History > 2006 > UK > Politics > Prime Minister (V)

Peter Brookes

Times

December 15, 2006

British Prime Minister Tony Blair

Related

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,542-2505432,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2505771,00.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2506744,00.html
http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2006/12/the_mathematics.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2505720,00.html

Comment

The Prime Minister

has had a brilliant year.

Oh yes he has

He will soon join that very select group of leaders
who have had a decade of power in Downing Street

Sunday December 24, 2006
The Observer
Andrew Rawnsley

The politician of the year is Tony Blair. No, that is not a misprint. And no, I have not drunk too deeply at the well of Westminster Christmas parties. I am stone-cold sober as I tap on the keyboard. It is Tony Blair who has had the most sensational 2006.

Here are some of the reasons that it was a vintage year for Tony Blair. He was forced to sack Charles Clarke as Home Secretary when it was revealed that several hundred foreign prisoners had been let out when they should have been considered for deportation. John Reid took over and promptly declared that the department was 'not fit for purpose'.

The cabinet career of Tessa Jowell, another close ally, hung by a thread as she was ferociously battered over her husband's involvement with Silvio Berlusconi. After his affair with a junior employee was exposed, John Prescott was stripped of most of his job and all of his dignity. To make things look even worse, the cowboy known as The Man With No Shame managed to hold on to his salary. Each of these individual sagas added to such a cumulatively awful picture that a memo prepared by one of the Prime Minister's staff concluded that 'the government is seen as a shambles'.

Are you yet to be convinced that it has been a fantastic year for Mr Blair? Here are some further reasons why he is the prize winner of 2006. Michael Levy, his personal fundraiser, was arrested by detectives investigating the cash-for-coronets allegations, while he became the first sitting Prime Minister to be questioned by police conducting a criminal investigation.

Iraq was such a bloody mess that even the White House could no longer pretend that they were winning. Members of the cabinet openly dissented from the highly unpopular stance that the Prime Minister took on the conflict in Lebanon. The intensifying struggle against a revived Taliban in Afghanistan aroused a clamour about the overstretch of the armed forces which became so loud that, at year's end, even the Defence Secretary was joining in. Tony Blair's friend in the White House was Bush-whacked in the midterm elections. George 'Yo Blair' Bush was punished at the polls in a referendum on Iraq which American voters used to declare that the war was lost.

Still need some convincing that Tony Blair was the political winner of this year? His own party rose up against him while the Conservatives led in nearly every opinion poll. In the most recent poll, the Tories have registered their largest advantage over Labour in 14 years.

And I say he has had a brilliant year. I say that because of this simple, undeniable, big fact. He is still there. There he is, still in Downing Street. Despite the resurgent Tories, despite his own revolting party, despite Gordon, despite Iraq, despite cash for coronets, despite it all, the great survivor is still there. Any one of the multiple crises and multifarious enemies of the past 12 months might have finished off a Prime Minister. He endured them all. Time and again, the Houdini of Downing Street escaped to live another day.

And a lot of days it has now been. The finishing post is in sight. Just four months remain before he scores a huge historical achievement. By being in office on 1 May of next year, he will join that highly select group of British Prime Ministers who have had 10 years at Number 10, double digits in Downing Street.

We can put this down to either artful escapology or sheer resilience. I'd say it is a combination of both. Who can now doubt that Tony Blair is one of the most tenacious characters ever to live in Downing Street? Who can now dispute that he is one of the most remarkable operators to have inhabited that address?

He survived not one, but two political assassination attempts. The first was in the spring after Labour's poor showing in the local elections. Phalanxes of Brownites flooded the airwaves to lead an agitation for the Prime Minister to quit. I have very good reason to think that it was then that he realised that he would never be able to make his third term the 'full' one he once promised. His serious mistake was not to be publicly clear with restive Labour MPs that he would not attempt to hang on until the last possible moment. His refusal to offer a timetable for his departure helped to provoke the second, and more serious, coup attempt in the autumn. That he also survived, but at the price of being forced to announce that he would go within 12 months. Wounding though that was, rather a lot of good came out of it for Tony Blair. He had to say goodbye, but this didn't mean that he was actually leaving. The backlash against Gordon Brown left his followers unable to strike again.

Unlike most Prime Ministers, Tony Blair will not be dragged out of Downing Street. Not for him the grisly fate meted out to Margaret Thatcher by her own party or the order of the boot administered to most Prime Ministers by the voters. The record book will show that he won three elections and lost not one. He will retire at, more or less, the time of his own choosing.

Weakened though he was, he again proved why he has been the most consummate politician of his era. The curtain call he gave to the Labour conference in Manchester was virtuoso Blair. He knew that many of them wanted him gone, many of them had said so publicly, and quite a few had been saying it for a long time. He responded with a master class in what they were going to miss. There was showmanship. There was a great joke about there being no danger of the wife running off with the guy next door. There was a caution to Labour not to forget what had got them into power in the first place and kept them there. The ovation at the end was a cocktail of cheers, tears, relief and a lot of quiet dread about what they will do without him.

Even the waning Blair continues to dominate the landscape. Both Gordon Brown and David Cameron could not escape being defined in relation to him. If imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then he has been paid lavish compliments by the two men who want to be his heirs. David Cameron has led the Tories back into contention by unashamedly borrowing both media techniques and political strategy from Tony Blair. In one of the most significant speeches made by the Conservative leader in the past 12 months, he openly subscribed to the Blairite position that the aim of government must be to deliver 'economic efficiency and social justice'. David Cameron argues, as he is bound to do, that he would do a better job of it. What the Tories do not say is that they would overthrow the Blairite political settlement. They have conceded to it.

Much the same, and perhaps more surprisingly, is true of Gordon Brown. His path to the premiership has never looked clearer. Not one member of the cabinet has been ready to get into the ring to contest him for the top job. Alan Johnson threw in the towel before he had even tried on the gloves. David Miliband had the hugely flattering experience of being told that he could be a contender, but refused to come out of the dressing room. John Reid is still fiddling with his gumshield. The rest have decided they'd rather fight over who gets the honour of being Iron Gordon's second. So the Big Clunking Fist has been left to shadow box. The shadow in which he boxes is cast by the man he would replace.

Tony Blair has occasionally predicted to friends that his Chancellor would discover that he had to be more than Blairite than Blair. Often, this year, that has looked like a very canny forecast. Gordon Brown has felt compelled to declare himself to be every bit as tough on terrorism, every bit as strident for Trident, every bit as keen on nuclear power, every bit as ardent for reform of the public services, every bit as New Labour. The closer that Gordon Brown has got to replacing Tony Blair, the more he has felt driven to be like Tony Blair. Even in the twilight of his premiership, the rest of the political world is dominated by him.

Acts of God apart, Tony Blair will clock up a decade in Downing Street, an extraordinarily long stretch by any political accounting. According to his closest allies, Gordon Brown has now concluded that it would not be in his best interests to move into Number 10 until after next May's elections to the Scottish Parliament. Tony Blair has told his intimates that he still plans to go as Prime Minister to the next G8 summit in Germany in early June. He will say farewell to that leaders' club knowing that he will have lasted in office longer than any of them.

A decade at Downing Street does not happen very often. There are few double-digit Prime Ministers in Britain's history. That distinction belongs only to Robert Walpole, Henry Pelham, Lord North, William Pitt, Lord Liverpool, William Gladstone, Lord Salisbury and Margaret Thatcher. Just eight of them over three centuries. Into that select pantheon now walks Tony Blair.

    The Prime Minister has had a brilliant year. Oh yes he has, O, 24.12.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1978440,00.html

Moderate Arab world

must see the threat Iran poses,

Blair says

December 21, 2006
The Times 
Sam Coates, Political Correspondent, in Dubai

Attempts to bring peace 'undermined'

Tehran is 'openly backing terrorism'

Iran is “at war” with the moderate Arab world and Western forces trying to bring peace and stability to the region, Tony Blair said yesterday.

Speaking at the end of his six-day trip to the Middle East, the Prime Minister said that he believed that Iraq and Afghanistan could still become holiday hotspots for tourists, following the example set by Dubai, which had more than a million British visitors this year. But before this could happen Arab nations needed to “wake up” to the threat posed by Iran, which he blamed for undermining peace in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories.

“Here are elements of the Government of Iran, openly supporting terrorism in Iraq . . . trying to turn out a democratic government in Lebanon, flouting the international community’s desire for peace in Palestine — at the same time as denying the Holocaust and trying to acquire nuclear weapons capability. We have to wake up.

“These forces of extremism — based on a warped and wrong-headed misinterpretation of Islam — aren’t fighting a conventional war. But they are fighting one.” In response, he said, the Arab world should build an alliance of moderate nations to “pin back” Iran and prevent it from disrupting the region. He implied that countries in the Middle East such as the United Arab Emirates, where he fin ished his tour, were failing to give “clear backing” to forces of moderation.

One of the strategic goals of the trip had been to try to encourage moderate Arab countries to take a more active role backing peace. The Baker- Hamilton report into the future of Iraq suggested that the UAE could do more to dampen the sectarian violence.

However, Mr Blair’s meetings took place behind closed doors and no comment on them was made by leaders of the states that he visited.

Mr Blair also used the speech to business leaders in Dubai to denounce those in Britain who believed that war in Iraq had inflamed sectarian violence. He called for an “alliance of moderation” to tackle the forces of extremism. He also called on moderate countries to help those inside Iran who disagreed with the hardline policies of President Ahmadinejad.

The speech came after Mr Blair’s visits to Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which he believes are linked by a common need to challenge extremism.

Mr Blair’s official spokesman denied that his call for other Middle Eastern countries, mostly dominated by Sunnis, to unite against Shia Iran amounted to a call for confrontation between the two Muslim traditions. He pointed out that Mr Blair had strongly supported Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister of Iraq, and insisted: “He works with people of all faiths. The important thing is what people do, not what their religious denomination is.”

Mr Blair denied that he was hindering the spread of democracy by championing the fledgeling steps towards representative government in the UAE, which allows 1 per cent of the population a say in the way the country is run. Last weekend 6,689 Emirati men and women voted to elect 20 members of a consultative assembly. A further 20 will be appointees of the Royal Family. Mr Blair said: “It has to move at its own pace but the direction is very clear. It has its own political issues because of the way the country has developed.”

    Moderate Arab world must see the threat Iran poses, Blair says, Ts, 21.12.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2513647,00.html

12.45pm

Abbas receives Blair's backing

Monday December 18, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Tony Blair today pledged his support for the embattled Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, using a joint news conference in the West Bank to praise his "vision" in peace efforts.

"I will not rest for a single moment until we have delivered what we both want to achieve," Mr Blair said in Ramallah.

Mr Abbas, meanwhile, reiterated his plan to hold new general elections as soon as possible to end political deadlock between his Fatah organisation and the more radical Hamas group of the Palestinian prime minister, Ismael Haniyeh.

As the pair spoke, forces loyal to Fatah and those from Hamas continued to exchange gunfire, a day after the worst factional fighting among the Palestinians for 10 years.

Shots were exchanged today outside Mr Abbas's residence in Gaza City, as well as near the Hamas-controlled foreign ministry building. However, the battles were more sporadic thanks to a truce agreed last night, in the wake of intense battles that killed three people.

Mr Blair, who arrived in Jerusalem from Baghdad yesterday, is part-way through an intensive Middle East tour, seen as a final personal push for peace in the region by the prime minister before his expected departure from Downing Street next year.

Standing alongside Mr Abbas in the Muqata compound following talks, Mr Blair urged international backing for the Palestinian president.

"Now is the time for the international community to respond to the vision you have set out and I intend to do everything I can over the next period of time, and in particular over the coming weeks, to make sure we can deliver that support," the prime minister said. "I hope we will be in a position over these coming weeks to put together an initiative that allows that support for reconstruction and development and to alleviate the plight and suffering of the Palestinian people and also, crucially, give a political framework to move forward to a two-state solution.

"I hope and believe that can be done."

Mr Blair also warned that Hamas, which has a majority in the Palestinian parliament and holds the prime ministership following elections early this year, would not be allowed to exercise a "veto over negotiations with Israel and progress towards peace".

Hamas, which the US and EU consider a terrorist group, refuses to recognise Israel.

Mr Abbas announced on Saturday that he wants elections as soon as possible, following a deadlock after months of talks trying to secure Hamas support for a national unity government. Hamas has denounced the plan as an attempted coup.

Speaking today, Mr Abbas said he would push ahead with new elections.

"We are going to hold early elections, parliamentary and presidential. There is nothing we can see that can stop us," he said.

"We are a democratic people, so let's go to the people," he said. "We want to examine the will of the people. Do they still trust those they have chosen?"

Abbas also warned that the situation in the Palestinian territories was "dangerous" following a week of violence between warring militants from Hamas and Fatah.

Among a series of battles yesterday, masked men attacked a training camp in Gaza used by the presidential guard, which is loyal to Mr Abbas. One guard was killed and five others were injured.

A few hours later, gunmen attacked a convoy of cars carrying the Hamas foreign minister, Mahmoud Zahar, sparking a gun battle in the streets of Gaza City. Hamas promptly accused Fatah of mounting an assassination attempt. Then large numbers of Fatah gunmen poured on to the streets near the house that Mr Abbas uses when he visits Gaza, although yesterday he was still in Ramallah.

In Iraq yesterday, Mr Blair held talks with political leaders and met some of the 7,000 British troops stationed in the country.

Lord Levy, Mr Blair's special envoy to the Middle East, and among those questioned by police in connection with the cash-for-honours inquiry, has joined the prime minister for this leg of the tour and is thought to have held talks with Israeli officials.

After leaving a two-day EU summit in Brussels on Friday, Mr Blair began his tour in Turkey before going to Egypt.

    Abbas receives Blair's backing, G, 18.12.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1974728,00.html

Cash for honours:

donors say Blair 'misled' police

Published: 17 December 2006
The Independent on Sunday
By Marie Woolf, Political Editor

Millionaire Labour Party donors have contradicted Tony Blair's evidence to the police in the cash-for-honours affair - saying that they were nominated for their public service to the nation, and not for services to Labour, as claimed by the Prime Minister.

Secret No 10 papers, copies of which have been seen by The Independent on Sunday, back up their claims, putting fresh pressure on Mr Blair over the cash-for-honours affair.

The donors expressed surprise after Mr Blair's historic interview with Scotland Yard in Downing Street last Thursday, when he told the police the honours were "expressly party peerages given for party service".

In contrast, the official nomination documents, marked "Restricted Appointments", say that Mr Blair's "grounds for recommendation" to the House of Lords were the donors' work in the fields of education, health and charity. The leaked citations make no mention of "party service" and cast doubt on No 10's assertion that the honours were not bestowed in exchange for cash.

