"This is a humiliating climbdown for Gordon Brown after he was forced to accept that people will not tolerate MPs continuing to act like members of a secret society. It is also a victory for everyone who think that politicians should be open and accountable to the people who pay their wages."
Nick Clegg, Leader of the Liberal Democrats, commenting on news that Gordon Brown has retreated from plans to exempt MPs' expenses from the Freedom of Information Act - 21 January
Wednesday, 28 January 2009
DEMOCRACY SPECIAL: PM dodges MPs questions
Lib Dem MP Norman Baker has a formidable reputation as a parliamentary inquisitor. After being elected to Parliament in 1997 he asked more questions in his first three months than his Conservative predecessor had asked in 23 years. His notable achievements since include triggering Peter Mandelson's second Cabinet resignation with his questions over the passport application of billionaire Dome sponsor Srichand Hinduja, and winning a freedom of information battle with the Commons authorities over the publication of MPs' expenses.
But according to Norman the job of the inquisitor is getting harder. In an adjournment debate on January 22nd he claimed that, while Labour ministers had initially improved the fullness and frankness of answers to parliamentary questions when they took over in 1997, the years since had seen a big increase in the use of classic answer avoidance techniques. These include the partial answer, use of the ‘disproportionate cost' excuse, and referring the questioner to an often lengthy statistical digest or website rather than providing an answer directly.
Norman said the number of questions being denied an answer on the basis of commercial confidentiality was also on the up. "An analysis of the number of times that that reason was used under the Conservatives before 1997 can be demonstrated by a steadily rising graph, but that graph drops dramatically after 1997 when the Minister's Government came to power. I have to say, however, that the graph has subsequently risen to the level that it had reached under the Conservatives. It is difficult to imagine that there were fewer matters of commercial confidentiality in 1998 than at any other point, and there is rightly a suspicion that the number of times when that excuse, or reason, for not giving a full answer has been given is related not simply to the existence of commercial confidentiality but to the difficulty or expediency involved in not giving an answer for political reasons."
Norman said that questions that would previously have been answered were now being rebuffed. "In about 1998, I asked the former Department of Transport... about the carriage of radioactive material by air. I asked how many flights carried radioactive material, and I was given a specific figure. When I asked that question again recently, I was told that those figures were not collected. I cannot believe that in the past 10 years, the Government have decided not to collect those figures, but that is what I was told." On another occasion, he said, a minister had given a misleading answer to another MP because a question asked how much nuclear waste was carried by air, rather than how much spent nuclear fuel. The intention of the question was clear, said Norman, but while the answer was technically correct, it was totally misleading.
Norman identified Gordon Brown as one of the biggest offenders at failing to answer questions. Of the 23 written parliamentary questions he had tabled to the PM over the last 12 months, only four had been answered in any way satisfactorily. "Sometimes the Prime Minister will provide irrelevant information: he is asked one thing, but his reply bears no relation to the question he was asked. Sometimes he provides information that is so vague that it cannot be used in any shape or form. Sometimes he answers the bit of the question he likes, and leaves unanswered the bits that are more difficult to answer."
He gave the example of a question he had tabled to 22 ministers, including the Prime Minister, about when they had last travelled by train. 18 ministers had responded with a precise date. Two had given holding answers. But the Prime Minister and the Chancellor refused to give the information. Mr Brown had just provided a bland statement of his general criteria for deciding how to travel. Another example was the Prime Minister's refusal to answer a question about when he had last met Tony Blair.
While there may be circumstances in which it is legitimate to not answer a parliamentary question, the sheer number of occasions on which this is happening suggests that increasingly, the test was whether an answer would cause political embarrassment. This is a misuse of power, the government must change its ways.
But according to Norman the job of the inquisitor is getting harder. In an adjournment debate on January 22nd he claimed that, while Labour ministers had initially improved the fullness and frankness of answers to parliamentary questions when they took over in 1997, the years since had seen a big increase in the use of classic answer avoidance techniques. These include the partial answer, use of the ‘disproportionate cost' excuse, and referring the questioner to an often lengthy statistical digest or website rather than providing an answer directly.
