (1) (‘the Internal Agreement’), and in particular Article 10(2) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the European Commission,

Having regard to the opinion of the European Court of Auditors (2),

Having regard to the opinion of the European Investment Bank,



On 5 June 2014, the European Central Bank adopted a Decision (3) providing for a negative interest rate, which entails a payment obligation on the deposit holder to the relevant national central bank (NCB) including the right of that NCB to debit the relevant government deposit account accordingly. Other NCBs in which European Development Fund (EDF) funds have to be kept in accordance with Article 22 of Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 (4) adopted similar decisions.


According to Article 22(3) of Regulation (EU) 2015/323, contributions to the EDF are to be credited by each Member State to a special account entitled ‘European Commission — European Development Fund’ opened with the central bank of the relevant Member State or the financial institution designated by it.


Those special accounts opened by the Member States in the name of the Commission, for the purpose of depositing EDF contributions, should be kept free of any charge and interest until they need to be used for payments, thereby preventing losses for the EDF budget. The application of charges or negative interest would reduce the EDF budget and lead to unequal treatment of Member States. Therefore, where negative interest is applicable to EDF accounts, the Member States concerned should credit an amount equal to the amount of that negative interest. Given that some Member States do not have the possibility of avoiding the financial impact of the obligation to credit such amounts of negative interest to the EDF accounts, it is appropriate that the Commission, when covering its payment requirements, aims to reduce that impact by drawing with priority on the sums credited to the accounts concerned.


Regulation (EU) 2015/323 should therefore be amended accordingly,


Article 1

Article 22 of Regulation (EU) 2015/323 is replaced by the following:

‘Article 22

Payment of the instalments

1.   Calls for contributions shall first use up the amounts laid down for previous European Development Funds, one after the other.

2.   The contributions of the Member States shall be expressed in euro and shall be paid in euro.

3.   The contribution referred to in point (a) of Article 21(7) shall be credited by each Member State to a special account entitled “European Commission — European Development Fund” opened with the central bank of the relevant Member State or the financial institution designated by it. The amount of such contributions shall remain in those special accounts until the payments need to be made.

4.   The account referred to in paragraph 3 shall be kept free of any charge and interest.

5.   Where negative interest is applied to the account referred to in paragraph 3, the Member State concerned shall, at the latest on the date of payment of each instalment referred to in Article 21, credit the account with an amount corresponding to the amount of such negative interest applied until the first day of the month preceding the payment of the instalment.

6.   Without prejudice to paragraph 7, the Commission shall endeavour to make any withdrawals from the special accounts in such a way as to maintain a distribution of assets in those accounts that corresponds to the contribution key pursuant to point (a) of Article 1(2) of the Internal Agreement.

7.   When covering the EDF cash resource requirements in accordance with paragraph 3, the Commission shall aim to reduce the impact of the obligation on Member States to credit amounts of negative interest pursuant to paragraph 5 by drawing with priority on the sums credited to the accounts concerned.

8.   The contribution referred to in point (b) of Article 21(7) shall be credited by each Member State in accordance with Article 53(1).’.

Article 2

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

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 6 June 2016.

For the Council

The President


(1)  OJ L 210, 6.8.2013, p. 1.

(2)  OJ C 5, 8.1.2016, p. 6.

(3)  Decision ECB/2014/23 of the European Central Bank of 5 June 2014 on the remuneration of deposits, balances and holdings of excess reserves (OJ L 168, 7.6.2014, p. 115).

(4)  Council Regulation (EU) 2015/323 of 2 March 2015 on the financial regulation applicable to the 11th European Development Fund (OJ L 58, 3.3.2015, p. 17).

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.




Wednesday, April 27th, 2016






OF 8 APRIL 1965 *


CONSIDERING that, in accordance with Article 28 of the Treaty establishing a Single Council and a Single Commission of the European Communities, these Communities and the European Investment Bank shall enjoy in the territories of the Member States such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the performance of their tasks,

HAVE AGREED upon the following provisions, which shall be annexed to this Treaty.



Article 1

The premises and buildings of the Communities shall be inviolable. They shall be exempt from search, requisition, confiscation or expropriation. The property and assets of the Communities shall not be the subject of any administrative or legal measure of constraint without the authorization of the Court of Justice.

Article 2

The archives of the Communities shall be inviolable.

Article 3

The Communities, their assets, revenues and other property shall be exempt from all direct taxes.

The governments of the Member States shall, wherever possible, take the appropriate measures to remit or refund the amount of indirect taxes or sales taxes included in the price of movable or immovable property, where the Communities make, for their official use, substantial purchases the price of which includes taxes of this kind. These provisions shall not be applied, however, so as to have the effect of distorting competition within the Communities.

No exemption shall be granted in respect of taxes and dues which amount merely to charges for public utility services.

Article 4

The Communities shall be exempt from all customs duties, prohibitions and restrictions on imports and exports in respect of articles intended for their official use: articles so imported shall not be disposed of, whether or not in return for payment, in the territory of the country into which they have been imported, except under conditions approved by the government of that country.

The Communities shall also be exempt from any customs duties and any prohibitions and restrictions on import and exports in respect of their publications.

Article 5

The European Coal and Steel Community may hold currency of any kind and operate accounts in any currency.



Article 6

For their official communications and the transmission of all their documents, the institutions of the Communities shall enjoy in the territory of each Member State the treatment accorded by that State to diplomatic missions.

Official correspondence and other official communications of the institutions of the Communities shall not be subject to



* OJ L 152, 13.7.67, p. 13, as amended by the Treaty of Amsterdam and the Treaty of Nice – unofficial consolidated version.

Article 7

  1. Laissez-passer in a form to be prescribed by the Council, which shall be recognized as valid travel documents by the authorities of the Member States, may be issued to members and servants of the institutions of the Communities by the Presidents of these institutions. These laissez-passer shall be issued to officials and other servants under conditions laid down in the Staff Regulations of officials and the Conditions of Employment of other servants of the Communities.

The Commission may conclude agreements for these laissez-passer to be recognized as valid travel documents within the territory of third countries.

  1. The provisions of Article 6 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Coal and Steel Community shall, however, remain applicable to members and servants of the institutions who are at the date of entry into force of this Treaty in possession of the laissez-passer provided for in that Article, until the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article are applied.



Article 8

No administrative or other restriction shall be imposed on the free movement of Members of the European Parliament travelling to or from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Members of the European Parliament shall, in respect of customs and exchange control, be accorded:

(a) by their own government, the same facilities as those accorded to senior officials travelling abroad on temporary official missions;

(b) by the government of other Member States, the same facilities as those accorded to representatives of foreign governments on temporary official missions.

Article 9

Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

Article 10

During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:

(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

(b) in the territory of any other Member State, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.

Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.




Article 11

Representatives of Member States taking part in the work of the institutions of the Communities, their advisers and technical experts shall, in the performance of their duties and during their travel to and from the place of meeting, enjoy the customary privileges, immunities and facilities.

This Article shall also apply to members of the advisory bodies of the Communities.



Article 12

In the territory of each Member State and whatever their nationality, officials and other servants of the Communities shall:

(a) subject to the provisions of the Treaties relating, on the one hand, to the rules on the liability of officials and other servants towards the Communities and, on the other hand, to the jurisdiction of the Court in disputes between the Communities and their officials and other servants, be immune from legal proceedings in respect of acts performed by them in their official capacity, including their words spoken or written. They shall continue to enjoy this immunity after they have ceased to hold office;

(b) together with their spouses and dependent members of their families, not be subject to immigration restrictions or to formalities for the registration of aliens;

(c) in respect of currency or exchange regulations, be accorded the same facilities as are customarily accorded to officials of international organizations;

(d) enjoy the right to import free of duty their furniture and effects at the time of first taking up their post in the country concerned, and the right to re-export free of duty their furniture and effects, on termination of their duties in that country, subject in either case to the conditions considered to be necessary by the government of the country in which this right is exercised;

(e) have the right to import free of duty a motor car for their personal use, acquired either in the country of their last residence or in the country of which they are nationals on the terms ruling in the home market in that country, and to re-export it free of duty, subject in either case to the conditions considered to be necessary by the government of the country concerned.

Article 13

Officials and other servants of the Communities shall be liable to a tax for the benefit of the Communities on salaries, wages and emoluments paid to them by the Communities, in accordance with the conditions and procedure laid down by the Council, acting on a proposal from the Commission.

They shall be exempt from national taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities.

Article 14

In the application of income tax, wealth tax and death duties and in the application of conventions on the avoidance of double taxation concluded between Member States of the Communities, officials and other servants of the Communities who, solely by reason of the performance of their duties in the service of the Communities, establish their residence in the territory of a Member State other than their country of domicile for tax purposes at the time of entering the service of the Communities, shall be considered, both in the country of their actual residence and in the country of domicile for tax purposes, as having maintained their domicile in the latter country provided that it is a member of the Communities. This provision shall also apply to a spouse, to the extent that the latter is not separately engaged in a gainful occupation, and to children dependent on and in the care of the persons referred to in this Article.

Movable property belonging to persons referred to in the preceding paragraph and situated in the territory of the country where they are staying shall be exempt from death duties in that country; such property shall, for the assessment of such duty, be considered as being in the country of domicile for tax purposes, subject to the rights of third countries and to the possible application of provisions of international conventions on double taxation.

Any domicile acquired solely by reason of the performance of duties in the service of other international organizations shall not be taken into consideration in applying the provisions of this Article.

Article 15

The Council shall, acting unanimously on a proposal from the Commission, lay down the scheme of social security benefits for officials and other servants of the Communities.