The revelation comes as Mr Blair's personal fundraiser, Lord Levy, again became the focus of the police inquiry following the PM's evidence in which he said he personally did not have "full knowledge" of the financial help received by Labour, or the nominations of lenders for peerages.

Mr Blair's evidence has baffled the donors, who believe they were nominated for the contribution they made to British society, not to the party. The curry magnate Sir Gulam Noon, who lent £250,000 to Labour, told the IoS he had been nominated for a peerage "for my charitable work [and] my building of the business".

A spokesman for the other businessmen at the centre of the cash-for-honours affair, Sir David Garrard and Barry Townsley, said: "My recollection was they were told it was for services to education." Earlier this year, Dr Chai Patel gave a BBC interview in which he outlined the achievements that had led to him being nominated - including founding the Priory Group of clinics. His office refused to comment on his nomination, but a friend said: "When he was nominated he thought it was for public service."

Last night, opposition politicians queried the nature of the "party service" provided by the millionaires, as none has a clear track record of Labour Party activism. It is not clear whether Sir David Garrard is even a Labour Party member, while Sir Gulam Noon has also given cash to the Liberal Democrats.

Downing Street said the "party service" referred to their willingness to serve as working Labour Party peers. A party spokesman said: "I am not going to get into how many leaflets they have delivered."

But Lord Oakeshott, a LibDem Treasury spokesman, said: "What services have the failed peers performed for Labour apart from giving big donations? The sooner Mr Blair has to tell the truth on oath in court about the real reasons he nominated these people for peerages the better."

Dr Chai Patel's official citation lists his contribution to mental health services as well as his advisory positions. The citation for Sir David Garrard notes his £2.4m contribution to the Business Academy in Bexley, and other work. Barry Townsley's citation says he "is involved with numerous charitable organisations and good causes". It concludes: "He would be [sic] active contributor to the Lords speaking on education and business matters." Sir Gulam Noon's citation says "he would be an active member of the Lords bringing wide ranging business experience".

    Cash for honours: donors say Blair 'misled' police, IoS, 17.12.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2081662.ece

Diplomat's suppressed document

lays bare the lies behind Iraq war

Published: 15 December 2006
The Independent
By Colin Brown and Andy McSmith

The Government's case for going to war in Iraq has been torn apart by the publication of previously suppressed evidence that Tony Blair lied over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

A devastating attack on Mr Blair's justification for military action by Carne Ross, Britain's key negotiator at the UN, has been kept under wraps until now because he was threatened with being charged with breaching the Official Secrets Act.

In the testimony revealed today Mr Ross, 40, who helped negotiate several UN security resolutions on Iraq, makes it clear that Mr Blair must have known Saddam Hussein possessed no weapons of mass destruction. He said that during his posting to the UN, "at no time did HMG [Her Majesty's Government] assess that Iraq's WMD (or any other capability) posed a threat to the UK or its interests."

Mr Ross revealed it was a commonly held view among British officials dealing with Iraq that any threat by Saddam Hussein had been "effectively contained".

He also reveals that British officials warned US diplomats that bringing down the Iraqi dictator would lead to the chaos the world has since witnessed. "I remember on several occasions the UK team stating this view in terms during our discussions with the US (who agreed)," he said.

"At the same time, we would frequently argue when the US raised the subject, that 'regime change' was inadvisable, primarily on the grounds that Iraq would collapse into chaos."

He claims "inertia" in the Foreign Office and the "inattention of key ministers" combined to stop the UK carrying out any co-ordinated and sustained attempt to address sanction-busting by Iraq, an approach which could have provided an alternative to war.

Mr Ross delivered the evidence to the Butler inquiry which investigated intelligence blunders in the run-up to the conflict.

The Foreign Office had attempted to prevent the evidence being made public, but it has now been published by the Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs after MPs sought assurances from the Foreign Office that it would not breach the Official Secrets Act.

It shows Mr Ross told the inquiry, chaired by Lord Butler, "there was no intelligence evidence of significant holdings of CW [chemical warfare], BW [biological warfare] or nuclear material" held by the Iraqi dictator before the invasion. "There was, moreover, no intelligence or assessment during my time in the job that Iraq had any intention to launch an attack against its neighbours or the UK or the US," he added.

Mr Ross's evidence directly challenges the assertions by the Prime Minster that the war was legally justified because Saddam possessed WMDs which could be "activated" within 45 minutes and posed a threat to British interests. These claims were also made in two dossiers, subsequently discredited, in spite of the advice by Mr Ross.

His hitherto secret evidence threatens to reopen the row over the legality of the conflict, under which Mr Blair has sought to draw a line as the internecine bloodshed in Iraq has worsened.

Mr Ross says he questioned colleagues at the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence working on Iraq and none said that any new evidence had emerged to change their assessment.

"What had changed was the Government's determination to present available evidence in a different light," he added.

Mr Ross said in late 2002 that he "discussed this at some length with David Kelly", the weapons expert who a year later committed suicide when he was named as the source of a BBC report saying Downing Street had "sexed up" the WMD claims in a dossier. The Butler inquiry cleared Mr Blair and Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier, but the publication of the Carne Ross evidence will cast fresh doubts on its findings.

Mr Ross, 40, was a highly rated diplomat but he resigned because of his misgivings about the legality of the war. He still fears the threat of action under the Official Secrets Act.

"Mr Ross hasn't had any approach to tell him that he is still not liable to be prosecuted," said one ally. But he has told friends that he is "glad it is out in the open" and he told MPs it had been "on my conscience for years".

One member of the Foreign Affairs committee said: "There was blood on the carpet over this. I think it's pretty clear the Foreign Office used the Official Secrets Act to suppress this evidence, by hanging it like a Sword of Damacles over Mr Ross, but we have called their bluff."

Yesterday, Jack Straw, the Leader of the Commons who was Foreign Secretary during the war - Mr Ross's boss - announced the Commons will have a debate on the possible change of strategy heralded by the Iraqi Study Group report in the new year.

    Diplomat's suppressed document lays bare the lies behind Iraq war, I, 15.12.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2076137.ece

1.15pm

BAE inquiry decision

may face legal challenge

Friday December 15, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Hélène Mulholland, Peter Walker and agencies

Tony Blair today defended the decision to drop a criminal inquiry into alleged bribery linked to a multi-billion-pound arms deal with Saudi Arabia, as a pressure group said it was considering a possible legal challenge to the move.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, yesterday announced that the Serious Fraud Office had halted its probe into allegations that a slush fund was used by BAE to pay Saudi dignitaries to secure multi-billion-pound deals.

Speaking in Brussels today, Mr Blair said that he took "full responsibility" for advising Lord Goldsmith that it was not in Britain's national interests for the inquiry to continue.

The prime minister - who also insisted he was unworried by yesterday's police interview about their cash-for-honours inquiry - said a continued investigation would have produced months or years of "ill feeling" between Britain and a key ally in the Middle East, probably to no purpose.

The decision prompted accusations of naked political interference in a criminal case in a bid to protect BAE Systems' commercial interests.

The company's share value soared by nearly £900m after the announcement was made.

Lord Goldsmith's statement in the House of Lords was unusual in that it did not refer to the claimed threats to British jobs, but instead concentrated on "national security".

The attorney general told the House of Lords that he had consulted the prime minister, the defence secretary, the foreign secretary and the intelligence services, and they had decided that "the wider public interest ... outweighed the need to maintain the rule of law".

The statement did not elaborate on the nature of the threat.

Challenge

A pressure group indicated today that it may challenge the decision in court.

"We are looking into all possibilities, including legal options," Symon Hill, a spokesman for Campaign Against the Arms Trade, told Guardian Unlimited.

Aswini Weereratne, a barrister with Doughty Street Chambers, a leading human-rights chambers, said that judicial review was legally feasible but tricky.

"It is possible to judicially review the decision of the prosecuting authority not to prosecute," she said. "The courts do not like interfering with decisions relating to national security but there are signs that they are becoming more willing to challenge the government on national security, as with the issue of control orders." Additionally, anyone challenging the decision has to show that they have sufficient direct interest in case, or "standing".

"To have sufficient interest to apply for judicial review a body would probably need to show that they had either been adversely affected by the decision or that they are raising an issue of public interest warranting judicial review and that they are the appropriate body to pursue such an application," Ms Weereratne said.

"On that basis it is arguable that even a national newspaper might have sufficient interest; alternatively an appropriate pressure group might do so."

Jobs

At BAE Systems, staff were celebrating the decision to drop the inquiry.

The Saudis had threatened to pull out of a new deal to supply Eurofighter jets unless the investigation was abandoned, threatening thousands of jobs.

Shares in BAE fell by as much as 10% in the last month as investors feared the worst for the Eurofighter deal, but the company value today soared from £12.79bn to £13.65bn.

Norman Lamb MP, the chief of staff to the Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, described dropping the inquiry as an "outrageous and disgraceful" decision.

"Coming straight after a threat from the Saudis to withdraw from future business, this completely undermines the UK's reputation on good governance," he said.

"How on earth can we lecture the developing world on good governance when we interfere with and block a criminal investigation in this way?"

He added: "I think pressure has been applied. I think it's because the inquiry has been making substantial progress that it's been brought to an end."

The Lib Dems' constitutional affairs spokesman, Lord Goodhart, said that it was clear that ministers had forced the decision upon the SFO's director, Robert Wardle.

"We were told yesterday that there had been discussion the day before with the SFO. The director of the SFO was given the night to think about it and came back yesterday morning and agreed," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.

"So it's clear that it was not the SFO's own decision. It was not instigated by the SFO. This came from the top."

But Lyndsay Hoyle, a Labour MP with many constituents who work for BAE in Lancashire, said that they were celebrating "an early Christmas present".

"Quite rightly they were happy with the news," he said, adding that it was a boost to a wide range of companies including Rolls-Royce, which builds engines.

"Tens of thousands of jobs were put at risk by a 1980s issue."

He said that the investigation had been going on for too long and there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. "Jobs would have gone," he added.

Saudi lobbying

BAE and the Saudi embassy had frantically lobbied the government in recent weeks for the long-running investigation to be discontinued, with the company insisting it was poised to lose out on a third phase of the Al-Yamamah deal, in which the Saudis would buy 72 Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft in a deal worth £6bn.

The Saudis had also hinted that they would do a deal with the French instead if the inquiry pushed ahead. A 10-day ultimatum was reportedly issued by the Saudis earlier this month.

This came at a time when the SFO appeared to have made a significant breakthrough, with investigators on the brink of accessing key Swiss bank accounts.

A PR campaign headed by Lord Bell saw MPs from all parties urging the dropping of the investigation, citing fears that jobs would be lost in their constituencies.

But in its statements last night the government said that commercial considerations had played no part in the decision.

Mr Wardle issued a terse statement saying that he had dropped the Saudi end of the investigation "following representations that have been made both to the attorney general and the director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international security".

The destruction of its inquiry will be a severe blow to the SFO which has spent more than £2m on what was its most extensive current investigation, and taken hundreds of pages of statements from witnesses.

David Lee, who was assistant director of the SFO from 1989 to 1991, voiced his concern about the way the inquiry had been dropped.

"It seems to me a very unusual thing to happen. I have certainly never seen it before," he told the Today programme.

"The timing is rather unfortunate next to the lobbying that has been going on. We could all do with more detail on the reasons.

"Additionally we have some concerns ... Is the right message being sent about the attitude to the potential for corruption and in particular what kind of precedent might be being set for other cases which are being investigated?

"Indeed, are we actually seeing interference by political or diplomatic factions in the judicial and investigatory process?"

BAE, in a statement, said it welcomed the dropping of the inquiry.

But the company and its executives may not yet be out of the woods.

The attorney general has allowed investigations to continue into BAE activities in Romania, Chile, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Tanzania, which legal sources say are making strong progress.

The UK made overseas bribery illegal in 2002, under US pressure. Labour ministers subsequently claimed they were determined to stamp out corruption, but in practice no prosecutions have taken place under the new law.

    BAE inquiry decision may face legal challenge, G, 15.12.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/saudi/story/0,,1973073,00.html

12.15pm update

Blair defends himself over honours

as troubles dog trip abroad

Friday December 15, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Deborah Summers, politics editor

Tony Blair said today it was "perfectly natural" for police to interview him during the cash-for-honours inquiry.

The prime minister spoke out as his domestic troubles looked set overshadow his trip to Brussels and a planned Middle East visit this weekend.

As pressure built over the "cash-for-honours" investigation, the Iraq war, and the Saudi arms inquiry, Mr Blair insisted: "I think it is perfectly natural that the police should come and talk to me."

The prime minister stressed that the nominations for peerages which triggered the inquiry were made by him as party leader and not as a reward for public service.

"The particular issues concerned were not for honours given by me as a prime minister for public service," he said.

"On the contrary, they were nominated by me as a party leader for party service. That's the basic distinction that lies at the heart of this."

The embattled prime minister also faced criticism on two other fronts today as events in Britain threatened to eclipse his efforts to seize the agenda on the world stage.

As Downing Street revealed plans for Mr Blair to go to Turkey and then on to the Middle East following the European Council summit, Sir John Major, the former Tory prime minister, launched a stinging attack on Mr Blair's honesty and his credibility over the Iraq war.

The outburst came less than 24 hours after Mr Blair faced the humiliation of becoming the first serving British prime minister to be interviewed by police as part of a criminal investigation.

Downing Street today failed to quell allegations that it had attempted to "bury" the bad news by deliberately scheduling the police visit to coincide with the publication of the official report on Princess Diana's death.

Mr Blair was also forced to defend the decision to drop a criminal investigation into allegations that arms company BAE Systems paid brides to Saudi officials.

Speaking in Brussels, Mr Blair said he took "full responsibility" for advising Lord Goldsmith that it was not in Britain's national interests for the inquiry to continue.

Had the investigation been allowed to proceed, it would have produced months or years of "ill feeling" between Britain and a key ally in the Middle East, probably to no purpose, he said.

One former senior SFO official branded the decision to drop the investigation as "very unusual" and warned that it could have serious implications for future corruption probes. Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrats' constitutional affairs spokesman, said that the government had effectively succumbed to "blackmail" by the Saudis.

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, announced last night that Robert Wardle, the SFO's director, had decided to end the long-running inquiry after warnings about the need to safeguard national security.

Lord Goldsmith said that Mr Blair, Des Browne, the defence secretary and Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, had all advised that continuing the investigation would damage security, intelligence, and diplomatic cooperation with the Saudis, with "seriously negative consequences" for British interests.

However, Sir Menzies Campbell, the Lib Dem leader, described it as "a sorry day for Britain's reputation".

"The next time we try to assert the rule of law in other circumstances, people will question our sincerity," he said.

