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
Saturday, November 19, 2005
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
Monday, October 31, 2005
Blunkett fouls up yet again
DAVID BLUNKETT has admitted breaking the Code of Conduct For Ministers by taking a job at a firm linked to the Government.
The Work And Pensions Secretary became a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience in April after he was forced to resign as Home Secretary.
Under the code, Mr Blunkett was obliged to inform a special advisory committee about his appointment.
He did not do so, despite a previous warning from the committee when he failed to notify them of an earlier role with lobbying firm Indepen.
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling said: “There needs to be an urgent inquiry into Mr Blunkett’s conduct.”
A spokesman for the minister said: “Mr Blunkett was involved with DNA Bioscience for two weeks, which fell during the general election and while Parliament was prorogued (dissolved).
“Had Mr Blunkett not returned to government, there would have been time to seek clarification in regards to the committee, accepting as he does its helpful role.
“He believed that he was acting within the ministerial code, but with hindsight it might have been better if he had written to the committee prior to Parliament returning.
“Mr Blunkett has asked the Secretary to the Cabinet to clarify the procedure to avoid any confusion in future.”
from Keith Gladdis at N.O.W.
Ed: Shame Mr Blunkett doesn't ask his own sense of honour if he has done anything wrong in relation to his elevated position in our democracy.
The Work And Pensions Secretary became a non-executive director of DNA Bioscience in April after he was forced to resign as Home Secretary.
Under the code, Mr Blunkett was obliged to inform a special advisory committee about his appointment.
He did not do so, despite a previous warning from the committee when he failed to notify them of an earlier role with lobbying firm Indepen.
Shadow Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling said: “There needs to be an urgent inquiry into Mr Blunkett’s conduct.”
A spokesman for the minister said: “Mr Blunkett was involved with DNA Bioscience for two weeks, which fell during the general election and while Parliament was prorogued (dissolved).
“Had Mr Blunkett not returned to government, there would have been time to seek clarification in regards to the committee, accepting as he does its helpful role.
“He believed that he was acting within the ministerial code, but with hindsight it might have been better if he had written to the committee prior to Parliament returning.
“Mr Blunkett has asked the Secretary to the Cabinet to clarify the procedure to avoid any confusion in future.”
from Keith Gladdis at N.O.W.
Ed: Shame Mr Blunkett doesn't ask his own sense of honour if he has done anything wrong in relation to his elevated position in our democracy.
Monday, October 24, 2005
London top traffic cop does 80mph in 40mph zone
Road safety campaigners have reacted furiously after it emerged that London's most senior traffic policeman had escaped with a written warning for being driven in a police car which was caught speeding.
Chief Superintendent Les Owen, head of the Metropolitan Police traffic division, was reportedly late for a meeting when the marked force vehicle he was travelling in drove at up to twice the speed limit.
The Vauxhall Omega, occasionally using its sirens, was said to have sped along roads in north east London at one point hitting 86mph in a 50mph zone.
It was also reported to have been driving along parts of London's North Circular and surrounding roads at 82mph in a 40mph limit.
A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said Mr Owen had accepted a written warning from its Directorate of Professional Standards for "failing to challenge the manner in which a Pc drove a police car in which he was a passenger".
However, a spokeswoman for the national road safety charity Brake condemned the reprimand as "appalling" and "insane".
"As somebody who knows first hand the devastating consequences of high speed car crashes, it is just appalling," she said.
"Speeding is endemic on our roads and the most dangerous places are in residential areas, where you have children and other people who at 86mph would not survive if hit.
"He should do the right thing now and resign. If he truly believes in road safety and the things he has said about the dangers of speeding and how horrific car crashes are, then he should resign."
Kevin Delaney, head of traffic and road safety at the RAC Foundation, added: "He was in a position to slow that car down. All he had to do was to say to the driver 'slow down'. He may not have been holding the steering wheel, but he was the one who held all the power. He and the driver and everyone else on that road was exposed to a greater risk than they need have been."
Ed: Do you think Tony Blair will advise the Home Secretary to transfer Chief Superintendent Les Owen to none traffic duties as he has lost any credibilty in relation to road safety issues or will it be another example of one law for the Party and State bureaocrats and another for the people?