Article 16

The Council shall, acting on a proposal from the Commission and after consulting the other institutions concerned, determine the categories of officials and other servants of the Communities to whom the provisions of Article 12, the second paragraph of Article 13, and Article 14 shall apply, in whole or in part.

The names, grades and addresses of officials and other servants included in such categories shall be communicated periodically to the governments of the Member States.




Article 17

The Member State in whose territory the Communities have their seat shall accord the customary diplomatic immunities and privileges to missions of third countries accredited to the Communities.



Article 18

Privileges, immunities and facilities shall be accorded to officials and other servants of the Communities solely in the interests of the Communities.

Each institution of the Communities shall be required to waive the immunity accorded to an official or other servant wherever that institution considers that the waiver of such immunity is not contrary to the interests of the Communities.

Article 19

The institutions of the Communities shall, for the purpose of applying this Protocol, cooperate with the responsible authorities of the Member States concerned.

Article 20

Articles 12 to 15 and Article 18 shall apply to Members of the Commission.

Article 21

Articles 12 to 15 and Article 18 shall apply to the Judges, the Advocates-General, the Registrar and the Assistant Rapporteurs of the Court of Justice and to the Members and Registrar of the Court of First Instance, without prejudice to the provisions of Article 3 of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice relating to immunity from legal proceedings of Judges and Advocates-General.

Article 22

This Protocol shall also apply to the European Investment Bank, to the members of its organs, to its staff and to the

representatives of the Member States taking part in its activities, without prejudice to the provisions of the Protocol on the Statute of the Bank.

The European Investment Bank shall in addition be exempt from any form of taxation or imposition of a like nature on the occasion of any increase in its capital and from the various formalities which may be connected therewith in the State where the Bank has its seat. Similarly, its dissolution or liquidation shall not give rise to any imposition. Finally, the activities of the Bank and of its organs carried on in accordance with its Statute shall not be subject to any turnover tax.

Article 23

This Protocol shall also apply to the European Central Bank, to the members of its organs and to its staff, without prejudice to the provisions of the Protocol on the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and the European Central Bank.

The European Central Bank shall, in addition, be exempt from any form of taxation or imposition of a like nature on the occasion of any increase in its capital and from the various formalities which may be connected therewith in the State where the bank has its seat. The activities of the Bank and of its organs carried on in accordance with the Statute of the European System of Central Banks and of the European Central Bank shall not be subject to any turnover tax.

1 As amended by Article 6 of the Treaty of Nice.

2 Article added by Article 9(5) of the Treaty of Amsterdam.

The above provisions shall also apply to the European Monetary Institute. Its dissolution or liquidation shall not give rise to any imposition.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned Plenipotentiaries have signed this Protocol.

Done at Brussels this eighth day of April in the year one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five.

Paul Henri SPAAK



Amintore FANFANI


J. M. A. H. LUNS


*** This is your European Union.***

Just another bunch of Banks, and Bankers immune from any

prosecution, liquidation, bancruptcy, etc. And completely

unnacountable to anyone ??????? THIS MEANS YOU .

Now you can make up your own mind when you vote in the

Referendum – while listening to self interest groups like  —

Government,Corporate, Large Business and Financial institutions.


10.3.2001 Official Journal of the European Communities C 80/67



Protocol on the financial consequences of the expiry of the ECSC Treaty and

on the research fund for coal and steel


DESIRING to settle certain questions relating to the expiry of the Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC);

TAKING ACCOUNT of the desire to use these funds for research in sectors related to the coal and steel industry and therefore the necessity to provide for certain special rules in this regard;

HAVE AGREED UPON the following provisions, which shall be annexed to the Treaty establishing the European Community:

Article 1

  1. All assets and liabilities of the ECSC, as they exist on 23 July 2002, shall be transferred to the European Community on 24 July 2002.

  • The net worth of these assets and liabilities, as they appear in the balance sheet of the ECSC of 23 July 2002, subject to any increase or decrease which may occur as a result of the liquidation operations, shall be considered as assets intended for research in the sectors related to the coal and steel industry, referred to as the “ECSC in liquidation’.

  • On completion of the liquidation they shall be referred to as the “Assets of the Research Fund for Coal and Steel’.

UPDATE: any BREXIT doubts? ,

  1. Google this Question———- Are there any European laws that protect its citizens. Or name 10 laws or directives that protect its citizens.

  2. Try whatever combination of search words for any law that directly protects its citizens from illegal action by Companies or any huge corporation.

  3. Everything read so far: has the words, (MAY) or (Could). None of the laws say (YOU) (ARE)   protected by the Law —————————–.

  4. Possibly maybe or sometimes you could be, BUT ARE YOU ?

Old guys like me have seen it all before, check out the true facts yourself.

This government is waging a war of fear. It is Brain washing and treating the *voting public as idiots who can be indoctrinated by television news.*

The shocking level of wealthy individuals corporations, celebrities, banks, financial institutions like the, IMF, UN, ECB, BOE, promoting the remain in EU camp is nothing better than just untruths. All of the above are just looking after themselves at our expence.

All governments are run by liars and nothing they say should ever be believed.

(If we don’t know what the EU really does, then why should we trust them.)

We don’t really know what powers the EU has over us, or are claiming for themselves.

Why! because its all done in secret.

And you, fellow citizen never get to vote full stop.

Now is your only chance to stop the mass immigration and the destruction of Britain.

WHO  (world health organization ) said hundreds of thousands of patients have multi drug resistant tuberculosis. It is a huge killer claiming over 1 million 500 thousand lives in 2014 alone.

The EU is allowing millions of Muslim migrants into the EU without any health checks.

We are justified in complaining, that we cannot take these people in. We have no room for them and our schools, hospitals and services are being overwhelmed and destroyed.

British citizens have tolerated enough.

Now we will have a say.

Why do we belong to the European Union! And pay £55 million each day for membership.

Sunday, April 17th, 2016

We pay £55 million each day for EU membership and €80 billion a month to EU Banks?

Why do we borrow money from Bankers like the EU, IMF, ECB, UN, BIS, Federal Reserve, World Bank, all are just loan sharks and thieves.

Why not just print our own money! Why can’t the Bank of England print the money it needs.

Why is it Britain has become a Debt Based Economy, clinging to the purses-strings of Bankers.

Why can’t we be paid enough to pay tax and enjoy a lifestyle befitting our hard Labour.

Why are we Paying €80 Billion each month to European Union Banks and Financial Institutions

Why are we bailing out Financial Institutions, Banks, Insurers and Corporate Giants with no Morals .

Why are Taxpayers paying for the Corruption, Fraud, Deception, and incompetence of Government .

Why is the Government lying to us about the cost to taxpayers of remaining in the European Union .

Why is our Government not disclosing the facts about Bailing out EU Banks and Financial Institutions .

Why is The European Union not concerned about Member States Laws Breeching International Law.

Why does the European Union allow EU Member State Laws to contravene European Law.

Why does the European Union allow Immigrants into the EU without Health Checks or Security Checks.

Why is it the European Union giving priority to Black and Asian Muslim immigrants over others.

Why is European Union States being ravaged by Islamic Muslim Terrorists Killers! Born in the EU .

Why are we not allowed to speak the truth about EU Immigration and connected Muslim Terrorists .

Why doe’s the European Union keep silent about the Health Risks Immigrants carry like TB, HIV, Ebola .

Why do we “Pay European Union  VAT”, this tax has made Britain uncompetitive to the rest of the World .

Why has the European Union enforced Austerity on all EU Countries and stolen customers money from banks.

Why will the European Union not disclose the salary or expenses of Ministers or  Officials .

Why is the European Unions Accounts unaudited and where has the missing €Trillions gone.

Why is the European Union Protecting insolvent Corporations at tax payers expense.

Why wont the European Union allow Britain to negotiate trade agreements and exports outside the EU .

Why has the European Union Destroyed our Steel, Coal, Motor, and other industries with Laws and Directives.

Why has the European Union imposed  a threat to lawful process using laws to the detriment of business and citizens.

Why is the European Union allowing criminals from other EU Countries the freedom to enter any EU Country.

Why is the European Union Protecting Corporate Giants and ignoring Small Businesses.
Why is the European Union adding many layers of bureaucracy to create complexity for the simplist of tasks .
Why is the European Unions Directives and Laws so long winded and complex no-one impliments them.
Why are the European Union so Anti-Democratic they ignore Public Opinion and Votes.

Then enforce a second or third vote until its for the EU.

Why is the European Union Funding thousands of Concocted projects costing € millions in Grant Aid to PIGS and Eastern Block Countries .
Why are European Union forcing through second elections and referendums when a democratic majority vote has Won ?
Why are the European Union not enforcing the law and jailing corrupt and fraudulent Bankers, Insurers, Directors, Ministers, Polititians, etc ?
Why are many EU Member States Laws so corrupt they allow Individuals and Companies to escape Justice, “by just returning documents” to sender.
Why has the right to Justice been removed by the European Union. Leaving only two options open. (1) The Ombudsman “which cannot enforce anything”. Or (2) the highest Court, that is “unnafordable” for the vast majority and where “decisions can be appealed” and take years- and cost € millions.
Why is the European Union creating laws, directives, they know are illegal like “Electronic Toll Roads” where a “contract cannot exist” . And where the EU advise Local Authorities and the Police etc to stop motorists illegally to try and force payment of toll. In the event that it fails, the police are told to delay the Motorist for 3 hours Max?
Why has every European Union Law supposedly introduced to protect EU citizens got the the words “May” or “Could” instead of “Have” or “Are! “protected”.
Why has the European Union allowed over a 3 Million Islamic Muslim Migrants into the EU, Knowing this situation would swamp local services Hospitals, Housing, Schools, etc increasing unemployement and lowering wages for the poorest and most vunerable in society.
Why is there no right to legal aid for those unable to afford exorbitant European Union Court fee increases, that leave the most vunerable without a right to Justice.
Why is the European Union, IMF, UN, ECB, US FED Reserve, Corporate Giants, and the richest in society, using “Fear” to sway the “Electorate” into voting for remaining in the European Union against their wishes?
Why is the European Unions so corrupt it will not provide Audited Accounts or answer Freedom Of Information Requests For Ministers Salary and expences.

