The financial crisis gripping the NHS has been laid bare in an extraordinary email sent from a senior civil servant in the Department of Health, which tells officials to ignore ministers' promises on spending. It also threatens staff with disciplinary action if they disobey an order to freeze new investment.
The email - details of which have been obtained by The Observer - was sent at the end of last month from the office of Sir Liam Donaldson, the chief medical officer.
It promises to sound the death knell for a range of public health programmes set up to tackle everything from alcohol abuse and cancer screening to sexually-transmitted diseases and obesity. Health experts believe the spending freeze could even hit attempts to reduce deadly MRSA outbreaks in hospitals and affect contingency planning in the event of an outbreak of bird flu.
The email warns that any department staff failing to follow the orders will 'commit a disciplinary offence'.
Written by Sarndrah Horsfall, Donaldson's chief of staff, the email tells officials that NHS finance director Richard Douglas 'has imposed an embargo on all programme staff'. It orders an 'embargo on all new commitments' for this year and 'all future years' covering 'all programme budgets (capital and revenue)'.
The memo flies in the face of reassurances by the Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, and the NHS chief executive, Sir Nigel Crisp, over health funding. The government has said local hospital trusts must sort out their financial problems and that overall NHS care is improving.
Hewitt has been forced to defend staff lay-offs, mounting financial deficits in NHS hospital trusts and an official policy of delaying operations to save money. This week, she will urge hospital staff to tackle waste and inefficiency.
News of the spending freeze emerges as The Observer reveals widescale cutbacks in the NHS. These include:
· GPs not referring patients for routine surgery across Swindon in Wiltshire for the next month.
· No hernia operations for patients in Oxfordshire.
· A cut in the number of beds at Airedale hospital, near Skipton, North Yorkshire.
The mounting crisis has triggered an outbreak of buckpassing, with Downing Street said to be unhappy with the way the Department of Health has handled the problems.
But one paragraph of the leaked email will prove highly embarrassing for the government. It suggests that any public announcement by a minister promising extra funding should be disregarded. It was this that so angered an official at the department that details of its contents were passed to The Observer
The email states: 'Commitment to spend by virtue of an announcement, including ministerial announcements, is not considered a commitment in this context.'
Opposition politicians said the email proved that headline-grabbing proposals by ministers are worthless.
Andrew Lansley, the shadow health secretary, said: 'What is disturbing about this disclosure is that key public health priorities will suffer. It appears pre- and post-election promises by ministers will prove not worth the paper they are printed on.' Lansley believes the email reveals the true state of NHS finances.
'Patricia Hewitt has been complacent about the scale of the financial problems facing the health service and this shows the problems are much greater than she has acknowledged,' he said.
Professor David Turner, chairman of the UK Public Health Association, said the contents of the email left him 'dispirited and depressed'. 'Despite promises by ministers that public health would be one of their top priorities,' he said, 'it seems once again it will be hit hard.'
The email also raises questions about existing spending commitments. It tells staff that, unless a contract is completely signed off, with all the finances finalised, then the investment should be stalled.
The department refused to give details of what programmes the spending freeze would hit or what ministerial announcements are to be ignored, although a spokeswoman confirmed the email had been sent.
Liam Byrne, the junior health minister responsible for community care, is understood to have been warned recently against making promises that could not be kept.
Last month, public health minister Caroline Flint announced a programme to deal with alcohol problems at an early age. Flint announced this to counter fears over binge drinking after the government's decision to relax licensing laws.
Insiders at the department have confirmed that this programme is now at risk. They also point to similar announcements by ministers to set up a programme to tackle the rapidly growing incidents of sexually transmitted diseases such as chlamydia.
This is now also thought to be at risk as is the plan to set up a national programme to screen for bowel cancer. One insider who received the email said the tone of the memo particularly annoyed officials. Under a paragraph entitled 'Discipline and Enforcement', it states that any staff 'entering into new contracts on contravention of the embargo' will 'commit a disciplinary offence'.
A spokeswoman for the department refused to comment on what she described as a 'leaked document'. She said: 'The Department of Health is reviewing spending plans for the year against available resources. It still remains the department's intention to meet its existing commitments.'
(from Antony Barnett and Solomon Hughes at The Observer )
Sunday, December 11, 2005
Saturday, December 10, 2005
5,000 NHS deaths could be avoided
Almost five thousand deaths could be prevented each year if the country's worst managed hospitals achieved a small improvement in performance, according to a study.
A wide variation in hospital death rates across the NHS is disclosed in The Hospital Guide, compiled by independent health information provider Dr Foster. Some 17 patients die in poor performing hospitals for every 10 in the best, the study shows.
The majority of hospitals with the lowest death rates - seven out of ten - are in London and the South East.
The highest death rates are evenly spread across the country except for the South West and Yorkshire which have average, or lower than average, death rates.
The research shows that, nationally, mortality rates have been improving by between 2% and 3% in recent years.
But if all hospitals with above-average death rates improved their performance to achieve the average, 5,000 lives would be saved every year in England.
Roger Taylor, research director at Dr Foster, said this information was vital to patients making choices about where they went for treatment.
"From January next year, patients will have the right to chose where they are treated," he said. "They need detailed information about the services available in their local hospitals as well as overall performance indicators.
"The Dr Foster hospital guide provides the most comprehensive information about standards and services, free to the public."
The lowest standardised mortality ratios are 30% better than average while the highest are 20% better than average.
(thisislondon)
A wide variation in hospital death rates across the NHS is disclosed in The Hospital Guide, compiled by independent health information provider Dr Foster. Some 17 patients die in poor performing hospitals for every 10 in the best, the study shows.
The majority of hospitals with the lowest death rates - seven out of ten - are in London and the South East.
The highest death rates are evenly spread across the country except for the South West and Yorkshire which have average, or lower than average, death rates.
The research shows that, nationally, mortality rates have been improving by between 2% and 3% in recent years.
But if all hospitals with above-average death rates improved their performance to achieve the average, 5,000 lives would be saved every year in England.
Roger Taylor, research director at Dr Foster, said this information was vital to patients making choices about where they went for treatment.
"From January next year, patients will have the right to chose where they are treated," he said. "They need detailed information about the services available in their local hospitals as well as overall performance indicators.
"The Dr Foster hospital guide provides the most comprehensive information about standards and services, free to the public."
The lowest standardised mortality ratios are 30% better than average while the highest are 20% better than average.
(thisislondon)
New Labour stifle free speech
Arrested over demonstration at arms fair
The cases of Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan are due before the House of Lords next month as civil rights campaigners attempt to show that anti-terrorism laws to stop and search are being used unlawfully. Mr Gillan, 28, a postgraduate student from Sheffield, and Ms Quinton, 34, a freelance photo-journalist, were among about 140 people arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 at an arms fair at the Excel Centre in east London in 2003.
Lawyers for Liberty argued that the "draconian" powers were being used in a way that was never intended by Parliament and that they had unlawfully deterred members of the public from demonstrating peacefully. The Court of Appeal gave the police the benefit of the doubt.
Convicted over anti-corporate stunt
The self-styled George Fox Six burst into a lecture theatre at Lancaster University in September last year to protest at a corporate conference. They picked a conference attended by executives from BAE Systems, DuPont, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell to highlight what they believed were malign relationships between academic research and business.
In response to the protest, their own university insisted on pressing charges for aggravated trespass.
In October the six - two undergraduates, two postgraduates, a former student and a student from an affiliated college - were found guilty at Lancaster magistrates' court. A district judge gave each a conditional discharge and ordered them to pay £300 costs.
Detained for throwing a tea party
It started as a joke for Mark Barrett, a tour guide, and a few other protesters. Angered at the planned exclusion zone for unauthorised demonstrations around Parlia- ment Square, he went to aprotest in August.
He said: "There were various people there with placards. I said, 'Let's go and throw tea into the Thames as they did at the Boston Tea Party.' We had a bit of a laugh. Now we have a tea party protest every Sunday."
Thus was born the People of the Commons Picknickers, angered by Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Mr Barrett, 36, and 20 other activists were arrested. He is due in court next month. "The law is about the attempt to marginalise people's points of view," he said. "It is anti-democratic and an abuse of power."
Apprehended for 'offensive' T-shirt
John Catt, an 80-year-old peace campaigner, was stopped by police officers as a terrorist suspect in Brighton in September - for wearing a T-shirt with anti-Blair and Bush slogans.
Mr Catt, who served in the RAF during the Second World War, was stopped, searched by police and made to sign a form confirming he had been interviewed under the 2000 Terrorism Act.
The official record of the encounter confirms that the "purpose" of the search was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).
Mr Catt was offered a caution by police, but refused and plans to plead not guilty at a trial due to start in January. He had travelled into Brighton from his home in Withdean, on the outskirts of the city.
"I said I was going to voice my opposition to the Iraq War. He [the policeman] said: 'We're going to give you a copy of this form.'
"People should have the right to protest non-violently. The anti-terrorism laws should not be used to stop people doing that."
Threatened with jail for Iraq protest
Douglas Barker has adopted a new approach to resistance to the war, by withholding 10 per cent of his income tax in protest at Britain's involvement.
The former RAF serviceman, who is 72, owns a 200-acre estate in Wiltshire and describes himself as a lifelong socialist who was a firm supporter of Tony Blair until the war. On Wednesday, he was threatened with jail if he continued to refuse to pay the £1,142.58 the Inland Revenue says he owes.
When completing his tax return for the second half of this year, Mr Barker, 72, estimated that 10 per cent of all government expenditure went on the military. He said: "I came to the conclusion that by paying this, I was violating my conscience, because I felt it would have been used illegally to kill people in a sovereign state.
"If I have to go to jail, I will go to jail."
Held for shouting 'nonsense' at Jack Straw
Walter Wolfgang, 82, a Labour party member for 57 years, became a cause célèbre after he was bundled out of the Labour Party conference hall in Brighton in September.
His offence was to shout "nonsense" as Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, defended Britain's role in Iraq.
He was later stopped under anti-terrorist powers as he tried to re-enter the hall. The heavy-handed treatment of Mr Wolfgang revived criticism of the "control freakery" associated with Labour.
Mr Wolfgang fled Nazi Germany as a teenager for Britain. He said: "I shouted out 'nonsense'. That's all I said. Then these two toughies came round and wanted to manhandle me out ... Physically, I am not too well, so I said I would follow them."
The over-reaction by conference stewards backfired and turned into a public relations disaster for the party. The anti-terror law used to stop Mr Wolfgang was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is supposed to be deployed against suspected terrorists, not protesters.
Convicted for reading the names of 97 war dead
Maya Evans, 25, this week became the first person to be convicted under the new laws banning demonstrations near Parliament. She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 in costs after being found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Her "serious" crime was to stand by the Cenotaph, close to Downing Street, reading aloud the names of the 97 British soldiers who have died in Iraq.
Ms Evans, a part-time vegan chef from Hastings, east Sussex, was considered such a threat that two police sergeants and 12 constables in two minibuses were sent to arrest her.
Following her conviction, which saddles her with a criminal record, she said: "I just think it's a shame that you cannot voice your freedom of speech. It sends out a message that you will be arrested for remembering the dead."
The cases of Pennie Quinton and Kevin Gillan are due before the House of Lords next month as civil rights campaigners attempt to show that anti-terrorism laws to stop and search are being used unlawfully. Mr Gillan, 28, a postgraduate student from Sheffield, and Ms Quinton, 34, a freelance photo-journalist, were among about 140 people arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000 at an arms fair at the Excel Centre in east London in 2003.
Lawyers for Liberty argued that the "draconian" powers were being used in a way that was never intended by Parliament and that they had unlawfully deterred members of the public from demonstrating peacefully. The Court of Appeal gave the police the benefit of the doubt.
Convicted over anti-corporate stunt
The self-styled George Fox Six burst into a lecture theatre at Lancaster University in September last year to protest at a corporate conference. They picked a conference attended by executives from BAE Systems, DuPont, GlaxoSmithKline and Shell to highlight what they believed were malign relationships between academic research and business.
In response to the protest, their own university insisted on pressing charges for aggravated trespass.
In October the six - two undergraduates, two postgraduates, a former student and a student from an affiliated college - were found guilty at Lancaster magistrates' court. A district judge gave each a conditional discharge and ordered them to pay £300 costs.
Detained for throwing a tea party
It started as a joke for Mark Barrett, a tour guide, and a few other protesters. Angered at the planned exclusion zone for unauthorised demonstrations around Parlia- ment Square, he went to aprotest in August.
He said: "There were various people there with placards. I said, 'Let's go and throw tea into the Thames as they did at the Boston Tea Party.' We had a bit of a laugh. Now we have a tea party protest every Sunday."
Thus was born the People of the Commons Picknickers, angered by Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.
Mr Barrett, 36, and 20 other activists were arrested. He is due in court next month. "The law is about the attempt to marginalise people's points of view," he said. "It is anti-democratic and an abuse of power."
Apprehended for 'offensive' T-shirt
John Catt, an 80-year-old peace campaigner, was stopped by police officers as a terrorist suspect in Brighton in September - for wearing a T-shirt with anti-Blair and Bush slogans.
Mr Catt, who served in the RAF during the Second World War, was stopped, searched by police and made to sign a form confirming he had been interviewed under the 2000 Terrorism Act.
The official record of the encounter confirms that the "purpose" of the search was "terrorism" and the "grounds for intervention" were "carrying plackard and T-shirt with anti-Blair info" (sic).
Mr Catt was offered a caution by police, but refused and plans to plead not guilty at a trial due to start in January. He had travelled into Brighton from his home in Withdean, on the outskirts of the city.
"I said I was going to voice my opposition to the Iraq War. He [the policeman] said: 'We're going to give you a copy of this form.'
"People should have the right to protest non-violently. The anti-terrorism laws should not be used to stop people doing that."
Threatened with jail for Iraq protest
Douglas Barker has adopted a new approach to resistance to the war, by withholding 10 per cent of his income tax in protest at Britain's involvement.
The former RAF serviceman, who is 72, owns a 200-acre estate in Wiltshire and describes himself as a lifelong socialist who was a firm supporter of Tony Blair until the war. On Wednesday, he was threatened with jail if he continued to refuse to pay the £1,142.58 the Inland Revenue says he owes.
When completing his tax return for the second half of this year, Mr Barker, 72, estimated that 10 per cent of all government expenditure went on the military. He said: "I came to the conclusion that by paying this, I was violating my conscience, because I felt it would have been used illegally to kill people in a sovereign state.
"If I have to go to jail, I will go to jail."
Held for shouting 'nonsense' at Jack Straw
Walter Wolfgang, 82, a Labour party member for 57 years, became a cause célèbre after he was bundled out of the Labour Party conference hall in Brighton in September.
His offence was to shout "nonsense" as Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, defended Britain's role in Iraq.
He was later stopped under anti-terrorist powers as he tried to re-enter the hall. The heavy-handed treatment of Mr Wolfgang revived criticism of the "control freakery" associated with Labour.
Mr Wolfgang fled Nazi Germany as a teenager for Britain. He said: "I shouted out 'nonsense'. That's all I said. Then these two toughies came round and wanted to manhandle me out ... Physically, I am not too well, so I said I would follow them."
The over-reaction by conference stewards backfired and turned into a public relations disaster for the party. The anti-terror law used to stop Mr Wolfgang was Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000. It is supposed to be deployed against suspected terrorists, not protesters.
Convicted for reading the names of 97 war dead
Maya Evans, 25, this week became the first person to be convicted under the new laws banning demonstrations near Parliament. She was given a conditional discharge and ordered to pay £100 in costs after being found guilty of breaching Section 132 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Her "serious" crime was to stand by the Cenotaph, close to Downing Street, reading aloud the names of the 97 British soldiers who have died in Iraq.
Ms Evans, a part-time vegan chef from Hastings, east Sussex, was considered such a threat that two police sergeants and 12 constables in two minibuses were sent to arrest her.
Following her conviction, which saddles her with a criminal record, she said: "I just think it's a shame that you cannot voice your freedom of speech. It sends out a message that you will be arrested for remembering the dead."
Police warn author over gay comments
An author and broadcaster condemned as "sinister" yesterday an inquiry conducted by police over comments she made about homosexuals on a live radio programme.
Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.
"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.
"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."
Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.
A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".
It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.
"All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed."
Mrs Burrows, of Cambridge, the author of Fight For The Family, is the mother of six children and the sister of Victoria Gillick, who unsuccessfully campaigned for parents to have to consent before underage girls could be prescribed the contraceptive pill.
She said she would not allow the investigation to stop her expressing her views.
from Sally Pook Daily Telegraph
Lynette Burrows, an author on children's rights and a family campaigner, took part in a discussion on the Victoria Derbyshire show on Radio Five Live about the new civil partnerships act.
During the programme, she said she did not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to adopt. She added that placing boys with two homosexuals for adoption was as obvious a risk as placing a girl with two heterosexual men who offered themselves as parents. "It is a risk," she said. "You would not give a small girl to two men."
A member of the public complained to the police and an officer contacted Mrs Burrows the following day to say a "homophobic incident" had been reported against her.
"I was astounded," she said. "I told her this was a free country and we are allowed to express opinions on matters of public interest. She told me it was not a crime but that she had to record these incidents.
"They were leaning on me, letting me know that the police had an interest in my views. I think it is sinister and completely unacceptable."
Scotland Yard confirmed last night that Fulham police had investigated a complaint over the radio programme.
A spokesman said it was policy for community safety units to investigate homophobic, racist and domestic incidents because these were "priority crimes".
It is standard practice for all parties to be spoken to, even if the incident is not strictly seen as a crime. "It is all about reassuring the community," said the spokesman. "We can confirm that a member of the public brought to our attention an incident which he believed to be homophobic.
"All parties have been spoken to by the police. No allegation of crime has been made. A report has been taken but is now closed."
Mrs Burrows, of Cambridge, the author of Fight For The Family, is the mother of six children and the sister of Victoria Gillick, who unsuccessfully campaigned for parents to have to consent before underage girls could be prescribed the contraceptive pill.