Chief Superintendent Les Owen, head of the Metropolitan Police traffic division, was reportedly late for a meeting when the marked force vehicle he was travelling in drove at up to twice the speed limit.
The Vauxhall Omega, occasionally using its sirens, was said to have sped along roads in north east London at one point hitting 86mph in a 50mph zone.
It was also reported to have been driving along parts of London's North Circular and surrounding roads at 82mph in a 40mph limit.
A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said Mr Owen had accepted a written warning from its Directorate of Professional Standards for "failing to challenge the manner in which a Pc drove a police car in which he was a passenger".
However, a spokeswoman for the national road safety charity Brake condemned the reprimand as "appalling" and "insane".
"As somebody who knows first hand the devastating consequences of high speed car crashes, it is just appalling," she said.
"Speeding is endemic on our roads and the most dangerous places are in residential areas, where you have children and other people who at 86mph would not survive if hit.
"He should do the right thing now and resign. If he truly believes in road safety and the things he has said about the dangers of speeding and how horrific car crashes are, then he should resign."
Kevin Delaney, head of traffic and road safety at the RAC Foundation, added: "He was in a position to slow that car down. All he had to do was to say to the driver 'slow down'. He may not have been holding the steering wheel, but he was the one who held all the power. He and the driver and everyone else on that road was exposed to a greater risk than they need have been."
Ed: Do you think Tony Blair will advise the Home Secretary to transfer Chief Superintendent Les Owen to none traffic duties as he has lost any credibilty in relation to road safety issues or will it be another example of one law for the Party and State bureaocrats and another for the people?
Blair's wife to have taxpayers car
CHERIE Blair has become the first Prime Minister’s spouse to receive a Government car and driver.
Use of the bullet-proof Vauxhall Omega is estimated to cost taxpayers more than £50,000 a year.
She also has use of a Ford Galaxy people carrier as a back-up.
Mrs Blair was provided with the car in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks.
Its existence was unearthed by an official request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Use of the bullet-proof Vauxhall Omega is estimated to cost taxpayers more than £50,000 a year.
She also has use of a Ford Galaxy people carrier as a back-up.
Mrs Blair was provided with the car in the wake of the September 11 terror attacks.
Its existence was unearthed by an official request under the Freedom of Information Act.
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
New Labour cave into Unions
Trade unions and the government have agreed a deal over the future of several public service pension schemes.
The TUC says the government has dropped its suggestion that current members of the health, civil service and education schemes should retire later, at 65.
In exchange the unions have accepted that a higher retirement age will be phased in for new staff.
The TUC said the agreement was a "sensible compromise" which meant that pensions promises would not be broken.
The trade union organisation hailed today's agreement as a major breakthrough which it would recommend to its members.
The government had originally proposed that a higher retirement age be introduced for the existing pension scheme members from 2013.
The TUC said its members now "need suffer no detriment in their pension arrangements".
Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson, who has been leading the government's negotiations, was also pleased with the deal.
"This is quite a breakthrough because the normal pension age in education, health and the civil service will be 65 for new entrants from next year," he said.
But business leaders were furious and claimed the government had caved in to union pressure.
On Monday, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) complained to Tony Blair that it was unfair for the public employees to have better pension arrangements than private employers.
David Frost, director general of the BCC was furious at today's agreement: "This deal is unacceptable from the standpoint of British business.
"The government needed to grasp the nettle and increase the public sector retirement age for existing employees on a sliding scale. They have failed to do this," he added.
David Willets, the Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, criticised the move.
"There is a growing divide between public and private sector pensions which cannot be sustained," he said.
"At this rate it could take forty years for the public sector retirement age to rise. The Arctic ice cap is melting more rapidly than the Government is reforming public sector pensions."
The TUC says the government has dropped its suggestion that current members of the health, civil service and education schemes should retire later, at 65.
In exchange the unions have accepted that a higher retirement age will be phased in for new staff.
The TUC said the agreement was a "sensible compromise" which meant that pensions promises would not be broken.
