History > 2007 > UK > Politics > Prime Minister Tony
Blair (I)

Peter Brookes
political cartoon
Times
January 9, 2007
British Prime Minister Tony Blair
Background > Saddam Hussein hanging
3.15pm update
Downing Street
confirms talks with US
on 'son of Star Wars'
Friday February 23, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Mark Oliver
The UK has signalled to the US its interest in hosting part of
the contentious "son of Star Wars" missile interceptor system, Downing Street
confirmed today.
If the UK did host a missile silo or radar site it would
likely prompt considerable opposition from the anti-war movement, and may spark
protests echoing those at RAF Greenham Common in the 1980s.
The prime minister's office said today it had discussed the missile system with
Washington, however a senior US diplomat said the country was not as yet
interested in placing it in Britain.
"As we go forward there may be opportunities for us to talk to other countries
about their needs, but right now we are concentrating on the Czech Republic and
on Poland as the primary sites where we would be looking for this," the US
deputy chief of mission in London, David Johnson, told BBC Radio 4's The World
at One.
Earlier this week, the prime ministers of the Czech Republic and Poland said
they were "likely" to accept a formal request from the Pentagon to part-host the
system.
This prompted condemnation from a Russian general who said it would wreck the
post-cold war balance of power in Europe. Moscow is furious at the prospect of
former Soviet states being involved in the defence shield so close to its
borders.
Russia claims that it is the missile shield's intended target, rather than a
"rogue state" such as Iran, as the US insists.
Following a report in today's Economist that the UK was in talks with the US, a
Downing Street spokesman confirmed that discussions were at an "early stage".
The Economist said a new missile silo could be sited at an existing US military
base in the UK, but not at RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire, which already houses
early-warning radar equipment used within the system.
Britain's decision in 2003 to upgrade facilities at Fylingdales to support the
missile interceptor system sparked enormous controversy and was bitterly opposed
by some Labour MPs.
The Downing Street spokesman said: "The objective of these conversations was to
make sure that the UK is kept in consideration to be one of the locations for
the system should the US press ahead.
"No party to these discussions has got as far as discussing the specifics. We
are simply at the stage where we have decided we want to be part of the
discussion."
Downing Street sought to play down parts of the Economist report, which claims
the prime minister, Tony Blair, had been "discreetly waging a campaign since
last autumn to secure the missile-interceptor site for Britain". The No 10
spokesman said the article "goes too far" in its account of the stage of talks.
The spokesman did not comment on BBC reports suggesting that Mr Blair had raised
the issue directly with the US president, George Bush, or that Mr Blair had
charged his chief foreign affairs adviser, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, with liaising
with the US national security council about the missiles.
It is thought the Pentagon wants to site a radar station in the Czech Republic,
which would work in tandem with a silo of 10 interceptor weapons in neighbouring
Poland. The cost of a European-based system has been estimated at £810m.
The various reports give the impression that the UK is actively seeking a role,
whereas the Czechs and Polish appear to have been courted by the US. While the
prime ministers of the east European countries have signalled support for the
plan, both have also expressed misgivings.
Reports have also claimed that the Pentagon wants the interceptor silo to be
considered as US territory, something about which the Polish prime minister,
Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has said he is uneasy. Maintenance of the silo might require
500 US personnel.
Polls in both the Czech Republic and Poland reflect public unease; a recent poll
showed that 53% of Poles opposed hosting such a base, while 34% were in favour.
Since 2002, the US has built two missile interceptor sites in Alaska and
California.
The system is supposed to work by firing missiles to shoot down enemy missiles
targeting the territory of the United States or its allies.
Downing Street
confirms talks with US on 'son of Star Wars', G, 23.2.2007,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/feb/23/usa.foreignpolicy
Blair to
hit back
at 1.7 million toll protesters
Wednesday
February 21, 2007
Guardian
Will Woodward and Dan Milmo
Congestion
will increase by 40% in less than 20 years unless the government acts to deter
car use, Tony Blair said last night.
Ahead of
his reply to more than 1.7 million petitioners to the No 10 website condemning
the prime minister's road pricing plans, Downing Street said it had to balance
their views.
"We recognise that people feel strongly about this, but equally people feel very
strongly about congestion. If we do nothing, congestion will have risen by 25%
by 2010, 30% by 2015 and 40% by 2025," Mr Blair's spokesman said.
Downing Street was preparing to send Mr Blair's reply to petitioners from
midnight, when the petition closed.
The spokesman said not every petitioner could be contacted immediately but as a
courtesy staff were working to send the reply to the organisers of the petition
in the first wave of replies.
Despite irritation in Whitehall about the petition, Downing Street insists it is
showing the way for dialogue with the public. The petitions site,
petitions.pm.gov.uk, was the most-visited government website last week -
overtaking the Met Office and Transport for London - and the 66th most visited
in the UK.
Peter Roberts, who launched the road-charging petition, rejected accusations by
ministers that he had whipped up support for the poll via "myths" contained in
widely circulated emails.
Mr Roberts, a sales manager from Telford, Shropshire, is a member of the
Association of British Drivers, a stridently pro-car organisation, but he said
it did not contact him until a month after the petition was posted. Inspired by
the pro-hunting lobby's use of the Downing Street site, he began the petition by
contacting 29 friends and emailing websites.
He added: "The only person behind the petition is me. It is not a sinister plot.
I have started a petition that has been picked up by everybody else."
Blair to hit back at 1.7 million toll protesters, G,
21.2.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,,2017857,00.html
3.30pm
update
Shootings 'tragic beyond belief',
says Blair
Friday
February 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies
Armed
police today began patrols in south London following the fatal shootings of
three teenagers in less than two weeks, with Tony Blair saying "specific
solutions" were needed to address gun crime.
Mr Blair
described the deaths as "tragic beyond belief", with his comments coming as the
home secretary, John Reid, prepared to meet MPs to discuss the government
response to the shootings.
The most recent victim was 15-year-old Billy Cox, who was killed at his home in
Clapham on Wednesday afternoon. The teenager's father, Tommy, today urged the
community to "get behind the police 100%".
While the Tory leader, David Cameron, blamed increasing gun crime on the
breakdown of two-parent families, Mr Blair said the shootings related to a
"specific culture".