Sir Menzies also stepped up his calls for reform of political funding and of the House of Lords in the wake of the "cash-for-honours" affair.

"Yesterday must have been one of the most embarrassing days in the prime minister's political career," he said.

Mr Blair also faced a devastating critique over Iraq from his predecessor, Sir John Major.

Sir John reiterated calls for an independent inquiry into the Iraq war, insisting that British troops and their families had a right to know "what we knew when we went to war, when we knew it, and what the rationale was".

"It is in the interests of the soldiers who have been asked to fight to know why they were asked to fight and to know whether the justification for it was as strong as they were told when they were first sent to war," he said.

"I supported the war with qualifications. The qualifications were that we needed to have an exit strategy, which we didn't have ... and I supported it on the basis of what the prime minister said."

Sir John recalled his time as prime minister during the Gulf war of 1991. He added: "I knew then if I said A, B and C, I knew the reality was A, B and C - and also D,E and F.

"But it seems that when the prime minister [Mr Blair] said it was A, B and C, that it was uncertain ... I think that strengthens the case for an inquiry in due course."

    Blair defends himself over honours as troubles dog trip abroad, G, 15.12.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1973008,00.html

'National interest'

halts arms corruption inquiry

Friday December 15, 2006
Guardian
David Leigh and Rob Evans


A major criminal investigation into alleged corruption by the arms company BAE Systems and its executives was stopped in its tracks yesterday when the prime minister claimed it would endanger Britain's security if the inquiry was allowed to continue.

The remarkable intervention was announced by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, who took the decision to end the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into alleged bribes paid by the company to Saudi officials, after consulting cabinet colleagues.

In recent weeks, BAE and the Saudi embassy had frantically lobbied the government for the long-running investigation to be discontinued, with the company insisting it was poised to lose another lucrative Saudi contract if it was allowed to go on. This came at a time when the SFO appeared to have made a significant breakthrough, with investigators on the brink of accessing key Swiss bank accounts.

However, Lord Goldsmith consulted the prime minister, the defence secretary, foreign secretary, and the intelligence services, and they decided that "the wider public interest" "outweighed the need to maintain the rule of law". Mr Blair said it would be bad for Britain's security if the SFO was allowed to go ahead, according to the statement made in the Lords by Lord Goldsmith. The statement did not elaborate on the nature of the threat.

BAE claimed that it was about to lose out on a third phase of the Al-Yamamah deal, in which the Saudis would buy 72 Typhoon aircraft in a deal worth £6bn. The Saudis had also hinted that they would do a deal with the French instead if the inquiry pushed ahead. A 10-day ultimatum was reportedly issued by the Saudis earlier this month.

A PR campaign headed by Lord Bell saw MPs from all parties urging the dropping of the investigation, citing fears that jobs would be lost in their constituencies. But in its statements last night the government said commercial considerations had played no part in the decision.

The decision was condemned last night as naked political interference in a criminal case. Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat chief of staff, said the government had succumbed to Saudi pressure. "I think it's because the inquiry has been making substantial progress that it's been brought to an end," he said.

The SFO's director, Robert Wardle, issued a terse statement saying he had dropped the Saudi end of the investigation "following representations that have been made both to the attorney general and the director of the SFO concerning the need to safeguard national and international security".

Shares had begun to rise in BAE and major suppliers such as Rolls-Royce in the last two days, as rumours reached the City that a deal had been done to appease the Saudis. Lord Goldsmith's statement was unusual in that it did not refer to the claimed threats to British jobs, but instead concentrated on "national security".

The destruction of its inquiry will be a severe blow to the SFO which has spent more than £2m on what was its most extensive current investigation, and taken hundreds of pages of statements from witnesses. One witness who gave evidence to the SFO, Peter Gardiner, a director of a travel agent used to make alleged slush fund payments, said last night: "It's an interesting signal that this gives to industry and the world I am thinking of the hundreds of hours I have wasted and all the personal problems this has caused me."

BAE, in a statement, said it welcomed the dropping of the inquiry. But the company and its executives may not yet be out of the woods. The attorney general has allowed investigations to continue into BAE activities in Romania, Chile, the Czech Republic, South Africa and Tanzania, which legal sources say are making strong progress.

The UK made overseas bribery illegal in 2002, under US pressure. Labour ministers subsequently claimed they were determined to stamp out corruption, but in practice no prosecutions have taken place under the new law.

Clare Short, Mr Blair's former cabinet colleague, said: "This government is even more soiled than we thought it was. It means that BAE is above the law."

She added: "The message it sends to corrupt businessmen is carry on - the government will support you."

Liberal Democrat Lord Goodhart said: "If, as appears to be the case, this further investigation is being stopped because of potential damage to security, intelligence and diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, doesn't that amount to blackmail by Saudi Arabia, to prevent this matter going forward?"

Attorney general's statement

"It has been necessary to balance the need to maintain the rule of law against the wider public interest. No weight has been given to commercial interests or to the national economic interest.

The prime minister and the foreign and defence secretaries have expressed the clear view that continuation of the investigation would cause serious damage to UK/Saudi security, intelligence and diplomatic cooperation, which is likely to have seriously negative consequences for the UK public interest in terms of both national security and our highest priority foreign policy objectives in the Middle East."

    'National interest' halts arms corruption inquiry, G, 15.12.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1972749,00.html

Blair:

I pushed for end to Saudi arms inquiry

December 15, 2006
Times Online 
David Charter, Brussels and Times Online

Tony Blair today admitted that he had urged the Attorney-General to drop a sleaze inquiry against the Saudi Government because a prosecution would have done "immense damage" to Britain.

The Prime Minister said that he took full responsibility for the decision to drop the Serious Fraud Office inquiry into bribery allegations involving arms manufacturer BAE Systems.

Speaking after a summit of EU leaders in Brussels, Mr Blair brushed aside suggestions that he had caved into pressure from the Saudi Arabian Government that would leave Britain vulnerable to "blackmail" from other regimes considered important to the country's security and employment interests.

Abandoning the inquiry is expected to save a multi-billion pound jet fighter contract but Mr Blair insisted that his main concern was not to jeopardise anti-terror co-operation form Riyadh.

His spokesman said that the Saudis gave valuable information on al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and most of the 9/11 terrorists come from the desert country.

Mr Blair said: "This is a very important issue for our country. Leave aside the effect on thousands of British jobs and billions worth of pounds for British industry, leave that to one side.

"Our relationship with Saudi Arabia is vitally important for our country in terms of counter-terrorism, in terms of the broader Middle East and in terms of helping in respect of Israel-Palestine - and that strategic interest comes first.

"If this prosecution had gone forward all that would have happened is we would have had months, perhaps years, of ill-feeling between us and a key ally.

"I'm afraid, in the end, my role as Prime Minister, is to advise on what's in the best interests of our country. I have absolutely no doubt at all that the right decision was taken in this regard and I take full responsibility.

"I have no doubt at all that had we allowed this to go forward it would have done immense damage to the true interests of this country. And leaving that aside that fact that it would have lost thousands of highly-skilled British jobs and very important business for British industry."

Mr Blair's spokesman added later that Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, has said in his statement on the decision that the prospect of a successful prosecution was unlikely "even with further investigations."

The investigation had embarrassed the Saudi royal family, on whom the alleged £60 million bribes were supposed to have been spent, and threatened a new £10 billion defence deal awarded to BAE by the Kingdom.

Shares in BAE Systems, Europe's largest defence company, rocketed by nearly 6 per cent from 397.25 to 420.25 pence each by mid-morning, as news that the investigation had been dropped filtered through to the stock market.

Investors had feared that the probe would jeopardise BAE's planned £10 billion sale of 72 Eurofighter Typhoon jets to Saudi Arabia, dubbed "al-Yamamah II" after the series of UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia that began in the 1980s. BAE stock fell to 384.50 pence a share at the beginning of December, as reports emerged that Saudi Arabia had given Britain ten days to halt the investigation or risk losing the contract to a French rival.

The Eurofighter programme is worth an estimated 30p a share. Analysts at investment banks UBS and Merrill Lynch responded bullishly, predicting that the share price will recover and recommending that investors buy BAE shares.

Shares in Rolls-Royce, also a member of the Eurofighter consortium, went up by 2p this morning.

BAE has been under fire for allegedly setting up a slush fund to bribe Saudi officials and businessmen during the 1980s but it has consistently denied any wrongdoing.

The alleged bribes from Britain’s prime defence contractor were part of the £40 billion al-Yamamah contract for BAE to supply the Royal Saudi Airforce with 200 Tornado fighter jets.

The Saudi royal family was understood to be furious that the SFO has been allowed to rake through the al-Yamamah deal and embarrass senior members who were involved in the procurement.

The Saudis threatened to cancel a £10 billion agreement signed with the British Government and BAE only three months ago. This deal will lead to BAE supplying the Saudis with 72 Typhoon Eurofighters and the total value of the contract could be worth as much as £20 billion over the 20-year life of the programme.

Mr Blair backed the Ministry of Defence in its demands to shut down the SFO investigation as fears grew that the case would alienate the Saudis.

However, critics claim that domestic political considerations and the need to safeguard jobs at BAE are the real reasons for dropping the case. The Saudi Typhoons will keep BAE’s Wharton factory in Lancashire, which employs over 9,000 people, operating at full capacity until 2014.

Yesterday's decision has prompted criticism from opposition politicians.

Lord Goodhart, the Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman, said that the Government had effectively succumbed to "blackmail" by the Saudis.

Lord Goldsmith told the House of Lords yesterday that the SFO would have needed a further 18 months to complete its investigation into BAE with no certainty of being able to make a case.

He said that he had spoken to the Prime Minister and the heads of the intelligence services and concluded it was in the national interest to stop the investigation.

However Lord Goodhart said it was clear the decision had been forced on Mr Wardle by ministers.

"We were told yesterday that there had been discussion the day before with the SFO. The director of the SFO was given the night to think about it and came back yesterday morning and agreed," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme.

"So it’s clear that it was not the SFO’s own decision. It was not instigated by the SFO. This came from the top."

He said it appeared that ministers also come under pressure from the Saudi government.

"If there is a belief that further investigations into BAE Systems would have provoked the Saudi response of cutting off communications on intelligence and security issues, then that can only come from statements by the Saudi government," he said.

David Lee, who was assistant director of the SFO from 1989 to 1991, also expressed concern about the way the inquiry had been dropped.

"It seems to me a very unusual thing to happen. I have certainly never seen it before," he told the Today programme.

"The timing is rather unfortunate next to the lobbying that has been going on. We could all do with more detail on the reasons.

"Additionally we have some concerns...is the right message being sent about the attitude to the potential for corruption and in particular what kind of precedent might be being set for other cases which are being investigated?

"Indeed, are we actually seeing interference by political or diplomatic factions in the judicial and investigatory process?"

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP who has followed the case closely, said: "If ever there was a final nail in the coffin of this government’s reputation this is it. Coming a fortnight after the

Typhoon threat from the Saudis this destroys Britain’s reputation for good governance."

Sir Menzies Campbell , the Liberal Democrat leader added: "The Attorney General has a responsibility not just to government but to the public interest.

"This is a decision with enormous constitutional implications which will have established a damaging precedent.

"It is a sorry day for Britain’s reputation, and the next time we try to assert the rule of law in other circumstances, people will question our sincerity."

    Blair: I pushed for end to Saudi arms inquiry, Ts, 15.12.2006, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2506744,00.html

2.45pm

'Cash-for-honours': timeline

Thursday December 14, 2006
Staff and agencies
Guardian Unlimited

· March 2006: Metropolitan police begin inquiry.

· April 13: Des Smith, a headteacher, is the first person arrested. Mr Smith, who until January was an adviser to the body that finds wealthy sponsors for the government's city academies, had allegedly suggested that backers of a flagship Labour schools policy could expect to be rewarded with honours. His lawyers later say he "categorically denies" the allegations.

· July 12: Labour's chief fundraiser, Lord Levy, is arrested for the first time. He is later re-interviewed and re-bailed without charge and insists he is innocent.

· July 13: The Commons Public Administration Committee calls for tighter checks on the propriety of all higher honours awards.

· July 14: It emerges that police officers have already questioned at least two government ministers. The former Labour party chairman, Ian McCartney, now a junior trade and industry minister, and the science minister, Lord Sainsbury (who has since stepped down), are among 48 people interviewed by this stage.

· July 16: Tony Blair acknowledges a "real problem" with the public's perception of the "cash-for-honours" row but says he believes that nobody in the Labour party has broken the rules.

· August 23: Political parties generally are urged to improve their disclosure of financial support after more than £300,000 of donations were declared late. The Electoral Commission says late reporting is "not acceptable".

· September 20: Sir Christopher Evans, the biotech mogul who made a £1m loan to Labour, is the third person to be arrested. He is bailed without charge. The next day he says he is "extremely shocked and dismayed" and insists: "I have done nothing wrong."

· September 28: It emerges that Mr Blair's director of government relations, Ruth Turner, has been questioned under caution. She is believed to have been asked about emails and documents relating to the inquiry.

· October 1: Bob Edmiston, the leading Tory donor and car importer, is reported by the Times to have been questioned under caution.

· October 17: Voters want to see donations to political parties capped as part of reforms in the wake of recent scandals, says research by the Electoral Commission.

· October 23: Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, says that he agreed to be interviewed by police investigating the "cash-for-honours" affair. He has not been arrested or questioned under caution.

· November 4: Mr McNeil calls for the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to distance himself from the inquiry following reports that he might be responsible for making the final decision over whether criminal charges are brought. Mr McNeil says that there is an "obvious conflict of interest" given Lord Goldsmith's political links to the prime minister, but the attorney general refuses to rule out having the final say.

· November 6: The prime minister refuses to comment on the row over Lord Goldsmith. Meanwhile Scotland Yard and Downing Street will not comment on reports that his chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, is to be interviewed under caution.

· November 8: It emerges that virtually all ministers who served in the cabinet in the run-up to the 2005 general election have been contacted by Scotland Yard, asking them to declare formally in writing what they knew about the loans.

They included such senior figures as the chancellor, Gordon Brown, the deputy prime minister, John Prescott, and the communities secretary, Ruth Kelly, but not the prime minister himself. Alan Milburn, the former health secretary, also reveals that he has been questioned over the affair.

It also emerges that the current health secretary, Patricia Hewitt, was questioned.

· November 10: Lord Sainsbury resigns as science minister but says that his decision is for personal reasons and has nothing to do with the inquiry.

· November 12: Mr Prescott declares himself satisfied with the police's conduct as Downing Street rejects reports that officials at No 10 have complained about how it has been handled.

