Business Banking Fraud

Debate between Bob Stewart and Laurence Robertson

Tuesday 9th October 2018 Westminster Hall

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for that very good point. Of course it does. We need to get on and sort this matter out.

In the 18th century, highwaymen used to stop coaches, get people outside them and say, “Stand and deliver. Your money or your life.” Those guys had a choice. Now, the 21st century equivalent of highwaymen—some in the banks—shout, “Your money or your lifestyles”, and they take both. Thank you, Mr Robertson.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (in the Chair)]

I am grateful to hon. Members for their self-restraint and to Opposition Front Benchers for offering to make slightly shorter speeches.

High Court Judgment (John Downey)

Debate between Bob Stewart and Laurence Robertson

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend, who is a valuable member of the Select Committee, points out that a referendum was held on that legislation. That was completely in the open, so why was this scheme not made public? We will need to look at that issue.

It is claimed that the letters were just assurances that no one was being looked at by the PSNI; it was just an administrative scheme and simply a matter of informing people that they were not wanted. But we are also told that the scheme was crucial to the peace process and if it had not been done, the whole peace process would have somehow unravelled. Both those statements cannot be correct. If it was just a matter of clearing the police computer and moving things on, it cannot have been crucial to the peace process.

[Bob Stewart]

Something that puzzles me relates to whether the crime was committed in Northern Ireland or in London. We know the answer: it was committed in Hyde park, which is the responsibility of the Metropolitan police. I do not understand how the PSNI can issue an immunity letter in that case, because it suggests that the Metropolitan police do not have any responsibility.

[Mr Robertson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not want to go back to the Downey case in too much detail, because I am trying to make progress, but it was an extraordinary judgment.

I also question who received these letters: who are the on-the-runs? If a completely innocent person received a letter saying that they were not wanted by the police, that would be extraordinary. It does not happen; there has to be a reason why people were on the run. What exactly does “on the run” mean? What were they suspected of doing? What did they fear the police thought they might have done to put their names forward? Why did they need confirmation that they were not wanted? That is central to the whole debate.

I am also concerned about the number of letters that appear to have been sent out. I am not quite sure of the exact figures, but those I have suggest that 221 letters were sent out, with 10 being provided by the Prison Service, which I find a little confusing, and four by the Government of the Republic of Ireland, which I find a bit worrying. That is according to the statement made by the Secretary of State a couple of days ago. We are told that that does not amount to an amnesty, but what about the royal pardons? Again, the advice I have received is that those are normally issued following a miscarriage of justice, not to prevent a case from being brought against a person in the first place, and that prompts the question of what the pardons were issued for.

The timing of this issue is unfortunate, as I said during the urgent question. As we speak, the PSNI is advertising for people to come forward as witnesses to the Bloody Sunday killings of 1972.

Flooding

Debate between Bob Stewart and Laurence Robertson

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I am pleased to be able to make a brief speech in this important debate. My constituency did not flood immediately but the waters got there in the end, and the continuing rain made for a difficult couple of weeks. I was grateful to the Prime Minister for coming in person to see the effects and meet a number of people who told him what we needed to do—and to avoid doing—in our area. I will outline one or two of those things in a moment.

I was pleased with the Government’s response to the flooding, so far as my constituency was concerned. I was also pleased that the Army was called in to help certain vulnerable people, and I commend the good work done by the fire and rescue services, the police, the Environment Agency and a number of the local councillors, who responded very quickly to the flooding.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I spank my hon. Friend—[Laughter.] I mean, I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. I am going red now. The Pitt review suggested that when the armed forces were used in these circumstances, they should be paid for at full cost. Does my hon. Friend agree that we ought to look into reducing the cost of the armed forces at times of national emergency? At the moment, they often seem too expensive to be used.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I have to say that there is very little chance of his going red, as far as I know. He makes a good point, and he knows far more than I do about the financing of the Army.

The Government response in my area was certainly very good, and a number of the schemes that have been built there in the past few years have also been very successful. Nevertheless, three of the four roads that serve the town of Tewkesbury were closed, and the situation was becoming serious. Sadly, a number of houses were also flooded. I say “houses”, but I should rephrase that. They are people’s homes. Some homes in Sandhurst and Longford, which are villages just down the River Severn, were flooded for the third time in not very many years, and it was heartbreaking to visit them. The challenge, which I want to discuss with the Government, is how we can avoid such flooding in the future.

It has been acknowledged that the Government cannot control the weather, and we seem to have experienced rather different weather cycles over the past few years. Nobody will have forgotten the terrible floods of 2007, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr Pickles) came to visit Tewkesbury and saw some of the problems that we were facing. Even people on the other side of the world heard about those floods. I have spoken to people in Australia who remember seeing the famous picture of the flooded land surrounding Tewkesbury abbey. The abbey itself did not flood, and neither did an even older church just down the way at Deerhurst—it was built in about the 8th century—even though the village does flood.

The important point, which I am going to have to take up with the Secretary of State, although I raised it in an intervention and he did mention the building, is how vital it is not to continue to build in flood-risk areas. I hear what he says about 10% of the country being at flood risk. I have only a simple education, but I suggest that we do not build in the 10% and concentrate building in the 90%. Surely there is enough room to build the houses that we need.

I want to take up the issue of house building, because of a number of sites in my area that have been given planning permission. One of them is absolutely covered in water—it is at Longford, in an area that floods badly. Permission was granted, on appeal, by the previous Government, but I do not know why that happened. That was six years ago, but the houses have not yet been built. Planning permission has been given for a lot of houses in both Bishop’s Cleeve and Brockworth, but those, too, have not yet been built. I say to my right hon. Friend, and to the Government, that I do not accept that there is this need for housing which is being expressed; this need is being overestimated by the Government. I have raised the issue before and we need to look at the point carefully.