"Let us be careful in our response," the prime minister said. "This tragedy is
not a metaphor for the state of British society, still less for the state of
British youth today, the huge majority of whom, including in this part of
London, are responsible and law-abiding young people.
"But it is a specific problem, in a specific criminal culture amongst specific
groups of young people."
Mr Blair, speaking at the Labour National Youth Conference in Glasgow, said it
would "require specific solutions to deal with guns and gangs as well as
confronting broader questions of community and family responsibility".
He said some of those solutions would be put forward following discussions with
police and community groups.
Mr Cameron said that, if elected, he would "compel men to stand by their
families", if necessary by directly taking child support money from their
accounts.
Speaking prior to a meeting with MPs to discuss the shootings, Mr Reid said
policing and prisons were only part of the solution.
He said the problem "will not be solved ... without firm police action, firm
powers and sufficient prison places".
The home secretary was said to be "sympathetic" to yesterday's call from Sir Ian
Blair, the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, to lower the age at which
those involved in gun crimes could receive the mandatory five-year sentence from
21 to 17.
Sir Ian ordered high-visibility police patrols around south London, some of them
armed, in an attempt to calm fears and prevent further attacks.
A new taskforce will combine officers from Scotland Yard's gun crime unit,
Operation Trident, with mobile teams and patrolling borough officers.
The killings began on February 3 when James Andre Smartt-Ford, 16, died after
being shot at least twice at the Streatham Ice Arena.
Three days later, Michael Dosunmu was gunned down in his bedroom in Peckham in
the early hours of the morning, only days after his 15th birthday. A man was
arrested today in connection with the latter killing, police said yesterday.
Friends and neighbours of Billy, who lived on the Fenwick estate, yesterday said
it appeared he had been shot after becoming involved in a row with another
youth.
Janine Easton, whose children were friends with the victim, said the row could
have begun over a text message.
She added that Billy had apparently been arguing with another teenager via their
mobile phones, with the situation escalating. "I think it was something to do
with cussing each other on text messages - something as silly as that," she
said.
"Kids round here get into trouble and get sent to jail and come out thinking
they are tough. They are just children ... but they are children with guns."
Another friend of Billy's said he had fallen out with members of a local gang.
Police yesterday said the victim's younger sister, Elizabeth, was returning home
from school at just after 3.30pm on Wednesday when she heard a loud bang from
the family's maisonette.
She found her brother fatally wounded in his bedroom. Another friend arrived,
and the pair tried desperately to save his life. Paramedics were not able to
save the teenager.
"Apparently he was alive when she got back, but he was never going to make it,"
Samantha Poynter, whose son regularly played with Billy and his sister, said.
Yesterday, police said it appeared the teenager - who was serving a supervision
order for a burglary offence and was tagged and restricted to a curfew from 7pm
to 7am - had been deliberately targeted and knew his attackers. They said there
were no signs of forced entry at the maisonette.
Sir Ian said there was no evidence to link the murders, though there were
"evidential leads" linking some of them. "There is no evidence to suggest that
they are tit-for-tat, but they are entirely unacceptable to the communities of
London," he added.
Shootings 'tragic beyond belief', says Blair, G,
16.2.2007,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/gun/Story/0,,2014884,00.html
Blair's defence
of special relationship with US
has hollow
ring
Published: 07 February 2007
The Independent
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Tony Blair was accused of "delusional" behaviour after he
mounted a strong defence of making Britain's special relationship with the
United States the cornerstone of his foreign policy.
An unrepentant Mr Blair told MPs the relationship had given Britain more clout
at the world's top table during his 10 years in power and insisted that it had
resulted directly in progress on climate change, the Middle East and Africa. But
his critics said little progress had been made on these issues and that Mr Blair
had enjoyed little influence over President George Bush.
On the day that the family of the 100th British serviceman to die in action in
Iraq spoke of their grief, the Prime Minister defended the use of force to oust
Saddam Hussein. Second Lieutenant Jonathan Carlos Bracho-Cooke, 24, of the 2nd
Battalion The Duke of Lancaster's Regiment, was killed when a roadside bomb hit
a patrol in Basra.
Mr Blair expressed confidence that Gordon Brown, his most likely successor,
would continue his approach to military intervention after he stands down - even
though the Chancellor has hinted at a more multilateral policy with an enhanced
role for the United Nations in the wake of the Iraq disaster.
The Prime Minister admitted the special relationship had damaged him personally
because of Iraq, but said Britain should not "drift" into giving it up because
of hostile public opinion. "I am the person who above all can give evidence as
to the difficulty and sometimes the political penalty you pay for a close
relationship with the US, but we shouldn't give that up in any set of
circumstances," he said. Mr Blair told the Liaison Committee of senior MPs that
the links were an advantage rather than a problem for Britain in the Middle
East. "The relationship with America is what opens lots of doors everywhere,
including the Middle East. For better or worse, this country for the last 10
years has been right at the heart of every single major international agenda -
whether it is terrorism, climate change, Africa, whatever it is," he said.
"At the G8 [summit] at Gleneagles [in 2005], we put Africa and climate change on
the map. In my view, without the strong relationship with the US, we would never
have had those two issues on the agenda in that way."
Defending the use of "hard" or military power, he said: "You have to be prepared
in these circumstances to be engaged with hard power where it is right and
necessary to do so. You only get the ability to use 'soft' power properly if you
are prepared to do the other difficult things." In a sideswipe at countries like
France, he said some nations had "retreated" from being ready to use "hard"
power.
Labour MPs reacted with disbelief to Mr Blair's claims about what the
relationship with America had achieved since 1997. Peter Kilfoyle, a former
defence minister, said: "It is delusional. It could be self-justification. It is
a special relationship in one sense - it is one-way traffic. In the depths of
night, he must realise how very wrong he has judged where Britain's national
interests lie."
Alan Simpson, the MP for Nottingham South, said: "This is the politics of
dangerous self-delusion. Even the White House laughs at the notion that Britain
has influence over American foreign policy. The only door Bush opens at the
moment is the one marked 'exit.' He [Mr Blair] has clearly entered the David
Icke phase of his political career."