· November 16: In a letter updating MPs, Acting Assistant Commissioner John Yates says the investigation has turned up "significant and valuable material" and that "considerable progress continues to be made".

He reveals that his Scotland Yard team has conducted 90 interviews so far - 35 from the Labour party, 29 from the Conservatives, four from the Liberal Democrats, and 22 people not linked to any particular party.

Mr Yates tells the House of Commons public administration select committee that he hopes to be able to send a file of evidence to the CPS in January. It also emerges that the Labour chair, Hazel Blears, met Mr Yates, who is leading the inquiry. Her spokesman said it was a meeting "to keep her up to date" with the matter.

· November 18: Mr Yates, it emerges, had been asked by the committee to beef up his letter to them detailing the progress of his inquiry after an initial submission was considered "too cursory". It also becomes clear the letter was published at the request of the MPs.

· November 20: Lord Goldsmith says he does not expect to be interviewed by detectives as he had not been involved in any Labour party fundraising. "I am not going to be involved in the process - with fundraising issues - that they are concerned with, so I can't see why I should be," he says.

· November 21: It is reported that Des Smith, who remains on police bail, has been given his laptop computer back by police. Labour also complains to the BBC after it emerged journalists were offered £100 "bounty" payments for stories on the cash-for-honours affair.

· November 22: Ms Hewitt has a "brief" interview with the police, talking to them as a witness. She is believed to have faced questioning over donations made to her constituency party in Leicester West by curry tycoon Sir Gulam Noon - one of those who later loaned the party money and was blocked for a peerage.

· December 14: Downing Street announces that the prime minister has been questioned by police. He was not under caution.

    'Cash-for-honours': timeline, G, 14.12.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1972222,00.html

2.30pm update

Police quiz Blair over honours

Thursday December 14, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Hélène Mulholland and agencies

Tony Blair was questioned by police today as part of the cash-for-honours inquiry.

Detectives arrived at Number 10 this morning and subjected the prime minister to a two-hour grilling.

A spokesman for Mr Blair said the premier had denied that peerages had been offered for sale.

The prime minister was not cautioned but interviewed as a witness without the presence of a lawyer.

Scotland Yard officers arrived at Downing Street shortly before 11 and left just before 1pm today.

The spokesman said: "The prime minister spoke to police today in Downing Street. This was not under caution, nor was he accompanied by a lawyer."

He described the interview as a robust exchange, and said a civil servant had been present to take notes.

He added that Mr Blair had explained to police why four businessmen had been nominated for peerages, and insisted that giving money to a political party should not prevent someone from receiving an honour.

"The prime minister explained why he nominated each of the individuals and he did so as party leader in respect of the peerages reserved for party supporters as other party leaders do.

"The honours were not, therefore, for public service but expressly party peerages given for party service.

"In these circumstances, the fact that they had supported the party financially could not conceivably be a barrier to their nomination," he said.

The four men in question are Barry Townsley, a stockbroker who has also donated money towards a city academy school; Dr Chai Patel, chief executive of Priory Clinics, Sir David Garrard, a property developer who also donated money to a city academy; and Sir Gulam Noon, who says he was advised to keep a £250,000 loan secret.

Scotland Yard said they were not planning to make any statement on the interview. There was no suggestion that the prime minister would be interviewed again.

Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP who triggered the police investigation, said: "This revelation will be shaking the very foundations of Westminster. For the prime minister to be questioned by the police during a criminal investigation is unprecedented."

A Conservative party spokesman refused to comment on the development.

The move follows months of speculation over whether, or when, Mr Blair would receive a knock on the door from the team led by the acting Deputy Assistant Commissioner, John Yates.

Mr Blair's spokesman flatly denied that the interview had been deliberately timed to coincide with the release of the Stevens inquiry report into the death of Diana, Princess of Wales.

"Categorically that was not a factor at all. Categorically there was no linkage to other events," he said.

Downing Street would not say how many police officers were involved although it is thought that Mr Yates was not among them.

Elfyn Llwyd, the Plaid Cymru MP who also complained to the police over government probity in nominating party donors for honours, welcomed today's development.

"Whatever the outcome of all this I do compliment the metropolitan police on its thoroughness in their inquiries and whatever comes out of this I do believe lessons have been learned by all major political parties."

The Liberal Democrats said the inquiry prompted the need for reforms of party funding rules.

Norman Lamb, chief of staff to Menzies Campbell, said: "Clearly this is a very serious matter, and it is important that the police are allowed to continue and conclude their investigations.

"Whatever the final outcome of the investigation, this sorry episode underlines the vital importance of reforming both the House of Lords and rules relating to party funding.

"For as long as parties are allowed to accept very large donations from donors and retain the ability to award seats in the House of Lords, it will be impossible to restore public confidence in our political system."

The prime minister is one of around 100 witnesses to be interviewed during the nine-month inquiry, the majority of whom were Labour and Conservative MPs.

A number of non-party members have also been interviewed, including leading civil servants in the Cabinet Office and Downing Street, and company directors who did not belong to any of the major parties.

Police told MPs last month they have already unearthed "significant and valuable material" during their trawl for evidence that political parties broke the law before the general election.

Mr Yates has also signalled that the inquiry is in its last stages and is expected to conclude by January.

The inquiry is taking a dual approach; looking at the 2005 working peerages list and any offences in that period relating to the 1925 Honours (Prevention of Abuse) Act and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000, which covers party funding and the presentation of accounts.

    Police quiz Blair over honours, G, 14.12.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labour/story/0,,1972191,00.html

2pm

Blair: Iran is major threat

Tuesday December 12, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent

Tony Blair today made his strongest attack yet on the Iranian government, declaring that President Ahmadinejad's government was a "major strategic threat" to the Middle East.

Despite calls from the James Baker-led Iraq Study Group for direct talks with Tehran and Damascus, Mr Blair said there was "little point" in including Iran and Syria in regional issues "unless they are prepared to be constructive".

Ahead of his own trip to the Middle East before Christmas, Mr Blair repeated that as his premiership drew to a close he still regarded it as the most important issue facing the world.

The prime minister repeatedly reiterated his personal revulsion at the current conference, sponsored by the Tehran government, on the reality of the Holocaust, calling it "disgusting, unbelievable and shocking".

Speaking at his final monthly press conference of 2006, the PM said Mr Ahmadinejad s government was "deliberately causing maximum problems for moderate governments and for ourselves in the region - in Palestine, in Lebanon and in Iraq".

"There is no point in hiding the fact that Iran poses a major strategic threat to the cohesion of the entire region," Mr Blair told reporters.

Mr Blair said that he found the conference organised by Iran which questioned existence of the Holocaust "shocking beyond belief".

"To go and invite the former head of the Ku Klux Klan to a conference in Tehran which disputes the millions of people who died in the Holocaust, what further evidence do you need to have that this regime is extreme?" he asked.

He told a journalist from Israeli radio that the conference was a "disgusting" affront to the millions of families who lost relatives in the Holocaust. It was "such a symbol of sectarianism and hatred towards a people" he added.

More than half the hour-long press conference focused on the Middle East, with Mr Blair quizzed on whether the UK could withdraw from Iraq in advance of the US, or in tandem with it.

He said the situation for UK troops in Basra was different from that for US troops in Baghdad, where there was more sectarian violence, but the UK withdrawal would not be affected by US decisions.

"If and when they [US troops] are able to change the situation in Baghdad, then they too will be in a different set of circumstances, but the pace at which both of those things may happen may be different," Mr Blair said.

Mr Blair said it was still the intention to withdraw British troops once Iraqi authorities were able to take over.

"I certainly do not take the study group as saying that we should get out, come what may.

"What they are saying is that we have to increase our driving up of the capability of the Iraqi forces, because it's obviously better that the Iraqis themselves take responsibility and indeed the Iraqi government is increasingly saying it wants to take responsibility.

"Then the coalition forces will still be in a support role but it won't be the same as it is at the moment."

Asked about apparent UK opposition to the US policy of early de-Ba'athification of Iraq after the invasion, Mr Blair said the problems in Iraq were deliberately being caused by people opposed to the democratic process, and any decision on de-Ba'athification would not have changed that.

On the wider Israeli-Palestinian question, Mr Blair rejected comparisons of the peace process, where the UK government talked to Sinn Féin and the Democratic Unionists even at times when they refused to recognise each other.

"It is very difficult to see how you can negotiate with Hamas in circumstances where they are saying emphatically 'we deny the right of Israel to exist'," he said.

"There has to be a genuine willingness on their part - or at least on the parts of elements of Hamas - to engage in a meaningful way with Israel and I don't notice that at the moment."

Mr Blair said Hamas was being "deliberately unhelpful".

"It is one thing to have a position about Israel which is your formal position ... but if you look at what they have been saying over the past few days it sounds to me, I am afraid, deliberately unhelpful.

"If you add up what has been said over the last few days about Israel - and not always in answer to a question either - then it's quite difficult to see what the way forward is."

The prime minister said he hoped to use his visit to make clear what the Palestinians could expect in return for progress.

"It is important for us to say very clearly 'this is what we will do if you are prepared to accept that any negotiation on two states must be on the basis of mutual respect and mutual recognition.

"One of the things I want to do in the course of the visit is to spell out exactly what we would do in those circumstances, for the Palestinians, including in respect of Hamas."

    Blair: Iran is major threat, G, 12.12.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/foreignaffairs/story/0,,1970451,00.html

2.45pm update

Blair to crack down on funding for religious groups

Friday December 8, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Hélène Mulholland and agencies

Religious groups will have to prove their commitment to integration before being awarded taxpayers' cash, Tony Blair said today, as he reignited the row over Muslim headscarves.

The prime minister said it was "plain common sense" that teachers should have to remove them in the classroom, as he announced a crackdown on funding for religious and racial groups.

Mr Blair warned that public money had been too easily handed out to organisations "tightly bonded around religious, racial or ethnic identities".

In future they would have to show they aimed to promote community cohesion and integration.

"Very good intentions got the better of us," Mr Blair said.

"We wanted to be hospitable to new groups. We wanted, rightly, to extend a welcome and did so by offering public money to entrench their cultural presence.

"Money was too often freely awarded to groups that were tightly bonded around religious, racial or ethnic identities.

"In the future, we will assess bids from groups of any ethnicity or any religious denomination, also against a test, where appropriate, of promoting community cohesion and integration."

Mr Blair also re-entered the row over Muslim headscarves. The controversy was fuelled by the suspension earlier this year of a Muslim teaching assistant who insisted on wearing the niqab.

The prime minister pointed out there had been "fierce controversy" over the headdress in Muslim countries as part of a "global agonising" over integration.

"I know it is not sensible to conduct this debate as if the only issue is the very hot and sensitive one of the veil," he said.

"For one thing, the extremism we face is usually from men not women.

"But it ... really is a matter of plain common sense that when it is an essential part of someone's work to communicate directly with people, being able to see their face is important.

"We are not on our own in trying to find the right balance between integration and diversity. There is a global agonising on the subject," he said.

Mr Blair ruled out any introduction of Islamic sharia law in the UK and called on mosques that excluded the voice of women to "look again at their practices".

The suicide bombings in London on July 7 last year had thrown the whole concept of a multicultural Britain "into sharp relief", the prime minister said.

He insisted it was an idea that should still be celebrated but said it went hand in hand with a duty to share "essential values".

The prime minister said Britain was "better placed than most" to have a sensible debate on the issue.

But it had to be prepared to stand up and fight for the tolerance, which was its hallmark.

"We are a nation comfortable with the open world of today," he said.

    Blair to crack down on funding for religious groups, G, 8.12.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1967747,00.html

Iraq Study Group

Bush-Blair split over report's key proposals

President rejects talks with Iran and Syria

Friday December 8, 2006
Guardian
Julian Borger in Washington

George Bush yesterday rejected key recommendations made by the Iraq Study Group, revealing important differences with Tony Blair, who embraced the proposals put forward by the US bipartisan commission.

Those differences became clear after the two leaders met at the White House.

President Bush flatly contradicted the ISG's proposal that Iran and Syria be included in regional talks aimed at ending Iraq's worsening civil war. He restated the White House position that talks with Tehran were conditional on the Iranians stopping uranium enrichment, while contacts with Damascus would depend on an end to Syrian destabilisation of Lebanon and a cessation of arms and money flows over the border to Iraqi insurgents.

"We've made that position very clear. And the truth of the matter is that these countries have now got the choice to make," the president said.

"If they want to sit down at the table with the United States, it's easy. Just make some decisions that'll lead to peace, not to conflict."

Mr Blair, by contrast, welcomed the regional peace initiative put forward by the ISG, saying only that the basis for those discussions should be acceptance of UN resolutions on Iraq.

A Downing Street spokesman confirmed the British position of demanding a halt to uranium enrichment while continuing to talk to Iran on other issues. "In terms of our position, we continue to have diplomatic relations with Iran and have always done so," the spokesman said.

The difference in tone between the two leaders was also evident when they talked more generally about the report, which also called for a withdrawal of combat troops by early 2008, a switch in the use of US troops to an advisory role, in tandem with a comprehensive Middle East peace conference.

Mr Blair enthusiastically embraced the ISG's regional approach and the link it made between resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and bringing peace to Iraq. "There is a kind of whole vision about how we need to proceed that links what happens inside Iraq with what happens outside Iraq. And the report put this very simply and very clearly," he said. "I think the report is practical, it's clear, and it offers also the way of bringing people together."

President Bush praised the commission, headed by the retired politicians James Baker and Lee Hamilton, for its bipartisan approach, but appeared to put more emphasis on a separate assessment of the situation in Iraq expected in the next few days from the joint chiefs of staff.

"Baker-Hamilton is a really important part of our considerations," the president said. "But we want to make sure the military gets their point of view in. After all, a lot of what we're doing is a military operation."

The military report is not expected to propose substantial troop withdrawals and may even advocate a brief surge in the US military presence in Iraq. President Bush yesterday made it clear he was more likely to listen to that kind of advice. He said: "Our commanders will be making recommendations based upon whether or not we're achieving our stated objective."

He added that another political assessment was being readied by the state department and that after he had absorbed all the reports he would make a major policy speech announcing a new strategic direction.

Mr Bush has been under rising pressure since last week when the incoming defence secretary, Robert Gates, contradicted his assertion that the US was winning the war. Pressed by journalists, the president yesterday admitted "it's bad in Iraq", adding: "I do know that we have not succeeded as fast as we wanted to succeed. I do understand that process is not as rapid as I had hoped." But his rhetoric otherwise remained defiantly unchanged, and he continued to talk of eventual "victory".

The ISG members appeared before the Senate yesterday in an attempt to increase pressure on the president to accept the group's proposals.

Mr Baker, a close adviser and friend of the president's father, said that the ISG report "is probably the only bipartisan report [the president is] going to get and it's extremely important that we approach this issue in a bipartisan way".