She said she would not allow the investigation to stop her expressing her views.
from Sally Pook Daily Telegraph
Thursday, December 08, 2005
New Labour smear Shadow Chancellor
Labour MP Dennis Skinner has been banned from the Commons for the rest of Thursday for accusing shadow chancellor George Osborne of snorting cocaine.
The claim came as Mr Osborne took on ministers at Treasury questions.
Referring to the 1980s, Mr Skinner said: "The only thing that was growing then was the lines of coke in front of Boy George and the rest of the Tories."
Speaker Michael Martin told Bolsover MP Mr Skinner to leave the chamber when he refused to withdraw the remark.
The MP also said coalfield areas would have "thanked their lucky stars" for the 1.75% growth now being forecast for this year by Chancellor Gordon Brown.
Mr Martin demanded he withdraw his claim but the veteran MP referred to Sunday newspaper claims - denied by Mr Osborne - that he had taken cocaine.
Mr Skinner said: "That was in the News of the World and you know it."
He continued to refuse when Mr Martin repeated his demand, saying: "No, I'm not withdrawing it ... it's true".
The speaker told him to withdraw the comment or leave the chamber, eventually saying: "I order you to leave the chamber."
Mr Martin also officially "named" the MP but added - the first step towards punishment: "He's withdrawing, he's taken my advice... I know what I've done, he's moved and that's the main thing."
The speaker's office later confirmed that Mr Skinner would be unable to return to the Commons chamber for the rest of the day.
Mr Skinner has earned the nickname "the Beast of Bolsover" for his acerbic attacks on the Tories from his regular front row seat in the Commons chamber.
He has been upbraided in the Commons chamber before, and has been asked to leave nine times since 1979, including a five-day ban in 1981.
In 1992, he was thrown out for calling then Agriculture Minister John Gummer a "little squirt of a minister" and a "wart".
And he was banned for the rest of the day in 1995 when he accused ministers of a "crooked deal" to sell off the coal industry.
ED: If you you can't beat them then smear them.
The claim came as Mr Osborne took on ministers at Treasury questions.
Referring to the 1980s, Mr Skinner said: "The only thing that was growing then was the lines of coke in front of Boy George and the rest of the Tories."
Speaker Michael Martin told Bolsover MP Mr Skinner to leave the chamber when he refused to withdraw the remark.
The MP also said coalfield areas would have "thanked their lucky stars" for the 1.75% growth now being forecast for this year by Chancellor Gordon Brown.
Mr Martin demanded he withdraw his claim but the veteran MP referred to Sunday newspaper claims - denied by Mr Osborne - that he had taken cocaine.
Mr Skinner said: "That was in the News of the World and you know it."
He continued to refuse when Mr Martin repeated his demand, saying: "No, I'm not withdrawing it ... it's true".
The speaker told him to withdraw the comment or leave the chamber, eventually saying: "I order you to leave the chamber."
Mr Martin also officially "named" the MP but added - the first step towards punishment: "He's withdrawing, he's taken my advice... I know what I've done, he's moved and that's the main thing."
The speaker's office later confirmed that Mr Skinner would be unable to return to the Commons chamber for the rest of the day.
Mr Skinner has earned the nickname "the Beast of Bolsover" for his acerbic attacks on the Tories from his regular front row seat in the Commons chamber.
He has been upbraided in the Commons chamber before, and has been asked to leave nine times since 1979, including a five-day ban in 1981.
In 1992, he was thrown out for calling then Agriculture Minister John Gummer a "little squirt of a minister" and a "wart".
And he was banned for the rest of the day in 1995 when he accused ministers of a "crooked deal" to sell off the coal industry.
ED: If you you can't beat them then smear them.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Brown cooking the books
Gordon Brown was accused yesterday of moving his economic goalposts by the leading independent arbiter of the public finances.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the Chancellor had fiddled with the dates of the economic cycle and that these should be set in future by an independent body, possibly the Office for National Statistics.
Gordon Brown has pushed back the end of the cycle by three years
The dates for the start and end of the cycle are crucial to assess whether Gordon Brown's two fiscal rules are met. "He has extended the seven-year economic cycle to 12 years - less a cycle than a stretch limo," said Robert Chote, the head of the IFS. "The goalposts have been moved so far that they are barely still on the pitch."
The Chancellor pushed back the end of the cycle by three years in Monday's pre-Budget report, to 2009. In July, he pushed forward the start date by two years, from 1999 to 1997.
Mr Chote said it was odd that the date change, which would have been "unremarkable if it was made at any point in the previous three years" was made in July, just as it looked as if the Golden Rule would be breached.
The Golden Rule calls for the books to be balanced over the cycle, to show that he has only borrowed money for investment and not to pay day-to-day bills. Mr Brown is now on course to meet this rule by a comfortable margin, thanks to the date changes.
However, a side effect of the earlier start date is that the Chancellor appears to have broken his other fiscal rule in his first year of office. The sustainable investment rule says government debt should be no more than 40pc of the size of the economy.
It was above this level until 1998-99, the old date for the beginning of the cycle. "This has certainly made me laugh," said Professor Peter Spencer, economic adviser to Ernst & Young.
Mr Chote said: "It is hard to argue that suddenly moving from a seven-year to a 12-year cycle is going to do anything to improve credibility and there are obviously going to be fears that this is going to be moved around in the future."
He suggested the Treasury adopts a two-year target for the current budget balance, much like the Bank of England has a two-year inflation target. The Treasury said the economic cycle was set based on "independent data from the independent ONS and audited by the independent National Audit Office".
A spokesman said: "A few months ago the IFS agreed that the assessment of the economic cycle beginning in 1997 was reasonable. They appear to have changed their view. The IFS also said that extending the economic cycle beyond 2006, as set out in the pre-Budget report, would make it more difficult for the Government to meet its fiscal rules."
Whether the Chancellor has plugged the £11billion hole in his public finances by tax rises and public spending cuts is still questionable. The IFS said it would deliver a verdict in January.
Mr Chote said he would be looking at whether the economy will grow as strongly as Mr Brown predicts. "He appears to have dug himself a deep hole to give himself something to climb out of," he said, adding that the projections might go awry if the Bank ''puts the brakes on". He also said the Chancellor's plan to cut £8billion from government budgets from 2007 to 2010 would put a "very tough squeeze" on civil servants.
From Malcolm Moore, Economics Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph
The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said the Chancellor had fiddled with the dates of the economic cycle and that these should be set in future by an independent body, possibly the Office for National Statistics.
Gordon Brown has pushed back the end of the cycle by three years
The dates for the start and end of the cycle are crucial to assess whether Gordon Brown's two fiscal rules are met. "He has extended the seven-year economic cycle to 12 years - less a cycle than a stretch limo," said Robert Chote, the head of the IFS. "The goalposts have been moved so far that they are barely still on the pitch."
The Chancellor pushed back the end of the cycle by three years in Monday's pre-Budget report, to 2009. In July, he pushed forward the start date by two years, from 1999 to 1997.
Mr Chote said it was odd that the date change, which would have been "unremarkable if it was made at any point in the previous three years" was made in July, just as it looked as if the Golden Rule would be breached.
The Golden Rule calls for the books to be balanced over the cycle, to show that he has only borrowed money for investment and not to pay day-to-day bills. Mr Brown is now on course to meet this rule by a comfortable margin, thanks to the date changes.
However, a side effect of the earlier start date is that the Chancellor appears to have broken his other fiscal rule in his first year of office. The sustainable investment rule says government debt should be no more than 40pc of the size of the economy.
It was above this level until 1998-99, the old date for the beginning of the cycle. "This has certainly made me laugh," said Professor Peter Spencer, economic adviser to Ernst & Young.
Mr Chote said: "It is hard to argue that suddenly moving from a seven-year to a 12-year cycle is going to do anything to improve credibility and there are obviously going to be fears that this is going to be moved around in the future."
He suggested the Treasury adopts a two-year target for the current budget balance, much like the Bank of England has a two-year inflation target. The Treasury said the economic cycle was set based on "independent data from the independent ONS and audited by the independent National Audit Office".
A spokesman said: "A few months ago the IFS agreed that the assessment of the economic cycle beginning in 1997 was reasonable. They appear to have changed their view. The IFS also said that extending the economic cycle beyond 2006, as set out in the pre-Budget report, would make it more difficult for the Government to meet its fiscal rules."
Whether the Chancellor has plugged the £11billion hole in his public finances by tax rises and public spending cuts is still questionable. The IFS said it would deliver a verdict in January.
Mr Chote said he would be looking at whether the economy will grow as strongly as Mr Brown predicts. "He appears to have dug himself a deep hole to give himself something to climb out of," he said, adding that the projections might go awry if the Bank ''puts the brakes on". He also said the Chancellor's plan to cut £8billion from government budgets from 2007 to 2010 would put a "very tough squeeze" on civil servants.
From Malcolm Moore, Economics Correspondent of the Daily Telegraph
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Oops Blunkett he did it again
David Blunkett has started his new job as a newspaper columnist without waiting for clearance from the anti-sleaze watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
Mr Blunkett was forced to resign from the Cabinet last month because he broke the ministerial code in taking a lucrative job with a DNA testing firm.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions failed to seek the advice of the advisory committee before joining DNA Bioscience, despite being warned of the rules.
He admitted that he should have been "much more methodical" in his dealings with the committee last week. In an interview to launch his column in The Sun, for which he is expected to receive around £190,000 a year, he said that he alone was responsible for ensuring he kept within the rules.
But Mr Blunkett has again failed to get clearance from the committee in starting work for the paper, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. Tony Blair's friend and ally did, on this occasion, ask the committee for its ruling - but then didn't wait for its reply.
A spokeswoman for the advisory committee said: "The committee received a request for general advice on 18 November and we gave that on 22 November. We subsequently received a request for particular advice on 25 November and we are currently considering that request."
Although Mr Blunkett can say that he observed the precise wording of the code - that "ministers should seek advice" on business appointments - he has certainly flouted its spirit in not waiting for a reply.
Sources close to the committee expressed dismay at Mr Blunkett's behaviour. "It's against the rules, even though there's not likely to be a problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr Blunkett admitted that he had failed to wait for the watchdog's advice. She denied, however, that this was a deliberate snub. "He's gone out of his way to seek their advice on not one but two occasions," said the spokeswoman.
The latest breach is an embarrassment, as Mr Blunkett seeks to relaunch himself as a pundit after his second exit from the Cabinet in a year.
His efforts to draw a line under the affair had already been undermined, as one of the principals in the drama spoke publicly for the first time last week.
Lucy Siddiqi, formerly a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience who, with her husband, Tariq, invited Mr Blunkett to join the board, said the couple "couldn't believe our luck" when he readily agreed.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Mrs Siddiqi detailed dinners the couple had enjoyed with Mr Blunkett at Annabel's and the Groucho Club in London earlier this year.
The former minister had now broken off all contact, she said, and "it appeared he was almost blaming us".
"We were upset because we'd stayed silent for six weeks out of respect for him. If we'd wanted to, we could have said things where he could be potentially ridiculed."
The atmosphere of mutual recrimination thickened as she denied "setting up" the former cabinet minister with Sally Anderson, a 29-year-old estate agent who sold the story of her "dates" with Mr Blunkett.
It was at a fateful dinner party at Annabel's nightclub that the Siddiqis introduced him to Ms Anderson, a relationship that ended in the offices of the publicist Max Clifford.
"David did seem quite keen," recalls Mrs Siddiqi, adding that her former friend was "quite lonely". She added: " If one is going to start to speculate on his ability to do his job correctly while remaining emotionally unstable, that's something I can't comment on."
For his part, Mr Blunkett also suggested there was more to be revealed about his resignation. "I come from a background where people said what they meant and were very straight with each other. I forgot for a moment that this isn't always the case - and I paid the price for it."
The paper gave its new pundit star billing on Wednesday: "David Blunkett. He's tough, he's outspoken - and he's in The Sun."
David Blunkett has started his new job as a newspaper columnist without waiting for clearance from the anti-sleaze watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
Mr Blunkett was forced to resign from the Cabinet last month because he broke the ministerial code in taking a lucrative job with a DNA testing firm.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions failed to seek the advice of the advisory committee before joining DNA Bioscience, despite being warned of the rules.
He admitted that he should have been "much more methodical" in his dealings with the committee last week. In an interview to launch his column in The Sun, for which he is expected to receive around £190,000 a year, he said that he alone was responsible for ensuring he kept within the rules.
But Mr Blunkett has again failed to get clearance from the committee in starting work for the paper, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. Tony Blair's friend and ally did, on this occasion, ask the committee for its ruling - but then didn't wait for its reply.
A spokeswoman for the advisory committee said: "The committee received a request for general advice on 18 November and we gave that on 22 November. We subsequently received a request for particular advice on 25 November and we are currently considering that request."
Although Mr Blunkett can say that he observed the precise wording of the code - that "ministers should seek advice" on business appointments - he has certainly flouted its spirit in not waiting for a reply.
Sources close to the committee expressed dismay at Mr Blunkett's behaviour. "It's against the rules, even though there's not likely to be a problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr Blunkett admitted that he had failed to wait for the watchdog's advice. She denied, however, that this was a deliberate snub. "He's gone out of his way to seek their advice on not one but two occasions," said the spokeswoman.
The latest breach is an embarrassment, as Mr Blunkett seeks to relaunch himself as a pundit after his second exit from the Cabinet in a year.
His efforts to draw a line under the affair had already been undermined, as one of the principals in the drama spoke publicly for the first time last week.
Lucy Siddiqi, formerly a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience who, with her husband, Tariq, invited Mr Blunkett to join the board, said the couple "couldn't believe our luck" when he readily agreed.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Mrs Siddiqi detailed dinners the couple had enjoyed with Mr Blunkett at Annabel's and the Groucho Club in London earlier this year.
The former minister had now broken off all contact, she said, and "it appeared he was almost blaming us".
"We were upset because we'd stayed silent for six weeks out of respect for him. If we'd wanted to, we could have said things where he could be potentially ridiculed."
The atmosphere of mutual recrimination thickened as she denied "setting up" the former cabinet minister with Sally Anderson, a 29-year-old estate agent who sold the story of her "dates" with Mr Blunkett.
It was at a fateful dinner party at Annabel's nightclub that the Siddiqis introduced him to Ms Anderson, a relationship that ended in the offices of the publicist Max Clifford.
"David did seem quite keen," recalls Mrs Siddiqi, adding that her former friend was "quite lonely". She added: " If one is going to start to speculate on his ability to do his job correctly while remaining emotionally unstable, that's something I can't comment on."
For his part, Mr Blunkett also suggested there was more to be revealed about his resignation. "I come from a background where people said what they meant and were very straight with each other. I forgot for a moment that this isn't always the case - and I paid the price for it."
The paper gave its new pundit star billing on Wednesday: "David Blunkett. He's tough, he's outspoken - and he's in The Sun."
From Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor at The Independent
ED: Obviously when you are as important as David and you know Tony then the rules don't really apply to you
Mr Blunkett was forced to resign from the Cabinet last month because he broke the ministerial code in taking a lucrative job with a DNA testing firm.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions failed to seek the advice of the advisory committee before joining DNA Bioscience, despite being warned of the rules.
He admitted that he should have been "much more methodical" in his dealings with the committee last week. In an interview to launch his column in The Sun, for which he is expected to receive around £190,000 a year, he said that he alone was responsible for ensuring he kept within the rules.
But Mr Blunkett has again failed to get clearance from the committee in starting work for the paper, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. Tony Blair's friend and ally did, on this occasion, ask the committee for its ruling - but then didn't wait for its reply.
A spokeswoman for the advisory committee said: "The committee received a request for general advice on 18 November and we gave that on 22 November. We subsequently received a request for particular advice on 25 November and we are currently considering that request."
Although Mr Blunkett can say that he observed the precise wording of the code - that "ministers should seek advice" on business appointments - he has certainly flouted its spirit in not waiting for a reply.
Sources close to the committee expressed dismay at Mr Blunkett's behaviour. "It's against the rules, even though there's not likely to be a problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr Blunkett admitted that he had failed to wait for the watchdog's advice. She denied, however, that this was a deliberate snub. "He's gone out of his way to seek their advice on not one but two occasions," said the spokeswoman.
The latest breach is an embarrassment, as Mr Blunkett seeks to relaunch himself as a pundit after his second exit from the Cabinet in a year.
His efforts to draw a line under the affair had already been undermined, as one of the principals in the drama spoke publicly for the first time last week.
Lucy Siddiqi, formerly a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience who, with her husband, Tariq, invited Mr Blunkett to join the board, said the couple "couldn't believe our luck" when he readily agreed.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Mrs Siddiqi detailed dinners the couple had enjoyed with Mr Blunkett at Annabel's and the Groucho Club in London earlier this year.
The former minister had now broken off all contact, she said, and "it appeared he was almost blaming us".
"We were upset because we'd stayed silent for six weeks out of respect for him. If we'd wanted to, we could have said things where he could be potentially ridiculed."
The atmosphere of mutual recrimination thickened as she denied "setting up" the former cabinet minister with Sally Anderson, a 29-year-old estate agent who sold the story of her "dates" with Mr Blunkett.
It was at a fateful dinner party at Annabel's nightclub that the Siddiqis introduced him to Ms Anderson, a relationship that ended in the offices of the publicist Max Clifford.
"David did seem quite keen," recalls Mrs Siddiqi, adding that her former friend was "quite lonely". She added: " If one is going to start to speculate on his ability to do his job correctly while remaining emotionally unstable, that's something I can't comment on."
For his part, Mr Blunkett also suggested there was more to be revealed about his resignation. "I come from a background where people said what they meant and were very straight with each other. I forgot for a moment that this isn't always the case - and I paid the price for it."
The paper gave its new pundit star billing on Wednesday: "David Blunkett. He's tough, he's outspoken - and he's in The Sun."
David Blunkett has started his new job as a newspaper columnist without waiting for clearance from the anti-sleaze watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments.
Mr Blunkett was forced to resign from the Cabinet last month because he broke the ministerial code in taking a lucrative job with a DNA testing firm.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions failed to seek the advice of the advisory committee before joining DNA Bioscience, despite being warned of the rules.