Norman said the number of questions being denied an answer on the basis of commercial confidentiality was also on the up. "An analysis of the number of times that that reason was used under the Conservatives before 1997 can be demonstrated by a steadily rising graph, but that graph drops dramatically after 1997 when the Minister's Government came to power. I have to say, however, that the graph has subsequently risen to the level that it had reached under the Conservatives. It is difficult to imagine that there were fewer matters of commercial confidentiality in 1998 than at any other point, and there is rightly a suspicion that the number of times when that excuse, or reason, for not giving a full answer has been given is related not simply to the existence of commercial confidentiality but to the difficulty or expediency involved in not giving an answer for political reasons."
Norman said that questions that would previously have been answered were now being rebuffed. "In about 1998, I asked the former Department of Transport... about the carriage of radioactive material by air. I asked how many flights carried radioactive material, and I was given a specific figure. When I asked that question again recently, I was told that those figures were not collected. I cannot believe that in the past 10 years, the Government have decided not to collect those figures, but that is what I was told." On another occasion, he said, a minister had given a misleading answer to another MP because a question asked how much nuclear waste was carried by air, rather than how much spent nuclear fuel. The intention of the question was clear, said Norman, but while the answer was technically correct, it was totally misleading.
Norman identified Gordon Brown as one of the biggest offenders at failing to answer questions. Of the 23 written parliamentary questions he had tabled to the PM over the last 12 months, only four had been answered in any way satisfactorily. "Sometimes the Prime Minister will provide irrelevant information: he is asked one thing, but his reply bears no relation to the question he was asked. Sometimes he provides information that is so vague that it cannot be used in any shape or form. Sometimes he answers the bit of the question he likes, and leaves unanswered the bits that are more difficult to answer."
He gave the example of a question he had tabled to 22 ministers, including the Prime Minister, about when they had last travelled by train. 18 ministers had responded with a precise date. Two had given holding answers. But the Prime Minister and the Chancellor refused to give the information. Mr Brown had just provided a bland statement of his general criteria for deciding how to travel. Another example was the Prime Minister's refusal to answer a question about when he had last met Tony Blair.
While there may be circumstances in which it is legitimate to not answer a parliamentary question, the sheer number of occasions on which this is happening suggests that increasingly, the test was whether an answer would cause political embarrassment. This is a misuse of power, the government must change its ways.
Britain’s trains are most expensive in Europe – yet thousands are cancelled every year
MORE than 62,000 train journeys were cancelled in Britain last year, according to new figures.
Yet off-peak rail fares are higher in the UK than anywhere else in Europe.
In Britain, £10 only takes travellers an average of 26 miles. In comparison, £10 in Serbia provides 512 miles of rail travel.
Even with an off-peak return ticket in Britain, £10 only buys 56 miles of travel on the railways, making Britain's off-peak returns more expensive than single tickets in more than half of European countries.
British rail passengers are being ripped off. Nowhere else in Europe are passengers taken advantage of in this way.
The Government doesn’t give a damn about rail passengers, with inflation-busting fare rises that will force some travellers to swap the train for the car - and every indication that this will only get worse.
The Government has got transport policy upside down, with more polluting forms of travel regularly cheaper than more environmentally-friendly alternatives.
Ministers are putting a huge amount of effort into forcing through an environmentally disastrous third runway at Heathrow while ignoring the plight of rail passengers.
Yet off-peak rail fares are higher in the UK than anywhere else in Europe.
In Britain, £10 only takes travellers an average of 26 miles. In comparison, £10 in Serbia provides 512 miles of rail travel.
Even with an off-peak return ticket in Britain, £10 only buys 56 miles of travel on the railways, making Britain's off-peak returns more expensive than single tickets in more than half of European countries.
British rail passengers are being ripped off. Nowhere else in Europe are passengers taken advantage of in this way.