"If the Congress could come together behind supporting - let's say, utopianly - all of the recommendations in this report, that would do a lot toward moving things downtown," he added, referring to the White House at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Mr Baker also flatly contradicted the president's claim that the ISG authors did not expect him to accept every recommendation. "I hope we don't treat this like a fruit salad, saying, 'I like this, but I don't like that,'" he said. "It's a comprehensive strategy designed to deal with the problems in Iraq, but also to deal with other problems in the region. These are interdependent recommendations."

In his remarks yesterday, the president did appear to give some hints on future military strategy, suggesting that the initial emphasis would be on a final effort to contain the sectarian violence centred in Baghdad, which may allow US troops then to concentrate on al-Qaida groups, which would be more palatable to US public opinion.

"We'll continue after al-Qaida. Al-Qaida will not have safe haven in Iraq. And that's important for the American people to know. We got special operators. We've got, you know, better intelligence," he said.

"The strategy now is how to make sure that we've got the security situation in place such that the Iraqi government's capable of dealing with the sectarian violence, as well as the political and economic strategies as well."

    Bush-Blair split over report's key proposals, G, 8.12.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1967285,00.html

5.30pm update

Bush: victory still important in Iraq

Thursday December 7, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Tran

A defiant George Bush today said he and Tony Blair agreed that "victory" in Iraq was important, just one day after the Iraq Study Group delivered a withering critique of his current policy.

In a joint press conference with the prime minister in Washington, Mr Bush said the recommendations from the ISG were "worthy of serious recommendation".

But the president sent out a clear signal to his critics that he thought victory was still possible, despite what the bipartisan panel described as a "grave and deteriorating" situation in Iraq.

"We will stand together and defeat the extremists and radicals and help a young democracy prevail in the Middle East," Mr Bush said in a long statement at the start of the press conference.

Mr Blair thanked the president for the "clarity of [his] vision" and called Iraq a "mission we have to succeed in and can succeed in". Both men portrayed the war in Iraq as part of a wider battle between the "forces that are reasonable" and extremists.

Mr Bush pointed out that the ISG report was not the only one before the White House, mentioning reviews from the Pentagon, the state department and the national security council. Asked whether the ISG report should carry more weight because of its bipartisan nature, Mr Bush ducked and weaved.

"It is certainly an important part of our deliberations," Mr Bush replied.

Even as Mr Blair and Mr Bush outlined their response to the ISG report, which called on the US to chart a new course, opposition MPs back in London were pressing for a Commons statement from the prime minister.

The Tory former defence spokesman Bernard Jenkin said Mr Blair was not involved in a "routine bilateral". He added that it was not acceptable for the prime minister to return to the UK without giving a statement to the House of Commons "about what amounts to a substantial change in public policy".

The Commons leader, Jack Straw, however, refused to promise either a statement or debate on the ISG report before Christmas. He told MPs to quiz the prime minister about it at question time next week, but was warned by some members of the opposition that this was unacceptable and would look bad to voters.

Mr Bush and Mr Blair find themselves increasingly isolated on Iraq, now that the US foreign policy establishment - embodied by the ISG co-chairmen former secretary of state James Baker and former congressman Lee Hamilton - has declared that the "current approach is not working and the ability of the United States to influence events is diminishing".

The Democratic senator Charles Schumer said the key question was whether Mr Bush was ready for a change of course.

"All eyes now are on this president," Mr Schumer said.

Mr Bush's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, has said Bush will make his decision within weeks.

The ISG report made two key recommendations. The first was for the US to shift military priorities from combat to training Iraqi troops and start withdrawing combat troops early next year. The second was for the US to launch a diplomatic effort that would involve direct talks with Iraq's neighbours, Iran and Syria.

Mr Bush, however, has stubbornly stuck to his position that there will be no talks with Tehran unless it suspends its uranium enrichment programme. The administration is also in no hurry to talk to Damascus, accusing it of allowing insurgents to cross into Iraq from Syria.

Mr Blair last month used a high-profile speech to offer "partnership" to Damascus and Tehran if they stopped supporting terrorism and met international obligations not to pursue nuclear arms. The prime minister also wants the US to devote some energy to dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

On arriving in the US last night, Mr Blair went straight into a meeting on climate change with senators who included possible 2008 presidential candidate John McCain.

Mr Blair is also due to meet congressional leaders and members of the Senate armed services and foreign relations committees to discuss Iraq, the Middle East, trade, Darfur and Africa in general.

The group is likely to include the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for the 2008 presidential election, Hillary Clinton, and the rising star in the Democratic party, the black senator Barack Obama.

Downing Street said Mr Blair would stress the importance of maintaining momentum towards a post-Kyoto agreement on climate change after 2012 and on delivering on promises on aid and debt relief made to Africa at last year's G8 summit in Gleneagles.

    Bush: victory still important in Iraq, G, 7.12.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1966554,00.html

4.45pm update

Blair: we must renew Trident

Monday December 4, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest and agencies


Tony Blair today recommended that Britain renew its Trident nuclear deterrent into at least the middle of the century, calling it "the ultimate insurance".
But the prime minister told MPs it would be possible to cut Britain's stockpile by 20%, leaving fewer than 160 operationally available warheads.

However, he did not announce a reduction in the number of Trident-carrying submarines based at the Faslane base in Scotland from four to three, instead saying a decision would wait until more detailed designs of submarines was available.

Mr Blair said it would be "unwise and dangerous" for Britain to unilaterally give up its nuclear deterrent.

He added that, contrary to some predictions of a £25bn price tag, the overall cost spread over three decades would come to between £15bn and £20bn.

Mr Blair ruled out land-based and air-based replacement systems for the Trident submarine-based system, saying that either would be easier targets for an enemy and would present a host of other problems.

Mr Blair agreed with critics that it was highly unlikely a state would threaten the UK with nuclear weapons, but warned: "That isn't a fact; it's a prediction."

Mr Blair warned of North Korea's supposed existing nuclear warheads and Iran's alleged attempts to build them, and warned of future "rogue governments" potentially "aiding" terrorists.

"It's improbable but no-one can say it's impossible," Mr Blair said of future nuclear threats to the UK.

The prime minister - despite criticisms from anti-nuclear campaigners - insisted that renewing Trident would still be "fully consistent with international commitments", saying that the UK had the lowest stockpile of warheads of any declared nuclear states.

The importance of the issue was implicit in the fact that Mr Blair made the ministerial statement to MPs himself, rather than leaving it to the defence secretary, Des Browne.

Today's white paper of options precedes a formal vote on the issue in March next year. A special meeting of the cabinet agreed the white paper this morning.

So far 53 Labour MPs have signed an early day motion to scrap Trident, although with Tory backing for the scheme there is little prospect of a Commons defeat.

No ministers opposed the plan at this morning's special meeting of the cabinet, when the final decision was taken to move forward with the white paper proposals, Mr Blair's official spokesman said.

"It was decided to move forward on the basis of consensus, but it's fair to say there wasn't a dissenting voice," said the spokesman.

The Tory leader, David Cameron, said he entirely agreed with the "substance and process" of the prime minister's statement.

The Liberal Democrat leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, was loudly jeered by Tory MPs and some Labour members for suggesting a delay on taking a decision until 2014. The Speaker had to intervene to scold Tory MPs.

But Sir Menzies asked why the decision was being "pushed through" just before Mr Blair left office, saying it had more to do with the prime minister's legacy than Britain's national interest.

Mr Blair said the Lib Dem position of reducing the warheads to 100 had no merit to it beyond being "a round number".

The SNP and Plaid Cymru are opposed to renewal, but the Lib Dems are only officially committed for calling for a delay in making the decision, saying the lifespans of the existing submarines can be extended.

Opposition to the scheme is expected to come later this afternoon from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. Lambeth Palace confirmed they would be issuing a response to Mr Blair's statement.

Earlier, the Anglican Bishop of Bath and Wells, Peter Price, said that there was a moral case against the renewal of the Trident system.

"Can we, with the kind of faith that we hold, believe that it is right to possess weapons of mass destruction of this nature? I personally take the view that it is not," he told BBC Radio 4's World at One.

"I think if we were to invest the kind of resources (spent on nuclear weapons) on remaking the world, we could perhaps remove some of the threat and fear that causes nations to have to create weapons systems to defend them in the way that Trident allegedly does."

He added: "I personally have lobbied and campaigned for Trident not to continue. That's been a long-held conviction... borne out of my profound belief that the gift of creation to us by God - which is held deeply within both Jewish and Christian tradition, and indeed widely within the Muslim tradition - means that we cannot plan the destruction of God's creation."

Former environment minister Michael Meacher told the BBC that parliament was being "bounced" into a decision.

He said: "What's really worrying about this is the fact that the country and parliament are being bounced and that we don't have to take this decision at breakneck speed.

"The Vanguard submarines are going to be operational until about 2026, the missiles probably don't have to be changed until 2042. There's absolutely no reason why we can't take this decision next year or in five years' time.

"It will severely restrict much more needed conventional defence expenditure, it will undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty worldwide and drain off a colossal sum of money from where it is most needed: dealing with the real threats we face from terrorism, climate change and long-term energy security."

One Labour rebel, Linda Riordan, called for a free vote of MPs on all options and a longer timetable for discussing Trident.

A number of Labour MPs joined CND officials handed an alternative white paper to 10 Downing Street, just hours before the PM spoke in the Commons.

    Blair: we must renew Trident, G, 4.12.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1963811,00.html

Blair: Britain's 'sorrow' for shame of slave trade

· Historic statement condemns 'crime against humanity'
· Critics say Prime Minister has fallen short of full apology

Sunday November 26, 2006
The Observer
David Smith

Tony Blair expresses 'deep sorrow' for Britain's role in the slave trade. Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty

Tony Blair is to make a historic statement condemning Britain's role in the transatlantic slave trade as a 'crime against humanity' and expressing 'deep sorrow' that it ever happened.
The Prime Minister plans to go further than any previous leader in seeking to distance himself from the actions of the British Empire, nearly 200 years after the 1807 legislation that led to slavery's abolition. However, he will stop short of making an explicit apology despite years of pressure from some black campaigners and community leaders.

'It is hard to believe that what would now be a crime against humanity was legal at the time,' the Prime Minister will say. 'Personally I believe the bicentenary offers us a chance not just to say how profoundly shameful the slave trade was - how we condemn its existence utterly and praise those who fought for its abolition, but also to express our deep sorrow that it ever happened, that it ever could have happened and to rejoice at the different and better times we live in today.'

The ground-breaking remarks will appear in the black community newspaper New Nation, which has been campaigning for an apology for slavery, and in a statement to Parliament tomorrow.

Blair was praised last night for breaking decades of official silence to acknowledge the grievance and resentment still felt by many towards the empire's exploitation of Africans. Paul Stephenson, a black activist in Bristol, said: 'It's historic for a British Prime Minister to say this and it is to be welcomed. It shows a recognition of the importance of human rights and challenges the deniers who don't admit that the British Empire caused so much social, physical and psychological damage.'

The Prime Minister's decision to make a statement on the issue will reignite the debate on the role of apology in modern politics. He was criticised when, in 1997, he said he 'reflected' on the deaths caused by the Irish Potato Famine. The move will be seen by some as an attempt by Blair to shore up his legacy both domestically and on the world stage.

According to notes seen in the possession of Baroness Amos, the Lead of the House of Lords, earlier this month, the Prime Minister wanted to make a bold gesture that will be 'internationally recognised'. He will back a United Nations resolution by Caribbean countries to honour those who died at the hands of international slave traders.

The notes suggested that Blair was willing to accommodate the requests of many campaigners and is 'prepared to go further than [he is] being asked to' on the issue of an apology.

The slavery issue has come to a head in the build-up to the bicentenary next March of the parliamentary Slave Trade Act. Estimates vary that between 10 and 28 million Africans were sent to the Americas and sold into slavery between 1450 and the early 19th century. By then Britain was the dominant trader, transporting more than 300,000 slaves a year in shackles on disease-ridden boats.

An advisory committee chaired by John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, whose Hull constituency was once represented by anti-slavery campaigner William Wilberforce, has been planning the 200th anniversary commemorations and addressing the problem of how Britain should acknowledge its past. It was reported that Whitehall advisers had warned that a full apology could open the door to claims for reparations from the descendants of slaves. Louise Ellman, MP for Liverpool Riverside, who has been campaigning for an annual slavery memorial day, welcomed the statement as ' major step forward. It says that slavery is a "crime against humanity". It uses the word "shameful". It entirely disassociates all of us from what happened.'

The Observer revealed the campaign for an apology two years ago when Rendezvous of Victory, a group which seeks to combat the legacy of slavery, said it would call on the Queen to issue an apology. Its joint co-ordinator, Kofi Mawuli Klu, said he was disappointed by Blair's suggestion that slavery is a thing of the past: 'He's missed the point. They do not understand contemporary enslavement. There is nothing in this statement about the enduring legacy of slavery in terms of racism and global injustice.'

Klu criticised the absence of the word 'sorry', claiming: 'It's adding insult to the lingering injuries of the enslavement of African people by the European ruling classes. The message is that if you commit crimes against African people you cannot be held responsible; even when you acknowledge that you have done wrong, you do not feel it necessary to apologise.'

    Blair: Britain's 'sorrow' for shame of slave trade, O, 26.11.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1957278,00.html

Blair: Who says I'm not green?

Published: 18 November 2006
The Independent
By Michael McCarthy, Environmental Editor

Britain is seeking international agreement on a global target for stabilisation of greenhouse gases, which would halt the progress of global warming, Tony Blair has told The Independent.

The radical measure would be a major leap forward from the Kyoto agreement and the biggest step yet in the fight to combat climate change.

The Prime Minister outlined his move in a wide-ranging interview, arguing a staunch defence of his Government's record in tackling the issue of global warming and repeating his assertion that climate change was the greatest long-term threat to the world.

"We're sometimes attacked as being back-markers here, but nowhere in the rest of the world sees us like that.

"Of course we've got to do more, but we have achieved a lot. The difference between being a politician responsible for taking decisions, and a pressure group that puts pressure on those who take the decisions, is that the pressure group can put forward maximum demands, but the politician who actually takes the decision has got to balance competing demands."

Mr Blair dismissed criticism of his opposition to annual targets to cut British carbon emissions as "posturing, not practical politics".

He also implicitly ruled out aviation taxes, another measure favoured by the green lobby, insisting that a much better way forward was to deal with aircraft emissions under the European Union's emissions trading scheme.

The Prime Minister, on a visit to the nuclear plant at Sellafield in Cumbria, launched a defence of his position on nuclear power.