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "Tony Blair talks about
his closeness with the United States with regards to climate change and poverty
in Africa. But there is not much to show for it." He questioned the value of the
relationship when it had taken America so long to release the video tape of the
"friendly-fire" incident in which L/Cpl Matty Hull was killed in Iraq in 2003.
Mr Blair played down speculation that military action might be taken to stop
Iran's nuclear programme.
On climate change, the Prime Minister said there was a "changing mood" in the US
and said it was "possible" but "not yet probable" that there would be a new
global agreement when the Kyoto protocol expired in 2012.
Blair's defence of
special relationship with US has hollow ring, I, 7.2.2007,
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article2245133.ece
Blair quizzed again
as cash for honours
consumes Labour
· Police imposed news blackout on PM interview
· Questions linked to Levy and perversion of justice
Friday February 2, 2007
Guardian
Patrick Wintour, political editor
Detectives investigating the cash for honours affair demanded
that the prime minister maintain total secrecy over their decision to conduct a
second interview with him to see if they could expose Lord Levy, Labour's chief
fundraiser, giving misleading or contradictory evidence.
Mr Blair was interviewed as a witness for 45 minutes last
Friday, four days before Lord Levy was arrested and questioned on suspicion of
perverting the course of justice. No 10 only revealed yesterday that Mr Blair
had also been seen again, 24 hours after police gave it clearance to do so.
The demand for secrecy reveals the degree to which trust between No 10 - and its
allies - and the Metropolitan police has eroded. It also suggests the police
believe it is possible to pin charges of conspiracy to pervert the course of
justice against some of Mr Blair's closest allies.
Relations between Mr Blair and Lord Levy are said at Westminster to be "up and
down". Neither Lord Levy, Downing Street nor the police would comment last night
on a BBC report that the peer was quizzed about notes of meetings with senior No
10 staff when honours were discussed.
Mr Blair was told last Friday that he must not divulge either the fact of the
interview or its details to anyone but his tightest circle. His chief of staff,
Jonathan Powell, and his director of government relations, Ruth Turner, both the
subject of police inquiries, were not told.
A police statement said yesterday : "The prime minister has been interviewed
briefly to clarify points emerging from the ongoing investigation. He was
interviewed as a witness, not as a suspect, and cooperated fully."
With senior cabinet members still expecting that the prime minister will not be
charged, there is as yet no high-level ministerial, or senior backbench call for
Mr Blair to stand down. However, both Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears expressed
concern that it was harming the government's relationship with voters. Ms Blears
said in an interview on BBC2's Newsnight: "Inevitably, when you have this kind
of thing going on for months and months, it does have a corrosive effect. This
whole affair has overshadowed our domestic agenda: it is quite difficult to get
your message across."
Ms Harman told BBC1's Question Time: "It has eroded trust and it's been an
unfortunate, to say the least, situation."
The Conservative leader, David Cameron, said Mr Blair needed to realise "it is
over". He added: "I look along the front bench and I see the health secretary
and I wonder is she thinking about the current crisis facing our health service
or is she wondering if she will have a job in four months' time?
"I think about our defence secretary, who should be concerned with the current
problems facing our troops in Iraq, but is he wondering whether he will have a
job when Gordon Brown takes office?"
No 10 is desperate for the investigation to end, one way or another, and for a
decision to be made by the Crown Prosecution Service on whether charges should
be brought. But it is possible the police will not close their inquiry until
March, dragging the damaging affair into the Scottish, Welsh and English
election campaigns.
The leader of the house, Jack Straw, said: "In the special and particular
circumstances in which a request was made by the police that nothing should be
divulged about this interview, I am absolutely clear that this is acceptable
practice."
Mr Blair's second interview occurred hours before he flew to Davos, Switzerland,
where he received a standing ovation for a speech on climate change, Africa,
trade talks and globalisation.
Blair quizzed again
as cash for honours consumes Labour, G, 2.2.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2004269,00.html
Steve Richards:
Darkness descends
to engulf Blair's
denouement
Published: 31 January 2007
The Independent
The darkness that marks Tony Blair's final months gets darker
still. The cash for honours investigation began as a serious diversion. It ends
by threatening to overwhelm all other matters, reducing serious policy issues to
minor matters as Downing Street languishes in a fearful gloom.
Let us separate the substance of the police investigation from the politics. No
one knows for sure what evidence the police have got, and what they suspect has
been kept from them. Evidently, they sense a cover-up of significance. Lord Levy
is the second ally of Blair's to be arrested on suspicion of a conspiracy to
pervert the cause of justice. He denies the allegation. So did Ruth Turner,
Blair's senior aide who was arrested on the same grounds less than a fortnight
ago. Downing Street insiders are adamant that they have co-operated fully with
the inquiry. Evidently, the senior officers involved have their doubts -
apparently they are as focused now on what they suspect to be a cover-up as they
are on the original allegations.
While it is not clear how the investigation will end, the political
repercussions are immediate. The investigation is sapping morale in Downing
Street at a time when those around Blair were already facing the challenging and
unsatisfying prospect of working for a Prime Minister who will be gone before
very long. When I met a Blair ally recently, who had left Downing Street
recently for a new job, I asked him how he felt about his new vocation. Without
hesitation he referred to his previous job: "I feel guilty for leaving them at
such a time." He was referring to the nightmare of the police investigation.
The consequences spread beyond the traumatised Downing Street entourage. Before
yesterday's developments, some Labour MPs were stirring, wondering how much
damage Blair is doing to his party by staying on until July. Already all the key
players are struggling to adapt to the uniquely awkward political choreography.
Gordon Brown waits, wondering how much he should say about his future plans
during this strange interim. Cabinet ministers look towards their next boss
while implementing Blair's policies. Senior civil servants await a Brown
administration, too. Meanwhile, the Conservatives maintain a lead in the polls.
Into this unprecedented situation comes the most extraordinary wild card. As
Blair insists unrealistically that he has still much to do in the time left to
him as Prime Minister, a police investigation intensifies. He has been a leader
with a remarkable ability to compartmentalise, to focus on the issue in hand.
But the latest twists of the investigation must test even his powers of
concentration. He is at the centre of the drama, the leader of the party with
the powers of patronage that are being subjected to the most intense scrutiny.
Others have been arrested, but this is about the Prime Minister as the space
around him to act politically has narrowed sharply already.