He admitted that he should have been "much more methodical" in his dealings with the committee last week. In an interview to launch his column in The Sun, for which he is expected to receive around £190,000 a year, he said that he alone was responsible for ensuring he kept within the rules.
But Mr Blunkett has again failed to get clearance from the committee in starting work for the paper, the Independent on Sunday has learnt. Tony Blair's friend and ally did, on this occasion, ask the committee for its ruling - but then didn't wait for its reply.
A spokeswoman for the advisory committee said: "The committee received a request for general advice on 18 November and we gave that on 22 November. We subsequently received a request for particular advice on 25 November and we are currently considering that request."
Although Mr Blunkett can say that he observed the precise wording of the code - that "ministers should seek advice" on business appointments - he has certainly flouted its spirit in not waiting for a reply.
Sources close to the committee expressed dismay at Mr Blunkett's behaviour. "It's against the rules, even though there's not likely to be a problem."
A spokeswoman for Mr Blunkett admitted that he had failed to wait for the watchdog's advice. She denied, however, that this was a deliberate snub. "He's gone out of his way to seek their advice on not one but two occasions," said the spokeswoman.
The latest breach is an embarrassment, as Mr Blunkett seeks to relaunch himself as a pundit after his second exit from the Cabinet in a year.
His efforts to draw a line under the affair had already been undermined, as one of the principals in the drama spoke publicly for the first time last week.
Lucy Siddiqi, formerly a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience who, with her husband, Tariq, invited Mr Blunkett to join the board, said the couple "couldn't believe our luck" when he readily agreed.
In an interview with the Evening Standard, Mrs Siddiqi detailed dinners the couple had enjoyed with Mr Blunkett at Annabel's and the Groucho Club in London earlier this year.
The former minister had now broken off all contact, she said, and "it appeared he was almost blaming us".
"We were upset because we'd stayed silent for six weeks out of respect for him. If we'd wanted to, we could have said things where he could be potentially ridiculed."
The atmosphere of mutual recrimination thickened as she denied "setting up" the former cabinet minister with Sally Anderson, a 29-year-old estate agent who sold the story of her "dates" with Mr Blunkett.
It was at a fateful dinner party at Annabel's nightclub that the Siddiqis introduced him to Ms Anderson, a relationship that ended in the offices of the publicist Max Clifford.
"David did seem quite keen," recalls Mrs Siddiqi, adding that her former friend was "quite lonely". She added: " If one is going to start to speculate on his ability to do his job correctly while remaining emotionally unstable, that's something I can't comment on."
For his part, Mr Blunkett also suggested there was more to be revealed about his resignation. "I come from a background where people said what they meant and were very straight with each other. I forgot for a moment that this isn't always the case - and I paid the price for it."
The paper gave its new pundit star billing on Wednesday: "David Blunkett. He's tough, he's outspoken - and he's in The Sun."
From Francis Elliott, Whitehall Editor at The Independent
ED: Obviously when you are as important as David and you know Tony then the rules don't really apply to you
Background to the Stockwell police execution
1. THE STORY
CLAIM - Police initially said Jean Charles de Menezes had come out of a house linked to failed 21 July attacks
FACT - The building in Tulse Hill was a three-storey block of nine flats. All residents used the same communal entrance
2. MISTAKEN IDENTITY
Surveillance officers had CCTV stills of the 21 July suspects, including Hussain Osman (right), who slightly resembled the victim. But no positive link was ever made because police failed to send images of Mr de Menezes (left) back to Scotland Yard
3. THE FATEFUL JOURNEY
CLAIM - Officers said Mr de Menezes behaved suspiciously by getting on and off the same bus and also wore a bulky coat
FACT - He did get off the bus but displayed no other "suspicious" behaviour. He was wearing a light denim jacket
4. THE COMMANDER
The IPCC has established, after initial confusion, that the officer in charge of operations on 22 July was Commander Cressida Dick, and that she was responsible for co-ordinating the surveillance team and gave the order for firearms officers to go to Stockwell station
5. THE TUBE STATION
CLAIM - Sir Ian Blair said Mr de Menezes defied a police challenge. Some witnesses said that he vaulted Tube barriers
FACT T- he Brazilian used his Oyster card at the barriers after picking up a free paper, unaware he was being followed
6. THE CARRIAGE
CLAIM - Witnesses said Mr de Menezes fled armed police on to the train platform and then on to a Northern line train
FACT - He did run part of the way to catch the train. But once in the carriage he walked calmly to his seat
7. THE SHOOTING
CLAIM - Mr de Menezes got to the floor when police pursued him on to the carriage and was then surrounded and shot
FACT - A surveillance officer sat near Mr de Menezes, who leapt up when grabbed. He wasshot eight times
8. THE AFTERMATH
CLAIM - Police believed he was a suicide bomber, maybe with explosives. Some witnesses saw 'wires' inhis jacket
FACT - Investigators found the victim was carrying no weapons, and merely had a wallet in his pockets
From Sophie Goodchild and Steve Bloomfield at The Independent
CLAIM - Police initially said Jean Charles de Menezes had come out of a house linked to failed 21 July attacks
FACT - The building in Tulse Hill was a three-storey block of nine flats. All residents used the same communal entrance
2. MISTAKEN IDENTITY
Surveillance officers had CCTV stills of the 21 July suspects, including Hussain Osman (right), who slightly resembled the victim. But no positive link was ever made because police failed to send images of Mr de Menezes (left) back to Scotland Yard
3. THE FATEFUL JOURNEY
CLAIM - Officers said Mr de Menezes behaved suspiciously by getting on and off the same bus and also wore a bulky coat
FACT - He did get off the bus but displayed no other "suspicious" behaviour. He was wearing a light denim jacket
4. THE COMMANDER
The IPCC has established, after initial confusion, that the officer in charge of operations on 22 July was Commander Cressida Dick, and that she was responsible for co-ordinating the surveillance team and gave the order for firearms officers to go to Stockwell station
5. THE TUBE STATION
CLAIM - Sir Ian Blair said Mr de Menezes defied a police challenge. Some witnesses said that he vaulted Tube barriers
FACT T- he Brazilian used his Oyster card at the barriers after picking up a free paper, unaware he was being followed
6. THE CARRIAGE
CLAIM - Witnesses said Mr de Menezes fled armed police on to the train platform and then on to a Northern line train
FACT - He did run part of the way to catch the train. But once in the carriage he walked calmly to his seat
7. THE SHOOTING
CLAIM - Mr de Menezes got to the floor when police pursued him on to the carriage and was then surrounded and shot
FACT - A surveillance officer sat near Mr de Menezes, who leapt up when grabbed. He wasshot eight times
8. THE AFTERMATH
CLAIM - Police believed he was a suicide bomber, maybe with explosives. Some witnesses saw 'wires' inhis jacket
FACT - Investigators found the victim was carrying no weapons, and merely had a wallet in his pockets
From Sophie Goodchild and Steve Bloomfield at The Independent
Is this what Blair took us to war for
TEARS flowed down the cheeks of Buthaina Ibrahim al-Hayess, 55, last week as she reflected on the suffering inflicted on her family by Iraq’s security forces.
First her two eldest sons were kidnapped and held for two months. Then her husband and her brother were shot. Now her two other sons have been taken away.
A diminutive figure dressed in black, al-Hayess is not a criminal and insists her family has no connections with any insurgent group. Her only “crime”, she says, is to be a Sunni Muslim in a country whose forces are dominated by Shi’ites.
Her story is one of many that have emerged in recent weeks of Sunni men seized by security forces without explanation and then either held for ransom or killed. Taken together they indicate an ugly campaign of sectarian reprisals against the minority Sunnis, who dominated the country under Saddam Hussein.
Al-Hayess’s nightmare began on June 10 when 30 soldiers from the National Guard arrived at her home in the predominantly Shi’ite Oore district of Baghdad. The men dragged her sons Omar, 32, and Ahmad, 34, from the roof where they had been sleeping.
Handcuffed and blindfolded, the pair were taken to a vehicle into which 11 other men from the same block were bundled before being taken to an unknown building. They were held with 100 others for a month. None was charged.
“They were all males of a certain age who attended the same Sunni mosque in our neighbourhood,” said al-Hayess.
For the next three weeks she and her husband, Haq Mohammed, 63, a teacher, heard nothing of their sons. Then came some good news. After lengthy negotiations with someone purporting to represent the “Scorpion” battalion of the Iraqi army, Mohammed struck a deal to buy their freedom for $2,000. Their captors had initially demanded $60,000.
Confident that they would soon be freed, he set off for the local mosque to pray. Al-Hayess, who had stayed at home, heard a muffled sound outside.
“It was like when the electric cables have a contact or when the generator plays up and chokes,” she said. When her two sons went outside they found their father lying in a pool of his own blood. Witnesses said he had been shot 15 times from a vehicle carrying National Guard soldiers.
“We did not even bring him home for fear of further retaliation,” said al-Hayess, sobbing more loudly. “He was taken straight from the morgue to the graveyard.”
Omar’s and Ahmad’s ordeal continued. Their captors repeatedly demanded to know which insurgent groups they belonged to. They were also blindfolded and filmed as they marched near a pile of weapons.
The film was broadcast on television and al-Hayess, who recognised her sons, was surprised to hear them described as part of a terrorist group captured by Iraqi security forces.
Following her husband’s murder, al-Hayess moved with her other sons and daughter to her mother’s house in al-Doura. Then, two months after their arrest, Omar and Ahmad were freed.
There were more horrors in store. On August 8, nearly two months after Mohammed’s shooting, al-Hayess’s brother, Mohammed Ibrahim, went to a meeting at the culture ministry. Ibrahim called his son, Saif, later that day to say that he was being held by kidnappers.
During the next few hours the kidnappers contacted Saif several times, initially demanding $100,000, but eventually agreeing to accept $10,000. Saif put the money in a bag and dropped it off at the agreed location.
“We cooked and planned a street celebration,” he said. But his father never returned. A day later the police called the family to say he had been shot and his body was in the morgue.
Just over two weeks ago came the final blow. Al-Hayess was woken by a crash as masked National Guards accompanied by American soldiers stormed the house. Her two younger sons, Ali, 29, and Youssef, 25, were arrested.
She hopes they will be freed. But her fear is that they will join the many Sunni men who have disappeared without trace or those who are tortured, killed and dumped by the roadside.
Sunni mosques and clerics keep files and pictures of men found dead, some with their eyes gouged out, others with drill holes in different parts of their bodies.
Colonel Montazar al-Samuraii, a senior Iraqi officer who fled to Amman a few weeks ago, said that a special force had been created by Bayan Jabr, the interior minister, with the power to detain and interrogate people without referring to the courts.
Last month American troops discovered more than 170 detainees — mainly Sunnis — locked in a ministry bunker in Baghdad. Many had been beaten, were malnourished and had apparently been tortured. Detainees’ bodies were also reportedly found in the bunker. Al-Samuraii claims to know of seven other locations with such bunkers. Jabr has dismissed the allegations as exaggerated.
Al-Hayess, meanwhile, can do little but mourn her husband and brother and pray for the safe return of her sons.
“I don’t know who to go to, who to plead to or who to report to any more,” she said, bursting into tears again. “Even our identity cards and ration cards were confiscated by soldiers.”
from Hala Jaber at The Sunday Times
First her two eldest sons were kidnapped and held for two months. Then her husband and her brother were shot. Now her two other sons have been taken away.
A diminutive figure dressed in black, al-Hayess is not a criminal and insists her family has no connections with any insurgent group. Her only “crime”, she says, is to be a Sunni Muslim in a country whose forces are dominated by Shi’ites.
Her story is one of many that have emerged in recent weeks of Sunni men seized by security forces without explanation and then either held for ransom or killed. Taken together they indicate an ugly campaign of sectarian reprisals against the minority Sunnis, who dominated the country under Saddam Hussein.
Al-Hayess’s nightmare began on June 10 when 30 soldiers from the National Guard arrived at her home in the predominantly Shi’ite Oore district of Baghdad. The men dragged her sons Omar, 32, and Ahmad, 34, from the roof where they had been sleeping.
Handcuffed and blindfolded, the pair were taken to a vehicle into which 11 other men from the same block were bundled before being taken to an unknown building. They were held with 100 others for a month. None was charged.
“They were all males of a certain age who attended the same Sunni mosque in our neighbourhood,” said al-Hayess.
For the next three weeks she and her husband, Haq Mohammed, 63, a teacher, heard nothing of their sons. Then came some good news. After lengthy negotiations with someone purporting to represent the “Scorpion” battalion of the Iraqi army, Mohammed struck a deal to buy their freedom for $2,000. Their captors had initially demanded $60,000.
Confident that they would soon be freed, he set off for the local mosque to pray. Al-Hayess, who had stayed at home, heard a muffled sound outside.
“It was like when the electric cables have a contact or when the generator plays up and chokes,” she said. When her two sons went outside they found their father lying in a pool of his own blood. Witnesses said he had been shot 15 times from a vehicle carrying National Guard soldiers.
“We did not even bring him home for fear of further retaliation,” said al-Hayess, sobbing more loudly. “He was taken straight from the morgue to the graveyard.”
Omar’s and Ahmad’s ordeal continued. Their captors repeatedly demanded to know which insurgent groups they belonged to. They were also blindfolded and filmed as they marched near a pile of weapons.
The film was broadcast on television and al-Hayess, who recognised her sons, was surprised to hear them described as part of a terrorist group captured by Iraqi security forces.
Following her husband’s murder, al-Hayess moved with her other sons and daughter to her mother’s house in al-Doura. Then, two months after their arrest, Omar and Ahmad were freed.
There were more horrors in store. On August 8, nearly two months after Mohammed’s shooting, al-Hayess’s brother, Mohammed Ibrahim, went to a meeting at the culture ministry. Ibrahim called his son, Saif, later that day to say that he was being held by kidnappers.
During the next few hours the kidnappers contacted Saif several times, initially demanding $100,000, but eventually agreeing to accept $10,000. Saif put the money in a bag and dropped it off at the agreed location.
“We cooked and planned a street celebration,” he said. But his father never returned. A day later the police called the family to say he had been shot and his body was in the morgue.
Just over two weeks ago came the final blow. Al-Hayess was woken by a crash as masked National Guards accompanied by American soldiers stormed the house. Her two younger sons, Ali, 29, and Youssef, 25, were arrested.
She hopes they will be freed. But her fear is that they will join the many Sunni men who have disappeared without trace or those who are tortured, killed and dumped by the roadside.
Sunni mosques and clerics keep files and pictures of men found dead, some with their eyes gouged out, others with drill holes in different parts of their bodies.
Colonel Montazar al-Samuraii, a senior Iraqi officer who fled to Amman a few weeks ago, said that a special force had been created by Bayan Jabr, the interior minister, with the power to detain and interrogate people without referring to the courts.
Last month American troops discovered more than 170 detainees — mainly Sunnis — locked in a ministry bunker in Baghdad. Many had been beaten, were malnourished and had apparently been tortured. Detainees’ bodies were also reportedly found in the bunker. Al-Samuraii claims to know of seven other locations with such bunkers. Jabr has dismissed the allegations as exaggerated.
Al-Hayess, meanwhile, can do little but mourn her husband and brother and pray for the safe return of her sons.
“I don’t know who to go to, who to plead to or who to report to any more,” she said, bursting into tears again. “Even our identity cards and ration cards were confiscated by soldiers.”
from Hala Jaber at The Sunday Times
Blair's Rail czar accused of assaulting train steward
BRITAIN’S rail czar has been questioned by police over allegations that he assaulted a restaurant steward on an inter-city express service.
Dr Mike Mitchell, director-general of railways at the Department for Transport, has been accused of “common assault and abusive behaviour” while travelling on a GNER train between London and Newcastle.
The senior civil servant, who has been dubbed the nation’s “fat controller” and draws a salary of £150,000, could be charged as early as this week, according to sources close to the investigation. If convicted he faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison.
The allegations come nine months after he was appointed by Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, and at a time when the rail industry has been campaigning to protect its workforce. Assaults on staff have more than doubled over the past seven years.
Mitchell, 57, was interviewed by British Transport police last month and provided a statement while accompanied by a solicitor.
The alleged assault took place on June 14 on the 8pm service between King’s Cross and Newcastle. It is believed that Mitchell was trying to get off the train at Peterborough when his exit was unwittingly blocked by a GNER employee serving passengers in the restaurant car.
An argument between the two men broke out which subsequently escalated. “He [Mitchell] didn’t throw a punch or anything, but he is alleged to have pushed him [the GNER employee] and that’s what the common assault is,” said a police source.
“It wasn’t just a case of verbal abuse. There was some manhandling involved,” said another insider.
The altercation took place in front of several passengers, including an off-duty policeman, who have provided witness statements.
Even after Mitchell got off the train, it is alleged, he continued banging on the window from the station platform and swearing at the GNER customer services assistant.
After receiving advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, British Transport police are now understood to be considering serving Mitchell with a court summons.
Mitchell’s appointment followed the government’s decision to scrap the Strategic Rail Authority, an industry quango, bringing control of the railways under the transport department earlier this year.
Having worked with British Rail for 16 years and then at FirstGroup, the privately run train and bus operator, Mitchell earned a reputation as a “cost-cutter”. In his new role he oversees strategy and funding of the rail network and his team is responsible for awarding train franchises. He is on a three-year contract.
Trumpeting Mitchell’s appointment in February, Darling said: “He has worked in transport for more than 30 years and has the skills necessary to ensure that the department can carry out its new role within a streamlined rail industry.”
Last night Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers’ union, said: “Every person is innocent until proven guilty . . . However, if the head of railways is charged and found guilty it will be time for him to stand to one side.”
from Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent at The Sunday Times
Dr Mike Mitchell, director-general of railways at the Department for Transport, has been accused of “common assault and abusive behaviour” while travelling on a GNER train between London and Newcastle.