Why is €80 billion being given to banks each month, ? And where is this taxpayer money being spent? And what on?

Check out the true facts yourself and vote with you own Knowledge, not lies spread by self interest groups like Government, Insurance Companies, Banks, and the Media.

Britain is being destroyed by immigration from muslim countries, care of the European Union.



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


[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.·

Since 1945 We Have Had 54 Years Of Conservative Governments ????

Sunday, January 31st, 2016

The Conservative Prime Minister Mr Cameron is untrustable and being discredited by voters for allowing Angela Merkel’s Germany to strengthen its stranglehold over EU Economic and Migrant policy.

Since 1945 the Conservative Pro European Government have held power for 54 Years. Labour has held just 17 brief years of Government.

The Conservatives Governments 54 year’s majority control of the UK has contributed to the destruction of its manufacturing industry, expertise and small businesses that were taxed into oblivion or shrouded with red tape and bureaucracy. This was then followed by many recessions including the 2008 Crash and Austerity, Bank Bailouts. : The to big to fail Corporate’s – Debt, and Depression.

The Conservative Governments profiteering took the UK into the EEC in January 1973. Now renamed European Union, devaluing the £ pound creating debt and causing the UK to become uncompetitive because of EU- VAT, Laws and Directives.

This created Inflation, Depression, Migration, Migrants, Terrorism, Unemployment, Housing Crisis, Welfare Crisis, Congested Roads, Corrupt Politics, Government, and Politicians.

And is blamed for over 54 years of mismanagement fraud corruption and mistakes! Not to mention the many killed in its proliferation of many years of wars created or caused mearly to profiteer and appease the UK Governments Corporate Arms Industry and US.

Should the UK public allow the Government to build (New Nuclear Submarines) “which can never be used in anger”? (Because all life would end FULLSTOP). With the blast passing into space propelling the Earth out of Geo-stationary Orbit

After the Second World War the Labour Government built up our National Health Service, we all contributed too. We had a good welfare system. (But now it’s destroyed). Because non-contributing migrants! Have stolen the wealth UK Nationals paid for over a lifetime, thanks to EU law.

Now we have a depression and no future for our UK indigenous National School Children! and UK Citizens of all races. Because Black, Asian, African, Indian, Pakistan and Eastern Block migrants are stealing the next generations future. Taking over their jobs, their welfare system, security, and Country.

“This is reflected by many voters’ belief that the Labour Party are much more capable of rebuilding the economy and country”. Following the war mongering Pro- European Union, Conservative Governments economic destruction..

Agreements may differ somewhat here but a more open Government is needed. Where central bankers power is removed, and Corporate Giants and subsidiaries split up.

Then the public needs to replace the two party Boom&Bust system of Government with one-man one vote, scrapping the existing undemocratic constituency system. That is unfair, undemocratic and corrupt

What strikes me now is that the Prime Minister is now spouting hype and not telling the truth about the IN/OUT Referendum. Because Mr Cameron. Would need to give the European Commission 2 Years notice of intention to leave the EU. Also the Court procedures involved afterwards in taking Britain Out of the EU would take years to accomplish. And that is if the EU allows it!

If after reading this you are more distrustful of the Conservative Governments EU membership, domestic immigration bill, tax, law, cost of membership (about £15,000 per person each year, and their foreign policy record. Then you need to do something about it,——————-
Because Mr Cameron will only look after CORPORATE GIANTS and the EU COMMISSION.

And most likely delay the Referendum (while immigrants are raping and killing EU citizens) and is News Headlines! even though its suppressed by EU.

Angela Merkel will lose her job.

Monday, January 11th, 2016





Child sexual abuse by Muslim immigrants and attacks on women is far worse than being stated. EU member state Governments are deliberately enforcing a policy of, : Under Reporting of  Muslim Migrant attacks. These attacks are huge in number and being hidden by police the authorities and the EU.

Reports are leaking out that communities in many EU countries now need to protect their children and women are frightened by the huge number of targeted attacks on them and children by gangs of young male, recently introduced Muslim immigrants.

These immigrants are being enforced on their societies by their own “democratic” governments! : Who enforce EU law on all states.

Its shocking but not unusual to hear or see the forgoing reports of rape, child abuse, _ but the backlash has started. The killing of a young teenage girl a care worker looking after immigrants in Sweden. [A stupid prosecution] of a young teenage girl who used Pepper spray to stop an attempted rape by an english speaking immigrant who had ripped part of her cloths off.

However unlike Britain. The Government of Sweden is fighting back and repatriating 80,000 immigrants. Other countries like the Danish Government are stripping immigrants of their assets to deter economic migrants. Though Denmark will suffer from prosecuting the teenage girl for using Pepper Spray. This is an outrage the youg girl needs a medal. [ DO NOT ALLOW YOUR COUNTRY TO BE DESTROYED BY ENFORCED MUSLIM IMMIGRATION SPEAK UP IT IS YOUR RIGHT] !


The co-ordinate gang sex attacks on women over New Years Eve in Cologne and other cities by groups of immigrants or asylum seekers will shock most Germans. Muslims in such huge numbers place a very serious problem indeed for the local population. Since they will not integrate instead they just dissapear into city backstreets and their own Muslim communities.

Governments, Migrant Lobby Groups, and Authority hide the facts about Muslim Crime while promoting immigration as having a positive effect and economic benefit. This is not true instead immigrants swamp local services, housing, roads and schools. These Migrants then breed at alarming rates and these births by immigrant women are NOT included in Government figures and NEVER include illegal immigrants.

The public see this daily, and in parts of many majors cities in the UK there are no white indigenous British communities, they have been replaced by Muslims. You do not need to be a rocket scientist to work out Britain will be a Majority Muslim Country around 2045 and the white British population will be a minority.

Germany’s population will now see first hand the destructive influence Muslim immigration has on any country. This including the latest recent reports by German police of over 500 reported attacks by immigrants.

Immigration needs to be discussed openly in public, not obscurred by Authority there are massive implications to society such as choked roads and huge areas being taken over to house the massive influx of immigrants who are not wanted by the general public. Failure to take note of the publics concern – and they are not stupid, will mean there will be – a revolt and the removal of two party politics from power. It should be quite clear to politicians of any persuasion- Angela Merkel will lose her job.

UKIP was correct millions are on way to UK

Friday, September 4th, 2015

UKIP WAS CORRECT MILLIONS OF MIGRANTS, CARE OF “EUROPEAN UNION” ARE COMING TO BRITAIN. Update: Have you noticed all news channels are silent about immigration crisis now! Update: Yes now its War as predicted.  “Cameron won’t play” so he has started WORLD WAR 3 INSTEAD.

To create orders for arms and munitions factories to kickstart the economy – manufacturing bombs that create wealth for Government and Buddies who together have said’ they are going to bomb ISIS leaders Command Control Centres. What a load of trot, there is no command control centre. What’s more, how is Mr Cameron going to bomb hundreds of ISIS leaders. Who most likely are sat on a camel or a Toyota landcruiser, Sutruck or tent somewhere.

They could be anywhere-with a military mobile phone or tablet computer. And its very likely these guys are conducting terrorist atrocities using the underground internet via their brothers uncles sons sisters and wives.

The terrorist command control centres Mr Cameron wants to bomb are within our own cities like Birmingham Sheffield Leicester Bradford London Manchester Leeds etc as well as most other EU countries they are in our midst.

The Governments of Europe have been so complacement importing a low cost immigrant labour force to lower wage costs, they forgot about security and allowed anyone with a head wrapped in rag to enter. Then Angela Merkel told every possible terrorist with or without rags on their head, they- would be wellcome and opened the floodgates of hell to millions without documentation or proof of identity.


Then in the first few months of this year over 500,000 immigrants arrived in Europe from war torn countries seeking a better life. These people cannot be blamed for their desperate flight from terror. But imposing European Commission quotas of these people on overcrowded countries like Britain, has create more problems for its own homeless, unemployed, poverty striken, people who are sick of immigrants and the wave of violence it has created.


“This humanitarian disaster” was created by the European Union– EU, United Nations-UN, International Monitary Fund– IMF, European Central Bank-ECB and the countries like Britain and America that started a war deliberately and bombed and killed millions for “OIL MONEY”.
Now “its the taxpayers in Britain” who paid their tax’s and national insurance during their working lives for their (health and welfare benefits system). A “system that now cannot cope”, with this “massive migration” of illegal immigrants, (patients from third world countries) entering Britain for “free treatment.


These benefits we all contributed to are now at risk. Because the two main political parties, LABOUR & CONSERVATIVE BOTH allow any immigrant arriving in Britain free medical treatment and all our paid for benefits. Rather than make them work and pay for these benefits. The british unemployed are forced into work or lose benefits, why is it this rule only applies to British Nationals, NOT immigrants.