The investigation could end without a dramatic denouement, in which case the
police officers will have many questions to answer. But for now, the inquiry is
making Blair's final days almost impossibly bleak.
Steve Richards:
Darkness descends to engulf Blair's denouement, I, 31.1.2007,
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_m_z/steve_richards/article2201077.ece
Levy arrested over perversion of justice
Police detain Blair's chief fundraiser for second time
Wednesday January 31, 2007
Guardian
Sandra Laville and Will Woodward
Tony Blair's chief fundraiser and confidant Lord Levy was
arrested for a second time yesterday on suspicion of perverting the course of
justice over his role in the cash for honours affair.
The dramatic development suggests Lord Levy, who answers
directly to the prime minister, is suspected of allegedly lying or withholding
evidence from detectives as part of a coverup. Police are known to be following
a trail of encrypted emails and electronic trails on computer hard drives as
part of their 10-month inquiry.
Scotland Yard detectives, who are investigating whether money was donated to the
Labour party in exchange for peerages, placed the peer under arrest when he went
to a central London police station to answer bail yesterday.
Perverting the course of justice involves attempts to put obstacles in the way
of police. It is considered an extremely serious offence by the courts. The
maximum jail penalty is life although in practice no one has ever been jailed
for more than 10 years in the last century.
A spokesman for Lord Levy said he "completely denies any allegations of
wrongdoing whatsoever. Lord Levy went to the police station today as asked. He
was interviewed again. He left the police station in the early afternoon and
since there is a continuing investigation he will not make any further comments
at this time." The peer was released on bail last night pending further
inquiries.
Government sources were also bullish about the development. As pressure mounted
on No 10, senior ministers expressed anger and frustration about the length of
the police investigation and a belief that it is time to put up or shut up.
A government source said: "This has now been going on a year and questions need
to be asked whether there is or isn't sufficient information." Scotland Yard
has, however, has repeatedly defended the integrity of its inquiry.
Downing Street refused to comment on Lord Levy's re-arrest, but the development
will heighten speculation that Mr Blair - who has already been questioned as a
witness - may be seen again by detectives before they conclude their inquiry.
No 10 pointedly referred reporters back to Mr Blair's defence of his friend and
Middle East envoy on December 18 when the prime minister stated he had
"performed an excellent job as my envoy in very difficult circumstances". Lord
Levy, 62, was first arrested in July last year and questioned under the Honours
Act 1925 and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. Food
tycoon Sir Gulam Noon, who was originally nominated for a peerage by Labour, has
alleged to police that Lord Levy suggested he make a loan to the party in the
runup to the 2005 general election and that it need not be disclosed.
Lord Levy was questioned again in September last year and denied any wrongdoing.
His arrest yesterday came two weeks after senior No 10 aide Ruth Turner was
arrested at her home in a dawn raid, also under suspicion of perverting the
course of justice. John Yates, deputy assistant commissioner of the Metropolitan
police, who is leading the inquiry, is using new US software which scans hard
drives and flags up deleted email exchanges. .
Labour MP John McDonnell, who plans to stand for the Labour leadership, said
last night: "Increasingly, the Labour party leadership appears to be in disarray
over this issue. The police clearly have suspicions that all the relevant
information is not being provided to them."
Recent speculation that the police were interested in a handwritten note from
Tony Blair has been denied by the prime minister's official spokesman. Downing
Street also denied a report that police were investigating the existence of a
second computer system in No 10 which contained encrypted emails.
Levy arrested over
perversion of justice, G, 31.1.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2002460,00.html
'Cash-for-honours' timeline
Tuesday January 30, 2007
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.
January 19, 2007: MPs on the Constitutional Affairs Committee revealed evidence
showing that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, overruled the Lord
Chancellor, Lord Falconer, in refusing to stand aside from the cash-for-peerages
probe.
January 19: Ruth Turner, No 10's head of government relations, arrested under
the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925, and also on suspicion of perverting
the course of justice.
January 30: Lord Levy is arrested for a second time, this trime on suspicion of
conspiring to pervert the course of justice
'Cash-for-honours'
timeline, G, 30.1.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1972222,00.html
4pm
Blair heralds climate change breakthrough
Saturday January 27, 2007
Press Association
Observer.co.uk
Tony Blair addresses the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Photograph: AP
Tony Blair said today that the world could be on the verge of a major
breakthrough on long-term climate change goals.
In a keynote address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, the
prime minister said that a "quantum shift" in the attitude of the US combined
with the German presidency of the European Union presents an opportunity to
agree the principles of a post-2012 agreement.
He promised to work with President Bush and the German chancellor, Angela
Merkel, towards a more "radical" and "comprehensive" successor to the Kyoto
protocol during his final months in office.
Mr Blair said: "I believe we are potentially on the verge of a
breakthrough."
He praised Chancellor Merkel's focus on climate change during
her EU presidency and India and China's engagement with the G8.
Turning to the United States, he said: "The mood in the US is in the process of
a quantum shift.
"The president's State of the Union address built on his 'addicted to oil'
speech last year and set the first US targets for a reduction in petrol
consumption.
"The German presidency gives us an opportunity to agree at least the principles
of a new binding international agreement to come into effect when Kyoto expires
in 2012 but one which is more radical than Kyoto and more comprehensive.
"More comprehensive because it includes America, China and India.
"It is a prize of tantalising significance and I think it is possible."
The prime minster's official spokesman said Mr Blair was not trying to secure
the detail but simply the framework of a post-Kyoto agreement at the next G8
summit in June.
But he would insist that it must include goals on the stabilisation of
emissions, a global cap and trade scheme and increased investment in clean
technology.
Mr Blair will also talk today about trade and Africa, on which he held talks
with foreign leaders, Microsoft chairman Bill Gates and U2 singer Bono last
night.
Mr Blair used a round-table discussion to warn that failure to make progress on
stalled world trade talks would be catastrophic for international commerce and
Africa.
Last night he also urged the world's richest countries to live up to the
promises they made on Africa at the 2005 G8 summit in Gleneagles.