The Government doesn’t give a damn about rail passengers, with inflation-busting fare rises that will force some travellers to swap the train for the car - and every indication that this will only get worse.
The Government has got transport policy upside down, with more polluting forms of travel regularly cheaper than more environmentally-friendly alternatives.
Ministers are putting a huge amount of effort into forcing through an environmentally disastrous third runway at Heathrow while ignoring the plight of rail passengers.
Data plan is draconian
The government plans to allow people's details to be shared across government departments and agencies.
The Information Sharing Orders would remove data protection restrictions that mean information can only be used for the purpose it was taken.
The plans are not confined to public bodies - private companies in any country could also see people's information, and there would be a greater risk of information being lost.
Among other measures in the bill is one to allow some inquests in England and Wales to be held without juries.
The Information Sharing Orders would remove data protection restrictions that mean information can only be used for the purpose it was taken.
The plans are not confined to public bodies - private companies in any country could also see people's information, and there would be a greater risk of information being lost.
Among other measures in the bill is one to allow some inquests in England and Wales to be held without juries.
One third of suspected crimes fail to reach court
Almost a third of criminal suspects arrested in the past year were not charged, government figures have shown.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has admitted that out of 550,000 cases leading to arrests last year, 160,000 were dropped.
This is a substantially higher number than was expected by the government and we need to know why.
Either police are not preparing cases as well as they should be, which seems unlikely, or the Crown Prosecution Service are getting more choosy about when to charge.
We owe it to the victims concerned to get to the bottom of this. At the moment it is out of order that so many cases are being investigated and then nothing happens.
Jacqui Smith, the Home Secretary, has admitted that out of 550,000 cases leading to arrests last year, 160,000 were dropped.
This is a substantially higher number than was expected by the government and we need to know why.
Either police are not preparing cases as well as they should be, which seems unlikely, or the Crown Prosecution Service are getting more choosy about when to charge.
We owe it to the victims concerned to get to the bottom of this. At the moment it is out of order that so many cases are being investigated and then nothing happens.
Expel Lords who break the law
The allegations of accepting payment in return for changing legislation are serious enough. But on top of that the sanctions applied to the peers if they are found guilty are so weak.
The most the accused peers will have to do if the Lords’ investigation finds them guilty is to apologise.
It is wholly out of step with the public’s legitimate demand for transparency in politics that just because someone happens to be in the House of Lords they are exempt from the most basic standards of accountability.
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Police 'should probe Lords case'
The Liberal Democrats have called for a police inquiry into allegations that four Labour peers were prepared to accept money to change proposed laws.
Home affairs spokesman Chris Huhne said if the claims, made in the Sunday Times newspaper, were true a criminal offence would have been committed.
The four are said to have offered to amend laws in return for up to £120,000 - claims that they all deny.
The Leader of the House of Lords has promised a full investigation.
The Sunday Times said its reporters had posed as lobbyists acting for a foreign client.
This firm was said to be setting up a chain of shops in the UK and wanting an exemption from the Business Rates Supplements Bill.
Mr Huhne said the Lords must "toughen up" its own procedures to make sure allegations such as these did not surface again.
From BBC News Online: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7849990.stm
Saturday, 24 January 2009
Bringing back the Beast could backfire...
So David Cameron has brought back Ken Clarke to the Tory front bench. It is a decision which could come back to haunt him at the ballot box. Many people still remember “The Beast's” shameful record as the Chancellor that ABOLISHED student grants, introduced VAT on fuel, DOUBLED national debt ,and CUT NHS and education budgets.
Roll on the election...
Friday, 23 January 2009
Conservative membership collapse under Cameron
The Tories are suffering a massive slump in Party membership. Secret party documents show 40,000 supporters have left since David Cameron took over as leader three years ago. Overall, Tory Party membership has fallen from 290,000 to 250,000 in the three years since Cameron took over. The fall in membership and the revenue it brings in, along with the credit crunch, means the Tories have been forced to take drastic steps to balance their books.