EU enforced immigration and its cost has “swamped Britains services”. Now its delays, and lack of access to these benefits and NHS that effects British public most. “Who did not choose EU” or enforced immigration (cheap labour) to increase EU tax’s and profit.


European Union open border policies are a loss to you of ALL your paid for NHS and SERVICES.  (Benefits paid for by you).  But given away by the main political parties; (the exception being UKIP) whom at least spells out the truth, not hype.


Our enforced political first past the post system in Britain is made up of wards, its undemocratic. It was set-up to benefit only the main political parties, (not you).  This became very clear for UKIP when only one seat in parliament was won by UKIP yet UKIP recieved over 3,000,000 votes. Much more than other parties.


There is a real need to beat the system, allowing UKIP, to Stop IMMIGRATION. Because its not in the interest of other parties. WHO will never allowed,  (One Man One Vote) so its time you used your voice effectively. And demanded a democratic vote.


Ukip’s leader Nigel Farrage stated, “immigration would get out of control” allowing millions of economic migrants to enter Britain through EU open borders. Mr Farage clearly understood the publics concern about IMMIGRATION and the EUROPEAN UNION.


The Government and main political parties are in the pay of  EU corporations and bankers. Who use their bought for political and financial clout to eliminate competition and any risk to their financial suppression of small business.

We need to change the unfair political system that enriches the wealthy while it takes away what little the poorest sector of society and small business has.

Take action NOW (do not waste your vote). On a system kept in place by wealthy Corporations and corrupt politicians of Government. Change Britain for the benefit of everyone and give future small business and next generations a future.


The sight yesterday of that little boy washed up on the beach in Bodram Turkey is appalling, but our Government and its Arms industry the EU and Financial sector and corrupt politicians. Are to blame for this flight from War.


This is disaster that must be placed on the shoulders of those who caused it. In the words of those who we believed. Our Governments US and UK.  “Who said” they have, “weapons of mass destruction”.


And now these same Governments are trying to convince us we must engage in another war in the middle east, bombing and killing millions of virtuly defenceless men women and children. This type of mentality is stupid any person is capable of realising, its again about MONEY OIL  WEAPONS and the wealth these create for Governments and Corporate Industry.

Now we have tens of millions from war-torn countries in North Africa the Middle East and Asia wanting a better life in Europe taking incredible risks and death to get here and no-one can blame them, after hearing and seeing advertisements of what Europe and Britain has to offer.


Britain still remains one of many countries advertising in third world countries for skilled workers- plumber, plasterers, builders, dentists, doctors, etc with wages 50 times greater than paid in Sudan or Pakistan.


This and the conflicts in their own countries has started a massive, never been seen before exodus into Europe. With most migrants wanting to settle in Britain and Germany.


But this massive influx of immigrants into Europe is clearly a far greater threat now to the security of Britain than anyone ever imagined or UKIP’s Nigel Farage envisaged.


The question now regarding the redistribution of migrants remains unsolved. The EU caused it but are now dithering about what to do. So at best expect an answer to the problem being Cheap Labour. Or an answer sometime in the future because nothing so far created by the EU has helped anyone accept the EU.


EU citizens just pay taxes vat etc and get nothing in return. The question now is can the European Union absorb such huge numbers of migrants. Twenty possibly 60 millions or more without de-stabilizing the western world and creating a black and white race hate war like America.
I noticed while writing that ECB  Mario Draghi is to bail out the banks again, they call it QUANTATIVE EASING! It means they will print more money for the banks. But not for Greece Portugal Spain or YOU. Funny how they can print money for themselves but no-one else.


Recent footage of a mass population exodus into Europe from war torn middle eastern countries fleeing to Greece, Italy, Hungry etc. Yet most are bypassing these and other countries to get to England or Germany.  Clearly indicating EU open borders has created the largest mass migration ever.


Live televised reports show that the vast majority arriving in Hungary, Greece, Italy, France, are young men mostly economic migrants whom recent history has shown, are a potential risk to security and pose a real threat.
More importantly if each EU country take in its quota of migrants and those fleeing war-torn countries. Can Europe do the same next week and the week after and so on.

Because we are on the brink of a humanitarian disaster where millions paid less than a £2 a day will follow their family members to the European Unions black market £30 a day pot of gold.


It is quite simply not possible to redistribute the populations of several third world countries- assume 20 million possibly 40 million people into Western Europe without disastrous consequences. Germany and Britain may want a cheap labour force. But can it avoid the war that will follow when millions of its citizens riot.  The far right has gained popularity all over Europe add Austerity and Mass Immigration and you have a pending disaster. Being created by EU.


Update: EU wanted open borders and free movement of people. Germany wanted mass migration (cheap labour). Now after their gigantic cockup Germany wants (YOU) to help stop millions of economic migrants and others fleeing war-torn conflict countries. Overwhelming German cities.


Now the worst has happend and Europes borders are now (CLOSED).  Angela Merkel caused this mess, Now let her sort it out BY taking the 800,000 migrants she wanted. And the remainder waiting at the Hungarian Border!

Update: Latest reports indicate vast numbers of new migrants are now at all borders of Europe. And many more new migrants are massing at alternative entry points to EU, are on their way!  You can thank Angela Merkel again for creating this mass migration crisis.


Monday, August 24th, 2015




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,


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.

Greece Gets More Austerity More Inflation

Monday, July 13th, 2015

EU have got to get more austerity past

Greek parliament first.


ECB is now in charge of Greek legislature any changes to law will now need ECB approval first.

Clearly people must wake up to the realization that the European Union is quite simply an organisation setup and run by central banks whos entire purpose is profit from domination and fear, to create more laws to increase Tax collection from its debt enslaved citizens – to enrich the European Central Bank (ECB Banks).


All of the bailouts and debts and interest owed by your Government is being paid by – YOU to the BANKS. Yet most of these high street banks were bancrupted by their own miss-management and greed. NOW these b-st-rds want more of your money and everything else. And you are next on their list for poverty induced slavery! Update: Its started now and will continue for many generations. As Government borrows from the future income produced by teenagers to the elderly in the year 2065 onwards


Greeces bailout will include huge tax increases (more austerity) price inflation on all purchases, IVA- VAT increases, cuts to pensions and benefits and privatisation of state assets and the sell off of all profitable enterprises. The EU will oversee running the remainder at a profit. Update: Bailout news Greece! will be able to pay of some of its debts with the money its borrowing from those it owes money to. Not much hope of ever paying off the DEBT or INTEREST mmm?


While in the meantime the World is at the beck and call of these greedy b-st-rds “the banks”.


In just a few days the Greek parliament will be forced to introduce new austerity measures dispite the Greek peoples referendum that voted in a anti-austerity Government. This is the clearest indication yet. That World democracy as far as the EU is concerned no longer exists. Instead the European Union and its ECB banks, now control everything in partnership with the IMF, (another bunch of gangsters). Who clearly want the status as World Reserve Bank. To control every financial instrument.


What we are seeing here is like a Bond Movie- where a huge PLC group wants world domination and the control of all monetary assets. Then creates fear to enslave its people in debt to the PLC groups banks, that they could never pay off. Leaving them in abject poverty as slaves to the groups gangsters. This example the EU, ECB, IMF, Eurogroup, (Banks).


It is the most basic principle in business. That you cannot borrow money to pay off a debt. It never works, you can only restructure debt and pay it off over a very long time. In the case of Greece the loan sharks like Germany and France and others loaned them huge sums of money with high interest payments and a payback strategy that would earn them big bucks regardless of the consequences. Greece has reported over 10,000 suicides, including a Ministers own son.


Take for example the comment made by German chancellor Angela Merkel who said “she was sure timetable for Greek Legislature change being passed by Parliament by Wednesday dispite anti-austerity referendum vote win by its people. Well many sources said  the German Chancellors job is on the line for debt risk lending to Greece. And the European Union could not afford the break up of Eurozone and EU, that it has now admitted would follow if Greece’s economy, a Eurozone member collapsed. Update: Germany may have now brought unwittingly the European Union to the end of the road and the precipice. As EU member states continue to open arms to anti-austerity parties. Whilst ignoring borrowing, and removing funds from banks.


Put in simple terms the European Union and the ECB with other callous loan sharks knew the entire European Union experiment was a grave mistake. But would never admit they were wrong. Now the entire World is suffering, for their stupidity and greed. Greece is unfortunately just the Pawn in all this – and its people will never be able to pay back the increased debt being planned as I write.

Update: There has been a huge increase in support for far left anti Austerity parties across Europe as ordinary people realize they are paying for the Banks past criminal activities still continuing today.  Who are recieving proceeds of crime profits as well as the bailouts and interest payment you the -Taxpayer are still paying to the banks under Austerity. In the meantime Banks are awash with hoarded cash mountains not being released into circulation. WHY, are we just experiencing the end of Bank control because no money in circulation means no increases in spending. Which means we dont need the banks.


What we should all consider regardless of our own opinion (for or against) any of the above, is that this could be you who may be next for the same type of treatment.


ASK YOUR GOVERNMENT WHO IS GOING TO PAY AND GUARANTEE YOUR MONEY IN ANY BANK. AND ASK FOR THE GUARANTEE IN WRITING. (good luck with this ).    Remember Cyprus and now Greece 60 Euro max per day. While open and cash in machine.     ?????????????


BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENTS GUARRANTEE IS ONLY WORTH TOILET PAPER WHEN A BANK GOES BUST, BECAUSE BANKS ARE ONLY LIMITED COMPANIES.   ( liability is limited to their share value only)  and they have LEGAL PRIVILEGE, this means they own your money in their Bank, NOT YOU.