The trade union organisation hailed today's agreement as a major breakthrough which it would recommend to its members.
The government had originally proposed that a higher retirement age be introduced for the existing pension scheme members from 2013.
The TUC said its members now "need suffer no detriment in their pension arrangements".
Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson, who has been leading the government's negotiations, was also pleased with the deal.
"This is quite a breakthrough because the normal pension age in education, health and the civil service will be 65 for new entrants from next year," he said.
But business leaders were furious and claimed the government had caved in to union pressure.
On Monday, the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) complained to Tony Blair that it was unfair for the public employees to have better pension arrangements than private employers.
David Frost, director general of the BCC was furious at today's agreement: "This deal is unacceptable from the standpoint of British business.
"The government needed to grasp the nettle and increase the public sector retirement age for existing employees on a sliding scale. They have failed to do this," he added.
David Willets, the Shadow Trade and Industry Secretary, criticised the move.
"There is a growing divide between public and private sector pensions which cannot be sustained," he said.
"At this rate it could take forty years for the public sector retirement age to rise. The Arctic ice cap is melting more rapidly than the Government is reforming public sector pensions."
Thursday, October 13, 2005
New Labour spend £1.3m and 7 years to agree with a 1994 study.
Seven years after starting to examine how to deal with the amorous activities of the ruddy duck, at a cost of £1.3m New Labour has decided to spend a further £2 million shooting them.
This decision agrees with a Department of the Environment study in 1994 which had said that shooting was the answer.
The ruddy duck, a North American species, was introduced to Britain in the 1940s by the British conservationist Sir Peter Scott.
In 1998 the Government set up a task force to decide what action it should take.
The group took until 2002 to report, when it said that a Department of the Environment study in 1994 had said that shooting was the answer.
It concurred, after trials that included contraceptives, and said that the ruddy could be eradicated from Britain in 10 years.
It has taken until now for the Government to announce a five-year programme, jointly funded with the European Union, to wipe out the British population of 6,000 ruddies as part of an international conservation effort. (Ed: Good job Ruddy Ducks won't fly in from elsewhere.)
The delay and expense have baffled many countryside groups.
Charles Clover Environment Editor for The Daily Telegraph
This decision agrees with a Department of the Environment study in 1994 which had said that shooting was the answer.
The ruddy duck, a North American species, was introduced to Britain in the 1940s by the British conservationist Sir Peter Scott.
In 1998 the Government set up a task force to decide what action it should take.
The group took until 2002 to report, when it said that a Department of the Environment study in 1994 had said that shooting was the answer.
It concurred, after trials that included contraceptives, and said that the ruddy could be eradicated from Britain in 10 years.
It has taken until now for the Government to announce a five-year programme, jointly funded with the European Union, to wipe out the British population of 6,000 ruddies as part of an international conservation effort. (Ed: Good job Ruddy Ducks won't fly in from elsewhere.)
The delay and expense have baffled many countryside groups.
Charles Clover Environment Editor for The Daily Telegraph
New Labour less whiter than white
Government minister Patricia Hewitt has been forced to make the embarrassing admission that she sexually discriminated against a leading member of Bath and North East Somerset Council. Tory councillor Malcolm Hanney was deemed to be "much the strongest candidate" by the independent interview panel for a top development agency post - but Miss Hewitt over-ruled the panel and appointed a woman instead.
The Health Secretary, who at the time of the incident was Trade and Industry Secretary, has now been found by a court to have discriminated against Cllr Hanney in October by denying him the £9,000-a-year post on the board of the South West Regional Development Agency.
Instead of the job going to Cllr Hanney - a former Hong Kong-based banker - Miss Hewitt gave it to Christine Cannon, a 60-year-old Devon county councillor who was only the panel's third choice.
Cllr Hanney, who is the council's executive member for finance and resources, used laws under the Freedom of Information Act to access the interviewers' notes. Among the panel's comments were "Malcolm Hanney was much the strongest candidate at interview" and "Agree to appoint Malcolm Hanney to the Local Authority position".
Upon unearthing the comments, he complained to the Commissioner for Public Appointments. After an investigation the commissioner upheld Cllr Hanney's complaint.
