I am very sad that this Bill is being passed because I firmly believe it constitutes a backward step. It would have been infinitely preferable had a simple one section Bill been brought before the House, as was suggested by the Federated Union of Employers, not that everything suggested by them or indeed by Congress should be accepted by this or any other Minister. However, I happen to believe that such a measure would have improved the situation somewhat. Indeed I would have gone much further, as I sought to do in the amendments I proposed, because I firmly believe that this Bill constitutes a retrograde step.
I am sorry the Minister has not accepted that, in this case, there is a security dimension and that he has a role to play in that respect. I am sorry also that he has not accepted that there is a need for regulations as to the level of a banking or cashing service and their proximity, and that he has a role to play in implementing those regulations.
I am particularly sorry that this Bill will continue to expose workers, their lives and limbs to danger. It will in no way ease the fears of workers who pay cash, who work in the vicinity of cash or who carry cash—not merely security workers, because there are many places where cash has to be transmitted from one office of a firm to another or from one department to another. There is real fear being felt. I know because I have had personal experience of it: one expects to be pounced on every moment as one goes along that route; one expects a gun to be pointed in the window every time there is money in the office, and that is not at all to exaggerate. This Bill does nothing to minimise those people's fears or to protect them. I am deeply sorry that not alone is there no provision being made to protect life, limb or money but that the Bill constitutes a major retrograde step. All I can hope is that wiser counsel will prevail before too long and that a further amending Bill will be brought before the House.