Who is paying off who here. This stinks of fraud regarding Greece, either that or the poor defence-less puppet had a gun to his head, let’s hope the Greek people are not that stupid. BECAUSE IF THE EU AND IT’S LOAN SHARKS AND GANGSTERS GET AWAY WITH THIS. THERE IS NO HOPE FOR US, OR THE GENERATIONS TO FOLLOW .


Democracy what democracy,

Referendum pah! Just a vote of no confidence for your Government. Thats Democracy!!!!

Britain be warned, you will be duped by EU’s bootlicker PM next.

Greece dies via EU, IMF, democracy,

Sunday, June 28th, 2015

Here is a warning to all European citizens

We are seeing the destruction of “Greece and Democracy”.

This is the European Unions idea of democracy via the “Eurogroup”, the “International Monetary Fund” (IMF) and the “European Central Bank” (ECB) .

  1. Austerity.
  2. Increase Vat.
  3. Create further tax’s.
  4. Increase retirement age.
  5. Increase unemployment.
  6. Force capital controls.
  7. Close banks to limit money supply.
  8. Create fear with news broadcasts aimed to damage democracy.
  9. Humiliate its democratically elected Government into forced meetings staged by the Loansharks above to beg for time and currency.
  10. By tomorrow these Gangsters will have deliberately killed off any hope of a compromise and will have forced through a referendum of fear for the Greek people to vote on. Update: it all happend.

Televised news broadcasts each day clearly show that Greece is being strangled into submission by the Loan Sharks above. They do not care about its people who are being taxed into oblivion with Austerity and Starvation while its teenagers “commit suicide”.

This level of abuse of power by the IMF, EU, ECB, Eurogroup is destructive in the extreme for profit that is squeezed from the blood of Greece and its People. Who if only they realize it. Have the power to create there own currency, print it and turn the tables on these IMF Loansharks and Gangsters.

What we are experiencing here is the domination of Europe’s people and the control of its Governments by a debt based economy where monetary policy and currency printing from thin air is controlled and protected from change by these same “Loansharks and Gangsters” who were not elected by you.

There has never been any reason for any country not to print its own currency or distribute whatever amount is wishes to meet its needs. Why should Britain France Greece Italy Spain etc pay interest on money created out of thin air by the ECB. This is not backed by Gold or Silver “Money” is ( Gold and Silver) . What you have in your pocket is paper currency and coinage produced by the ECB with no true value.

Check out your Euro copper coins with a magnet, most are just cheap iron based metal with no intrinsic scrap value just like the Euro notes these have no true value whatever, like toilet paper.

If by now you have any doubt ask your elected Government who is making all the laws, increasing our taxes and lowering your pension while increasing the price of everything you consume. This is the true meaning of democracy, the EU and its Loansharks and Gangster are going to increase Vat and manufacture other ways to tax everything you earn own or have via your so called democratically elected Government.

JF Kennedy for example: introduced laws taking the power away from American Loansharks and Gangsters (the Federal Reserve) to print currency from thin air then charge interest on it Just like the ECB and its Gangsters and Loansharks. He was shot and killed not long after “and his new laws” implimented. Were never carried out????????????

You have been warned, Greece is just the beginning. You and your country is next, do not allow the power of your vote to be washed under the carpet. Demand democracy ONE MAN ONE VOTE.

Update: Greece held referendum and people voted Anti-Austerity Government in.   Now Greece has Government imposing Austerity far worse than before. The EC (european commission) doe’s not care what Government you have. It will always force through its Gun To The Head Diplomacy. 

The next thing to happen will be another: Vote by the Greek Parliament to impliment EC demands of even more Austerity.  Don’t believe it watch this space. 

Democracy is dead. The European Union Gangsters now have you indebted to them and its banks. You were warned.

Vote For Conservative 1% Elite.

Friday, April 17th, 2015




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.

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


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.

100 reasons to vote UKIP

Wednesday, January 28th, 2015

100 days till the election, 100 reasons to vote


Published Jan 27, 2015

With 100 days to the election, here are the first 10 of 100 great reasons to vote UKIP

1. Get Britain out of the European Union
2. Get control of immigration with an Australian-style, points-based immigration system
3. £3bn more, annually, into our NHS which desperately needs it
4. Scrap tuition fees for students studying Science, Tech, Engineering, Maths, or Medical degrees
5. Pay greater attention to elderly care across the country
6. Cutting £9bn from our foreign aid budget
7. Give the people the ability to “recall” their MPs, without parliamentary or MP approval
8. Stopping our endless, foreign wars
9. Promoting a British identity, as opposed to failed multiculturalism
10. Allowing existing schools to become grammar schools

11. Ending PFI privatisation of the NHS, proliferated by Labour and the Tories
12. Ensuring our armed services are properly equipped for when we do need them
13. Establishing a Veteran’s Administration to look after those who looked after us
14. Encouraging inward investment with growth markets, not JUST the failing Eurozone
15. Overcoming the unfairness of MPs from devolved nations voting on English laws
16. Cutting bureaucracy, red tape, and wasteful spending from government departments
17. Cutting the same bureaucracy that hinders small businesses and entrepreneurs
18. Supporting our farmers with a Single Farm Payment Scheme
19. Ending the burdensome “green levies” that have added £000s to our energy bills
20. Scrapping the poorly planned HS2 project, saving up to £50bn
21. Opposing tolls on public roads – we’ve already paid for them
22. Supporting bus passes for pensioners with the support of local authorities
23. Foreign vehicles to require Britdisc passes to contribute to our roads they use
24. Ending the use of speed cameras as revenue raisers – they should be a deterrent
25. Protecting our green belt
26. A central list of brownfield sites for developers
27. Houses on brownfield sites to be Stamp Duty exempt on first sale
28. VAT relaxed for redevelopment of brownfield sites
29. Local referenda for large-scale development, if triggered by 5% of electorate
30. Introducing the ability for citizens to initiate national referenda
31. Withdrawing from the European Court of Human Rights
32. Reversing the government’s opt-in to the European Arrest Warrant
33. Negotiating bi-lateral agreements to replace EAW
34. No votes for prisoners
35. Full prison sentences should be served, parole on case-by-case basis
36. Replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights
37. Official documents to be published primarily in English
38. Cracking down on honour killings, female genital mutilation, and forced marriages
39. Reviewing the BBC licence fee with a view to reducing it
40. Taking non-payment of the licence fee out of the criminal sphere
41. Amend the smoking ban to promote choice for ventilated smoking rooms
42. Opposing plain packs for cigarettes, which has had no impact where trialled
43. Promoting the employment of young, British workers
44. Repealing the Agency Workers Directive
45. Encouraging councils to provide more free parking on High Streets
46. Simplifying planning regulations for long-term empty commercial properties
47. Extending the right of appeal for micro businesses against Revenue and Customs
48. Negotiating bespoke trade agreements with EU member states and worldwide
49. Reoccupying our seat at the World Trade Organisation
50. Abolishing inheritance tax

51. Introducing a 35p income tax rate between £42,285 and £55,000 – taking many public sector workers out of top rate of tax
52. Setting up a Treasury Commission to make sure big corporations pay their way in taxes
53. Abolishing the Dept of Energy and Climate Change and rolling retained functions into DEFRA
54. Introducing an Apprenticeship Qualification for students who don’t want to do non-core GCSEs
55. Scrapping the arbitrary 50% target for university attendance
56. Students from the EU to pay the same as International Students
57. Introducing more power for parents: OFSTED to investigate schools on petition signed by 25% of parents or governors
58. Guaranteeing a job in the police, prison, or border forces for anyone who has served 12 years in the Armed Forces
59. Priority social housing for ex-service men and women, and those returning from service
60. Veterans to receives Veteran’s Card to ensure they’re supported in event of mental health care and more
61. All entitlements to be extended to servicemen and women recruited from overseas
62. Establishing a National Service Medal for all those who have served
63. Encouraging local authorities to buy out their PFI contracts where affordable
64. Ensuring GP’s surgeries are open at least one evening per week where demand permits
65. Ensuring migrants have NHS-approved health insurance until they have paid into the system for 5 years
66. Ending hospital car parking charges
67. Replacing bureaucratic watchdogs with locally elected health boards for more transparency
68. Stopping the sale of patient data to big business
69. Ensuring a high standard of English speakers in the NHS
70. Amend working time rules to give trainee doctors, surgeons, and medics better environments
71. Encouraging and protecting whistleblowing to get to the bottom of poor performance
72. Ensuring migrants have jobs and accommodation before they can come to the UK
73. Migrants will only be eligible for residency after 10 years’ working here
74. Reinstating the primary purpose rule, bringing an end to sham marriage migration
75. No amnesty for illegal immigrants, or those gaining UK passports via fraud
76. Protecting genuine refugees by returning to the UN Convention of Refugees principles
77. British companies to be prioritised to deliver foreign aid contracts
78. Repealing the Climate Change Act 2008 which costs the economy £18n per year
79. Scrapping the Large Combustion Plant directive and redevelop UK power stations
80. Supporting the development of UK Shale Gas with proper safeguards
81. No new taxpayer subsidy for wind farms
82. Leaving the Common Agricultural Policy
83. Allowing parliament to vote on GM foods
84. Reinstating British territorial waters
85. Food to be labelled with country of origin, method of production, method of slaughter and more
86. Ban live animal exports for slaughter
87. Scrapping the Bedroom Tax
88. Child benefit only for children permanently resident in the UK
89. Future child benefit to be limited to first two children only
90. Ensuring an initial presumption of 50-50 parenting on child custody matters
91. Safeguarding visitation rights for grandparents
92. Supporting a streamlined welfare system and a benefit cap
93. Enrolling unemployed benefits claimants into workfare or community schemes
94. Placing revenues from shale gas into a Sovereign Wealth Fund to ensure future growth and security
95. Emphasising the immediate need to utilise forgotten British infrastructure like Manston Airport
96. No cuts to frontline policing
97. Prioritising social housing for those whose parents and grandparents were born locally
98. Reaffirming British laws, rather than allowing dual-track legal systems for minorities in the UK
99. Promoting patriotism and the importance of British values in our schools
100. Rebalancing Britain’s economy.