The senior civil servant, who has been dubbed the nation’s “fat controller” and draws a salary of £150,000, could be charged as early as this week, according to sources close to the investigation. If convicted he faces a maximum sentence of six months in prison.
The allegations come nine months after he was appointed by Alistair Darling, the transport secretary, and at a time when the rail industry has been campaigning to protect its workforce. Assaults on staff have more than doubled over the past seven years.
Mitchell, 57, was interviewed by British Transport police last month and provided a statement while accompanied by a solicitor.
The alleged assault took place on June 14 on the 8pm service between King’s Cross and Newcastle. It is believed that Mitchell was trying to get off the train at Peterborough when his exit was unwittingly blocked by a GNER employee serving passengers in the restaurant car.
An argument between the two men broke out which subsequently escalated. “He [Mitchell] didn’t throw a punch or anything, but he is alleged to have pushed him [the GNER employee] and that’s what the common assault is,” said a police source.
“It wasn’t just a case of verbal abuse. There was some manhandling involved,” said another insider.
The altercation took place in front of several passengers, including an off-duty policeman, who have provided witness statements.
Even after Mitchell got off the train, it is alleged, he continued banging on the window from the station platform and swearing at the GNER customer services assistant.
After receiving advice from the Crown Prosecution Service, British Transport police are now understood to be considering serving Mitchell with a court summons.
Mitchell’s appointment followed the government’s decision to scrap the Strategic Rail Authority, an industry quango, bringing control of the railways under the transport department earlier this year.
Having worked with British Rail for 16 years and then at FirstGroup, the privately run train and bus operator, Mitchell earned a reputation as a “cost-cutter”. In his new role he oversees strategy and funding of the rail network and his team is responsible for awarding train franchises. He is on a three-year contract.
Trumpeting Mitchell’s appointment in February, Darling said: “He has worked in transport for more than 30 years and has the skills necessary to ensure that the department can carry out its new role within a streamlined rail industry.”
Last night Bob Crow, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers’ union, said: “Every person is innocent until proven guilty . . . However, if the head of railways is charged and found guilty it will be time for him to stand to one side.”
from Dipesh Gadher, Transport Correspondent at The Sunday Times
Saturday, December 03, 2005
New Labour MP blocks anti-burglar
A New Labour MP has talked - and talked and talked - his way into the record books with a speech lasting 197 minutes.
Andrew Dismore's marathon oration - the longest this century - blocked a bill to clarify the degree of force a householder can use against intruders.
It beat the previous 181-minute record - already held by the eloquent Mr Dismore - Labour MP for Hendon.
But even his latest effort is well short of the all-time Commons record of six hours, by Henry Brougham in 1828.
'Vigilante law'
Mr Dismore, who started his speech at 1113 GMT, said the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill amounted to "vigilante law".
He warned: "The bill is unclear, uncertain and will result in people facing prosecution where, at present, they do not."
Conservative backbencher Anne McIntosh, who proposed the legislation, said: "The time has come to redress the balance."
The present law allowing "reasonable force" was not satisfactory and a proper deterrent was needed.
But, armed only with a sheaf of papers and several reference books, he was still speaking as time ran out for the measure at 1430 GMT.
For fortification Mr Dismore - co-chairman of the All-Party Wine and Spirit Group - drank only from a cup of water.
Westminster tourists in a hurry should beware, as the 51-year-old MP claims he "speaks Greek and French to a reasonable conversational level".
The bill now stands no chance of becoming law. The practice employed by Mr Dismore is known as filibustering, or "talking out" legislation.
Ms McIntosh accused him of "negative behaviour" and said Labour was "out of touch" on crime.
However, Mr Dinmore said: "On a Friday, many bills are talked out, all the time, and bills which I very much agreed with have been talked out by Anne McIntosh's friends."
Andrew Dismore's marathon oration - the longest this century - blocked a bill to clarify the degree of force a householder can use against intruders.
It beat the previous 181-minute record - already held by the eloquent Mr Dismore - Labour MP for Hendon.
But even his latest effort is well short of the all-time Commons record of six hours, by Henry Brougham in 1828.
'Vigilante law'
Mr Dismore, who started his speech at 1113 GMT, said the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Protection of Property) Bill amounted to "vigilante law".
He warned: "The bill is unclear, uncertain and will result in people facing prosecution where, at present, they do not."
Conservative backbencher Anne McIntosh, who proposed the legislation, said: "The time has come to redress the balance."
The present law allowing "reasonable force" was not satisfactory and a proper deterrent was needed.
But, armed only with a sheaf of papers and several reference books, he was still speaking as time ran out for the measure at 1430 GMT.
For fortification Mr Dismore - co-chairman of the All-Party Wine and Spirit Group - drank only from a cup of water.
Westminster tourists in a hurry should beware, as the 51-year-old MP claims he "speaks Greek and French to a reasonable conversational level".
The bill now stands no chance of becoming law. The practice employed by Mr Dismore is known as filibustering, or "talking out" legislation.
Ms McIntosh accused him of "negative behaviour" and said Labour was "out of touch" on crime.
However, Mr Dinmore said: "On a Friday, many bills are talked out, all the time, and bills which I very much agreed with have been talked out by Anne McIntosh's friends."
New Labour NHS trusts delay treatment to save money
Hospitals have been told to delay operations to reduce debts faced by primary care trusts, it has emerged.
They are reportedly trying to postpone paying for operations until the new financial year in April.
But the Government has washed its hands of the practice, saying it was an "operational issue for the local NHS".
It comes a day after Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted the health service could be facing a deficit of £620 million.
A letter leaked to the Times newspaper reveals hospitals within Harrow Primary Care Trust, which is reportedly facing an £8-12 million deficit, have been told to delay surgery. The document, written by Dr Ken Walton, chairman of the trust's Professional Executive Committee, tells GPs it has "reluctantly" asked hospitals to "do the minimum required to meet national targets". It says: "This means that patients sent for outpatient appointments will only be seen at 10-13 weeks (national target 13 weeks) and elective surgery will be delayed until the sixth month (national target six months)."
In a statement to the newspaper the trust defended its policy. It said: "Harrow PCT is taking action to control its expenditure that will not affect the quality of care given to its patients. All patients in Harrow will be seen within national targets."
The Guardian reported similar practices being taken to save money at trusts elsewhere in the country. The newspaper said the University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke-on-Trent had been told it must stop operating on women needing gynaecological treatment who had been on its waiting lists for only two months. Peter Blythin, chief executive of the hospital, told the newspaper: "The PCTs have asked us not to treat any of their patients whose surgery was due to go ahead sooner than the target."
The Guardian also reported that in London, Hammersmith and Fulham Primary Care Trust had agreed a business plan that slowed down treatment.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said it did not take a view on whether the primary care trusts should be saving money in this way.
In a statement, the department said: "This is an operational issue for the local NHS. The NHS has made substantial progress in reducing waiting times for most types of hospital referral. Investment and reform are working - the waiting list is at a record low and patients are experiencing the fastest ever access to NHS treatment. By the end of this year no one will wait longer than six months for any operation and the NHS is on track to meet the commitment that by 2008 no one will wait for than 18 weeks from GP referral to operation."
They are reportedly trying to postpone paying for operations until the new financial year in April.
But the Government has washed its hands of the practice, saying it was an "operational issue for the local NHS".
It comes a day after Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt admitted the health service could be facing a deficit of £620 million.
A letter leaked to the Times newspaper reveals hospitals within Harrow Primary Care Trust, which is reportedly facing an £8-12 million deficit, have been told to delay surgery. The document, written by Dr Ken Walton, chairman of the trust's Professional Executive Committee, tells GPs it has "reluctantly" asked hospitals to "do the minimum required to meet national targets". It says: "This means that patients sent for outpatient appointments will only be seen at 10-13 weeks (national target 13 weeks) and elective surgery will be delayed until the sixth month (national target six months)."
In a statement to the newspaper the trust defended its policy. It said: "Harrow PCT is taking action to control its expenditure that will not affect the quality of care given to its patients. All patients in Harrow will be seen within national targets."
The Guardian reported similar practices being taken to save money at trusts elsewhere in the country. The newspaper said the University Hospital of North Staffordshire in Stoke-on-Trent had been told it must stop operating on women needing gynaecological treatment who had been on its waiting lists for only two months. Peter Blythin, chief executive of the hospital, told the newspaper: "The PCTs have asked us not to treat any of their patients whose surgery was due to go ahead sooner than the target."
The Guardian also reported that in London, Hammersmith and Fulham Primary Care Trust had agreed a business plan that slowed down treatment.
A spokeswoman for the Department of Health said it did not take a view on whether the primary care trusts should be saving money in this way.
In a statement, the department said: "This is an operational issue for the local NHS. The NHS has made substantial progress in reducing waiting times for most types of hospital referral. Investment and reform are working - the waiting list is at a record low and patients are experiencing the fastest ever access to NHS treatment. By the end of this year no one will wait longer than six months for any operation and the NHS is on track to meet the commitment that by 2008 no one will wait for than 18 weeks from GP referral to operation."
New Labour tax credit system suffers massive fraud
Online applications for tax credits have been shut down because of abuse by organised crime.
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) shut down its online portal for the tax credit system late on 1 December after finding a number of fraudulent claims.
As BBC News reported in October, organised gangs have targeted the online tax credit system because they see it as an easy target.
Tax credits are intended to help people on low incomes or with families.
The identities of staff had also been abused, HMRC said.
The staff in question work for the Department of Work and Pensions, raising questions about whether DWP systems have been hacked or whether insiders have been assisting in the fraud.
A helpline has been set up to counsel staff who think they have been affected.
"As soon as we noticed there was fraud taking place, we brought the system down," an HMRC spokeswoman said.
"Like any big organisation, we take fraud very seriously." Applications in person, by post or over the phone are still being accepted.
BBC News learned in October of widespread fraud by organised crime, with multiple online applications being made from internet cafes using false identities.
The fraudsters then disappear before repayment can be demanded - leaving honest claimants to bear the brunt of overpayment recoveries.
The problems with fraud in the tax credit system are thought to result from the system's design, described by some fraud experts as "low-hanging fruit" for scammers.
In the past, most checks into error or fraud have been applied after an application is made, in order to claw back overpayment after the fact.
The clawback process has sparked criticism for leaving needy families short of cash.
But it also leaves the system open to abuse.
Overall, the tax credit system paid out £13.8bn in the financial year which finished in April 2005.
No figure is available for the proportion which was overpaid that year - either through error or fraud - but in the previous year, overpayments totalled £2.2bn.
BBC News
HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) shut down its online portal for the tax credit system late on 1 December after finding a number of fraudulent claims.
As BBC News reported in October, organised gangs have targeted the online tax credit system because they see it as an easy target.
Tax credits are intended to help people on low incomes or with families.
The identities of staff had also been abused, HMRC said.
The staff in question work for the Department of Work and Pensions, raising questions about whether DWP systems have been hacked or whether insiders have been assisting in the fraud.
A helpline has been set up to counsel staff who think they have been affected.
"As soon as we noticed there was fraud taking place, we brought the system down," an HMRC spokeswoman said.
"Like any big organisation, we take fraud very seriously." Applications in person, by post or over the phone are still being accepted.
BBC News learned in October of widespread fraud by organised crime, with multiple online applications being made from internet cafes using false identities.
The fraudsters then disappear before repayment can be demanded - leaving honest claimants to bear the brunt of overpayment recoveries.
The problems with fraud in the tax credit system are thought to result from the system's design, described by some fraud experts as "low-hanging fruit" for scammers.
In the past, most checks into error or fraud have been applied after an application is made, in order to claw back overpayment after the fact.
The clawback process has sparked criticism for leaving needy families short of cash.
But it also leaves the system open to abuse.
Overall, the tax credit system paid out £13.8bn in the financial year which finished in April 2005.
No figure is available for the proportion which was overpaid that year - either through error or fraud - but in the previous year, overpayments totalled £2.2bn.
BBC News
Rebate backfires on Blair
TONY Blair flew home empty-handed and friendless last night after his bid to reform EU spending ended in failure.
The PM offered to trim up to 1billion off Britain's annual rebate to clinch a deal with fellow leaders.
But after wafting taxpayers' cash under their noses in a two-day sprint across Europe, his efforts came to nothing.
In fact, his mission achieved little except to alienate new EU members and infuriate millions of voters back home.
Tories attacked him for surrendering the hard-won rebate without a deal to slash whopping subsidies for French, Spanish, Italian and Greek farmers.
And allies in new member states say Blair's cashback offer is too small to rebuild their countries.
Last night he was called 'Billy No Mates' as his hopes of making a mark on Europe collapsed.
Shadow Europe Minister Graham Brady said: 'Tony Blair has put billions on the bargaining table for nothing.
'He's proved that money can't buy him popularity or love. He's Billy No Mates.' Even Mr Blair admitted he was in a 'tight spot' with just two weeks until crunch Budget talks open in Brussels.
In a 3,750-mile trek he met leaders in Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
Hungarian leader Ferenc Gyurcsany warned they were 'far from agreement'.
Estonian PM Andrus Ansip said Blair's 'unacceptable' offer would cut their investment by 10 per cent.
As he flew home, Mr Blair admitted: 'It is going to be difficult to find an agreement.
'But it is in Britain's interests to find an agreement. Otherwise we will have a stalemate in Europe.'
The PM said he is ready to give up a slice of Britain's annual 3.8billion rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984.
from DAVID WOODING Whitehall Editor at The Sun
The PM offered to trim up to 1billion off Britain's annual rebate to clinch a deal with fellow leaders.
But after wafting taxpayers' cash under their noses in a two-day sprint across Europe, his efforts came to nothing.
In fact, his mission achieved little except to alienate new EU members and infuriate millions of voters back home.
Tories attacked him for surrendering the hard-won rebate without a deal to slash whopping subsidies for French, Spanish, Italian and Greek farmers.
And allies in new member states say Blair's cashback offer is too small to rebuild their countries.
Last night he was called 'Billy No Mates' as his hopes of making a mark on Europe collapsed.
Shadow Europe Minister Graham Brady said: 'Tony Blair has put billions on the bargaining table for nothing.
'He's proved that money can't buy him popularity or love. He's Billy No Mates.' Even Mr Blair admitted he was in a 'tight spot' with just two weeks until crunch Budget talks open in Brussels.
In a 3,750-mile trek he met leaders in Hungary, Poland, Estonia, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
Hungarian leader Ferenc Gyurcsany warned they were 'far from agreement'.
Estonian PM Andrus Ansip said Blair's 'unacceptable' offer would cut their investment by 10 per cent.
As he flew home, Mr Blair admitted: 'It is going to be difficult to find an agreement.
'But it is in Britain's interests to find an agreement. Otherwise we will have a stalemate in Europe.'
The PM said he is ready to give up a slice of Britain's annual 3.8billion rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984.
from DAVID WOODING Whitehall Editor at The Sun
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Armed Police get the wrong man again
Sprinter James Ellington has made a complaint against the police
An international sprinter who was mistaken for an armed robber feared heavy-handed police tactics would end his Olympic dream.
Great Britain 100m runner James Ellington was dragged from his car and tied up by armed police in Bellingham because they thought he was a suspect.
Now the 20-year-old has told how he feared his career could have been at risk due to the "excessive force" used by the police officers.
Mr Ellington was on his way home from visiting a friend, in Bromley Road, Catford, when he saw five police cars on his tail.
The cars surrounded him as he got to the Beckenham Hill estate, ordering him to pull over.
The promising sprinter, who finished fifth in last year's European under-23 championships, was dragged from his car.
He claims he was then thrown to the ground and kneed in the back before having his hands tied.
Mr Ellington, who harbours ambitions of competing in the 2008 Olympics, suffered knee and back injuries.
He said: "It was horrible. I was thinking my career could be in danger.
"I have never been in trouble with the police in my life. I don't know why they went after me."
After his 20-minute ordeal on November 22, police realised they had the wrong man and released Mr Ellington.
The Bellingham resident claims the officers apologised and said they were "only doing their job" but he was not offered any first-aid care.
Mr Ellington, who has now made a formal complaint against the police, added: "I accept they have a job to do but they don't need to use excessive force.
"If they are not 100 per cent sure they shouldn't be dragging people from cars."
Scotland Yard say they will investigate any complaint received.
From Glenn Ebrey at This is Local London
Ed: Don't you just love the idea of every PC carrying a gun. Whoops!
An international sprinter who was mistaken for an armed robber feared heavy-handed police tactics would end his Olympic dream.
Great Britain 100m runner James Ellington was dragged from his car and tied up by armed police in Bellingham because they thought he was a suspect.
Now the 20-year-old has told how he feared his career could have been at risk due to the "excessive force" used by the police officers.
Mr Ellington was on his way home from visiting a friend, in Bromley Road, Catford, when he saw five police cars on his tail.
The cars surrounded him as he got to the Beckenham Hill estate, ordering him to pull over.
The promising sprinter, who finished fifth in last year's European under-23 championships, was dragged from his car.
He claims he was then thrown to the ground and kneed in the back before having his hands tied.
Mr Ellington, who harbours ambitions of competing in the 2008 Olympics, suffered knee and back injuries.
He said: "It was horrible. I was thinking my career could be in danger.
"I have never been in trouble with the police in my life. I don't know why they went after me."
After his 20-minute ordeal on November 22, police realised they had the wrong man and released Mr Ellington.
The Bellingham resident claims the officers apologised and said they were "only doing their job" but he was not offered any first-aid care.
Mr Ellington, who has now made a formal complaint against the police, added: "I accept they have a job to do but they don't need to use excessive force.
"If they are not 100 per cent sure they shouldn't be dragging people from cars."
Scotland Yard say they will investigate any complaint received.
From Glenn Ebrey at This is Local London
Ed: Don't you just love the idea of every PC carrying a gun. Whoops!
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
New Labour Schools aide quits over reforms
Labour MP Martin Salter has resigned as a government aide in protest at education reforms.
Mr Salter was parliamentary private secretary to Schools Minister Jacqui Smith. He has been MP for Reading West since 1997.
Some Labour backbenchers are worried about plans for more private sector involvement in education.