Blair heralds climate
change breakthrough, O, 27.1.2007,
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,2000243,00.html
1.15pm update
Blair: I have always backed gay adoption
Thursday January 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Deborah Summers and agencies
Tony Blair today sought to quell the row over gay adoptions,
insisting he was "committed to finding a way through this sensitive and
difficult decision".
In a statement released by 10 Downing Street, Mr Blair
insisted he had always personally been in favour of the right of gay couples to
adopt, adding that proposals to resolve the dispute will be brought forward next
week.
Reports today suggested that Mr Blair had "caved in" to cabinet colleagues who
do not want to see any exemption for Catholic adoption agencies from new
regulations that will require them to offer children to same-sex couples.
In his statement the prime minister said: "I have always personally been in
favour of the right of gay couples to adopt.
"Our priority will always be the welfare of the child."
Alluding to a compromise deal, the prime minister said he would work to find a
solution that ended discrimination against gay people and also ensured the
protection of vulnerable children receiving help with adoption and after-care
from Catholic agencies.
Mr Blair said: "There is one last aspect within the new regulations to resolve
and it concerns adoption.
He added: "Both gay couples and the Catholic agencies have a high level of
success in adopting hard-to-place children. It is for that reason we have taken
time to ensure we get these regulations right.
"How do we protect the principle of ending discrimination against gay people and
at the same time protect those vulnerable children who at the present time are
being placed through, and after-care provided by, Catholic agencies, who
everyone accepts do a great job with some of the most disturbed youngsters?
"We will announce a decision next week and then vote, probably next month.
"I am committed to finding a way through this sensitive and difficult decision."
The new regulations introduced by last year's Equality Act are due to come into
force on April 6 and will make it illegal to discriminate against gay people in
the provision of goods and services. They must be approved by both Houses of
Parliament before coming into force.
The leader of Roman Catholics in England and Wales, Cardinal Cormac
Murphy-O'Connor - backed by his Scottish bishops and Church of England leaders -
has called for Catholic adoption agencies to be granted an exemption.
He was accused of blackmail after warning that the agencies, which handle around
a third of voluntary sector adoptions, could be forced to close because they
would refuse to hand over babies to homosexual couples.
Mr Blair and the communities secretary, Ruth Kelly, were reported to back the
exemption but have faced public resistance to it from cabinet colleagues
including Lord Falconer, Peter Hain and Alan Johnson.
Unconfirmed reports suggested last night that the opponents of a Catholic
exemption had secured agreement from Mr Blair that the church agencies would
instead be offered a limited transition period before being required to comply
with the anti-discrimination law.
But Mr Blair's official spokesman this morning declined to say whether such a
compromise had been reached.
However, sources close to Ms Kelly told Guardian Unlimited that ministers were
considering proposals that included allowing adoption agencies a transition
period of between six months and three years.
Other proposals were a duty on Catholic agencies to refer gay couples to other
adoption organisations who could help them, or to develop affiliations or merge
with non-secular agencies.
Ms Kelly is said to be frustrated by "assumptions" in the press that because she
was Catholic she was against gay adoption.
"She is a serious, pragmatic politician who leads the department that takes
decisions on this," the source said.
"All the way through this she has been trying to find a principled solution to
this problem. She is committed to bringing in regulation that outlaws
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."
The source rejected suggestions Ms Kelly was considering resigning over the
matter.
"The issue simply doesn't arise," the source said.
Earlier today the education secretary, Alan Johnson, denied reports that he had
led a cabinet revolt on the issue against Mr Blair.
"I didn't lead a movement against anybody," he told BBC Breakfast.
"There was a discussion and a debate in cabinet. I've never seen the case for an
exemption. To me this is legislation to prevent discrimination on the grounds of
sexual orientation and you cannot do that and at the same time allow
discrimination in one area."
Asked today on BBC Radio 4's Today programme whether he thought the government
would resist calls for an exemption, Mr Johnson, the minister for adoption,
said: "Yes, I do."
The government made clear there was no case for an exemption when consultation
began last year, he said.
"The primary concern, of course, has to be the children concerned in the
adoption process and I very much hope the Catholic church does continue to
provide the important service that they do.
"But if they don't, I think we can ensure that children are not disadvantaged by
that.
"And I cannot see a case for introducing legislation that protects gays and
lesbians from discrimination on grounds of their sexual orientation and then
allowing in terms, as part of public policy, that discrimination to continue."
Asked whether Mr Blair's view was the same, he said: "Yes, I think it is."
Liberal Democrat MP Evan Harris (Oxford West and Abingdon), a member of the
National Secular Society, told Today: "In my view, if people want to provide
services, or engage in welfare work using state money, or under a system
co-ordinated by the state, they have to accept they can't discriminate."
Dr Harris added that, at the same time, such people should not "proselytise"
either.
Julian Brazier, the Conservative co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary
group on adoption and fostering, said there was not enough evidence to say
definitively whether children fared as well with gay parents.
But he added: "Children thrive best when they live with a married couple."
Blair: I have always
backed gay adoption, G, 25.1.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1998409,00.html
2.15pm update
Blair rejects call for Iraq withdrawal
Wednesday January 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Matthew Tempest, political correspondent
Tony Blair has rejected a call for an October pull-out of UK
troops from Iraq - but ducked discussing the issue with MPs at a Commons debate
on the conflict.
In a deliberate breach of parliamentary etiquette, the leaders
of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties appeared in the chamber -
despite Mr Blair's decision to attend a CBI conference of business leaders in
London instead.
William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, called it "unthinkable that an
Atlee, a Churchill, a Callaghan or a Thatcher would not be here to debate at a
time of war."
Margaret Beckett, the foreign secretary, was left to defend the government's
position on Iraq while Downing Street insisted it was normal practice for prime
ministers to ignore adjournment debates.
Mrs Beckett - accompanied on the frontbench by only her junior foreign office
ministers and the leader of the house, Jack Straw - was interrupted over 20
times during her half-hour speech.
Earlier, at PMQs, Mr Blair rejected a call from the Liberal Democrats to set an
October deadline for pulling out of Iraq - the first time the anti-war Lib Dems
have set a concrete timetable for withdrawal.
Mr Blair pledged to "see the mission through and complete it successfully" and
branded Sir Menzies Campbell's plan "deeply irresponsible".