Seems we have a choice here more of the same from Labour, Liberal, or Conservative.

Or a better future free.

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.


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
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 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.




Monday, November 3rd, 2014

British Government Allow Its Agencies to Ignore Statute and Common Law.


  • This abuse is turning ordinary citizens against the Government authority whom should respect the law and the freedoms and security it gives to all.


Instead Government and its Agencies have become Gangsters who are using trumped up invented law that does not exist, to strike fear and alarm when bailiffs call to collect debt or fines imposed illegally.


  • All to often now we see “Police in full Body Armour”, “Government paid bullies” “paid to beat Protesters”. Whom “mostly are ordinary citizens” like you and me, including the Policemen/women


We also see and hear news reports of how the Unemployed and Pensioners and Benefit claimants are Scroungers costing taxpayers £billions in fraudulent claims.        NOTE THESE ARE UNFUNDED SCHEMES YOU PAY FOR.


These are extracts from the Governments account they speak for themselves.

  • You do not need to be an accountant to realise staff costs are way to high, look at social security benefits re staff costs
  • If this was a private business it would have gone bust in the first few months of trading.  Most of Governments is ran as though to loose as much taxpayers money as possible.   Stop spreading lies.
  • But lets look at the real Truth, Britain has become the dumping ground for huge numbers of Immigrants seeking a better life or free meal ticket. And most arrive from poverty stricken third world countries like Pakistan Bulgaria Romania Somalia Angola.


Many of these are ruthless criminals and murderers with the means and money to get to England, who bypass all the other EU countries just to get to England. Because the EU and Government allows it.


  • This is not some mistake or error by Government, it is deliberate policy. It is simply about cheap labour and creating unemployment to lower the cost of wages for the largest employers. And the Governments own accounts show that fraud and contributed pensions and benefit claimants figures are very small compared to the huge amount paid out to immigrants. There is also a Question that needs asking why is the Government advertising in India for staff, when we have a huge pool of University educated graduates unemployed in Britain working for Tesco or McDonald’s.


What is happening in Britain is is happening all over Europe. It has been created by the Governments of the EU in Collaboration with the ECB (European Central Bank) an unelected body whom make all the Financial and Monetary decisions including those effecting law in all EU Countries.


  • These central banks are the parasites that produce nothing. They don’t produce wealth they take it from you, using laws they organised and had implemented illegally. They control everything using wealth and the ability given to them by Governments to Print as much money as they want, Out Of Thin Air and create Debt for its 500 Million Citizens using inflation and currency exchange control. Central banks want inflation to reduce EU Government Debt and to transfer wealth from its  savers to banks. Increasing inflation in small unoticable chunks. So savers don’t notice their wealth is depreciating and being transfered to the banks.


The British Government uses inflation against its citizens because it lowers Government debt. It has bailed out the banks several times and still is bailing out banks. So the debt burden is huge. Moreover this debt is not quantifiable because the banks do not know how large it is. So the Government must cause inflation to lower the debt it created by bailing out insolvent banks.


  • What the Government is doing is give a false impression that the British economy is booming. But this is just an illusion, to get you to spend your money, which means the Government receives more taxes from your spending into its coffers. And the means to this illusion they are using is cheap Mortgages, introduced and guaranteed by Government to banks. Talk about complicity in parasitic behaviour.


Despite of all the British Governments intervention and televised hype and advertisements. Britain in the EU, is in the largest depressionary cycle ever seen. This is easily observed by the low paid part time jobs created like checkout staff and unskilled bar staff, cleaners etc. taken by a massively huge pool of unemployed workers fighting for a job against an even larger pool of immigrants. Now accounting for a larger part of the black economy than ever before. Paid in cash, wages as low as 70 pence an hour by huge corporate enterprises, farms, packers etc.


  • All of the problems related to the financial crisis and the predicament we are in now is down to the Government and the European Union. Who allowed the insurance companies and the banks to commit fraud. This cannot be disputed it was complete complicit incompetence and fraudulent intent by Government, Insurers and Banks. Whom now appear to be creating a situation where a third world war conflict will be the out come to get the parasites out of the mess they created. I hope I am wrong?


Recently bailiffs called to my home (I was away at the time) but what happened was astonishing, the threats issued by these thugs broke all laws. The methods used shocked me to the extent that I was not believing my own flesh and blood until I saw the security camera recordings. (this is yet to be dealt with). The offence committed was parking in a clearly marked parking bay which resulted in a fixed penalty parking notice. The Councils own evidence a photograph clearly showed no such restrictions , and as such it was defended correctly and with no further response from the council until the statutory time limit was up.

Then with no notice the bailiffs turned up calling the police because they were refused entry using a terrorism act. To collect an illegally enforced parking ticket.


  • The police then allowed an illegal entry to a property I do not own- nor any of the possessions in the house, Then bailiffs forced the Owner to pay my parking fine and costs of several hundred £pounds. This is theft with the full consent knowledge and assistance of the Police the Courts and the Government. It also breaks every statute and every principle of common law, the law of the land Magna Carta. And is why I searched the internet to see if others had experienced such blatant abuse of our centuries old and famous legal system. That is used the world over.


Please look at these examples of the “British Governments Authorised interpretation of the Legal System” “in Britain Today”. COPY AND PASTE INTO YOU BROWSER  THE LINKS, THE CONTENT IS WORTH IT.

The British constitution group above is well worth looking into since its objects will appeal to most if not all reasonable law abiding British Citizens.

      • It should be a wake up call before Britain is taken over by the Banks and the EU. Who are filling Britain with immigrant cheap labour, many “who are recorded criminals” child molesters, rapists, fraudsters and murderers. Who are allowed to claim benefits not contributed to, and fill our hospital wards to overcapacity.


None of the main Political Parties, have taken any notice of our opinion until now and none are worth Voting for. The referendum in Scotland clearly showed them all for what they are Liars. So now it is up to the General public to speak out and tell the truth as it is. We are inundated by corrupt Government the EU Banks Insurers and immigrants who abuse Britain and its very tolerant citizens way of life.


      • I say this to all reasonable minded concerned citizens, Take action now, have your say on Facebook etc. or publish your own website. Its not against the law to tell the truth, Even if its unpalatable for Governments.


Now its time we got rid of the whole corrupt rotten lot and took back our liberty and freedom from oppression and debt imposed by the few on the masses.


See extracts below if you think your money in a bank

is yours?

Financial Services (Regulation of Deposits and Lending)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23 )

    1. pmMr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con): I beg to move,
  • That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit banks and building societies lending on the basis of demand deposits without the permission of the account holder; and for connected purposes.

Who owns the money in your bank account? That small question has profound implications. According to a survey by Ipsos MORI, more than 70% of people in the UK believe that when they deposit money with the bank, it is theirs—but it is not. Money deposited in a bank account is, as established under case law going back more than 200 years, legally the property of the bank, rather than the account holder.


  • Were any hon. Members to deposit £100 at their bank this afternoon or, rather improbably, if the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority was to manage to do so on any Member’s behalf, the bank would then be free to lend on approximately £97 of it. Even under the new capital ratio requirements, the bank could lend on more than 90% of what one deposited. Indeed, bank A could then lend on £97 of the initial £100 deposit to another bank—bank B—which could then lend on 97% of the value. The lending would go round and round until, as we saw at the height of the credit boom, for every £1 deposited banks would have piled up more than £40-worth of accumulated credit of one form or another.


Banks enjoy a form of legal privilege extended to no other area of business that I am aware of—it is a form of legal privilege. I am sure that some hon. Members, in full compliance with IPSA rules, may have rented a flat, and they do not need me, or indeed IPSA, to explain that having done so they are, in general, not allowed to sub-let it to someone else. Anyone who tried to do that would find that their landlord would most likely eject them. So why are banks allowed to sub-let people’s money many times over without their consent?


  • My Bill would give account holders legal ownership of their deposits, unless they indicated otherwise when opening the account. In other words, there would henceforth be two categories of bank account: deposit-taking accounts for investment purposes, and deposit-taking accounts for storage purposes. Banks would remain at liberty to lend on money deposited in the investment accounts, but not on money deposited in the storage accounts. As such, the idea is not a million miles away from the idea of 100% gilt-backed storage accounts proposed by other hon. Members and the Governor of the Bank of England.


My Bill is not just a consumer-protection measure; it also aims to remove a curious legal exemption for banks that has profound implications on the whole economy. Precisely because they are able to treat one’s deposit as an investment in a giant credit pyramid, banks are able to conjure up credit. In most industries, when demand rises businesses produce more in response. The legal privilege extended to banks prevents that basic market mechanism from working, with disastrous consequences.