The plans were laid out by Education Secretary Ruth Kelly last month and are part of Tony Blair's reform agenda.
Under the plans, schools would gain more independence from local authorities and could become 'trust schools'.
This means they would have more control over the finances, staff and admissions - or which pupils they take.
Some Labour MPs fear this will mean a return to widespread selection by ability.
But Ms Kelly said this was a myth as the arrangements would be 'within the admissions code that ensure fair admissions'.
The proposals are to form the basis of an Education Bill early in the New Year. "
Mr Salter was parliamentary private secretary to Schools Minister Jacqui Smith. He has been MP for Reading West since 1997.
Some Labour backbenchers are worried about plans for more private sector involvement in education.
The plans were laid out by Education Secretary Ruth Kelly last month and are part of Tony Blair's reform agenda.
Under the plans, schools would gain more independence from local authorities and could become 'trust schools'.
This means they would have more control over the finances, staff and admissions - or which pupils they take.
Some Labour MPs fear this will mean a return to widespread selection by ability.
But Ms Kelly said this was a myth as the arrangements would be 'within the admissions code that ensure fair admissions'.
The proposals are to form the basis of an Education Bill early in the New Year. "
New Labour agree pension numbers are wrong
Downing Street has been forced to revise figures it had repeatedly used to justify the controversial deal giving public sector workers retirement at 60 with their occupational pensions.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman reverted to saying "the majority" of civil servants would now be on a new scheme retiring at 65 within ten years, rather than the 70% figure he had been using.
He said he wanted to "clarify" his comments made earlier and at previous briefings to justify the agreement.
The spokesman said that his figures of 10% of civil servants leaving their posts annually remained correct, but rather than 70% of civil servants in ten years time being on new arrangements "it will be a bit more than a decade for the majority to be on the new scheme".
The revising of the figures comes after a fraught ten days between No 10 and the Chancellor Gordon Brown over the public sector pensions deal.
The Treasury was reported to be ready to look again at the agreement while Downing Street firmly set its face against any re-negotiation.
The arcane dispute over statistics will be taken as yet another sign of Cabinet angst ahead of Wednesday's publication of the Turner Commission report, expected to recommend an extension of the state pension retirement age from 65 to 67.
No 10 had said time and again that the public sector retirement deal at 60 was comparable to 40% of private sector workers who retired in similar circumstances at the same age.
Mr Blair's spokesman had also made much of the fact that given an annual turnover of 10% of public sector workers, within ten years only 30% of public sector workers would be on a gold-plated retire-at-60 package. It was that figure he was forced to retract, revising it to roughly 50%.
But Mr Blair's spokesman stood by the deal done to allow existing civil servants to retire at 60: "This deal was done six weeks ago. This Government does not rip up deals done six weeks ago."
Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman reverted to saying "the majority" of civil servants would now be on a new scheme retiring at 65 within ten years, rather than the 70% figure he had been using.
He said he wanted to "clarify" his comments made earlier and at previous briefings to justify the agreement.
The spokesman said that his figures of 10% of civil servants leaving their posts annually remained correct, but rather than 70% of civil servants in ten years time being on new arrangements "it will be a bit more than a decade for the majority to be on the new scheme".
The revising of the figures comes after a fraught ten days between No 10 and the Chancellor Gordon Brown over the public sector pensions deal.
The Treasury was reported to be ready to look again at the agreement while Downing Street firmly set its face against any re-negotiation.
The arcane dispute over statistics will be taken as yet another sign of Cabinet angst ahead of Wednesday's publication of the Turner Commission report, expected to recommend an extension of the state pension retirement age from 65 to 67.
No 10 had said time and again that the public sector retirement deal at 60 was comparable to 40% of private sector workers who retired in similar circumstances at the same age.
Mr Blair's spokesman had also made much of the fact that given an annual turnover of 10% of public sector workers, within ten years only 30% of public sector workers would be on a gold-plated retire-at-60 package. It was that figure he was forced to retract, revising it to roughly 50%.
But Mr Blair's spokesman stood by the deal done to allow existing civil servants to retire at 60: "This deal was done six weeks ago. This Government does not rip up deals done six weeks ago."
Monday, November 28, 2005
Blair brushes off minister's call for swift exit
Tony Blair was under growing pressure yesterday to speed up his departure from No 10 after a Cabinet colleague urged him to give Gordon Brown time to 'settle in'.
Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, made it clear that the Prime Minister had to give his successor time to prepare for the next election.
She made her appeal 24 hours after Frank Field, Labour's former welfare reform minister, raised fears about how long Mr Blair's health would hold out if he became engaged in renewed feuding with the Chancellor.
But speaking from the Commonwealth summit in Malta, the Prime Minister brushed aside questions about his fitness and made clear he was staying around to push through controversial public service reforms.
He also made a rare foray into internal Conservative politics by indicating that David Cameron's alleged claim to be the 'heir to Blair' did not add up.
'He is certainly not of my political persuasion,' said the Prime Minister, adding that the Tories had yet to modernise themselves in the way Labour had in the 1990s.
Mrs Beckett, interviewed on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme yesterday, conceded that the time to go was 'in his hands', but said that Mr Blair's departure had to take into account 'when it's the best time for the country and for the future of the Government and for the party'.
Saying that she would vote for Mr Brown to take over, Mrs Beckett added: 'It would be fair to whoever assumes the mantel of prime minister before the next election to give that person a chance to settle in and make their own mark."
After clear signs that No 10 and the Treasury were at loggerheads last week over pension reform, Mr Field suggested at the weekend that Mr Blair might not be up to dealing with another dispute with his Chancellor.
Mr Blair laughed off the idea by telling Sky News: "I have to get in the gym a bit more often, then."
As for reports that he and the Chancellor were clashing over pensions, he appeared weary at talk of his poor relations with Mr Brown: "I have had this stuff with Gordon for 11 years." Mr Blair denied that he was weaker because he had already announced his departure, saying: "Every prime minister goes at some point."
He signalled that he expected to push through his public service reforms, which include controversial plans to give state schools much greater freedom.
Margaret Beckett, the Environment Secretary, made it clear that the Prime Minister had to give his successor time to prepare for the next election.
She made her appeal 24 hours after Frank Field, Labour's former welfare reform minister, raised fears about how long Mr Blair's health would hold out if he became engaged in renewed feuding with the Chancellor.
But speaking from the Commonwealth summit in Malta, the Prime Minister brushed aside questions about his fitness and made clear he was staying around to push through controversial public service reforms.
He also made a rare foray into internal Conservative politics by indicating that David Cameron's alleged claim to be the 'heir to Blair' did not add up.
'He is certainly not of my political persuasion,' said the Prime Minister, adding that the Tories had yet to modernise themselves in the way Labour had in the 1990s.
Mrs Beckett, interviewed on ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme yesterday, conceded that the time to go was 'in his hands', but said that Mr Blair's departure had to take into account 'when it's the best time for the country and for the future of the Government and for the party'.
Saying that she would vote for Mr Brown to take over, Mrs Beckett added: 'It would be fair to whoever assumes the mantel of prime minister before the next election to give that person a chance to settle in and make their own mark."
After clear signs that No 10 and the Treasury were at loggerheads last week over pension reform, Mr Field suggested at the weekend that Mr Blair might not be up to dealing with another dispute with his Chancellor.
Mr Blair laughed off the idea by telling Sky News: "I have to get in the gym a bit more often, then."
As for reports that he and the Chancellor were clashing over pensions, he appeared weary at talk of his poor relations with Mr Brown: "I have had this stuff with Gordon for 11 years." Mr Blair denied that he was weaker because he had already announced his departure, saying: "Every prime minister goes at some point."
He signalled that he expected to push through his public service reforms, which include controversial plans to give state schools much greater freedom.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
New Labour try to muzzle the press
The attorney general mounted a robust defence yesterday of his advice to newspapers that they risked breaching the Official Secrets Act if they published details from a confidential memo reportedly detailing a conversation between George Bush and Tony Blair.
Lord Goldsmith insisted he was acting on his own initiative and was not attempting to gag newspapers but merely pointing out the legal position. His warning was sent out after the Daily Mirror said a memo recorded a threat by the US president to take "military action" against the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera. The prime minister replied that that would cause a big problem, according to the Mirror.
David Keogh, a former Cabinet Office official, and Leo O'Connor, a researcher, are to appear before Bow Street magistrates next week on charges under the Official Secrets Act.
The attorney general's note said: "You are reminded that to publish the contents of a document which is known to have been unlawfully disclosed by a crown servant is in itself a breach of section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1989." Lord Goldsmith said he was acting on his own initiative in sending the notice. "I'm not acting at the request or under the instructions of anybody else in relation to this."
To succeed in a newspaper prosecution under section 5 of the act, it must be proved that the disclosure was damaging to the state and that the paper knew this.
A QC specialising in media law said: "If the material has already been published it's pretty hard to see how the subsequent publication of the same material will either amount to a disclosure - because how can you disclose something that's already been circulated? - or satisfy the test that the publication is damaging."
From The Guardian by Clare Dyer and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday November 26, 2005
Lord Goldsmith insisted he was acting on his own initiative and was not attempting to gag newspapers but merely pointing out the legal position. His warning was sent out after the Daily Mirror said a memo recorded a threat by the US president to take "military action" against the Arabic TV station al-Jazeera. The prime minister replied that that would cause a big problem, according to the Mirror.
David Keogh, a former Cabinet Office official, and Leo O'Connor, a researcher, are to appear before Bow Street magistrates next week on charges under the Official Secrets Act.
The attorney general's note said: "You are reminded that to publish the contents of a document which is known to have been unlawfully disclosed by a crown servant is in itself a breach of section 5 of the Official Secrets Act 1989." Lord Goldsmith said he was acting on his own initiative in sending the notice. "I'm not acting at the request or under the instructions of anybody else in relation to this."
To succeed in a newspaper prosecution under section 5 of the act, it must be proved that the disclosure was damaging to the state and that the paper knew this.
A QC specialising in media law said: "If the material has already been published it's pretty hard to see how the subsequent publication of the same material will either amount to a disclosure - because how can you disclose something that's already been circulated? - or satisfy the test that the publication is damaging."
From The Guardian by Clare Dyer and Richard Norton-Taylor
Saturday November 26, 2005
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Tony Blair trebles gun crime
THE number of offences involving firearms in England and Wales has been increasing each year since 1997, according to the Home Office.
Firearms incidents recorded by the police have nearly trebled in eight years.
Provisional figures released last month showed that firearms offences had increased by 5 per cent on last year, to a total of 11,160. There were 4,903 such offences in 1997.
The possession of handguns was banned in Britain that year after the Dunblane massacre. Yet the illegal ownership of handguns is believed to be higher than it has ever been, with nearly 300,000 illegal guns estimated to be in circulation.
David Rose at The Times
Firearms incidents recorded by the police have nearly trebled in eight years.
Provisional figures released last month showed that firearms offences had increased by 5 per cent on last year, to a total of 11,160. There were 4,903 such offences in 1997.
The possession of handguns was banned in Britain that year after the Dunblane massacre. Yet the illegal ownership of handguns is believed to be higher than it has ever been, with nearly 300,000 illegal guns estimated to be in circulation.
David Rose at The Times
Gordon Brown can't count
GORDON BROWN was accused of ignoring the facts last night after he said in a Times interview that he was presiding over a cull of 80,000 civil servants.
The Chancellor boasted that he had instigated sweeping job cuts in Whitehall to underline his credentials as a reformer. But the Conservatives said all the evidence showed that he had actually managed to create more bureaucrats since the Gershon Review he set up recommended a major redundancy programme.
“Gordon Brown either doesn’t know the truth about what is going on in Whitehall or isn’t prepared to accept the truth,” said George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor.
“The Gershon Review has the aim of reducing 80,000 jobs from the Civil Service by 2007. However, the latest figures suggest that Mr Brown is way off reaching this target and is actually creating, not cutting, costly bureaucrats from the Government payroll.”
In the first 15 months of his drive to cut 84,150 jobs, the number of full-time Civil Servants has fallen by only 1,000. On a simple headcount, which treats full-time and part-time jobs as the same, there are now more civil servants than when the efficiency drive began.
The headcount rose to 570,000 at the end of the second quarter of 2005, from 569,000 at the start of April last year, when the Treasury committed itself to savings identified in the Gershon review.
Other figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that there has not been a single redundancy of a full-time employee in the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Education and Skills since mid-2004.
The efficiency review, which was chaired by Sir Peter Gershon, ordered the Home Office and the Education Department to cut about 2,000 staff. The Foreign Office was told to cut 310. The largest number of job cuts was to be at the Department for Work and Pensions, which was told to lose 30,000. It admitted that no full-time employees had been made redundant since last summer. About 900 staff had retired early and 300 part-timers accepted voluntary redundancy.
In his interview Mr Brown said that his record showed he had been at the heart of Labour reform since 1997, and his actions showed that he would be no softer than Tony Blair on the public services.
Mr Osborne said: “There are nearly 6 million people working in the public sector which is growing 70 per cent faster than the private sector. Earlier this week, the Government revealed it was £200 million over its administration budget while the number of administrators has increased by 17,000 in the last year alone.”
The Times Deputy Political Editor by Rosemary Bennett
The Chancellor boasted that he had instigated sweeping job cuts in Whitehall to underline his credentials as a reformer. But the Conservatives said all the evidence showed that he had actually managed to create more bureaucrats since the Gershon Review he set up recommended a major redundancy programme.
“Gordon Brown either doesn’t know the truth about what is going on in Whitehall or isn’t prepared to accept the truth,” said George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor.
“The Gershon Review has the aim of reducing 80,000 jobs from the Civil Service by 2007. However, the latest figures suggest that Mr Brown is way off reaching this target and is actually creating, not cutting, costly bureaucrats from the Government payroll.”
In the first 15 months of his drive to cut 84,150 jobs, the number of full-time Civil Servants has fallen by only 1,000. On a simple headcount, which treats full-time and part-time jobs as the same, there are now more civil servants than when the efficiency drive began.
The headcount rose to 570,000 at the end of the second quarter of 2005, from 569,000 at the start of April last year, when the Treasury committed itself to savings identified in the Gershon review.
Other figures, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, show that there has not been a single redundancy of a full-time employee in the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for Education and Skills since mid-2004.
The efficiency review, which was chaired by Sir Peter Gershon, ordered the Home Office and the Education Department to cut about 2,000 staff. The Foreign Office was told to cut 310. The largest number of job cuts was to be at the Department for Work and Pensions, which was told to lose 30,000. It admitted that no full-time employees had been made redundant since last summer. About 900 staff had retired early and 300 part-timers accepted voluntary redundancy.
In his interview Mr Brown said that his record showed he had been at the heart of Labour reform since 1997, and his actions showed that he would be no softer than Tony Blair on the public services.
Mr Osborne said: “There are nearly 6 million people working in the public sector which is growing 70 per cent faster than the private sector. Earlier this week, the Government revealed it was £200 million over its administration budget while the number of administrators has increased by 17,000 in the last year alone.”
The Times Deputy Political Editor by Rosemary Bennett
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Serious charges not linked to upsetting New Labour
A FORMER police authority boss was last night charged with a series of child sex attacks.
Gay Colin Inglis, 48, who stepped down as chairman of Humberside Police Authority five months ago, will face 14 counts of indecent assault when he appears before Hull JPs today.
A man now in his 30s claimed he was molested by Mr Inglis when he was a social worker at a children’s home in Hull 20 years ago.
North Yorkshire police, who investigated to avoid a possible conflict of interest, also re-opened a probe from the late 1990s when a different man claimed he was abused.
Mr Inglis, also a former leader of Hull City Council, has denied any wrongdoing.
He hit the headlines last year when he ignored then Home Secretary David Blunkett and did not suspend chief constable David Westwood over the Humberside force’s dealings with Soham killer Ian Huntley.
Gay Colin Inglis, 48, who stepped down as chairman of Humberside Police Authority five months ago, will face 14 counts of indecent assault when he appears before Hull JPs today.
A man now in his 30s claimed he was molested by Mr Inglis when he was a social worker at a children’s home in Hull 20 years ago.
North Yorkshire police, who investigated to avoid a possible conflict of interest, also re-opened a probe from the late 1990s when a different man claimed he was abused.
Mr Inglis, also a former leader of Hull City Council, has denied any wrongdoing.
He hit the headlines last year when he ignored then Home Secretary David Blunkett and did not suspend chief constable David Westwood over the Humberside force’s dealings with Soham killer Ian Huntley.
ED: Of course the last paragraph does not mean that Mr Inglis is now being destroyed for upsetting the government anymore than Dr Kelly was destroyed for political reasons. That would only happen in a socialist paradise.
Monday, November 14, 2005
New Labour attacked over memoirs double standards
SIR Christopher Meyer, the former ambassador to Washington, has accused the Labour government of "double standards" by accusing him of betraying confidences with his memoirs while ministers continued to publish their own books.
The former diplomat and current head of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has come under fire for his book from various New Labour party grandees.
Despite facing calls to stand down from the independent press watchdog, Sir Christopher said he had "absolutely no plans at all" to quit.
He told BBC1's Sunday AM that his book, DC Confidential, had been cleared for publication by the Cabinet Office without changes but he suggested that his instinct would have been to "publish and be damned" anyway if consent had not been given.
"I do think that there are areas of activity in foreign policy and in government where it is right to shine the light of day," he said. Labour had changed the rules governing civil servants when it came to power, he said. Sir Christopher pointed to ministers who rushed into print memoirs as soon as they left office, detailing conversations they had with civil servants who were still in their jobs.
"I think, against the background of a spew of books either by ministers or special advisers, civil servants are now put in a position of disadvantage," he said.
"I would like to see a new dispensation, with clarity and above all consistency across the board on these issues."
From Gerri Peev at The Scotsman
The former diplomat and current head of the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) has come under fire for his book from various New Labour party grandees.
Despite facing calls to stand down from the independent press watchdog, Sir Christopher said he had "absolutely no plans at all" to quit.
He told BBC1's Sunday AM that his book, DC Confidential, had been cleared for publication by the Cabinet Office without changes but he suggested that his instinct would have been to "publish and be damned" anyway if consent had not been given.