He said: "There is a decision we now have to take, as to whether we're going to replace our nuclear power stations and develop a new generation of nuclear power. I believe we should. I've given my view that if we want to deal with energy security and climate change, we've got to have the right policy for the future, and it's got to include nuclear."

Mr Blair also revealed that Britain would seek agreements to make future EU coal-fired power stations carbon neutral through improved technology.

And he hinted that a planned Energy White Paper would address the issue of personal carbon allowances - the idea that each individual would have a carbon "budget" to spend on motor fuel, electricity and other activities that impact on the environment. The move has already been floated by David Miliband, the Environment Secretary.

But the measure that will be most welcomed by green campaigners is likely to be the proposal to set a global target for stabilisation of greenhouse gases.

If set by the leading nations of the world, such a target - meaning the point beyond which concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases would not be allowed to grow - would be a decisive move, and the biggest step forward yet in the fight to combat climate change.

Mr Blair is hoping that agreement on the principle of a global goal can be agreed next spring by the G8 group of rich nations, currently the world's biggest CO2 emitters, in partnership with the five big developing countries, led by China, which will soon be emitting even more. China is likely to overtake the US as the biggest CO2 emitter by 2010.

At the G8 summit in Gleneagles in Scotland last year, Mr Blair persuaded the developing nations to talk about their emissions for the first time. If the Chinese - plus the Indians, Brazilians, Mexicans and South Africans - can be persuaded to sign up to a target, the Prime Minister hopes the US may sign too, and thus end its hugely damaging isolation from the main climate change policy process which has lasted since George Bush withdrew the US from the Kyoto protocol in 2001.

Although Kyoto set out a series of targets for nations to cut back their own greenhouse gas emissions, no one has yet agreed on aiming for a target the other way round - for stabilisation of the total amount of CO2 going into the atmosphere.

This is much more important, and if agreed, would offer governments and business all over the world the clearest possible signal of exactly what needed to be done.

At present the atmospheric CO2 level is about 382 parts per million by volume (ppm), and rising at more than 2ppm annually. When all the other greenhouse gases such as methane and nitrous oxide are included, and expressed in CO2 terms, the figure is about 430ppm. This is known as "carbon dioxide equivalent", or CO2e.

The target Mr Blair and his officials have in mind would seek to halt the growth of greenhouse gases somewhere below 550ppm CO2e, perhaps between 500 and 550 - the figures are still being discussed, but 550 is regarded as the upper limit.

It would involve legally binding cutback agreements from those who signed up to it, and has been put forward by the UK to be taken on during the German presidency of the G8 next spring. The initiative - which has German support - would offer a major way forward for when Kyoto comes to an end in 2012.

On the vexed question of compulsory annual emissions reductions, highlighted by The Independent earlier this week, Mr Blair said: "Look, the plain fact of the matter is, the reason why Kyoto and the European Trading System went for targets over longer periods, over five-year periods, is because even changes in weather or changes in fuel price can make a huge difference to whether you can meet an annual target or not, and it ís just too inflexible."

There was a difference between "practical politics, and posturing," he said. "The difference between serious policy-making and non-serious policy-making in this area is the difference between people who think they might actually have to implement the decision, and people who don't.

"The cold weather in 2001 produced a variation of, I think, an additional 3 per cent in CO2 emissions. If you had a binding target to reduce CO2 emissions by 3 per cent, you could find you were suddenly being asked to put up fuel duty massively. Governments aren't going to be doing that. So you've got to have sufficient flexibility built into your system, and targets over a longer run."

On the question of what should be done about the rapidly rising CO2 emissions from aviation, he struck a similar note: "Put it [aviation] in the European Emissions Trading System, that's the single most important thing you could do. But the danger - again it's the difference between practical politics and posturing - is that if we prevented people in Britain taking cheap flights, but people in Europe were still able to do it, you wouldn't make a great deal of difference except you'd make travel a lot harder for low-income families." Britain was pushing hard for aviation to be included in the ETS, he said.

But what Britain would be doing, he said, was to help people to come to terms with their own personal "carbon footprint" through measures in the forthcoming Energy White Paper. "I think the idea of saying to people, look, you can actually measure you own impact and do something about it, the idea of carbon budget, is very powerful," he said. "One of the things we will come out with in the Energy White Paper is how your ordinary citizen, each of us in our own way, make a difference."

Asked if he was talking about personal carbon allowances, he said: "We're looking at all those things for the purpose of the White Paper, but you'll have to wait until it comes out."

His hint will be widely welcomed by environmentalists. But another part of what he said will have many of them grinding their teeth. Despite fully sharing their belief in the seriousness of the climate threat, Mr Blair parts company with the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth over what he sees as a key part of the solution, and they do not - nuclear power.

Asked if he accepted that there were public fears about nuclear power, he said: "Yes, there are public fears, but they're often generated less by knowledge than by people saying well, if something has got the word 'nuclear' in it, then there must be a problem."

On the issue of nuclear waste he was equally unapologetic. (The Government has announced that Britain's long-term nuclear waste store will be deep underground, but only located in a community that volunteers to take it. It may yet be decades away.)

He was asked: "What do you say to people who say, you're creating more nuclear waste with a new generation of nuclear power stations, when we still don't have a site for disposal of the waste that's been created over the last 50 years?"

Mr Blair replied: "Well, we're going to have to get that site, in any event, and we said that's best done by people volunteering. And the new nuclear power stations generate about a tenth of the waste [of the old ones] - but in any event we're going to have to find storage for that.

"But when you actually go into the details of the science of that storage, some of the fears that are raised seem to me at any rate to be completely exaggerated."

Few would deny that Mr Blair has done more than any other world leader to raise the profile of the climate change issue on the international agenda, and - especially if the greenhouse gas stabilisation target can be achieved, or even initiated, on his watch, that will be seen as a major part of his political legacy. However, he dismissed the idea of a legacy and declined to use the personal pronoun, contenting himself with saying: "I think what we have done on climate is important."

He was then asked if he might consider continuing to work on the climate issue after he leaves office, perhaps for the UN. He said: "I don't know. I will retain a strong interest in it because I believe passionately in it. As I've said, it is the greatest long-term threat that faces the world. But I tend not to answer questions about what I'll do afterwards, because I'm not in afterwards - yet."

The PM's policies

Kyoto, Mark II: PM is seeking international deal to limit global greenhouse gas emissions

Aviation taxes: Blair believes it is better to deal with plane emissions on a Europe-wide scale

Cleaner coal: PM wants all new EU coal-fired power stations to be carbon neutral

Personal responsibility: A White Paper may address individuals' carbon allowances

    Blair: Who says I'm not green?, I, 18.11.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article1993581.ece

Intervention in Iraq 'pretty much of a disaster' admits Blair, as minister calls it his 'big mistake'

· Downing Street plays down slip in TV interview
· Hodge criticises 'moral imperialism' in speech

Saturday November 18, 2006
Guardian
Tania Branigan, political correspondent

Tony Blair conceded last night that western intervention in Iraq had been a disaster. In an interview with Al-Jazeera, the Arabic TV station, the prime minister agreed with the veteran broadcaster Sir David Frost when he suggested that intervention had "so far been pretty much of a disaster".

Mr Blair said: "It has, but you see, what I say to people is, 'why is it difficult in Iraq?' It's not difficult because of some accident in planning, it's difficult because there's a deliberate strategy - al-Qaida with Sunni insurgents on one hand, Iranian-backed elements with Shia militias on the other - to create a situation in which the will of the majority for peace is displaced by the will of the minority for war."

Downing Street tried to downplay the apparent slip. "I think that's just the way in which he answers questions," said a spokesman. "His views on Iraq are documented in hundreds of places, and that is not one of them."

Mr Blair's remarks came hours after his trade and industry minister, Margaret Hodge, was reported to have described Iraq as his "big mistake in foreign affairs" and criticised his "moral imperialism".

John McDonnell, the leftwing MP who has pledged to challenge for Labour's leadership, said the prime minister's concession was "staggering" and urged him to bring forward Britain's exit strategy.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said: "At long last the enormity of the decision to take military action against Iraq is being accepted by the prime minister."

Earlier, Ms Hodge had told a private dinner organised by the Fabian Society that she had doubted Mr Blair's approach to foreign affairs as far back as 1998, because of his belief in imposing British values and ideas on other countries. According to the Islington Tribune, she said she had accepted Mr Blair's arguments on the threat posed by Iraq because "he was our leader and I trusted him" - before adding: "I hope this isn't being reported."

Ms Hodge was unavailable for comment yesterday, but a spokesman told the Evening Standard that she had not made the remarks. Asked if they reflected her opinions, he added: "I'm not in a position to comment on her private views."

A Downing Street spokesman said he knew nothing of the reported comments. "Margaret Hodge voted for military action in Iraq. Since then, she has always spoken in favour of it. We have a prime minister, a government, that is trying to bring the country together," he said, but added that nobody was disputing "the difficulties there are in Iraq". The Islington Tribune said its editor, Eric Gordon, had taken a shorthand note of the meeting in London, and it had checked the story thoroughly.

Pat Haynes, secretary of the Islington Fabian Society, did not recall the word "mistake", but added: "She said that if she knew then what she knows now, she would not have voted for the war." He did not realise a journalist was at the meeting, he added. But Chris Roche, the Labour member who took Mr Gordon to the meeting, told Sky News: "Everyone knew there was a journalist there."

In May Ms Hodge was criticised by Labour activists after telling a newspaper that eight out of 10 of her constituents were considering voting for the BNP.

    Intervention in Iraq 'pretty much of a disaster' admits Blair, as minister calls it his 'big mistake', G, 18.11.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1951267,00.html

Blair begins push for Trident replacement

Friday November 17, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Tony Blair told the cabinet yesterday that he plans to launch a controversial debate on the replacement of the Trident nuclear missile programme as early as next week, in a sign that he wants to secure agreement on a multibillion replacement before he leaves Downing Street. He told ministers that a decision had to be taken quickly.

The defence secretary, Des Browne, has started one-to-one meetings with colleagues before the imminent publication of a white paper supporting retention of an independent deterrent. He is to promise the Commons a vote on the principle of replacement of Trident.

Cabinet members admitted yesterday that the debate would have to be carefully managed to avoid deep fissures opening up inside the party at the time of leadership and deputy leadership elections.

Some cabinet ministers, including the Northern Ireland secretary Peter Hain, have recently underlined to Mr Blair that the decision should be taken after a Commons vote and a real engagement with the Labour party.

Sceptics are also calling for a full Treasury economic assessment of the options. Estimates have varied widely on the cost of replacement, depending on the nature of the decision, but mainstream estimates suggest £20bn over 30 years.

The chancellor, Gordon Brown, has said he supports retention of a British nuclear deterrent, but he has not spelt out in what form. It is understood that he regrets signalling his support for maintenance of a British deterrent as an aside in his June Mansion House speech and accepts that a fuller debate is necessary.

The government faces four options: unilateral disarmament; extending the in-service life of the existing Vanguard submarine and Trident 11 D5 missiles; buying a direct replacement for the Trident system in line with the current US UK agreement; or procuring a new submarine or air-based capability.

Some senior party figures, including the influential former cabinet minister Charles Clarke, have expressed scepticism about the case for replacing Trident. Wider public opinion, according to the latest polls, narrowly supports retention of a deterrent, but this support in some polls turns into overall opposition if voters are told the cost is likely to be £25bn, or the equivalent of building 1,000 new schools.

The Tories are almost certain to support retention of a British deterrent, ensuring there is a strong parliamentary majority for the retention of a nuclear weapon system of some form. Nevertheless, at its September congress the TUC voted to reject Trident, even though some believe the long-term future of the British submarine industrial base depends on replacing the deterrent.

Many Labour MPs, and some legal opinion, argues that replacement would represent a breach of Britain's obligations under the non-proliferation treaty.

Until the mid-80s, and a policy change engineered by Neil Kinnock, Labour supported unilateral disarmament.

The Trident system entered service in late 1994 and has a projected life span of approximately 25 to 30 years. A replacement would need to enter service in the mid-2020s and, given the long procurement process, decisions have to be taken imminently.

The debate comes at a difficult time for supporters of a replacement, with the intelligence services emphasising the national security threat from individual terrorists, or al-Qaida, rather than from other nuclear weapon states. The Foreign Office, possibly in preparation for next week's debate, this week briefed that it believed al-Qaida was seeking to acquire a nuclear bomb.

    Blair begins push for Trident replacement, NYT, 17.11.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1950248,00.html

The Queen's Speech: What was said, and what was left out

Home Secretary takes centre stage to warn of further terror attacks

Published: 16 November 2006
The Independent

CRIME

John Reid kept options open on allowing police more time to question terrorist suspects without charge as he warned an attack on Britain was " highly likely".

The Home Secretary took centre-stage in the Queen's Speech, announcing Bills to tackle organised crime and anti-social behaviour and "rebalance" the criminal justice system. He also looks certain to introduce a counter-terrorism Bill within months, after a Home Office-led review of existing legislation.

Mr Reid gave a stark warning of the scale of threat Britain faces, saying the security services believed a "wave" of plots were being co-ordinated by al-Qa'ida. He agreed with Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, director general of MI5, that at least 30 terrorist conspiracies were active.

"They do look as though they are being directed from abroad, specifically by elements from al-Qa'ida," he told BBC Radio 4. " They look as though they are being prepared strategically; that is, they fit in to a pattern."

The Queen's Speech promised the fight against terrorism would be "at the heart" of the Government programme over the next parliamentary year. Ministers will plug any gaps exposed by the Home Office review, learning lessons from the alleged airliner bomb plot thwarted in August.

They are refusing to rule out an attempt to increase from 28 days the period terrorist suspects can be questioned without charge, although a bid to bring in a 90-day detention period was thrown out by MPs last year. Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, is leading renewed calls for the amount of time given to be increased.

Mr Reid said: "I have made plain that if it's put to me on the basis of factual or evidential material that there is a requirement to go beyond 28 days, I would be prepared to take that back to Parliament." The Prime Minister's official spokesman said: "We've always said we believe 90 days is the right answer; we did so on the basis of the advice we had from police at the time."

One possibility is a giant Bill bringing together Britain's anti-terror legislation, which is now spread across four Acts of Parliament. It could contain moves to toughen the "control orders" system and allow " intercept" evidence in terrorist prosecutions.

The Criminal Justice Bill follows concern over crimes committed by offenders after release from prison and short sentences for repeat criminals. Mr Reid plans to give judges the power to extend the time served by the most serious offenders, change the law so courts cannot quash the convictions of " plainly guilty" offenders on a technicality and insist parole boards include a victims' representative.