Sir Menzies, setting out new Lib Dem policy, had said: "I think we should spend
the next three months discussing with our regional allies and with coalition
allies what we propose to do, but between May 1 and the end of October we should
conduct a staged withdrawal of United Kingdom forces."
The SNP pointed out that Mr Blair had declared last year he would debate Iraq
"anytime, anywhere".
Number 10 has promised that Mr Blair will make a statement about UK troop
operations in the south of Iraq in the aftermath of the ongoing "Operation
Sinbad".
During the debate, Mrs Beckett denied that Iraq had reached a state of civil war
- despite civilian casualties now running at more than 100 a day - and
repeatedly warned Iran and Syria off intervening in the situation.
She stressed that Mr Blair would address MPs when the country reached "a
political turning point" and insisted that no other PM had exposed themselves to
more parliamentary scrutiny.
Mrs Beckett repeated assurances that British troops could be in a position to
hand over Basra by the spring, and said it was hoped lead responsibility in all
18 of Iraq's provinces would be handed over to the country's security forces by
November.
But she stressed that was "dependent on circumstances at the time".
The foreign secretary warned Tehran it faced a choice between cooperation and
"political, economic and cultural isolation".
Asked about potential attacks on Iran, Mrs Beckett refused to repeat an earlier
assertion from Jack Straw that it would be inconceivable.
She said: "Nobody is contemplating such action and I sincerely hope there never
comes a time when anybody is."
But she added: "It's not easy to make friends with somebody trying to spit in
your eye."
The debate comes hours after the US president, George Bush, warned in his State
of the Union address that the consequences of failure in Iraq would be "grievous
and far reaching".
And it comes as Britain appears to be preparing to scale down its commitment to
the country, just as Mr Bush is planning a "surge" of 21,500 additional American
troops.
Peace protestors from Stop the War were outside parliament for the debate, which
began after PMQs.
Andrew Murray, chairman of the Stop The War Coalition, said: "This is an
extraordinary sense of priority. The prime minister should be in the Commons to
explain his disastrous Middle East policy to MPs rather than discussing job cuts
with employers."
Labour MP John McDonnell, who has announced he will stand for the Labour
leadership when Mr Blair stands down, said he was "shocked" at Mr Blair's
priorities.
"He cannot find time to attend a debate in the House of Commons about a policy
that is undermining his legacy, preferring to speak to big business. It is a
shocking negation of his responsibilities."
Today's debate is the first occasion MPs have discussed Iraq in government time
since the Butler report into the failings of pre-war intelligence was published
in July 2004.
A total of 130 British service personnel have died in Iraq since the March 2003
invasion. A UN estimate for Iraqi civilian deaths in 2006 put the figure at
34,000, while an authoritative Lancet study found that the total Iraqi death
toll since 2003 was 655,000.
Blair rejects call
for Iraq withdrawal, G, 24.1.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1997482,00.html
1pm update
Blair defends ministers' prisons advice
Wednesday January 24, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Hélène Mulholland and agencies
Tony Blair insisted today that a letter sent to judges by
senior ministers urging them to find alternative punishments to prison was
"simply reminding the courts of existing sentencing policy".
The prime minister was forced on the defensive by David
Cameron after the government urged judges and magistrates to jail only the most
dangerous and persistent criminals in a bid to ease prison overcrowding.
Pressed on the matter today at prime minister's question time, Mr Blair said
that ministers had merely reminded judges and magistrates of the sentencing
options available to them in the courts. Challenged by the Tory leader to give
an assurance there would be no more early-release schemes to ease the pressure
on prison places, even if that meant using prison ships and extra prison wards,
Mr Blair said: "All options, of course, are kept under consideration all the
time."
Mr Blair rounded on the Tories for voting against extra investment for prisons
in the past.
The parliamentary spat took place after it emerged that Mr Reid, Lord Falconer,
the lord chancellor, and Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, last night wrote
to judges and magistrates to call for alternative punishments to be meted out
because prisons are too full. The letter is understood to be the first in a
series of measures designed to ease prison overcrowding over the coming weeks
and months
The prison population of England and Wales is hovering around its capacity of
about 80,000 places.
The Home Office revealed today that it had reopened a prison wing which was
closed at the weekend after being condemned as unfit for human habitation.
A spokeswoman said the A-wing at HMP Norwich would be brought back into
short-term use to house prisoners on remand from the courts.
The BBC has also reported that prison spaces are in such short supply that about
480 people had to stay in police cells on Monday, and that cells in the Old
Bailey - the Central Criminal Court in London - were also made available this
week.
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said earlier today: "It is outrageous
that sentences are being dictated by the prison capacity and not by the crime
committed.
"Yet again we see the public are being put at risk by the failure of ministers.
"Offenders who should be sent to jail won't be, and all because the government
failed to listen to our and other calls to address the lack of prison capacity
over the last few years."
Nick Clegg, the home affairs spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said that the
situation ranked as the "worst" in a litany of government failures.
Mr Clegg said that the government had only itself to blame for a "lamentable
state of affairs".
"A mixture of arrogance and incompetence led the government to ignore warnings
about prison numbers, which were first expressed several years ago.
"There is a strong case to review the mix of offenders sent to prison, but these
short-term panic fixes will provide nothing but temporary sticking-plaster
solutions to a much deeper crisis."
The Home Office has defended the letter to magistrates and judges, saying that
it was a necessary stopgap measure before a further 8,000 prison places begin to
become available in the spring.
A spokesman for the Home Office said that "a few hundred" of these places would
be available by spring, with all 8,000 ready by 2009.
Mr Reid said: "It is necessary to a civilised society that those who are a
danger to our society are put away.
"The public have a right to expect protection from violent and dangerous
offenders.
"Prisons are an expensive resource that should be used to protect the public and
to rehabilitate inmates and stop them reoffending.
"However, we should not be squandering taxpayers' money to monitor non-dangerous
and less serious offenders."
A Home Office spokesman said: "We are accelerating accommodation arrangements
where possible and examining all options for extra capacity in the prison estate
as a matter of urgency."
Ken Jones, the president of the Association of Chief Police Officers, insisted
that part of the jail overcrowding problem was down to police catching so many
serious offenders.
Mr Jones said: "There have been falls in those imprisoned and remanded for less
serious crimes, for example motoring offences.