"I do think that there are areas of activity in foreign policy and in government where it is right to shine the light of day," he said. Labour had changed the rules governing civil servants when it came to power, he said. Sir Christopher pointed to ministers who rushed into print memoirs as soon as they left office, detailing conversations they had with civil servants who were still in their jobs.
"I think, against the background of a spew of books either by ministers or special advisers, civil servants are now put in a position of disadvantage," he said.
"I would like to see a new dispensation, with clarity and above all consistency across the board on these issues."
From Gerri Peev at The Scotsman
ED: But of course The Holy New Labour party is above criticism and always allowed to do what others are not allowed to do.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
THOUSANDS of sick miners were misled into handing over millions of pounds to Arthur Scargill’s union by a firm of solicitors that has earned a fortune from their compensation claims, an investigation has revealed.
Elderly men suffering from chest diseases and a crippling hand condition were advised to allow the National Union of Mineworkers to fund their legal claims in return for paying part of their eventual compensation to the union.
But what the miners were never told was that in reality, the Government (er the Taxpayers) — and not the union — was paying the legal bills for successful claims.
The solicitors concerned, Yorkshire-based Raleys, have been paid £53 million of public money for their work on the cases settled so far.
The NUM has banked an estimated £10 million from the compensation scheme but has not paid legal costs in any of the 28,000 cases that Raleys has so far handled.
Leaders of the NUM, whose national headquarters are in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, have refused to discuss where its cut of the compensation money has gone and for what purpose it is being used.
But Kevin Barron, the MP for Rother Valley and a former senior NUM official, described the union’s arrangement with Raleys as “a scam from day one”.
John Mann, MP for Bassetlaw, another coalfield constituency, who has waged a long campaign against abuse of the scheme, said last night that there could be no justification for Raley’s actions and demanded that all the NUM money “be paid back immediately”.
The NUM’s money-making enterprise is the latest scandal to hit the Coal Health Scheme, which has spun so badly out of control that the final bill — which was initially estimated at £1 billion — is likely to reach £8 billion.
Of the 750,000 claims that were registered, 390,000 have so far been settled and damages totalling £2.8 billion have been paid to date. Solicitors’ fees have spiralled to £665 million.
After earlier revelations in The Times, a criminal investigation is being held into the actions of senior officials and employees of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in relation to thousands of compensation claims.
Malcolm Wicks, the Energy Minister, has also ordered an independent inquiry into the handling of the coal health scheme by the Department of Trade and Industry. Its report is expected soon.
From Andrew Norfolk at The Times
Ed: Thats the way to do it. Can New Labour actually organise anything
Elderly men suffering from chest diseases and a crippling hand condition were advised to allow the National Union of Mineworkers to fund their legal claims in return for paying part of their eventual compensation to the union.
But what the miners were never told was that in reality, the Government (er the Taxpayers) — and not the union — was paying the legal bills for successful claims.
The solicitors concerned, Yorkshire-based Raleys, have been paid £53 million of public money for their work on the cases settled so far.
The NUM has banked an estimated £10 million from the compensation scheme but has not paid legal costs in any of the 28,000 cases that Raleys has so far handled.
Leaders of the NUM, whose national headquarters are in Barnsley, South Yorkshire, have refused to discuss where its cut of the compensation money has gone and for what purpose it is being used.
But Kevin Barron, the MP for Rother Valley and a former senior NUM official, described the union’s arrangement with Raleys as “a scam from day one”.
John Mann, MP for Bassetlaw, another coalfield constituency, who has waged a long campaign against abuse of the scheme, said last night that there could be no justification for Raley’s actions and demanded that all the NUM money “be paid back immediately”.
The NUM’s money-making enterprise is the latest scandal to hit the Coal Health Scheme, which has spun so badly out of control that the final bill — which was initially estimated at £1 billion — is likely to reach £8 billion.
Of the 750,000 claims that were registered, 390,000 have so far been settled and damages totalling £2.8 billion have been paid to date. Solicitors’ fees have spiralled to £665 million.
After earlier revelations in The Times, a criminal investigation is being held into the actions of senior officials and employees of the Union of Democratic Mineworkers in relation to thousands of compensation claims.
Malcolm Wicks, the Energy Minister, has also ordered an independent inquiry into the handling of the coal health scheme by the Department of Trade and Industry. Its report is expected soon.
From Andrew Norfolk at The Times
Ed: Thats the way to do it. Can New Labour actually organise anything
Home Secretary Clarke admits police lobbying move
Charles Clarke, the Home Secretary, admits today that he urged chief constables to lobby MPs to support the Government's anti-terrorism proposals.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph he says that on Nov 3 - the day after the Government realised that it was likely to lose a vote on giving police officers 90 days to hold suspects without charge - he approached the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).
Mr Clarke says he "suggested to Acpo that chief constables write to MPs in their police authority area, making themselves or relevant senior police officers available to MPs, of all parties, who wanted to know their local police attitude on these issues". He says he "naturally made clear that this should not be on a party political basis" and denies that the Government sought to politicise the police.
But John Denham, the Labour chairman of the cross-party Commons home affairs committee, said MPs would be free to raise their concerns about the politicisation of the police force during an investigation into chief constables' arguments for extending anti-terrorism powers.
Mr Denham voted for the defeated 90-day proposal but strongly criticised the way in which the case was made by the police. He said there had been no proper police working group, no systematic assessment and no evaluation of the difference between 30, 60, 90 or 120 days.
Many chief constables telephoned, e-mailed or wrote to their MPs, urging them to back the measures.
Ed: Did Dr (of ancient africa) Reid know about this?
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph he says that on Nov 3 - the day after the Government realised that it was likely to lose a vote on giving police officers 90 days to hold suspects without charge - he approached the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo).
Mr Clarke says he "suggested to Acpo that chief constables write to MPs in their police authority area, making themselves or relevant senior police officers available to MPs, of all parties, who wanted to know their local police attitude on these issues". He says he "naturally made clear that this should not be on a party political basis" and denies that the Government sought to politicise the police.
But John Denham, the Labour chairman of the cross-party Commons home affairs committee, said MPs would be free to raise their concerns about the politicisation of the police force during an investigation into chief constables' arguments for extending anti-terrorism powers.
Mr Denham voted for the defeated 90-day proposal but strongly criticised the way in which the case was made by the police. He said there had been no proper police working group, no systematic assessment and no evaluation of the difference between 30, 60, 90 or 120 days.
Many chief constables telephoned, e-mailed or wrote to their MPs, urging them to back the measures.
Ed: Did Dr (of ancient africa) Reid know about this?
Defence Secretary John Reid misses the point
Claims that the Government politicised the police were raised by Conservatives as a "smokescreen" to cover their embarrassment at voting down a 90-day detention period for terror suspects, Defence Secretary John Reid said.
Tories are pressing for the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee to carry out an inquiry into the lobbying of MPs by chief constables ahead of Wednesday's vote on the Terrorism Bill.
They claim the Government put pressure on the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to throw their weight behind Tony Blair's campaign to secure 90-day detention, which was defeated by MPs last week.
But Mr Reid accused the Conservatives of a "slur on the integrity of the police".
He insisted that senior officers are perfectly entitled to inform MPs about their assessment of the operational capabilities they need to protect public safety, and had done so under governments of all political colours.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has confirmed that he wrote to the ACPO on November 3, asking senior officers to make themselves available to MPs seeking information about the rationale behind the 90-day proposal.
The ACPO's spokesman on terrorism, Sussex chief constable Ken Jones, wrote to his fellow police chiefs the following day, suggesting they contact their local MPs. Many did so, by letter and telephone.
The former chief constable of Humberside, David Westwood, said that police had allowed the damaging perception to be created that they were trying to influence the parliamentary process.
And Tory MP Robert Key hinted that the Government had used threats to enlist police chiefs' support. He pointed out that on the same day as the terror vote, Home Office minister Hazel Blears published proposals to merge police services which could leave many chief constables out of a job.
Senior Conservatives Peter Lilley and Stephen Dorrell have tabled a parliamentary motion condemning the lobbying of MPs as a step towards the politicisation of the police.
Evening Standard
Ed: Has Reid lost contact with reality or is he lieing to order?
The B.B.C. has the interesting headline, for this story,
Do their Editors get sick producing this sort of sycophantic rubbish.
Tories are pressing for the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee to carry out an inquiry into the lobbying of MPs by chief constables ahead of Wednesday's vote on the Terrorism Bill.
They claim the Government put pressure on the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) to throw their weight behind Tony Blair's campaign to secure 90-day detention, which was defeated by MPs last week.
But Mr Reid accused the Conservatives of a "slur on the integrity of the police".
He insisted that senior officers are perfectly entitled to inform MPs about their assessment of the operational capabilities they need to protect public safety, and had done so under governments of all political colours.
Home Secretary Charles Clarke has confirmed that he wrote to the ACPO on November 3, asking senior officers to make themselves available to MPs seeking information about the rationale behind the 90-day proposal.
The ACPO's spokesman on terrorism, Sussex chief constable Ken Jones, wrote to his fellow police chiefs the following day, suggesting they contact their local MPs. Many did so, by letter and telephone.
The former chief constable of Humberside, David Westwood, said that police had allowed the damaging perception to be created that they were trying to influence the parliamentary process.
And Tory MP Robert Key hinted that the Government had used threats to enlist police chiefs' support. He pointed out that on the same day as the terror vote, Home Office minister Hazel Blears published proposals to merge police services which could leave many chief constables out of a job.
Senior Conservatives Peter Lilley and Stephen Dorrell have tabled a parliamentary motion condemning the lobbying of MPs as a step towards the politicisation of the police.
Evening Standard
Ed: Has Reid lost contact with reality or is he lieing to order?
The B.B.C. has the interesting headline, for this story,
Reid defends police in terror row.
Do their Editors get sick producing this sort of sycophantic rubbish.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
Blair's first defeat in the Commons
MPs delivered a massive snub to Prime Minister Tony Blair, rejecting his proposals for police to be allowed to hold terror suspects for 90 days and voting instead for a much shorter 28-day period.
The rebuff on the 90-day proposal in the Terrorism Bill by a margin of 31 votes was the Government's first defeat in the House of Commons since Labour came to power in 1997.
Mr Blair had left absolutely no doubt of his personal commitment to 90-day detention, and its rejection by 322-291 is a significant blow to his authority, which some believe may bring forward his departure as Labour leader.
In dramatic scenes at the House of Commons, after rejecting the Prime Minister's preferred option, MPs delivered a second blow by backing a proposal for a 28-day maximum detention period by 323-290, a majority of 33.
A tense-looking Mr Blair was in the chamber to hear the result of the vote, shaking his head as the numbers were revealed.
The scale of the defeat was a shock for Government Whips with a reported 41 Labour MPs joining Liberal Democrats, nationalists and most Tories to overturn Mr Blair's 66-strong majority.
Following the vote, Scottish Nationalist Party leader Alex Salmond said: "The Prime Minister has just fallen off the high wire."
During stormy exchanges at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Blair urged MPs of all parties to be "responsible" in backing the measures put forward by police.
He told them: "We are not living in a police state, but we are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism - terrorism that wants to destroy our way of life, terrorism that wants to inflict casualties on us without limit.
The rebuff on the 90-day proposal in the Terrorism Bill by a margin of 31 votes was the Government's first defeat in the House of Commons since Labour came to power in 1997.
Mr Blair had left absolutely no doubt of his personal commitment to 90-day detention, and its rejection by 322-291 is a significant blow to his authority, which some believe may bring forward his departure as Labour leader.
In dramatic scenes at the House of Commons, after rejecting the Prime Minister's preferred option, MPs delivered a second blow by backing a proposal for a 28-day maximum detention period by 323-290, a majority of 33.
A tense-looking Mr Blair was in the chamber to hear the result of the vote, shaking his head as the numbers were revealed.
The scale of the defeat was a shock for Government Whips with a reported 41 Labour MPs joining Liberal Democrats, nationalists and most Tories to overturn Mr Blair's 66-strong majority.
Following the vote, Scottish Nationalist Party leader Alex Salmond said: "The Prime Minister has just fallen off the high wire."
During stormy exchanges at Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Blair urged MPs of all parties to be "responsible" in backing the measures put forward by police.
He told them: "We are not living in a police state, but we are living in a country that faces a real and serious threat of terrorism - terrorism that wants to destroy our way of life, terrorism that wants to inflict casualties on us without limit.
Sunday, November 06, 2005
Blunkett - The inside story
Tony Blair said he left office 'with no stain of impropriety'. The record suggests otherwise. Francis Elliott, our Whitehall Editor, whose exclusive story last Sunday led to Blunkett's resignation, reveals the letters that cast doubt on the ex-minister's version of events
"It's over. Let's go." With these words David Blunkett had called his aide to his side and returned to Downing Street to resign from the Cabinet a second time in 11 months, shortly before 10am on Wednesday.
The formalities were then disposed of during a brief, dry-eyed meeting with Tony Blair in No 10. Now he faced the ritual of the resignation press conference.
The first departure, in the wake of the Kimberly Quinn affair last December, had been emotional, almost tearful. This time, however, he quickly mastered himself and went on the offensive against those in the press he blamed for harrying him from office and still insisted that he had done nothing wrong.
Mr Blunkett was generous in his tribute to this newspaper for revealing his breach of the Ministerial Code in not seeking the advice of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACBA) before becoming a director of the DNA testing firm, DNA Bioscience.
For nine weeks, journalists, he said, had been "delving into every aspect of my private and public life". The only revelation that had reduced Tony Blair's confidence in him had apparently been his failure to consult Parliament's independent sleaze watchdog. Mr Blunkett continued: "I wish I had spotted it earlier, then I would have been able to tell the world I had made a mistake."
But as we have revealed, last weekend's revelation cannot have come as much of a surprise to the former minister.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions had sought to head off a potential controversy less than a week before it broke.
Two weekends ago Mr Blunkett was a man under pressure. He faced a gathering media storm over a shareholding he had bought in a company bidding for government contracts - including one from Mr Blunkett's own department.
The shareholding had emerged as a detail of a rather more salacious saga concerning the minister's private life. He had been introduced to DNA Bioscience by the same couple, Lucy and Tariq Siddiqi, who had set him up with a 29-year-old blonde estate agent, Sally Anderson.
While he was confident that he could prove that he had not broken the Ministerial Code in buying the shares, he knew there was one gaping hole in his defences.
Mr Blunkett had been fretting about his failure to consult ACBA for at least a week before the story broke. As we reveal today he wrote to ACBA on 24 October. That letter was marked "Private and Confidential" and remains under lock and key in the committee's distinctly unglamorous offices on the third floor of a gloomy building in Great Smith Street, Westminster.
It is not hard to surmise its contents, however, from the reply sent the next day by Tony Nichols, the committee's clerk. In it Lord Mayhew, the chairman, "notes the course of events concerning your appointment with DNA Bioscience". He also insists that ACBA "would need to say that it had not been consulted ... if enquiries were made of it as to your compliance with the Ministerial Code".
The reply presented Mr Blunkett with a choice. He could go public and admit to and apologise for the breach - to "tell the world I had made a mistake", in his own words. Or he could keep quiet about it and hope that "enquiries" were not made of this quiet, obscure corner of Whitehall.
Unfortunately for him he lost that gamble when just three days later The Independent on Sunday called Mr Nichols, the clerk to the committee, and asked: "Did Mr Blunkett ask its advice before he took up his directorship of DNA Bioscience?"
Mr Nichols paused for a moment and then said: "David Blunkett did not seek the committee's advice about DNA Bioscience." It did not take long to locate the relevant section (5.29) in the Ministerial Code. It was unequivocal: Mr Blunkett had broken the rules.
What made the breach all the more extraordinary were three letters, released to this newspaper by the committee, showing that the minister had been repeatedly warned to obey the rules, once just a month before he took the DNA Bioscience job, relating to his work for lobbyists Indepen Consulting Ltd.
Downing Street heard of the impending disaster almost immediately. Mr Nichols, quite properly, informed the Cabinet Office of the press inquiry, and his response to it, late on Thursday afternoon.
By Friday morning news that The Independent on Sunday had found out about the breach had reached Mr Blair's senior officials, if not the Prime Minister himself.
It is unlikely, therefore, to have come as a complete surprise to Matthew Doyle, Mr Blunkett's special adviser, to receive a call from the IoS early on Saturday morning. In Washington for a friend's wedding, Mr Doyle was supposed to be preparing his best man's speech but was soon frantically checking his Blackberry as he tried to thrash out a response with Downing Street.
Eventually, with a print deadline looming, the response arrived. "Mr Blunkett believed he was acting within the Ministerial Code," ran the key paragraph. "But with hindsight it might have been better if he had written to the committee prior to Parliament returning."
The response quoted selectively from the committee's letters, highlighting only phrases that contained the word "voluntary" and ignoring the explicit reminders that ministers should seek advice.
Finally, it said that Mr Blunkett had asked the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to "clarify the procedure".
Mr Blunkett's attempt to recruit the new head of Britain's civil service to his cause was to prove a major error, however. Sir Gus, who was once John Major's press secretary, must be acutely aware of what a drawn-out sleaze scandal can do to the credibility of ministers - and officials.
When Tony Blair, with the storm raging around him, called a meeting last week to review the evidence with his chief mandarin, the Cabinet Secretary was unequivocal. It was not sustainable to suggest, as Mr Blunkett contended, that there was any confusion about the rules. To seek the advice of the ACBA was mandatory, he said.
The shifting ground beneath the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was felt as soon as Mr Blair was asked a direct question about his future, later that day. "I do give him my confidence," Mr Blair said. "But I think he should be allowed to get on with his job, which is very important." Seasoned watchers of the Prime Minister could not fail to detect the distinctly lukewarm nature of the backing.
In an effort to draw a line under the affair, Mr Blunkett announced that he had asked his sons to sell the DNA Bioscience shares he had bought for around £15,000, when he was briefly a director of the firm for two weeks between 21 April and 6 May. The shares, which could net £300,000, had been intended, friends say, to replace the sons' "inheritance", which Mr Blunkett had spent on legal fees to secure access to William Quinn, the child he had with Kimberly.