There will also be a new offence making the possession of "violent and extreme pornography", such as images of rape, punishable by up to three years' imprisonment. Police will also get the power to shut "anti-social " premises, such as brothels, with just 48 hours' notice.

The Offender Management Bill toughens supervision of criminals after release. Probation officers will gain the discretion to increase the length or severity of community punishments and private and voluntary sector organisations will be invited to tender for probation contracts in a bid to drive up standards.

The Organised Crime Bill introduces "serious crime prevention orders" (so-called "super-Asbos") for gangsters who cannot be prosecuted for lack of evidence. They could impose restrictions such as curfews and limited access to bank accounts.

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, accused Mr Reid of " grandstanding" after a Home Office "annus horribilis". He said: "We've had a year of meltdown in the prison system, with foreign prisoners being released on the streets and murderers let out on parole to kill again."

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "This is panic, push-button government at its worst. It is high time this frenzied law-making is brought to a halt, with unnecessary and illiberal legislation."

Richard Garside, of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies at King's College London said: "One of the legacies of Tony Blair's time in office is the eye-watering number of crime-related pieces of legislation his governments have introduced. The year on year legislation binge has bloated the system and made it less fit for purpose."

Liberty, the civil liberties organisation, accused the Government of promoting "more rough justice through excessive criminal justice proposals".

Nigel Morris

PENSIONS

The state pension age is to be increased gradually to 68 under the Pensions Bill aimed at tackling the rising cost of the old.

The Government claimed raising the pension age reflected increasing longevity and a trend towards people working longer. But one of the key reasons for the change was the Turner Report to Gordon Brown last November warning rising cost of pensions could not be supported. Pension age will rise from 65 to 66 between 2024 and 2026, followed by a rise from 55 to 57 between 2034 and 2036. The final increase from 67 to 68 will take place between 2044 and 2046.

To sweeten the pill, the Government will restore the link between the basic state pension and earnings under the Pensions Bill, which is aimed at answering criticism of the Government's record on pensions before Mr Blair leaves office. The Bill will reduce the number of years it takes to build a bull basic state pension from 44 years for men and 39 years for women to 30 years for both. It will simplify state and private pensions, including abolition of contracting out for private defined contribution schemes. The state second pension will be simplified.

The Bill will modernise the contributory principle to ensure a fairer deal for women and carers, said ministers, by recognising caring contributions and further enabling carers to build up a state pension. The private pension regulatory system will be streamlined to make it easier for people to plan and save for their retirement.

Ministers estimated that by 2010, 70 per cent of women reaching the state pension age would have a full basic state pension compared to only 30 per cent of women now. Many women fail to qualify because they have broken their national insurance contributions by quitting work to care for children or parents.

Colin Brown

IMMIGRATION

The fifth and final immigration Bill of the Blair era follows the failure to deport more than 1,000 foreign prisoners at the end of their sentences. The fiasco cost Charles Clarke his job as home secretary six months ago and his replacement, Mr Reid, has condemned the immigration system as "not fit for purpose".

Under the Border and Immigration Bill, foreign prisoners will face automatic deportation, with little right of appeal, and be kept in prison until their removal. Immigration officers are being given new powers to seize cash and other assets from illegal immigrants and impose tough reporting restrictions on visa holders coming to work or study. They will also make further biometric checks on new arrivals.

A new status for asylum-seekers who commit serious crimes is being created, after the Afghan hijackers won a court battle to stay in Britain. The Bill will create a "restricted status" for such offenders, barring them from housing, benefits or jobs.

The Government also intends to create an independent Immigration Advisory Committee, which will advise ministers on "optimum" levels of immigration. There are plans to create a points-based system for economic migrants whose chances of being granted a visa will depend on their age, qualifications and experience.

Danny Sriskandarajah, associate director of the Institute for Public Policy Research think-tank, said: "We need efficient and flexible flows of workers and not measures that stigmatise migrants, the overwhelming majority of whom come to work and contribute to our economy."

Nigel Morris

JUSTICE

Opposition MPs and civil rights groups have accused ministers of embarking on a programme of "rough justice" after they learnt that the Government was to press ahead with plans to curb the right to jury trial. Under the proposal in the Queen's Speech, serious and complex fraud trials would be heard by a judge alone after an application by the prosecution to the High Court and approval by the Lord Chief Justice. Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, believes some fraud cases are too complex and too long for jury trials.

Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman, said: " The principle of trial by jury is at the heart of our judicial system. There may be some need for different procedures to deal with complex fraud trials, [but] the final decision as to whether someone has been honest or dishonest in a serious case should always be one for a jury." Shami Chakrabarti, the director of civil rights group Liberty, said: "Tough talk brings rough justice. Rough justice if you're evicted because your big brother's been in trouble, rough justice when you're accused of serious crime and denied a jury trial, rough justice when migrants are always equated with crime."

The government also set out details to create a specific criminal offence of fraud, whether by false representation, abuse of position or failing to disclose information.

Robert Verkaik

EDUCATION

A radical shake-up of education means further education colleges being given power to award degrees for the first time. The move is designed to bring about a major expansion of two-year foundation degree courses, available in subjects as wide-ranging as business start-up, film technology and sports journalism.

The upheaval is the biggest in higher education since the former polytechnics were awarded university status by the Conservatives in the early 1990s. The drive is expected to help widen the take-up of degrees amongst youngsters from poorer homes, and will help the Government reach its target of getting 50 per cent into higher education by the end of the decade. Traditionalists claim it amounts to a dumbing down of degrees.

But Sarah Teather, the Liberal Democrat education spokes-woman, described it as "a small step in the right direction", adding: "Root and branch reform of further education is desperately needed, not the tinkering around the edges so typical of this Government's recent record in education."

Dr John Brennan, chief executive of the Association of Colleges, said it would free colleges to use existing links with employers to "tailor degrees". "This will open up higher education, capturing people who never thought they could attend university,"

Under the Bill, the Learning and Skills Council - the government quango responsible for financing post-16 education - will be given new powers to remove principals whose colleges are failing or even "not improving" .

A government spokesman said: "It would provide for a step change in the delivery of further education by establishing arrangements to ensure all provision is either good or improving."

Richard Garner

CLIMATE

Tony Blair faced criticism from opposition parties and environmentalists over the planned Climate Change Bill amid warnings that it lacked measurable targets. Green groups praised the Bill as an important first step, but attacked ministers for refusing to set annual targets for cutting carbon dioxide emissions, despite the Prime Minister's insistence that binding year-on-year targets would be impossible to police.

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the Bill would put the Government's long-term goal of a 60 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2050 into law, but the Government would only "consider appropriate interim targets". The Bill will create an independent carbon committee to help Government hit emissions targets, and ensure ministers report to Parliament on progress.

David Miliband, the Secretary of State for the Environment, said: "We are providing business with certainty over this Government and future governments' intentions and reaffirming the UK's commitment to taking action to meet our climate change goals."

Tony Juniper, director of Friends of the Earth, praised the Bill as a " crucial first step" in the fight against global warming. He added: " The next step is to ensure the Bill delivers the cuts needed through introduction of annual targets for reducing the UK's carbon dioxide emissions."

Phil Bloomer, director of campaigns and policy at Oxfam, said the Government was "taking climate change seriously, but not seriously or urgently enough".

Andrew Pendleton, senior climate analyst at Christian Aid, said: "If the Bill is underpinned only by a desire to hoard fuel stocks, we fear it will lack the teeth it needs to bring down urgently the dangerous greenhouse gas emissions that impact so savagely on poor people's lives."

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat environment spokes-man, warned: "We need a Government that proposes solutions, not just targets. If targets alone solved problems, this would be the best-governed country in the world. Only the Liberal Democrats are showing how to tax pollution not people and meet our agreed targets, with the green tax switch."

Ben Russell

MENTAL HEALTH

The proposed Mental Health Bill aroused protests and a threat of a Labour rebellion over measures to enforce supervised treatment for the mentally ill even if they have not committed a crime.

The Government is reviving the legislation it proposed in a draft bill in 2002 but abandoned in March, this year, in the face of sustained opposition by mental health campaigners and charities. Campaigners said the plans to update England's 23-year-old laws would represent an abuse of civil liberties. But ministers are insisting they have to balance the rights of mentally ill with the need for greater protection of people.

"If the Government pushes ahead with this it will mean people with mental health problems have fewer rights than someone suspected of burglaries," said Jane Harris, campaigns manager of Rethink, the mental health charity. "It will be an abuse of our civil liberties."

The legislation was intended to answer disquiet in the wake of high-profile cases, such as the murders by Michael Stone of Lin and Megan Russell in 1988. Stone was regarded as a dangerous psychopath but an inquiry found gaps in his care. Under the 1983 Mental Health Act patients can be sectioned, but only if their condition is treatable.

The new law will propose three key changes: Supervised community treatment (SCT) for patients discharged from compulsory treatment in hospital; a new definition of mental disorder to scrap the "treatability test" and allow compulsory therapy if "appropriate" treatment is available; and safeguards for patients who lack capacity and are deprived of their liberty but are not covered by existing mental health legislation. It will be taken through the Commons jointly by the Home Office minister Gerry Sutcliffe and Health minister Rosie Winterton.

Ian Gibson, a Labour MP and former chair of the Commons science committee, warned: "There will be a big reaction to this legislation. I am very concerned at the inability of the Government to come up with a patient-friendly Bill. There is still too much emphasis on punishment."

Dr Tony Calland, of the British Medical Association, said mental health legislation should not be used to detain people whom the authorities simply want locked away

Paul Farmer, chief executive of Mind, said: "We urgently hope that the final process of this longdrawn-out saga will result in a piece of legislation that is not a wasted opportunity. It must provide compassionate treatment and care people with mental health problems. The 1983 Act needs updating. But it needs to provide care for people when they first need it, not leave them to reach a crisis state, or scare them from seeking help by the threat of compulsory treatment."

Colin Brown

CHILD SUPPORT AGENCY

Errant fathers who repeatedly fail to pay maintenance could face curfews, electronic tagging and the suspension of their passports under measures to axe the troubled Child Support Agency.

The Child Support Bill will scrap the CSA, which was accused of causing a bureaucratic nightmare for families. It will be replaced by a streamlined body, and rules to encourage separated or divorced parents to reach private settlements.

The CSA was set up by John Major, then Tory prime minister, in 1993, but has been dogged with complaints. It has a backlog of 300,000 cases with £1.2bn outstanding and £1bn in uncollected payments written off.

The changes, likely to win cross-party support, follow a review by Sir David Henshaw. The details will be in a White Paper soon. It will be followed by a consultation period before the bill is taken through Parliament by John Hutton, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

Under the Bill, deserted lone parents left to bring up children will no longer be forced to make formal claims, even if they have reached a private agreement with their ex-partners. The legislation will allow more lone mothers or fathers to keep their maintenance on top of state benefits. Now, those on benefits lose some or all of their maintenance if payments take their income above the qualifying threshold.

The additional aid promised under the new Bill will be coupled with tougher measures to pursue errant parents who pay little or nothing. Absent fathers or mothers who refuse to pay for their children's upkeep will be pursued by private bailiffs. Passports could be suspended. Existing laws allow courts to seize the driving licences of parents who fail to pay maintenance but these powers are rarely used because they claim they would destroy their work chances

Colin Brown

ESTATE AGENTS

Tough new regulations designed to crack down on rogue estate agents are to be introduced. All agents will be forced to join a scheme to allow victims of bad practice to claim compensation.

Agents will also have to keep full records of their work, and Trading Standards officers will inspect their archives, under proposals in the Consumers, Estate Agents and Redress Bill.

The Office of Fair Trading will also get increased powers to take action against rogue agents. Energy and postal firms will also have to offer redress to customers, and the Bill will also merge the National Consumer Council, Energywatch and Postwatch into a single consumer watchdog. The Queen's Speech declared that the Bill will "introduce the most wide-ranging reform of consumer protection for many years."

Stephen Carr-Smith, the estate agents ombudsman, said: "This is very good news for the consumer and also very good news for the industry because it means that every single estate agent has got to have their activity judged against a code of practice by an independent ombudsman. The estate agents who can't abide by a code of practice will have to go to the wall, and good riddance."

But the Association of Residential Letting Agents (ARLA) warned the Bill would not protect consumers against unlicensed letting agents. Its chief executive Adrian Turner said: "This is a lost opportunity to protect the consumer in that part of the private rented sector the professional bodies cannot reach."

Steven Gould, the director of regulation for the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors, said: "This is a missed opportunity. RICS welcomes the Government's commitment to introduce independent redress across this sector, but we feel redress alone is insufficient.

"Consumers should have confidence when they walk into an estate agency that it is a properly regulated business. The present proposals do not offer them this option."

Ben Russell

...not in the speech

LORDS REFORM

Jack Straw was under pressure to bring forward a vote on reform of the House of Lords before the end of the parliamentary year. The Queen's Speech pledged that ministers would "bring forward proposals" for reform, but stopped short of promising a vote during the next session.

The speech pledged that the Government would "continue its programme of reform" and would "work to build a consensus on reform of the House of Lords and will bring forward proposals".

Yesterday Mr Straw said he was in "intensive talks" with the other main parties at Westminster and promised that MPs and peers would have a free vote on the proposed make-up of a reformed upper house.

But Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman, urged ministers to bring forward a White Paper before Christmas and arrange a vote early in the new year.

He said: "It is disappointing we do not have a commitment to a vote. I hope a hope becomes a commitment. I am keeping the pressure on Jack Straw on this issue."

MARINE PROTECTION

Ministers were sharply criticised over their failure to bring forward a Marine Bill to protect the seas around Britain from damage. Campaigners had hoped for a measure, which was promised in the Labour election manifesto.

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat environment spokesman, said: "The disappointment is that the Marine Bill has been dropped. It is desperately needed to ensure protection of our seas from environmental damage."

TRANSPORT POLICY

The Government decided not to bring forward a full Bill on transport policy. Instead a draft Road Transport Bill will be published next year proposing expanded powers to implement road-charging schemes to cut congestion.

Ben Russell

    The Queen's Speech: What was said, and what was left out, I, 16.11.2006, http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1987632.ece

'Heavyweight' Brown gets nod as Blair lays out his final battleground

Terror, climate change, pensions and crime among 29 bills on prime minister's agenda before handover to successor

Thursday November 16, 2006
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor

Tony Blair yesterday ended his last Queens' speech as prime minister by effectively endorsing Gordon Brown as his successor, predicting that Labour will be led at the next election by a heavyweight with a "big clunking fist" who will knock out the flyweight David Cameron. His remarks, at the finale of his Commons speech introducing the government's sometimes sketchy legislative programme, were widely taken as approval for the chancellor, who gratefully congratulated Mr Blair as he sat down.