"Our priority is public protection and, although there is a case for a wider
debate about the use of custody, evidence suggests that it is the more serious
offenders that we are bringing to justice who are driving up the prison
population numbers."
But the Prison Reform Trust, a pressure group, blamed overcrowding on
"scaremongering tactics" by ministers.
The group's director, Juliet Lyon, said: "Ministers are right to call at last
for jails to be used more sparingly, not because they are full to bursting, but
because the government's own scaremongering tactics have blocked prison beds
with petty offenders, vulnerable women and children, addicts and the mentally
ill.
"The government has been guilty of criminal negligence to allow prisons to get
into such a terrible mess without intervening earlier in a planned way."
Paul Cavadino, the chief executive of Nacro, the crime reduction charity, said:
"Courts should only be imprisoning dangerous or persistent offenders in any
event, not just at times of extreme overcrowding."
He added: "Prisons cannot do an effective job of rehabilitating offenders if
they are constantly lurching from one overcrowding crisis to another."
Blair defends
ministers' prisons advice, NYT, 24.1.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,1997589,00.html
Police go to war
over No 10 honours arrest
Sunday January 21, 2007
The Observer
Mark Townsend and Gaby Hinsliff
Downing street was plunged into a full-scale war with the
police yesterday after senior officers hit back at criticism of the way the
cash-for-peerages investigation is being handled.
They responded after Cabinet Minister Tessa Jowell expressed
bewilderment at the manner in which Ruth Turner, Number 10's director of
devolvement relations, was arrested at home at dawn - while former Home
Secretary David Blunkett accused police of 'theatrics'. Yesterday Scotland Yard
made clear its anger at what it sees as undue political pressure. Sir Chris Fox,
the former president of the Association of Chief Police Officers who remains
close to Scotland Yard, accused political critics of 'scheming to discredit a
very important inquiry'. Chief constables feared a potential threat to police
independence, he added.
His intervention came as it emerged that rebel Labour MPs are
actively discussing raising a delegation of senior backbenchers to go to the
Prime Minister and appeal for him to quit early.
A senior Cabinet minister told The Observer that Tony Blair would go if he
personally believed he had begun to harm the party, but would not be forced out.
Fox said the multiple attack from Labour figures was 'worrying' because it
suggested co-ordination. Yet police had simply followed standard practice, he
said. 'If you have a suspect on suspicion of perverting the course of justice
there is no point in making an appointment for them to see you because - guess
what? - if they are a real suspect, then the evidence will disappear.
'The British public expect the police to investigate this and chief constables
particularly - and I have spoken to them about it - I think we are entering a
very important moment. If the police haven't got the courage or the conviction
to get on and do their job independently, then we are in for a very rocky ride
with our politicians.'
Fox said John Yates, the Yard's Deputy Assistant Commissioner leading the
inquiry, would not take such steps without good reason 'rather than a case of
being theatrical or catching the public eye'. Politicians who did not like what
had happened 'should go on police training courses because they don't know what
they are talking about,' he added.
Last night there were signs of the government backpedalling. Jowell told the BBC
that, while she stood by her comments, she was not criticising the police
inquiry. Ken Livingstone, the London Mayor, refused to comment on the grounds
that he will shortly be setting the Met's budget, and Home Secretary John Reid
also declined to get involved.
Len Duvall, Labour chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority, went further
urging colleagues to remember that 'no one in this country is above the law'. He
added: 'As chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority I must be seen never to
seek to manipulate or pressurise senior officers in the Met on any operational
inquiry. 'Those who have spoken out over the past 24 hours about the way in
which police are conducting this inquiry may well wish to reflect on what they
have said.'
The cash-for-honours inquiry is now set to be raised at this week's meeting of
the Parliamentary Labour Party, with some backbenchers saying that if the police
recommend charges against Turner, Downing Street chief of staff Jonathan Powell,
or Downing Street director of political operations John McTernan, the Prime
Minister's own position would become untenable.
'He should be packing his bags if there are charges inside Number 10,' said one
senior backbencher.
However, they may struggle to get the support to confront Blair effectively. One
Cabinet colleague said Blair would go of his own volition if he felt it
necessary. 'The stakes are immeasurably high. But what he will never do is to be
pushed. About the only circumstances in which he would say "I will call it a
day" is if he really felt he was damaging the party.'
Police go to war over
No 10 honours arrest, O, 21.1.2007,
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,,1995327,00.html
5pm update
Key No 10 aide
arrested in honours inquiry
Friday January 19, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Paul Owen
The "cash-for-honours" inquiry took a dramatic new twist today
as a key Downing Street aide was arrested by police.
Ruth Turner, director of government relations, was arrested at
her home in London under the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act 1925 and also on
suspicion of perverting the course of justice.
Police said that she was interviewed at a London police station and bailed to
return at a later date "pending further enquiries".
In a statement released by No 10, Ms Turner said: "I absolutely refute any
allegations of wrongdoing of any nature whatsoever."
A Downing Street spokeswoman said the prime minister had "full confidence" in Ms
Turner and that she still remained in her job.
The prime minister, Tony Blair, said, in a statement released by 10 Downing
Street: "Ruth is a person of the highest integrity for whom I have great regard
and I continue to have complete confidence in her."
The news came as it emerged that the attorney general had overruled one of the
prime minister's closest allies, the lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, in refusing
to relinquish his right to intervene in the inquiry.
"No other minister, however distinguished or senior, has the ability to bind the
attorney general in how he exercises his role," Lord Goldsmith said.
MPs learned of his refusal to stand aside from the proceedings in fresh evidence
released by the constitutional affairs committee today.
Lord Falconer had assured the committee that the attorney general would not
interfere in the decision of whether to bring prosecutions against anyone in the
"cash-for-honours" inquiry.
Andrew Tyrie, a Conservative member of the committee, asked Lord Falconer
whether he could "give the public an assurance that the attorney general will
not interfere in any way with the conclusions of the DPP [the director of public
prosecutions, Ken Macdonald] and that the DPP would be permitted ... to take any
decisions for prosecution wholly independent of the attorney general".
Lord Falconer told the committee: "Of course. It's a matter for the DPP and the
Crown Prosecution Service to make decisions in relation to this in the normal
way and, of course, the attorney general would not interfere in the normal
course of decisions being made."