  • As I shall explain, if the market mechanism worked as it should, once demand for credit started to increase in an economy, banks would raise the price of credit— ¦904interest rates—in order to encourage more savings. More folk would save as a result, as rates rose. That would allow banks to extend credit in proportion to savings. Were banks like any other business, they would find that when demand for what they supply lets rip, they would be constrained in their ability to supply credit by the pricing mechanism. That is, alas, not the case with our system of fractional reserve banking.


Able to treat people’s money as their own, banks can carry on lending against it, without necessarily raising the price of credit. The pricing mechanism does not rein in the growth in credit as it should. Unrestrained by the pricing mechanism, we therefore get credit bubbles. To satisfy runaway demand for credit, banks produce great candy-floss piles of the stuff. The sugar rush feels great for a while, but that sugar-rush credit creates an expansion in capacity in the economy that is not backed by real savings.


  • It is not justified in terms of someone else’s deferred consumption, so the credit boom creates unsustainable over-consumption.
  • Policy makers, not least in this Chamber, regardless of who has been in office, have had to face the unenviable choice between letting the edifice of crony capitalism come crashing down, with calamitous consequences for the rest of us, or printing more real money to shore up this Ponzi scheme—and the people who built it—and in doing so devalue our currency to keep the pyramid afloat.


Since the credit crunch hit us, an endless succession of economists, most of whom did not see it coming, have popped up on our TV screens to explain its causes with great authority. Most have tended to see the lack of credit as the problem, rather than as a symptom. Perhaps we should instead begin to listen to those economists who saw the credit glut that preceded the crash as the problem. The Cobden Centre, the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Huerta de Soto all grasped that the overproduction of bogus candy-floss credit before the crunch gave rise to it.


  • It is time to take seriously their ideas on honest money and sound banking.
  • The Keynesian-monetarist economists might recoil in horror at the idea, because their orthodoxy holds that without these legal privileges for banks, there would be insufficient credit. They say that the oil that keeps the engine of capitalism working would dry up and the machine would grind to a halt, but that is not so.

Under my Bill, credit would still exist but it would be credit backed by savings. In other words, it would be credit that could fuel an expansion in economic capacity that was commensurate with savings or deferred consumption. It would be, to use the cliché of our day, sustainable.


  • Ministers have spoken of their lofty ambition to rebalance the economy from one based on consumption to one founded on producing things. A good place to begin might be to allow a law that permits storage bank accounts that do not permit banks to mass-produce phoney credit in a way that ultimately favours consumers and debtors over those who create wealth. With honest money, instead of being the nation of indebted consumers that we have become, Britons might become again the producers and savers we once were.

With a choice between the new storage accounts and investment accounts, no longer would private individuals find themselves co-opted as unwilling—and indeed ¦905unaware—investors in madcap deals through credit instruments that few even of the banks’ own boards seem to understand.


  • Question put and agreed to.
  • Ordered,
  • That Mr Douglas Carswell and Steve Baker present the Bill.
  • Mr Douglas Carswell accordingly presented the Bill.
  • Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19 November and to be printed (Bill 71).



Draghi doing whatever it takes, Update: Handing Greece The Ace Card.

Friday, August 22nd, 2014

Mario Draghi can be complimented on his ability to “hand Greece’s new Government with the Ace cards” with his Trillion Euro bank bailout to be paid for. By Taxpayers and Bank customers “Depositors money”. This new €60bn per month bailout is again an attempt to pass insolvent Bank debts away from Government to its citizens in the form of inflation to inflate away Government guarranteed debts. This will fail and Greece will start a European rolling ball that will take the whole of Europe out if the Creditors threaten Greece’s new Government and its citizens with capitulation, rather than renegotiation.

Mario Draghi may well delay any effective action again by doing whatever it takes to protect his backside. While at the same time being paid for the inability to respond to worsening EU wide conditions and market forces that no longer listen to his hype or the €trillion by instalments experiment to counter deflation by inflation and devaluation of the Euro. But can Europe’s population pay for this €trillion Euro experiment. When most are cold and hungry from years of Austerity they cannot afford making the decision BETWEEN HEATING OR EATING?


Clearly his position is untenable, indicating his tactics are progressively creating the ideal conditions for the self destruction of the Euro and the European Union.


Not that this was not seen a forgone conclusion. But his managing ability to understand taxation with austerity measures were certain to enforce individuals and corporations to look carefully at capital expenditure and where they spend or keep their cash and assets.


This has led Corporations and individuals to play safe and hoard cash. Effectively destroying the business momentum required to create new wealth. The net result is that the retail sector is in decline or has negative returns. Forcing corporations to shed staff lowering manufacturing output and purchase of raw materials.


Individuals on the other-hand are now much more savy about Insurers, Banks, Financial Institutions, the European Union and Government. Also the internet and information technology has made the masses aware that trust is earned. And that none above especially the EU, fall into this category of trust.


The public’s untrustable perception of Mario Draghi is his delay tactics knowing that there is still huge numbers of Banks and Insurers who are a risk to the financial landscape, still obscuring their insolvency. Mario Draghi knows this yet is ignoring the intervention required to effect control of these to big to fail Insurers and Banks


Recent events like BES ( Banco Espirito Santo ) receiving state aid from Portugal’s taxpayers fly in the face of recent EU regulation which prohibits state aid to private institutions over €500,000- if remembered correctly.


Closer to his home, is Mario Draghi going to bail out Italy and its financial institutions. Or will he be removed and replaced by someone who can do the job correctly and weed out the weak Insolvent institutions hell bent on funding their illegal activities. “Using depositors and shareholders money”.


Or will Mario Draghi be able to placate the British public that won’t tolerate an EU. Observed as a huge conglomeration out of control, “who cannot even balance their books”. That imposes new Protocols, Directives and Laws by the minute, to extract even more money from Britain than British residents earn.


This is unlikely British taxpayers contribution paid for EU Motorways. Toll roads now owned by American Corporations.


Gangsters springs to mind.

UKIP triumph at the polls silenced.

Wednesday, July 23rd, 2014

Controlled British Government Media is hell bent on silencing UKIP triumph at the polls.

Using influence over recent events to bury UK public demand for an EU referendum and immediate withdrawal from the European Union. Seen by most controlled by a handful of ECB –  Mafioso bloated elite. Who through its EU membership control the Media.

While creating an explosion of televised hype regarding EU expansion into Ukraine supposedly to protect a bunch of misfit ex eastern block citizens from Russian indoctrination. When the truth is closer to home. The European Union collapsing under a mountain of Austerity Resentment Debt and Insolvent banks. Who together with vile Insurance Companies have corrupted and defrauded everyone and everything.

The EU who purposely imported a third world immigrant workforce, “deliberately” to lower wages. Then starved an over taxed “divided society” its EU residents into poverty. Enabling the EU to control by fear its population, while inventing other methods of taxation and control to keep the power in the hands of a few who own it all.

Perhaps the News about Russia, the Ukraine, Crimea, the shooting down of a Malaysian jet and disappearance of another is news. Just like the EU Stupidity of Reliance on Russian Gas by the power-house of Europe, “Germany”.  Are we then to believe that our western Governments are not controlling to a significant extent what is happening.

Tactically with resentment, hype, indoctrination by media and rhetoric, EU member Governments are protecting their tax collecting revenue future’s. By controlling what individual EU member country populations see broadcast on television and in other media.

But the European Union and the United States did nothing over Crimea or the destruction and loss of all passengers on Malaysian Flight MH17 this Geopolitical inaction by the EU, Britain and America is because the “Managing EU Morons” are on the hook to energy dependence from Russia. A massive stupid mistake taken by Morons in the European Union.

The EU, suffering from a flat lining at best economy. Leveraged to the butt and with GB, and US stockpiling debt under the thumb of Russia. Now focus is on China for EU overpriced uncompetitive goods, while considering cheap Chinese alternate energy. Shut the gate, “the horse has bolted mentality” from the EU here. While needing the political will of its population to defend its methods which at best can be described as insane.

EU policy can be explained simply. “Tax Fuel”  ( Everything is dependant and transported by it ).  This makes the European Union products the most expensive! what a bunch of idiots.



“Draghi has questionable ability”.

Thursday, July 3rd, 2014

“To QE or not to QE that is the issue for Mario Draghi”.

To “cut rates” or “not to cut rates”. Or to “do whatever it takes” ?  Draghi did say this didn’t he.

Well don’t expect definitive clarity at “today’s news conference” because it won’t happen. “Draghi now has the job of defending his questionable abilities” an overvalued Euro and skilfulness which is waning in front of World leaders.

Update: 14:18, Well what did you expect. No change, he has just protected his backside.

Update 08:55 14th July 2014,

 Draghi announced the ECB (European Central Bank) would give banks a Trillion + Euro liquidity (money) to The “?” Solvent European Banks.    (mm, this drastic action by the ECB expert Draghi, didn’t work in 2012, with 2.2 Trillion Euro. Why should “Draghi repeat action” work this time.
 NOTE comment below, it was posted : 17th June 2012 
Also the ECB said there is no inflation in the Euro area and no prospect of it.
Just on which planet is the ECB spokesman?




Monday, June 30th, 2014

“Bank-fraud-by-Banks”. Previously hidden from public attention by state owned Broadcasting, and “Controlled Newspaper reports” continue to hit on the hour Television News as ordinary citizens and bank employee’s spill the beans spreading the truth.

Recent examples include the huge fines handed out by the US authorities on Banks and the recent reported likely $8.9billion fine on a French “bank-fraud-by-banks” BNP Paribas.

Also “to assume Banks won’t steal its clients money is a false belief”. “Banks always put their profitability before depositors, customers or clients”. History and recent events by “the to big to fail” “to big to jail” Banks, and Financial  Corporations “stealing customers money”, “prove nothing is safe with these institutions”. Examples include the Greek-Cypriot European and American Banks and Insurers.