Mr Brown has been seeking the prime minister's endorsement for many months, and now knows that almost certainly next summer he will take over the stewardship of the 29 bills outlined yesterday.

Mr Blair predicted the demise of the insubstantial Mr Cameron: "The next election will be a flyweight versus a heavyweight. And however much he may dance around the ring, at some point he'll come within the reach of a big clunking fist. He will be out on his feet, carried out of the ring - the fifth Tory leader to be carried out - and a fourth-term Labour government still standing."

Labour MPs saw the heavyweight remark as a clear reference to Mr Brown.

The key legislation, unveiled in the Queen's speech under the branding of "security in a changing world", covered criminal justice, immigration, climate change, pensions and decentralisation.

Battles lie ahead about restricting jury trials, an elected second chamber, annual targets for carbon cuts, greater summary justice, the deportation of foreign nationals, road tolls and the part privatisation of the probation service. The renewal of the Trident missile system, on which the Queen was silent, may also split Labour.

The deliberately heavy diet of proposed Home Office legislation reflects Mr Blair's continued frustration with the criminal justice system, and has the political bonus of potentially wrong footing the new liberal Cameron Conservatism.

But though the day began with a warning by the home secretary, John Reid, that the UK faced as many as 30 active terrorist plots masterminded from abroad by al-Qaida, the Queens' Speech contained no specific terror bill. Instead, No 10 broadly hinted that, following a still incomplete Home Office-led terrorism review, there will be legislation early next year in which ministers will reopen the issue of detaining terror suspects for longer than 28 days.

The issue may prove to be one of the final Commons flashpoints of Mr Blair's leadership, but both he and Mr Brown will attempt first to move by consensus.

A spokesman for No 10 said the evidential base for detaining terror suspects for more than 28 days had strengthened since the government last sought, but failed, to secure Commons approval for detention for 90 days. But Mr Reid stressed that no definitive case had yet been put to ministers by the police.

The leader of the house, Jack Straw, added: "It is known that some recently arrested terrorist suspects went right against the 28-day wire."

Ministers said the possible terror bill might also tighten the procedures for control orders, and the way in which evidence was presented in special tribunals.

Mr Cameron promised to look at any terror law on its merits, but accused Mr Blair of peddling the politics of fear. "This was the prime minister's last chance to offer hope for a better society. Instead he chose fear to try and cover up his failures. This is the politics of fear from a government of failure".

Mr Blair sprung to life, ridiculing Mr Cameron's indecision over nuclear power and annual carbon reduction targets . Mr Blair said: "Hope is not built on talking about sunshine any more than antisocial behaviour is combated by 'love'. Hope, true hope, is about tough decision making and you have never taken a tough decision in your life."

The Liberal Democrats described the day as "a miserable swan song from a lame duck". The party's leader, Sir Menzies Campbell, asserted: "After nearly 10 years in office, the government and the prime minister are still chasing the same elusive goals and the same elusive headlines."

    'Heavyweight' Brown gets nod as Blair lays out his final battleground, G, 16.11.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/queensspeech2006/story/0,,1948796,00.html

Bush and Blair discuss new policy for Iraq

Transatlantic phone call anticipates top level submissions to influential study group next week

Sunday November 12, 2006
The Observer
Paul Harris in New York and Ned Temko

Tony Blair and beleaguered President George Bush have had a long discussion on how to push forward 'change' in the coalition's policy in Iraq.

In Friday's phone conversation, Blair, who will give evidence to the Bush-appointed Iraq Study Group on Tuesday, insisted on the need to regionalise the peace effort and draw Iran and Syria - which have been accused of supporting insurgents - into any solution.

The Prime Minister sent his senior foreign policy adviser, Nigel Sheinwald, to Damascus last month to hold talks with President Bashar Assad of Syria. Britain has said Syria must choose between playing a constructive role in the world community or continuing to support terrorism.

Blair will address the study group - chaired by the Republican former Secretary of State, James Baker - the day after Bush does. The British moves have come as America plunges into a rapid overhaul of its strategy in Iraq, with Bush yesterday praising his new defence chief as an 'agent of change'.

The speed of the changes now occurring in American policy on Iraq has stunned many observers as Washington's political class reacts to last week's victory by the Democrats. In his weekly radio address yesterday, Bush hailed his new Defence Secretary, former CIA chief Robert Gates, as an able manager who 'will provide a fresh outlook on our strategy in Iraq'.

Bush's words will be taken as the strongest hint yet that major changes in Iraq policy are likely to come sooner rather than later. Bush will speak to the group tomorrow along with Vice President Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley. Blair will speak to the group using video conferencing equipment.

The group is set to report its findings by the end of the year. The panel has been reported as believing that Bush's long-standing mantra of 'staying the course' is untenable; some sort of timetabled military withdrawal, linked to political and security stability in Iraq, is now seen as more attractive. Another possible new policy is expected to be exploring co-operation with Iran and Syria.

Last week's elections showed that the US public has grown weary of the conflict. Ending the war as soon as possible has become an overriding political aim for Republicans with an eye on the White House race of 2008.

The replacement of Rumsfeld with Gates is seen as paving the way for wide-ranging change. He served on the group before being chosen to replace Donald Rumsfeld and is party to its new thinking. In previous public speeches, he has indicated he believes a strategy of phased withdrawals could see the US leave Iraq before the next presidential election.

While the group looks at new strategies, the Pentagon is also examining the situation in Iraq. A commission headed by the joint chiefs of staff chairman General Peter Pace was set up in September and may provide alternatives to the recommendations of the group, when it reports in December.

There is now little desire in any part of America's body politic for continuing to battle the insurgency in order to bring stability to the country. Republicans are aware that their recent drubbing at the polls was largely fuelled by anti-Iraq war sentiment.

In Iraq the bloodshed continued. October was one of the most lethal months of the war for US soldiers, and the casualty rate has not tailed off so far in November. Yesterday a Polish soldier and another from Slovakia were shot dead in the south of the country, and eight Iraqis died after two car bombs exploded in a Baghdad market.

    Bush and Blair discuss new policy for Iraq, O, 12.11.2006, http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1945874,00.html

11am

Blair backs MI5 terror warning

Friday November 10, 2006
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies

Tony Blair today backed the assessment of the head of MI5 that the "very real" threat from terrorism would last a generation.

In a rare public speech yesterday, Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller, director general of the intelligence agency, expressed concern at the rate at which young people, including teenagers, were being radicalised and indoctrinated.

She said MI5 was tracking more than 1,600 individuals who were actively engaged in promoting attacks here and abroad. Many of these were British-born and had connections with al-Qaida, she said.

Responding to her comments that the threat would "be with us for a generation", the prime minister said today Britain faced a "long and deep struggle" to combat the danger posed by terrorism.

Echoing yesterday's speech by the foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, he said it was important to "stand up and be counted", and to tackle the "poisonous propaganda" that warped young people's minds.

He said: "I have been saying for several years this terror threat is very real. It has been building up over a long period of time."

Mr Blair, who was speaking during a Downing Street press conference after a meeting with the New Zealand prime minister, Helen Clark, added: "I think [Dame Eliza is] absolutely right that it will last a generation.

"We need to combat the poisonous propaganda of those people that warps and perverts the minds of younger people.

"It's a very long and deep struggle, but we have to stand up and be counted for what we believe in and take the fight to those people who want to entice young people into something wicked and violent but utterly futile."

Inayat Bunglawala, a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain, said Dame Eliza had given "a very sobering warning".

But he said it was essential that British Muslims were seen as "a partner in the fight against terrorism and not some sort of community in need of mass medication".

"Holding a community responsible for the actions of a few would be counterproductive," he added.

He said that after the bombings and this week's conviction of Dhiren Barot for plotting terrorist attacks, "It must be prudent to assume there are cells out there plotting similar outrages."

But he repeated calls for a public inquiry into the July 7 attacks, saying this would be an "essential tool" in understanding how four young people had been radicalised into committing mass murder.

Ihtisham Hibatullah, of the British Muslim Initiative, said he was concerned that Muslim communities as a whole would be stigmatised by the claim that 200 groups were involved in plotting.

And Bill Durodie, a senior lecturer in risk and security at the Defence Academy, warned that high-profile speeches risked exaggerating the scale of the threat facing Britain.

"It's easy to pull out alarmist headlines," he said. "What we're seeing here on the whole are lone individuals [and] small groups."

    Blair backs MI5 terror warning, G, 10.11.2006, http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1944679,00.html

Brown plays the part of leader in waiting

Saturday November 4, 2006
Guardian
Julian Glover


Gordon Brown missed prime minister's questions, the weekly jousting match with David Cameron where the top slot is still reserved for Tony Blair, on Wednesday. But in every other respect the last week left him closer to filling the prime minister's job than ever.
Ranging from his brief as chancellor, Mr Brown tackled climate change, the 2018 football World Cup, policing and terror and Northern Ireland's future, with a diary packed with the sort of issues that would once have been picked up by Downing Street.

The contrast with the angry mudslinging of late summer, when No 10 privately accused the chancellor of blackmailing the prime minister in a failed attempt to force him out of the job, is notable.

Monday began with Mr Brown launching the Stern report on the economics of climate change. He championed it alongside the prime minister but won most of the credit - the document was, after all, commissioned by the Treasury.

It was precisely the sort of subject, long-term, serious and packed with facts, that he handles best and he used it to send out a message about how he plans to shape the government once in office. "In the 21st century our new objectives will be threefold: growth, full employment and environmental care," he told reporters.

Within 24 hours he had moved on to the 2018 World Cup bid he launched last year, and to the media, meeting Mark Thompson, the BBC director general. He made it clear he would block any above-inflation increase in the licence fee.

Wednesday saw Mr Brown turn to Northern Ireland, meeting the leaders of the main parties to offer them a big increase in funding for the province in return for political progress.

Groundwork

The issue runs well beyond the point at which Mr Blair is likely to depart. The chancellor is laying the groundwork for office. But he has observed the proprieties too: his announcements on Northern Ireland and climate change, like Thursday's topic of security, are linked to his current Treasury brief. All involve money.

At cabinet this week Mr Brown raised the possibility of creating a single security budget in next year's spending review. It is an issue on which he has worked closely with the home secretary, John Reid - thought as recently as last month to be the only cabinet member who might challenge Mr Brown.

Back then, hope of a stable transition with Mr Blair's blessing looked to have gone out of the window. But now Labour MPs are focusing on the battle for the deputy leadership.

Events, or a few bad opinion polls, might yet change things. In the meantime, according to the former Europe minister Denis MacShane, "he is now much more relaxed and the transition is going a whole lot better than perhaps one might have expected".

Even the prime minister, who not long ago would say nothing more generous about Mr Brown than that he did not "resile" from accepting him as Labour's next leader, heaped praise on the chancellor at prime minister's questions.

There is still an appetite among some MPs for a contest, if only a symbolic one. But as one Labour backbencher put it yesterday, "serious people aren't going to stand just to get hammered". The MP tested opinion at a recent constituency executive meeting, finding 18 out of 20 members backed Mr Brown.

That has left John McDonnell, the leftwing London MP who has launched a leadership challenge, as the only likely rival. He needs the support of 44 MPs to stand and said yesterday that looked possible.

"It helps me greatly if no cabinet member can be found," he said. He argues that Labour and union members want a contest. "There will be real anger if they are excluded."

But he has not got the 44 names yet. Even if he does, Labour's leadership handover is looking more and more like a coronation. And as royal watchers know, kings and queens are only crowned long after they have already taken on the monarch's duties.

    Brown plays the part of leader in waiting, G, 4.11.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,1939455,00.html

Blair's top lawyer to advise on cash for honours charges

Police concern over potential conflict of interest in attorney general's role

Saturday November 4, 2006
Guardian
Clare Dyer, Patrick Wintour and Vikram Dodd

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, a close political ally of the prime minister, is preparing to advise prosecutors on whether to bring charges in the cash for peerages inquiry, the Guardian has learned. He will be consulted by the Crown Prosecution Service, and is expected to give his views on whether charging Tony Blair, or anyone else, is in the public interest.

Though he will not take the final decision, Lord Goldsmith's involvement has angered MPs who made the complaint.

It has also caused anxiety among officers at Scotland Yard, who privately wonder whether he will have the courage to endorse the prosecution of the man who appointed him. They cite Ken MacDonald, the director of public prosecutions, who has declared he will take no part in the case because he is a former colleague of the prime minister's wife.

Lord Goldsmith's relationship with Mr Blair has been under scrutiny before. The attorney general was pilloried by opposition parties over his advice on the Iraq war, which changed after he sought Mr Blair's view about whether Saddam Hussein was in breach of UN resolutions.

A host of Downing Street and party figures have been questioned by police - leaving Mr Blair as the only central player yet to be interviewed. The Guardian has been told detectives are likely to question the prime minister under "criminal caution", which means he is being treated as a potential suspect. "He will get interviewed; he may well be interviewed under caution," a legal source confirmed.

Elfyn Llwyd, the Plaid Cymru leader at Westminster who, with Scottish Nationalist MP Angus MacNeil, made the complaint that sparked the investigation, said Lord Goldsmith should "definitely not" have any involvement in the case.

"I don't think he should be involved in any shape or form," he said.

Angus MacNeil added: "It is a concern that somebody who is so closely involved with the prime minister has now got some sort of say over the case. I think the important thing here is to act with propriety and be seen to act with propriety."

Separate police sources have also expressed concern about Lord Goldsmith's plans to give advice. Scotland Yard's confidence in the inquiry has grown in recent weeks. It believes it has discovered an audit trail linking the granting of peerages to the raising of loans, and has sent numerous files to the CPS about the behaviour of the Labour and Tory parties.

The police have also been studying an email from Mr Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, discussing honours, in which he suggests, "ML will not be happy about this". The implication is that Lord Levy was regarded as having a voice in giving honours. Party sources do not regard this as proof of wrongdoing.

Lord Levy has been questioned twice during the past four months after it emerged that four businessmen who had lent Labour money had been recommended by Mr Blair for peerages in 2005. The honours were blocked by the Lords Appointments Commission.

The police investigation was widened to include the Conservatives after it emerged they had taken £16m in loans.

The case highlights the historic tensions in the attorney general's different, and some say incompatible, functions. Lord Goldsmith "superintends" the prosecuting authorities, while at the same time advising the government, acting as a member of the government and taking legal action to safeguard the public interest. His spokeswoman said the case was not one where the attorney general's consent to a prosecution was required.

It is thought that Lord Goldsmith will consider whether prosecutions that damage confidence in the two main political parties are really in the public interest.

The final decision on whether to prosecute will be taken by Carmen Dowd, the head of special crime at the CPS.

    Blair's top lawyer to advise on cash for honours charges, G, 4.11.2006, http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1939450,00.html