Soon after officials at the Department for Trade and Industry told Cllr Hanney the department was prepared to give an apology for the incident - but insisted it was not appropriate for the minister to apologise.
The former HSBC director pressed on with his complaint and lodged an employment tribunal against the Secretary of State, which was decided in the High Court at the end of month.
The court ruled Cllr Hanney had been sexually discriminated against, which in turn prompted a personal apology from current Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson. The department has now agreed to pay Cllr Hanney's £18,000 legal costs in bringing the case.
BY MATTHEW PARDO AT THIS IS BATH
The Health Secretary, who at the time of the incident was Trade and Industry Secretary, has now been found by a court to have discriminated against Cllr Hanney in October by denying him the £9,000-a-year post on the board of the South West Regional Development Agency.
Instead of the job going to Cllr Hanney - a former Hong Kong-based banker - Miss Hewitt gave it to Christine Cannon, a 60-year-old Devon county councillor who was only the panel's third choice.
Cllr Hanney, who is the council's executive member for finance and resources, used laws under the Freedom of Information Act to access the interviewers' notes. Among the panel's comments were "Malcolm Hanney was much the strongest candidate at interview" and "Agree to appoint Malcolm Hanney to the Local Authority position".
Upon unearthing the comments, he complained to the Commissioner for Public Appointments. After an investigation the commissioner upheld Cllr Hanney's complaint.
Soon after officials at the Department for Trade and Industry told Cllr Hanney the department was prepared to give an apology for the incident - but insisted it was not appropriate for the minister to apologise.
The former HSBC director pressed on with his complaint and lodged an employment tribunal against the Secretary of State, which was decided in the High Court at the end of month.
The court ruled Cllr Hanney had been sexually discriminated against, which in turn prompted a personal apology from current Trade and Industry Secretary Alan Johnson. The department has now agreed to pay Cllr Hanney's £18,000 legal costs in bringing the case.
BY MATTHEW PARDO AT THIS IS BATH
Wednesday, October 12, 2005
Blunkett fouls up again
David Blunkett today admitted wrongly using official House of Commons notepaper to make a personal objection to a planning development near one of his London homes.
The work and pensions secretary, who is back in the cabinet after resigning as home secretary over his intervention to speed up the processing of his lover's nanny's visa, wrote to Wandsworth council to complain at plans to convert a nearby building into flats. In using officially headed Commons stationery, he breached parliamentary rules.
Today his spokesman said Mr Blunkett had committed the offence but called it "an honest mistake".
He told the Evening Standard: "After being approached by residents, he expressed his concerns about the environmental impact. He did so as an ex-resident who knows the area well.
"He dictated the letter to his office. In retrospect, he recognises he should have specified that the letter went out on plain paper. This was an honest mistake in good faith."
The row revolves around a property in Southfield, in south London, that Mr Blunkett bought in 1987 and subsequently let out.
A next door building, Clevedon Lodge, had applied for planning permission to be converted into flats, to fund a £4m improvement to the nearby Linden Lodge school for blind and partially sighted people.
Last month Mr Blunkett wrote objecting to a "loss of shrubbery and foilage".
According to the Evening Standard, the letter also stated he was "deeply concerned about the effect on wildlife, on the quiet enjoyment of the area and on the ecology".
The revelations come after a bad run of headlines for the returned cabinet minister: at the weekend he was accused of not declaring his free membership of the private members' club Annabel's after a week of reports about his relationship with a younger woman he met there.
Later David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said he had written to the serjeant at arms, Peter Grant Peterkin, calling for an investigation.
Mr Davies said: "I sat on the planning committees in the Welsh assembly for a couple of years. I know if you get involved in a planning application in which you have an interest, you have to disclose it immediately.
"It is astonishing that a minister of Mr Blunkett's experience did not know that."
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent at The Guardian Wednesday October 12, 2005
The work and pensions secretary, who is back in the cabinet after resigning as home secretary over his intervention to speed up the processing of his lover's nanny's visa, wrote to Wandsworth council to complain at plans to convert a nearby building into flats. In using officially headed Commons stationery, he breached parliamentary rules.