The fees had been "mega", said his allies, and he felt guilty that it had reduced the amount of cash his grown-up sons, Alastair, Hugh and Andrew, could expect to be passed to them when he died.
Giving up the profit was a bitter blow and must have made Mr Blunkett all the more determined to hold on to office. He was certainly in no mood to quit when his local newspaper caught him on the phone at his grace and favour home in Eaton Square early on Tuesday morning. "I have done nothing wrong," he told Anne Alexander, the Sheffield Star's political editor.
But he had done something wrong and the question of what Mr Blair - as the final arbiter of the Ministerial Code - was going to do about it hung over Westminster. When Sir Gus hosted a small press conference on boosting diversity in the workplace that afternoon it wasn't long before journalists started asking him pointed questions about whether blind people were to be given "preferential treatment".
And once the press pack began asking explicitly what was to happen to the Work and Pensions Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary, by now deeply embarrassed, was hurried away by his press minder.
At the same time, it emerged that Mr Blunkett had failed to ask the ACBA's advice on a third appointment, as a paid consultant to the Jewish educational charity ORT.
In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the mood among Labour MPs was sullen and unsupportive. Taking their cue from the deafening silence from the Cabinet, most backbenchers regarded Mr Blunkett as a liability whose position was untenable. It was a view conveyed to Downing Street with brutal honesty by Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip.
Mr Blunkett himself was snubbed when he tried to rally support in the Commons tearoom on Tuesday afternoon, according to some senior Labour figures.
Many remembered his disastrous attempt to garner backing the previous time he faced the chop, last December. Then he had hijacked a Christmas reception for backbench MPs, handed out songsheets for the Sinatra classic "Pick Yourself Up, Dust Yourself Off ..." and gave a lusty rendition. Next to the refrain "start all over again" one of his cabinet colleagues wrote "... in Sheffield", causing widespread sniggering.
But the fact of the matter was that he had "started all over again". After just over four months in the wilderness he had been ushered back into Cabinet over the heads of many Labour MPs who had worked without great political reward for decades. Now that the vultures were circling, few of the overlooked were rushing to his defence.
In No 10, meanwhile, Mr Blair railed against the media "frenzy" - even as he began to accept it was inevitable he would lose his friend and ally a second time.
The morning of Mr Blunkett's resignation began with another phone call from the Sheffield Star. He sounded weary, flat even - not as forceful as he had been the previous morning.
If there was any doubt about his predicament then the headline of the Daily Mail would have dispelled it: "Blunkett: the Screw Tightens." Inside, the newspaper listed details of further breaches of the Ministerial Code, as well as hints that there was yet more to come. And just to complete the misery, Ms Anderson, who sold the story of her dates with Mr Blunkett for a reported £50,000, added to her earnings with another interview in which she claimed Mr Blunkett had discussed business with Tariq Siddiqi after he returned to government.
Despite it all, the Sheffield Brightside MP was still desperate to cling on to his job. Tony Blair, suffering a heavy cold, took his friend's call in the family flat above No 11. Yes, he said, he would see him straight away to discuss the position.
For Mr Blair the scenario was familiar - almost ritual - when he ushered his ally into his office in No 10. The Prime Minister had seen too many high-profile casualties to rate Mr Blunkett's chances of survival.
Still, Mr Blair repeated that, in his view, his transgression did not warrant a resignation. It was not, however, the full-blooded pledge of allegiance Mr Blunkett had been hoping for, and the meeting broke up after 15 minutes.
By coincidence, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was due to appear before MPs in a select committee that morning. Mr Doyle, his adviser, was still telling journalists at 8.50am that his boss was determined to stay - and to use the select committee appearance to demonstrate his appetite for the job.
But news that he would be delayed by 30 minutes was the first indication to the outside world of events within No 10.
Journalists then heard Mr Doyle swearing volubly into his mobile phone as he and Mr Blunkett arrived in Portcullis House (the building that houses MPs' offices next to the Palace of Westminster) for the delayed meeting. It was only when he learnt that the committee had not just been delayed but abandoned altogether that he knew the game was up. Later he said a lifetime's political experience meant that he could "smell and feel it was time to step away".
The red ministerial Jaguar was ordered to return to Downing Street for Mr Blunkett's formal resignation. No 10 press officers watching the rolling news coverage in their office heard the channels claim he had quit even before he returned to Downing Street. Soon the broadcast reporters, whose unofficial motto is "never wrong for long", were right.
The second meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Blunkett was not long and not marked by any great expressions of emotion, according to senior officials. Both men knew what needed to be done. They had both, after all, been here before.
The resignation spared Mr Blair what would have been a punishing grilling at Prime Minister's Questions. As the final arbiter of the Ministerial Code he faced the prospect of telling MPs that Mr Blunkett, one of his few allies, had breached the rules but that it didn't matter. It would have caused an outcry and made it still harder for the whips to ram through the controversial anti-terror laws - in the event passed by just one vote.
Nevertheless, Mr Blair was determined to do his old friend what favours he could when he faced Michael Howard across the despatch box. "I would like to say that whatever mistakes he has made, I've always believed and believe now that he is a decent and honourable man." He added: "He goes, in my view, with no stain of impropriety against him whatever."
His words were an uncanny echo of those he used on 21 December 2004 in his letter to Mr Blunkett accepting "with great regret" his resignation. "You leave Government with your integrity intact," the Prime Minister wrote.
Mr Blunkett resigned then after he admitted that a letter from his then lover Kimberly Quinn, concerning the immigration status of her nanny, had been processed by his private office when he was Home Secretary. An official had written "no favours but a little faster".
For the second time Mr Blair sought to downplay the significance of his friend's mistakes (even if this time he wrote that he accepted the resignation with "regret", not "great regret").
The nature of politics is that by 5pm on Wednesday evening Mr Blair's mind was fixed on the parliamentary calculations needed to win the vote on counter-terror measures, rather than on the fate of his old friend.
He was already praising Mr Blunkett's successor, John Hutton, as a moderniser who would succeed in getting the difficult welfare reforms he is planning through Parliament.
The man he replaced, meanwhile, was planning to see an old friend, Rebekah Wade, editor of The Sun, whose own career was to be in danger by the time the night was out. So the Labour MP who blamed the right-wing media for his downfall ended the day of his resignation with Ms Wade and, reportedly, Rupert Murdoch, at The Ivy.
Most of his friends accept that Mr Blunkett has shown a remarkable lack of consistency in recent years. His judgement has been flawed. Some of his behaviour in repeatedly failing to abide by the rules is baffling, some of his mis-statements too obvious to be effective.
The "mistake" that cost him his political career was more troubling than that, however, and unanswered questions remain. Why did he become a director of a firm two weeks before he knew he would almost certainly have to leave it? DNA Bioscience is refusing to say whether, as reported, Mr Blunkett was only entitled to buy those potentially lucrative shares while a director. Could it be that he deliberately evaded his responsibility to seek the ACBA's advice on the appointment because he feared it would recommend that he wait for three months - by which time he would be back in the Cabinet and unable to take advantage of this gilt-edged financial opportunity?
Mr Blunkett is due to attend a dinner thrown by the Leo Baeck Institute in London tomorrow, where he will introduce the guest of honour, the German Interior Minister. Doubtless the event will be portrayed by his friends as the beginning of his journey back to public life. Many believe that that journey should only be allowed to continue when the last questions over his financial dealings are finally laid to rest.
Francis Elliott, our Whitehall Editor,from The Independent & The Independent on Sunday
"It's over. Let's go." With these words David Blunkett had called his aide to his side and returned to Downing Street to resign from the Cabinet a second time in 11 months, shortly before 10am on Wednesday.
The formalities were then disposed of during a brief, dry-eyed meeting with Tony Blair in No 10. Now he faced the ritual of the resignation press conference.
The first departure, in the wake of the Kimberly Quinn affair last December, had been emotional, almost tearful. This time, however, he quickly mastered himself and went on the offensive against those in the press he blamed for harrying him from office and still insisted that he had done nothing wrong.
Mr Blunkett was generous in his tribute to this newspaper for revealing his breach of the Ministerial Code in not seeking the advice of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments (ACBA) before becoming a director of the DNA testing firm, DNA Bioscience.
For nine weeks, journalists, he said, had been "delving into every aspect of my private and public life". The only revelation that had reduced Tony Blair's confidence in him had apparently been his failure to consult Parliament's independent sleaze watchdog. Mr Blunkett continued: "I wish I had spotted it earlier, then I would have been able to tell the world I had made a mistake."
But as we have revealed, last weekend's revelation cannot have come as much of a surprise to the former minister.
The former secretary of state for work and pensions had sought to head off a potential controversy less than a week before it broke.
Two weekends ago Mr Blunkett was a man under pressure. He faced a gathering media storm over a shareholding he had bought in a company bidding for government contracts - including one from Mr Blunkett's own department.
The shareholding had emerged as a detail of a rather more salacious saga concerning the minister's private life. He had been introduced to DNA Bioscience by the same couple, Lucy and Tariq Siddiqi, who had set him up with a 29-year-old blonde estate agent, Sally Anderson.
While he was confident that he could prove that he had not broken the Ministerial Code in buying the shares, he knew there was one gaping hole in his defences.
Mr Blunkett had been fretting about his failure to consult ACBA for at least a week before the story broke. As we reveal today he wrote to ACBA on 24 October. That letter was marked "Private and Confidential" and remains under lock and key in the committee's distinctly unglamorous offices on the third floor of a gloomy building in Great Smith Street, Westminster.
It is not hard to surmise its contents, however, from the reply sent the next day by Tony Nichols, the committee's clerk. In it Lord Mayhew, the chairman, "notes the course of events concerning your appointment with DNA Bioscience". He also insists that ACBA "would need to say that it had not been consulted ... if enquiries were made of it as to your compliance with the Ministerial Code".
The reply presented Mr Blunkett with a choice. He could go public and admit to and apologise for the breach - to "tell the world I had made a mistake", in his own words. Or he could keep quiet about it and hope that "enquiries" were not made of this quiet, obscure corner of Whitehall.
Unfortunately for him he lost that gamble when just three days later The Independent on Sunday called Mr Nichols, the clerk to the committee, and asked: "Did Mr Blunkett ask its advice before he took up his directorship of DNA Bioscience?"
Mr Nichols paused for a moment and then said: "David Blunkett did not seek the committee's advice about DNA Bioscience." It did not take long to locate the relevant section (5.29) in the Ministerial Code. It was unequivocal: Mr Blunkett had broken the rules.
What made the breach all the more extraordinary were three letters, released to this newspaper by the committee, showing that the minister had been repeatedly warned to obey the rules, once just a month before he took the DNA Bioscience job, relating to his work for lobbyists Indepen Consulting Ltd.
Downing Street heard of the impending disaster almost immediately. Mr Nichols, quite properly, informed the Cabinet Office of the press inquiry, and his response to it, late on Thursday afternoon.
By Friday morning news that The Independent on Sunday had found out about the breach had reached Mr Blair's senior officials, if not the Prime Minister himself.
It is unlikely, therefore, to have come as a complete surprise to Matthew Doyle, Mr Blunkett's special adviser, to receive a call from the IoS early on Saturday morning. In Washington for a friend's wedding, Mr Doyle was supposed to be preparing his best man's speech but was soon frantically checking his Blackberry as he tried to thrash out a response with Downing Street.
Eventually, with a print deadline looming, the response arrived. "Mr Blunkett believed he was acting within the Ministerial Code," ran the key paragraph. "But with hindsight it might have been better if he had written to the committee prior to Parliament returning."
The response quoted selectively from the committee's letters, highlighting only phrases that contained the word "voluntary" and ignoring the explicit reminders that ministers should seek advice.
Finally, it said that Mr Blunkett had asked the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to "clarify the procedure".
Mr Blunkett's attempt to recruit the new head of Britain's civil service to his cause was to prove a major error, however. Sir Gus, who was once John Major's press secretary, must be acutely aware of what a drawn-out sleaze scandal can do to the credibility of ministers - and officials.
When Tony Blair, with the storm raging around him, called a meeting last week to review the evidence with his chief mandarin, the Cabinet Secretary was unequivocal. It was not sustainable to suggest, as Mr Blunkett contended, that there was any confusion about the rules. To seek the advice of the ACBA was mandatory, he said.
The shifting ground beneath the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was felt as soon as Mr Blair was asked a direct question about his future, later that day. "I do give him my confidence," Mr Blair said. "But I think he should be allowed to get on with his job, which is very important." Seasoned watchers of the Prime Minister could not fail to detect the distinctly lukewarm nature of the backing.
In an effort to draw a line under the affair, Mr Blunkett announced that he had asked his sons to sell the DNA Bioscience shares he had bought for around £15,000, when he was briefly a director of the firm for two weeks between 21 April and 6 May. The shares, which could net £300,000, had been intended, friends say, to replace the sons' "inheritance", which Mr Blunkett had spent on legal fees to secure access to William Quinn, the child he had with Kimberly.
The fees had been "mega", said his allies, and he felt guilty that it had reduced the amount of cash his grown-up sons, Alastair, Hugh and Andrew, could expect to be passed to them when he died.
Giving up the profit was a bitter blow and must have made Mr Blunkett all the more determined to hold on to office. He was certainly in no mood to quit when his local newspaper caught him on the phone at his grace and favour home in Eaton Square early on Tuesday morning. "I have done nothing wrong," he told Anne Alexander, the Sheffield Star's political editor.
But he had done something wrong and the question of what Mr Blair - as the final arbiter of the Ministerial Code - was going to do about it hung over Westminster. When Sir Gus hosted a small press conference on boosting diversity in the workplace that afternoon it wasn't long before journalists started asking him pointed questions about whether blind people were to be given "preferential treatment".
And once the press pack began asking explicitly what was to happen to the Work and Pensions Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary, by now deeply embarrassed, was hurried away by his press minder.
At the same time, it emerged that Mr Blunkett had failed to ask the ACBA's advice on a third appointment, as a paid consultant to the Jewish educational charity ORT.
In the House of Commons on Tuesday, the mood among Labour MPs was sullen and unsupportive. Taking their cue from the deafening silence from the Cabinet, most backbenchers regarded Mr Blunkett as a liability whose position was untenable. It was a view conveyed to Downing Street with brutal honesty by Hilary Armstrong, the Chief Whip.
Mr Blunkett himself was snubbed when he tried to rally support in the Commons tearoom on Tuesday afternoon, according to some senior Labour figures.
Many remembered his disastrous attempt to garner backing the previous time he faced the chop, last December. Then he had hijacked a Christmas reception for backbench MPs, handed out songsheets for the Sinatra classic "Pick Yourself Up, Dust Yourself Off ..." and gave a lusty rendition. Next to the refrain "start all over again" one of his cabinet colleagues wrote "... in Sheffield", causing widespread sniggering.
But the fact of the matter was that he had "started all over again". After just over four months in the wilderness he had been ushered back into Cabinet over the heads of many Labour MPs who had worked without great political reward for decades. Now that the vultures were circling, few of the overlooked were rushing to his defence.
In No 10, meanwhile, Mr Blair railed against the media "frenzy" - even as he began to accept it was inevitable he would lose his friend and ally a second time.
The morning of Mr Blunkett's resignation began with another phone call from the Sheffield Star. He sounded weary, flat even - not as forceful as he had been the previous morning.
If there was any doubt about his predicament then the headline of the Daily Mail would have dispelled it: "Blunkett: the Screw Tightens." Inside, the newspaper listed details of further breaches of the Ministerial Code, as well as hints that there was yet more to come. And just to complete the misery, Ms Anderson, who sold the story of her dates with Mr Blunkett for a reported £50,000, added to her earnings with another interview in which she claimed Mr Blunkett had discussed business with Tariq Siddiqi after he returned to government.
Despite it all, the Sheffield Brightside MP was still desperate to cling on to his job. Tony Blair, suffering a heavy cold, took his friend's call in the family flat above No 11. Yes, he said, he would see him straight away to discuss the position.
For Mr Blair the scenario was familiar - almost ritual - when he ushered his ally into his office in No 10. The Prime Minister had seen too many high-profile casualties to rate Mr Blunkett's chances of survival.
Still, Mr Blair repeated that, in his view, his transgression did not warrant a resignation. It was not, however, the full-blooded pledge of allegiance Mr Blunkett had been hoping for, and the meeting broke up after 15 minutes.
By coincidence, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was due to appear before MPs in a select committee that morning. Mr Doyle, his adviser, was still telling journalists at 8.50am that his boss was determined to stay - and to use the select committee appearance to demonstrate his appetite for the job.
But news that he would be delayed by 30 minutes was the first indication to the outside world of events within No 10.
Journalists then heard Mr Doyle swearing volubly into his mobile phone as he and Mr Blunkett arrived in Portcullis House (the building that houses MPs' offices next to the Palace of Westminster) for the delayed meeting. It was only when he learnt that the committee had not just been delayed but abandoned altogether that he knew the game was up. Later he said a lifetime's political experience meant that he could "smell and feel it was time to step away".
The red ministerial Jaguar was ordered to return to Downing Street for Mr Blunkett's formal resignation. No 10 press officers watching the rolling news coverage in their office heard the channels claim he had quit even before he returned to Downing Street. Soon the broadcast reporters, whose unofficial motto is "never wrong for long", were right.
The second meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Blunkett was not long and not marked by any great expressions of emotion, according to senior officials. Both men knew what needed to be done. They had both, after all, been here before.
The resignation spared Mr Blair what would have been a punishing grilling at Prime Minister's Questions. As the final arbiter of the Ministerial Code he faced the prospect of telling MPs that Mr Blunkett, one of his few allies, had breached the rules but that it didn't matter. It would have caused an outcry and made it still harder for the whips to ram through the controversial anti-terror laws - in the event passed by just one vote.