Last month ten per cent of Conservative Central Office staff were made redundant. Some 24 staff at the party's Millbank headquarters lost their jobs. In a separate move the party also closed its Constituency Campaigning Services-based in Coleshill Manor in the West Midlands. It provided campaigning material and acted as a call centre for constituency parties.
Labour passes the buck on recession
The BBC is reporting that government will fight the recession with “every weapon at its disposal. However, they have been slow to react and they have not put in place the building blocks for economic stability – they have a decade in which they have achieved very little.
Figures published on Friday showed that UK economic output contracted by 1.5% in the last three months of 2008 compared with the previous three months. This was the steepest quarterly fall since 1980.
The UK economy has now shrunk in each of the past two quarters - it fell 0.6% between July and September - providing official confirmation that the UK is in recession for the first time since the early 1990s.
Unemployment has been rising sharply with the total number of people out of work now at its highest level since 1997.
Friday’s figures confirm what everyone in Britain has seen coming for a long time.
It’s a sad commentary on a decade of Labour government that they have succeeded in producing an almost exact replica of the boom-bust cycle we had under the Conservatives.
The recession cannot be blamed simply on problems overseas. In blaming everything on the US, Gordon Brown is desperately seeking to pull the wool over our eyes and distract attention from his own failure.
For a decade he presided over an overheated housing market and a City of London gambling with the nation’s future. The Government must now urgently clear up the confusion over its bank bail out plans.
Gordon Brown must deliver big, permanent and fair tax cuts for people on low and middle incomes and use the money wasted on a pointless VAT cut on a huge green job creation scheme instead.
Heads must roll over Home Office data loss fiasco
The Information Commissioner’s Office has ruled that the Home Office breached data protection laws when a memory stick containing the personal information of thousands of prisoners was lost.
This latest judgement is another nail in the coffin for public trust in the Government. Institutionalised disregard for our personal data continues to worsen. It only serves to demonstrate that going ahead with the ID card scheme will pose a real threat to the security of our personal data.
Heads must roll if the slapdash culture is to end.
Anti-knife campaign fails as crime soars
We are facing a crimewave which is being fuelled by the recession. Latest figures show a big rise in knife-point robberies, burglaries, and fraud.
Robberies at knife-point are up 18 per cent, domestic burglaries are up four per cent and fraud or forgery is up 16 per cent.
More people died last year as a result of stabbings than at any time since records began. The Home Office figures show that robberies involving “knives or sharp instruments” were up 18 per cent between July and September last year, compared with the same period in 2007.
Fatal stabbings increased by 10 per cent to 270 in 2007-8, the highest since records began in 1977.
Domestic burglaries were up for the first time since 2002, by four per cent from 66,900 between July and September 2007 to 69,700 in the same period last year.
Other types of burglary were also up, by three per cent.
Drugs offences were nine per cent higher in July to September 2008 than in the same quarter the previous year and fraud and forgery increased by 16 per cent.
There is now clear evidence of rising crime as the recession bites.
The effectiveness of the anti-knife crime campaign launched by the government last June is questionable. The Government has failed to effectively roll out the measures that we know work against knife crime.
Posturing about penalties is no substitute for the hard graft of visible and intensive policing.
Labour's housing failure as repossessions soar
Yesterday, it was announced that repossessions were rising at an alarming rate; today we hear that the number of households on local authority housing waiting lists has hit 1.77 million - official statistics show this is up 100,000 on last year.
With the banks overstretching their credit facilities it could well mean that in the coming months that councils will have to help pick up the pieces as people end up on social housing waiting lists.
Since Labour took power 12 years ago the council house waiting list has risen from one million to almost 1.8 million, showing this Government has failed to build anywhere near the number of social homes Britain desperately needs.
The Government’s response to the social housing crisis is not only inadequate but scandalous. It is essential that the Government uses the current economic crisis to allow councils and housing associations to buy up land to build new social houses for the increasing number of families left waiting for social housing.
By allowing social housing to wither, the Government has let down hundreds of thousands of families.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