Today his spokesman said Mr Blunkett had committed the offence but called it "an honest mistake".
He told the Evening Standard: "After being approached by residents, he expressed his concerns about the environmental impact. He did so as an ex-resident who knows the area well.
"He dictated the letter to his office. In retrospect, he recognises he should have specified that the letter went out on plain paper. This was an honest mistake in good faith."
The row revolves around a property in Southfield, in south London, that Mr Blunkett bought in 1987 and subsequently let out.
A next door building, Clevedon Lodge, had applied for planning permission to be converted into flats, to fund a £4m improvement to the nearby Linden Lodge school for blind and partially sighted people.
Last month Mr Blunkett wrote objecting to a "loss of shrubbery and foilage".
According to the Evening Standard, the letter also stated he was "deeply concerned about the effect on wildlife, on the quiet enjoyment of the area and on the ecology".
The revelations come after a bad run of headlines for the returned cabinet minister: at the weekend he was accused of not declaring his free membership of the private members' club Annabel's after a week of reports about his relationship with a younger woman he met there.
Later David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, said he had written to the serjeant at arms, Peter Grant Peterkin, calling for an investigation.
Mr Davies said: "I sat on the planning committees in the Welsh assembly for a couple of years. I know if you get involved in a planning application in which you have an interest, you have to disclose it immediately.
"It is astonishing that a minister of Mr Blunkett's experience did not know that."
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent at The Guardian Wednesday October 12, 2005
Former CND protester Tony Blair loves nuclear dispite Chernobyl
Former CND protester Tony Blair said Tuesday his government has not ruled out building new nuclear power plants as it strives to meet international targets to cut global warming.
In his monthly news conference, Blair said the need to address climate change and ensure a secure energy supply for Britain meant he could not rule out a new building program, as the country's aging nuclear plants are phased out over the coming 10 to 15 years.
"The reasons why it has got to go on the agenda, and I am not expressing a concluded view, are security of supply and global warming," said Blair.
"There will be a debate about that, but it should be conducted with an open mind, I hope, by everybody. The issue of energy is, in my view, going to start to come centre stage, not just in our own politics but in the politics of other similar countries, and that is for a very simple reason."
"We have a very ambitious renewables target and there are obviously issues there that we have got to address and get right," he said.
Britain's energy strategy unit has advised ministers that nuclear power must play a major role if Britain is to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Blair has acknowledged in the past his government must reassure people about the costs and safety of building more nuclear plants.
Ed: Like on a number of issues the reality of power has changed Tony's point of view on nuclear power. So again it seems that in opposition Tony was either stupid or a liar. Either way unfit for his job don't you think.
In his monthly news conference, Blair said the need to address climate change and ensure a secure energy supply for Britain meant he could not rule out a new building program, as the country's aging nuclear plants are phased out over the coming 10 to 15 years.
"The reasons why it has got to go on the agenda, and I am not expressing a concluded view, are security of supply and global warming," said Blair.
"There will be a debate about that, but it should be conducted with an open mind, I hope, by everybody. The issue of energy is, in my view, going to start to come centre stage, not just in our own politics but in the politics of other similar countries, and that is for a very simple reason."
"We have a very ambitious renewables target and there are obviously issues there that we have got to address and get right," he said.
Britain's energy strategy unit has advised ministers that nuclear power must play a major role if Britain is to meet the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. Blair has acknowledged in the past his government must reassure people about the costs and safety of building more nuclear plants.
Ed: Like on a number of issues the reality of power has changed Tony's point of view on nuclear power. So again it seems that in opposition Tony was either stupid or a liar. Either way unfit for his job don't you think.
Tuesday, October 11, 2005
Tony Blair to allow all schools to be independent
Tony Blair says the pace of state sector reform must accelerate.
All schools in England will be given the chance to be "independent, non fee-paying schools" says the Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In his monthly press conference, Mr Blair promised to "accelerate change" in the state sector - allowing schools more "freedom to innovate".
Mr Blair said his government's plans for "radical reforms" would give "more power to parents".
A White Paper, due this month, will provide the "route map", said Mr Blair.