Nevertheless, Mr Blair was determined to do his old friend what favours he could when he faced Michael Howard across the despatch box. "I would like to say that whatever mistakes he has made, I've always believed and believe now that he is a decent and honourable man." He added: "He goes, in my view, with no stain of impropriety against him whatever."
His words were an uncanny echo of those he used on 21 December 2004 in his letter to Mr Blunkett accepting "with great regret" his resignation. "You leave Government with your integrity intact," the Prime Minister wrote.
Mr Blunkett resigned then after he admitted that a letter from his then lover Kimberly Quinn, concerning the immigration status of her nanny, had been processed by his private office when he was Home Secretary. An official had written "no favours but a little faster".
For the second time Mr Blair sought to downplay the significance of his friend's mistakes (even if this time he wrote that he accepted the resignation with "regret", not "great regret").
The nature of politics is that by 5pm on Wednesday evening Mr Blair's mind was fixed on the parliamentary calculations needed to win the vote on counter-terror measures, rather than on the fate of his old friend.
He was already praising Mr Blunkett's successor, John Hutton, as a moderniser who would succeed in getting the difficult welfare reforms he is planning through Parliament.
The man he replaced, meanwhile, was planning to see an old friend, Rebekah Wade, editor of The Sun, whose own career was to be in danger by the time the night was out. So the Labour MP who blamed the right-wing media for his downfall ended the day of his resignation with Ms Wade and, reportedly, Rupert Murdoch, at The Ivy.
Most of his friends accept that Mr Blunkett has shown a remarkable lack of consistency in recent years. His judgement has been flawed. Some of his behaviour in repeatedly failing to abide by the rules is baffling, some of his mis-statements too obvious to be effective.
The "mistake" that cost him his political career was more troubling than that, however, and unanswered questions remain. Why did he become a director of a firm two weeks before he knew he would almost certainly have to leave it? DNA Bioscience is refusing to say whether, as reported, Mr Blunkett was only entitled to buy those potentially lucrative shares while a director. Could it be that he deliberately evaded his responsibility to seek the ACBA's advice on the appointment because he feared it would recommend that he wait for three months - by which time he would be back in the Cabinet and unable to take advantage of this gilt-edged financial opportunity?
Mr Blunkett is due to attend a dinner thrown by the Leo Baeck Institute in London tomorrow, where he will introduce the guest of honour, the German Interior Minister. Doubtless the event will be portrayed by his friends as the beginning of his journey back to public life. Many believe that that journey should only be allowed to continue when the last questions over his financial dealings are finally laid to rest.
Francis Elliott, our Whitehall Editor,from The Independent & The Independent on Sunday
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
Blunkett forced to resign
DAVID Blunkett this morning submitted his resignation as the Department of Work and Pensions Secretary after apparently breaking ministerial rules, it was revealed today.
A formal announcement from 10 Downing Street was expected later this morning.
Mr Blunkett just yesterday declared he would not allow his critics to drive him out of office after questions over his business interests in the months between his resignation as Home Secretary last December and his return to government in May.
However on his way to work this morning he got a call from No 10 and following a meeting at No 10 it was announced that he had resigned.
Opposition leaders had called for an inquiry following the disclosure that Mr Blunkett had failed to consult a key Whitehall watchdog over a third business appointment.
The minister has already been forced to sell a £15,000 shareholding in DNA Bioscience, a biotechnology company that plans to bid for contracts awarded by his own Work and Pensions department.
That humiliation followed Mr Blunkett's admission over the weekend that he had not followed ministerial rules about outside jobs when he agreed to work for DNA Bioscience or management consultancy Indepen.
Under the Ministerial Code of Conduct, former ministers are required to consult the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments over any appointment they take up within two years of leaving office.
Mr Blunkett, the MP for Sheffield Brightside, was the Home Secretary for Prime Minister Tony Blair until he was forced to step down amid accusations of abuse of power.
Mr Blunkett's involvement with DNA Bioscience began through his own paternity fight with Kimberly Quinn, his former lover. Their relationship and claims his office had fast-tracked a visa application for Ms Quinn's former nanny was the ultimate cause of his resignation from the Cabinet last year.
Labour MP Clive Betts acknowledged today the political career of his friend Mr Blunkett was probably over.
"A second resignation in such a short period of time, I think, it is very difficult to see a rehabilitation in a similar way," Mr Betts said.
Ed: What does this all say about Tony Blair's judgement, a man who likes to take the country into war.
A formal announcement from 10 Downing Street was expected later this morning.
Mr Blunkett just yesterday declared he would not allow his critics to drive him out of office after questions over his business interests in the months between his resignation as Home Secretary last December and his return to government in May.
However on his way to work this morning he got a call from No 10 and following a meeting at No 10 it was announced that he had resigned.
Opposition leaders had called for an inquiry following the disclosure that Mr Blunkett had failed to consult a key Whitehall watchdog over a third business appointment.
The minister has already been forced to sell a £15,000 shareholding in DNA Bioscience, a biotechnology company that plans to bid for contracts awarded by his own Work and Pensions department.
That humiliation followed Mr Blunkett's admission over the weekend that he had not followed ministerial rules about outside jobs when he agreed to work for DNA Bioscience or management consultancy Indepen.
Under the Ministerial Code of Conduct, former ministers are required to consult the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments over any appointment they take up within two years of leaving office.
Mr Blunkett, the MP for Sheffield Brightside, was the Home Secretary for Prime Minister Tony Blair until he was forced to step down amid accusations of abuse of power.
Mr Blunkett's involvement with DNA Bioscience began through his own paternity fight with Kimberly Quinn, his former lover. Their relationship and claims his office had fast-tracked a visa application for Ms Quinn's former nanny was the ultimate cause of his resignation from the Cabinet last year.
Labour MP Clive Betts acknowledged today the political career of his friend Mr Blunkett was probably over.
"A second resignation in such a short period of time, I think, it is very difficult to see a rehabilitation in a similar way," Mr Betts said.
Ed: What does this all say about Tony Blair's judgement, a man who likes to take the country into war.
Blair ignores his own guidelines to keep Blunkett in the Cabinet
Tony Blair abandoned his "purer than pure" approach to ministerial conduct yesterday in an attempt to keep David Blunkett, his close friend and political ally, in the Cabinet.
Despite fresh disclosures that showed Mr Blunkett breached the guidelines for former ministers on five occasions, Downing Street said Mr Blair did not believe the "mistakes" were serious enough to prevent the Work and Pensions Secretary continuing in his post.
The row over Mr Blunkett's business dealings intensified when it emerged that he failed to consult the independent watchdog on appointments for former ministers over a third paid job he took weeks after resigning as Home Secretary last December.
Although Mr Blunkett gave a defiant interview to his local newspaper, the Sheffield Star, insisting he had "done nothing wrong" and would not be forced out of office, there was little support among Labour MPs.
Dr Ian Gibson, the MP for Norwich North, said Mr Blunkett had embarrassed the party and should consider resigning.
"It was a daft thing to do and if it was me, I would think about taking an early bath."
Peter Kilfoyle, the MP for Liverpool Walton, said Mr Blunkett was "damaged and holed below the water-line."
When Mr Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 he attacked the "sleaze" of the Tory years. He promised that his government would uphold the highest standards in public life and ensure ministers were "purer than pure".
In a foreword to the code of conduct for his ministers, he said he would expect them "to work within the spirit and the letter of the code" and uphold the "highest standards of propriety".
Yet Mr Blair effectively set aside the system of self-regulation by ruling that repeated transgressions of the guidelines by Mr Blunkett did not warrant his resignation.
Mr Blair's official spokesman told reporters: "David Blunkett has accepted he made a mistake. The question is, does that mistake stop him doing his job? The Prime Minister's judgment is that it does not."
Mr Blunkett still had Mr Blair's "full support" and the Prime Minister believed he had shown "integrity" in dealing with the questions about his conduct.
But there was fresh embarrassment for Downing Street when it emerged that Mr Blunkett had not informed Mr Blair that he had taken a third paid post without consulting the advisory committee on business appointments.
He became an adviser to the Organisation for Research and Technology, earning between £15,000 and £20,000, in January - before the three-month "quarantine" period on former ministers taking jobs had elapsed.
Mr Blunkett took a similar paid post as an adviser to Indepen Consulting Ltd at the same time - a second breach of the rules.
He committed three further breaches by failing to consult the advisory committee about any of his three paid posts, including the controversial directorship with the biotech company, DNA Biosciences.
Letters released on Monday showed Mr Blunkett was warned three times that he should have consulted a Whitehall advisory committee before taking up business appointments following his departure from government.
Sir Alistair Graham, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said yesterday the letters left no doubt that Mr Blunkett had broken the ministers' code. He said the rules left it up to the Prime Minister to decide how the breach should be dealt with.
Chris Grayling, the Tory shadow leader of the Commons, who has led the questioning of Mr Blunkett's conduct, said he was "astonished" by a further breach of the ministerial code.
"This is getting beyond a joke. There is a danger that the Prime Minister is destroying the credibility of the code. He cannot claim the Ministerial Code is important and fail to act over these breaches."
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Tory work and pensions spokesman, said Mr Blunkett had "lost the plot". His poor judgment made him "damaged property" politically.
Mr Blunkett, MP for Sheffield Brightside, told the Sheffield Star: "The Prime Minister has made his decision and no matter what the Conservative Party want, I am not resigning.
"This is a straight political battle with the Conservative Party and their allies in the media and decency. I have done nothing wrong at any stage. I have been transparent about everything I have done."
Labour sources say Mr Blunkett was keen to take up business appointments after resigning as Home Secretary to recoup the high legal bills in the paternity battle over the children of his former lover, Kimberly Quinn.
A leading family solicitor said he would have paid lawyers up to £50,000. Mr Blunkett was represented in court by a leading QC, Peter Jackson, whose fees would be added to those of the solicitors.
From George Jones at The Daily Telegraph
Despite fresh disclosures that showed Mr Blunkett breached the guidelines for former ministers on five occasions, Downing Street said Mr Blair did not believe the "mistakes" were serious enough to prevent the Work and Pensions Secretary continuing in his post.
The row over Mr Blunkett's business dealings intensified when it emerged that he failed to consult the independent watchdog on appointments for former ministers over a third paid job he took weeks after resigning as Home Secretary last December.
Although Mr Blunkett gave a defiant interview to his local newspaper, the Sheffield Star, insisting he had "done nothing wrong" and would not be forced out of office, there was little support among Labour MPs.
Dr Ian Gibson, the MP for Norwich North, said Mr Blunkett had embarrassed the party and should consider resigning.
"It was a daft thing to do and if it was me, I would think about taking an early bath."
Peter Kilfoyle, the MP for Liverpool Walton, said Mr Blunkett was "damaged and holed below the water-line."
When Mr Blair became Prime Minister in 1997 he attacked the "sleaze" of the Tory years. He promised that his government would uphold the highest standards in public life and ensure ministers were "purer than pure".
In a foreword to the code of conduct for his ministers, he said he would expect them "to work within the spirit and the letter of the code" and uphold the "highest standards of propriety".
Yet Mr Blair effectively set aside the system of self-regulation by ruling that repeated transgressions of the guidelines by Mr Blunkett did not warrant his resignation.
Mr Blair's official spokesman told reporters: "David Blunkett has accepted he made a mistake. The question is, does that mistake stop him doing his job? The Prime Minister's judgment is that it does not."
Mr Blunkett still had Mr Blair's "full support" and the Prime Minister believed he had shown "integrity" in dealing with the questions about his conduct.
But there was fresh embarrassment for Downing Street when it emerged that Mr Blunkett had not informed Mr Blair that he had taken a third paid post without consulting the advisory committee on business appointments.
He became an adviser to the Organisation for Research and Technology, earning between £15,000 and £20,000, in January - before the three-month "quarantine" period on former ministers taking jobs had elapsed.
Mr Blunkett took a similar paid post as an adviser to Indepen Consulting Ltd at the same time - a second breach of the rules.
He committed three further breaches by failing to consult the advisory committee about any of his three paid posts, including the controversial directorship with the biotech company, DNA Biosciences.
Letters released on Monday showed Mr Blunkett was warned three times that he should have consulted a Whitehall advisory committee before taking up business appointments following his departure from government.
Sir Alistair Graham, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, said yesterday the letters left no doubt that Mr Blunkett had broken the ministers' code. He said the rules left it up to the Prime Minister to decide how the breach should be dealt with.
Chris Grayling, the Tory shadow leader of the Commons, who has led the questioning of Mr Blunkett's conduct, said he was "astonished" by a further breach of the ministerial code.
"This is getting beyond a joke. There is a danger that the Prime Minister is destroying the credibility of the code. He cannot claim the Ministerial Code is important and fail to act over these breaches."
Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the Tory work and pensions spokesman, said Mr Blunkett had "lost the plot". His poor judgment made him "damaged property" politically.
Mr Blunkett, MP for Sheffield Brightside, told the Sheffield Star: "The Prime Minister has made his decision and no matter what the Conservative Party want, I am not resigning.
"This is a straight political battle with the Conservative Party and their allies in the media and decency. I have done nothing wrong at any stage. I have been transparent about everything I have done."
Labour sources say Mr Blunkett was keen to take up business appointments after resigning as Home Secretary to recoup the high legal bills in the paternity battle over the children of his former lover, Kimberly Quinn.
A leading family solicitor said he would have paid lawyers up to £50,000. Mr Blunkett was represented in court by a leading QC, Peter Jackson, whose fees would be added to those of the solicitors.
From George Jones at The Daily Telegraph
New Labour tax squeeze on the South
Home buyers paid a record £5.5 billion in stamp duty last year, prompting new accusations yesterday that the Government is presiding over a "property stealth tax".
Over the past year the amount of stamp duty pouring into the coffers of Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, rose by almost 50 per cent, new figures showed.
Revenue from the tax has increased eightfold since Labour came to power in 1997. Stamp duty on house sales now generates more money for the Chancellor than spirits and beer duty combined and is fast approaching the level raised by tobacco tax.
The figures emerged as council tax payers in England were warned that they could face a £100-a-year increase on their bills unless the Government plugged a £2.2 billion "black hole" in its finances.
Although critics say the Chancellor has presided over an unprecedented number of "stealth" tax rises, few are as unpopular as stamp duty. Over the past few years rising house prices have dragged millions of homes over the threshold for the duty, with London and the South East, where house prices are highest, bearing the brunt.
Caroline Spelman, the Conservative local government spokesman, accused the Government of squeezing home buyers dry.
"Stamp duty is yet another stealth tax," she said. "It is clearly being used to enrich the Treasury at the expense of home owners.
"What they have failed to do is adjust the stamp duty threshold to reflect the huge increase in house prices. For the whole nation, the average stamp duty has gone through the £1,000 barrier, while for London it is around £6,000. This is a tax on London and the South East, and on middle England."
The year before Labour came to power stamp duty on house sales raised £675 million.
At that time 610,000 people paid the tax when buying a house. Inland Revenue figures show that by this year, about 1.2 million home buyers were paying, which generated £5.49 billion for the Treasury.
The stamp duty threshold has failed to stay in line with average house prices, which have risen from £68,000 in 1997 to £170,000.
The lowest threshold was frozen at £60,000 between 1993 and March this year - a period of dramatic house price inflation.
Over the same period, Mr Brown increased stamp duty four times. Although he gave in to pressure and doubled the lowest threshold to £120,000 in March, the higher thresholds remain untouched.
Today, stamp duty is charged at one per cent on homes sold for £120,000 to £250,000, three per cent between £250,000 and £500,000 and four per cent for those above £500,000.
"This is a stealth tax," said Martin Ellis of the Halifax. "Rising prices have dragged a lot of properties into the net and also into the higher rates. This hits first-time buyers particularly.
"The Government doubled the lower threshold, but there aren't many houses in London and the South East that are exempt. We would like to see them linking thresholds to price inflation."
David Derbyshire and Brendan Carlin at The Daily Telegraph
Over the past year the amount of stamp duty pouring into the coffers of Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, rose by almost 50 per cent, new figures showed.
Revenue from the tax has increased eightfold since Labour came to power in 1997. Stamp duty on house sales now generates more money for the Chancellor than spirits and beer duty combined and is fast approaching the level raised by tobacco tax.
The figures emerged as council tax payers in England were warned that they could face a £100-a-year increase on their bills unless the Government plugged a £2.2 billion "black hole" in its finances.
Although critics say the Chancellor has presided over an unprecedented number of "stealth" tax rises, few are as unpopular as stamp duty. Over the past few years rising house prices have dragged millions of homes over the threshold for the duty, with London and the South East, where house prices are highest, bearing the brunt.
Caroline Spelman, the Conservative local government spokesman, accused the Government of squeezing home buyers dry.
"Stamp duty is yet another stealth tax," she said. "It is clearly being used to enrich the Treasury at the expense of home owners.
"What they have failed to do is adjust the stamp duty threshold to reflect the huge increase in house prices. For the whole nation, the average stamp duty has gone through the £1,000 barrier, while for London it is around £6,000. This is a tax on London and the South East, and on middle England."
The year before Labour came to power stamp duty on house sales raised £675 million.
At that time 610,000 people paid the tax when buying a house. Inland Revenue figures show that by this year, about 1.2 million home buyers were paying, which generated £5.49 billion for the Treasury.
The stamp duty threshold has failed to stay in line with average house prices, which have risen from £68,000 in 1997 to £170,000.
The lowest threshold was frozen at £60,000 between 1993 and March this year - a period of dramatic house price inflation.
Over the same period, Mr Brown increased stamp duty four times. Although he gave in to pressure and doubled the lowest threshold to £120,000 in March, the higher thresholds remain untouched.
Today, stamp duty is charged at one per cent on homes sold for £120,000 to £250,000, three per cent between £250,000 and £500,000 and four per cent for those above £500,000.
"This is a stealth tax," said Martin Ellis of the Halifax. "Rising prices have dragged a lot of properties into the net and also into the higher rates. This hits first-time buyers particularly.
"The Government doubled the lower threshold, but there aren't many houses in London and the South East that are exempt. We would like to see them linking thresholds to price inflation."
David Derbyshire and Brendan Carlin at The Daily Telegraph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)