Bulgarian Banks also had a rough week when news spread by Bulgarian citizens of “Bulgarian Bank Insolvency Risks”, caused a run on the Banks. This creating an EU intervention payment of $2.3billion+ to stabilise the situation, though this is unlikely- in a biased Russian Mafia Controlled Economy.

If the European Unions, ECB “European Central Bank” or Draghi. And failed attempts whizz kid for Italy thinks it can resolve the European Union Crisis or  “Eastern Block Banks”, “Bank-fraud-by-Banks Problems” its whistling in the wind. No amount of taxpayers money or ECB printing toilet paper currency will ever solve the “Eastern Block Countries Economy.”

Or the “European Unions problems”. Where lack of manufacturing output and competitive products and consumer spending will drive deflationary pressure, leaving no room for alternative measures bar devaluation of the Euro or Interest rate hikes. Printing for banks liquidity will certainly end in a drastic failure. The reason is quite simple the ordinary public now know the European Union is just a bunch of Gangsters who steal all our money, using laws they invented and imposed.

And those same laws supposedly to protect its citizens are just hype. None protect European citizens, (but they do protect the banks) etc.

Update: 14th July 2014,

Draghi repeats failed attempts and gives more money to European Banks. BANKS were insolvent before and will be afterwards.

The ECB (European Central Bank) is to give European Banks over 700 Billion Euro and over 1.2 Billion over 4 year.

“ITSFRAUD”, to give money to insolvent businesses. Or is a bank just a “business fraud” full stop.———-AND——.




Banking and Insurance Groups has enslaved future generations with poverty

Saturday, June 21st, 2014

The British Government and National Governments of the European Union have accumulated debts so huge they have never experienced this looming threat to our future before.

This curse left by the Banking and Insurance industry on everyone, “has enslaved future generations with poverty” and shackled them with debt that will remain unpaid well into the next century.

In the meantime bankers and insurers have become obscenely wealthy “creating debt” for you, “from your money! while concentrating/ pooling “your money” then using it to buy Stocks Bonds Equities to accumulate wealth and its power for themselves.

And most of us seem to have forgot that millions died during the 2nd world war to protect these greedy crooks and their and our freedom. Decent ordinary men and women died because they believed their war would end all wars. The to big to fail Banks and Insurer’s though had another agenda,  “funding both sides” and creating more debt.

Despite this our UK Government tethered and led by the European Unions revolving door of shouldered ECB central bank power have taken away our freedom. While devising deceptive new ways to tax ordinary people, incorporating a “mixture of fear” with “hype” broadcast by “state owned media” causing “unprecedented food poverty”.

Of cause we all now know Governments rubbed shoulder to shoulder with these “Gangsters” and gave taxpayers money to “protect” these “Bankers and Insurers from insolvency” and to preserve the Governments shoulder to shoulder “shared relationship” and “tranquil prosperity”.

While the elderly die in thousands each winter and the young suffer malnutrition unemployment and poverty Consecutive Governments nudge up closer to the Ba—rd banks and Insurance “Gangsters who are getting bigger” each day, while news reports daily, unleash more “Bank fraud by Banks.

There is a general term about “Banks and Insurers being to big to fail”. Well they did quite spectacular in 2007 – 2008 yet our Governments choose to ignore it or have not learnt the lesson. Its also strange that ordinary UK citizens don’t seem to care that Government does not know what the hell its doing. UNTIL the greedy hand of Government and the greedy rats in it “hit them  with another tax”, and this continual tax take will not STOP while ever you remain silent.

That’s assuming the financial system as it is. Doesn’t collapse first, taking out the poorest in society first. Then all hell will let loose, the moment citizens realise Government cannot rule “without their consent”.  “Then change will happen fast”.

While the author has no political persuasion its clear “Britain’s membership of the European Union is damaging everyone” except the Banks and Insurers. More importantly nothing has been FIXED or LEARNED by Governments or the European Union from the 2007 – 2008 crisis. “So expect the bubble to burst soon”.

Knowledge is Power, someone famous said this. And soon you will be able to use that power in the forthcoming ELECTIONS so choose wisely who you want in control. To remove all those RATS who have destroyed your sons and daughters future and daemonized the elderly for claiming a Pension pittance they contributed to and paid for. Without a choice by Government.

It was Your Grandfather and Grandmother and the Baby Boomer’s now in their 60s and 70s who contributed all their lives and paid dearly for your freedom .

Don’t let them squander it.


Tuesday, April 29th, 2014

Its about a common market called the European Union.

28 Countries each with different laws all mismatched none protecting its citizens.

There is no harmonisation of rules, because each Countries National Laws, are used instead of EU Law.

This means that you can be arrested and detained by officials using National Laws, in a foreign language using un-translated documentation; Enforced under duress, to force you to sign documents you cannot understand or read and with little option but pay huge fines. These fines can be anything from £250 to £165,000.

The EU is simply a Charter of Fundamental Rights to TAX, STEAL, ROB, or jail you for non compliance with any of its 28 Member States National Laws, and EUROPEAN UNION DIRECTIVES. The laws made to steal your Liberty and Wealth.

While the idea of a single currency and freedom of movement is a good idea it is 30 years out of date!

The average person still assumes he has the right to travel freely and to live or work in any member state and to receive equal treatment as he would expect in his home country. Unfortunately this is not true, since each Country uses its own rules and enforces its own National Laws. Therefore you can find yourself in the situation of being stopped by officials, who do have; Unlimited power to Detain, Confiscate, Jail, or Fine you.

Many will think that the EUROPEAN UNION has laws to protect ordinary citizens. Unfortunately this is not true, it is a myth, most, if not all of the directives rule and laws of the EU, are designed to protect its member states GOVERNMENTS from its citizens lawful actions.

Most people, especially the elderly or retired. Think they can just take their CAR or MOTORHOME or CARAVAN and tour anywhere in the EUROPEAN UNION for as long as they like. Unfortunately this is not correct, it is a myth concocted by the EU, what you do, where you go, depends on a set of different rules and laws for each country, you travel to, or stay in.

You cannot stay in Europe for more than 6 Month with any car van truck etc. And these rules can differ for each Country: 1 month, 3 month to 6 month. All of this can be very confusing but nevertheless you can be detained your car impounded and made to travel great distance to pay huge fines. British Nationals are a target for EU Authorities especially, and has been observed. Though other wealthier Countries Citizens are also subject to similar treatment as well.

It is also a fallacy that you have rights. The EU would have you believe this but again unfortunately the vast majority of directives and laws are there to protect Authority. You have little or no rights when it comes to law.  There is of cause the treaties like the Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union; and the Lisbon Treaty etc.

But unfortunately most if not all directives and so called laws are just fiction, using words like (you may) (its possible) (you could) for example.

None of the EUROPEAN UNION LAWS, seen have any substance, and none contain the words  (ARE) or (YOU ARE) or (WILL BE), in other words we have all been conned into believing the EUROPEAN UNION protects us.



UPDATE: Protocol 1, Article 1  see below.

The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties

As can be seen from the above underlined, any member state can imposed whatever condition penalty fine confiscation or sentencing etc .

Effectively meaning each of the 28 EU member states can ignore all legal matters.



Mario Draghi and his “parasitic elite”.

Saturday, March 29th, 2014

European Central Bank 

The ECB, lets see what is it mmm, its an un-elected and unaccountable bunch of parasites that print money from nothing then lend it to Governments with interest plus terms and conditions, which then force through tax increases on its people. At the same time the ECB gives banks as much free money as they want. Banks then invest this cash in high yield debt, returning negligible cash into the economy, and virtually nothing to small business?


What the ECB is forcing through is its own self-selected power to topple Governments destroy democracy and force through levels of austerity that perpetuate even deeper deregulation of elected Governments monetary affairs and even more austerity (Massive Tax Increases).


Elected Governments and its leaders are being told by the ECB in no uncertain terms to enforce a No –Referendum policy regarding the EU and instead force through ECB policy cuts and austerity or face isolation from ECB bailouts or bond buying money.


ECB self elected parasites have forced through wage deflation using government imports of low cost labour from eastern block countries while restructuring (lowering pensions) to poverty level. The ECB is also playing a game of collective power over Europe’s elected democratic Governments. To remove parliamentary power and hand it to an ECB controlled European Finance Ministry funded by the invading same parasitic group.


The ECB is ruthless in attempting to take over the role of monetary and national law from people elected parliamentary power. It sees itself as the elite group of experts who are able to topple and control any or all Governments its leaders and financial institutions using its banks. Who can limit funding or increase it at will and the ECB is looking at this with a long-term view of Governing the Euro Zone through decades and generations.


To do this the ECB is giving vast sums of money to the highly leveraged technically insolvent banks that have huge interconnected cousins across World borders who can and will act like the gangsters they are, to control what the ECB wants in return for free money.


This puts forward the urgency to reconsider our membership of the European Union before the ECB creates an unstoppable undemocratic system of central bank control. That will increase taxes to fund its own long-term objective of totalitarian monetary control over everyone and everything. This control means the “Euro will be devalued” mid to late 2014 because Draghi needs to appease Central Banks and now has no other option as Deflation dangers looms.


Ask yourself this question (do you know who elected the ECB) to take control over your political and financial decisions to decide whom you democratically vote for in elections or referendums.


Because Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg will do the bidding of the ECB elite group, and deny your referendum and democratic rights, (before the next election).