Sending a message that the process of reform in the state school sector is not going to slow down, Mr Blair promised more autonomy for schools and more choice for parents.
"We can either soft pedal these changes and hope to see some further incremental improvement - or seize this moment and drive through lasting radical reform that will cement the renewal of our state education system for this generation," said Mr Blair.
"The challenge is clear - we need to deepen the change. That means giving more freedom to schools, more power to parents, more opportunities for children.
"By the end of this third term, I want every school that wants to be to be able to be an independent, non fee-paying state school, with the freedom to innovate and develop in the way it wants and the way the parents of the school want, subject to certain common standards."
The forthcoming White Paper from the Education Secretary Ruth Kelly is expected to suggest ways in which schools can innovate and which parents can have more choice.
The independence promised by the prime minister will make it easier for both primary and secondary schools to adopt "foundation" status - giving them more control over their affairs and a more detached relationship with local education authorities.
Parents will also be given a fuller picture of the individual progress of their children - looking deeper into the tracking data that schools hold on pupils.
Ms Kelly has pointed to the lack of school choice for poorer families who cannot afford to buy houses in the areas that will get them a place at a successful school.
This has raised questions as to how school places could be allocated, so that more families have access to the best schools. A survey this week from the Sutton Trust showed that better-off families dominated the intakes of the top 200 state schools.
Ed: Is a place in the top 200 a function of the families who dominate the intakes?
There have been suggestions of improved transport to bring more schools in reach of all families - and changes to admissions rules to widen access.
It is expected that more "new providers" will be encouraged to set up schools - such as parents' groups, religious and community organisations and partnerships with the private sector.
In his press conference, Mr Blair echoed this concern over a lack of school choice.
ED: Good job a fragmenting privatisation in the Education sector will work better than in the Rail transport sector. Obviously any privitisation done by Tony and his mates will be better than the Tories. It will won't it.
All schools in England will be given the chance to be "independent, non fee-paying schools" says the Prime Minister Tony Blair.
In his monthly press conference, Mr Blair promised to "accelerate change" in the state sector - allowing schools more "freedom to innovate".
Mr Blair said his government's plans for "radical reforms" would give "more power to parents".
A White Paper, due this month, will provide the "route map", said Mr Blair.
Sending a message that the process of reform in the state school sector is not going to slow down, Mr Blair promised more autonomy for schools and more choice for parents.
"We can either soft pedal these changes and hope to see some further incremental improvement - or seize this moment and drive through lasting radical reform that will cement the renewal of our state education system for this generation," said Mr Blair.
"The challenge is clear - we need to deepen the change. That means giving more freedom to schools, more power to parents, more opportunities for children.
"By the end of this third term, I want every school that wants to be to be able to be an independent, non fee-paying state school, with the freedom to innovate and develop in the way it wants and the way the parents of the school want, subject to certain common standards."
The forthcoming White Paper from the Education Secretary Ruth Kelly is expected to suggest ways in which schools can innovate and which parents can have more choice.
The independence promised by the prime minister will make it easier for both primary and secondary schools to adopt "foundation" status - giving them more control over their affairs and a more detached relationship with local education authorities.
Parents will also be given a fuller picture of the individual progress of their children - looking deeper into the tracking data that schools hold on pupils.
Ms Kelly has pointed to the lack of school choice for poorer families who cannot afford to buy houses in the areas that will get them a place at a successful school.
This has raised questions as to how school places could be allocated, so that more families have access to the best schools. A survey this week from the Sutton Trust showed that better-off families dominated the intakes of the top 200 state schools.
Ed: Is a place in the top 200 a function of the families who dominate the intakes?
There have been suggestions of improved transport to bring more schools in reach of all families - and changes to admissions rules to widen access.
It is expected that more "new providers" will be encouraged to set up schools - such as parents' groups, religious and community organisations and partnerships with the private sector.
In his press conference, Mr Blair echoed this concern over a lack of school choice.
ED: Good job a fragmenting privatisation in the Education sector will work better than in the Rail transport sector. Obviously any privitisation done by Tony and his mates will be better than the Tories. It will won't it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)