Having then heard Lord Goldsmith make statements suggesting that he reserved the
right to involve himself in such a decision, the committee wrote to the lord
chancellor for clarification.
Both the lord chancellor and Lord Goldsmith then wrote back to the committee.
Lord Goldsmith told them: "I know the lord chancellor well understands that he
was not in a position to give an 'assurance', as you have termed it, as to how I
would act."
The attorney general's personal consent is required to proceed with prosecutions
for certain types of offences, including corruption.
In a letter to Dominic Grieve, the shadow attorney general, in November, Lord
Goldsmith said: "In such cases the need for my consent (or that of the solicitor
general) is an essential legal condition. It is not one which can be avoided."
In a letter to Alan Beith, the chairman of the constitutional affairs committee,
Lord Goldsmith said that "the doctrine of collective [cabinet] responsibility
does not apply to such decisions".
Asked why the committee had chosen to release the evidence today, a spokeswoman
said: "In this case, as in many others, I am afraid it is not strategic, it just
depends on when the committee meets and agrees it and then how long it takes to
physically publish."
The constitutional affairs committee has been investigating the attorney
general's constitutional role regarding this and other matters since December
21.
It is due to take oral evidence in February.
In a statement, the police described the arrest as a "new development", adding
that "additional investigation would be required before a final file [on the
case] can be submitted to the CPS".
MPs had expected the file to be submitted this month, according to the Press
Associaton news agency.
In December, Mr Blair became the first serving prime minister to be interviewed
by police as part of a criminal investigation.
He was interviewed as a witness and not as a potential suspect.
The Scotland Yard investigation was sparked by claims early last year that
wealthy Labour backers were being rewarded with seats in the House of Lords in
return for providing secret loans.
The scope of the inquiry was then widened to cover similar claims about the
Conservatives.
Others arrested so far in connection with the inquiry have included Labour's
unofficial fundraising chief, Lord Levy, with many others questioned.
However, so far there have been no charges.
The head of the public standards watchdog attacked Labour and the Tories
yesterday over the £30m of loans used to fund their general election campaigns.
Sir Alistair Graham said: "I have no doubt, when these loans were being made,
people thought 'Hopefully we will be able to lengthen the length of time over
which the loan is repaid or we may be able to translate it into a donation'."
Key No 10 aide
arrested in honours inquiry, G, 19.1.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,1994500,00.html
MI6 and Blair at odds
over Saudi deals
No national security issue says agency
Tuesday January 16, 2007
Guardian
David Leigh,
Richard Norton-Taylor
and Rob Evans
Britain's secret intelligence service, MI6, has challenged the
government's claim that a major corruption inquiry into Saudi Arabian arms deals
was threatening national security.
The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, told parliament before
Christmas that the intelligence agencies "agreed with the assessment" of Tony
Blair that national security was in jeopardy because the Saudis intended to pull
out of intelligence cooperation with Britain. But John Scarlett, the head of
MI6, has now refused to sign up to a government dossier which says MI6 endorses
this view.
Whitehall sources have told the Guardian that the statement to the Lords was
incorrect. MI6 and MI5 possessed no intelligence that the Saudis intended to
sever security links. The intelligence agencies had been merely asked whether it
would be damaging to UK national security if such a breach did happen. They
replied that naturally it would.
The issue has now come to a head because ministers are under pressure at an
international meeting today to justify why they terminated an important
corruption investigation into the arms company BAE Systems.
In a controversial move last month, Tony Blair ordered the Serious Fraud Office
inquiry to be halted, and said he took the responsibility for doing so, after
BAE lobbied him that it might otherwise lose a lucrative Saudi order for more
arms sales. The decision was condemned by MPs and anti-corruption campaigners,
and is now the subject of an inquiry by the Organisation for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is responsible for rooting out
corruption around the world. Britain signed up to its anti-bribery convention
which made the payment of bribes a specific criminal offence under UK law in
2002.
The OECD has demanded an explanation of the government's decision to abruptly
close down an inquiry which was investigating secret payments made to Saudi
royals.
Whitehall officials will be questioned by 35 other governments at the Paris
meeting, which can "name and shame" Britain if it finds against them. As part of
the government's preparations to provide a justification to the OECD, MI6 was
asked to sign up to a dossier which made the claim that MI6 "endorsed" Mr
Blair's national security claim, according to those who have seen it.
When it was sent to MI6 headquarters last week, Mr Scarlett, refused. Officials
made it clear there were "differences" between the intelligence agencies and the
government over the language used by Lord Goldsmith. A source said that Lord
Goldsmith's claims to parliament in December "contained quite a degree of
conjecture". One official said there was "nothing to suggest" that the Saudis
had actually warned "if you continue with this inquiry, we will cut off
intelligence".
Asked if the security and intelligence agencies objected to claims that they
endorsed the attorney general's statement, an official replied: "Exactly." The
language has now been changed.
The dispute echoes the intelligence row about "sexing-up" the Iraq arms dossier,
when Mr Scarlett, then head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, was persuaded
to endorse false government claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass
destruction. Sources close to the intelligence agencies say Mr Scarlett was
unwilling to again provide cover for ministers by endorsing another set of
controversial government claims.
Yesterday, Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru parliamentary leader, said: "I am glad that
the security services have stuck to their guns and told the truth. This
government is getting less and less credible every day".
Lord Goldsmith's version of events has also caused a breach with the SFO. Its
director, Robert Wardle, says his team found significant evidence in the Saudi
arms inquiry and was hoping to find more from Swiss banks. Lord Goldsmith
attempted to persuade MPs that the SFO had found no evidence to justify
prosecutions and never would.
MI6 and Blair at odds
over Saudi deals, G, 17.1.2007,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/armstrade/story/0,,1991281,00.html

Big Brother:
What
it really means in Britain today
Published: 15 January 2007
The Independent
By Nigel Morris,
Home Affairs Correspondent
Moves to share people's personal details across Whitehall have
provoked a civil liberties uproar and accusations that the Government has taken
another step towards "a Big Brother state".
Ministers say the scheme - which will be endorsed by Tony Blair today - is aimed
at improving public service delivery. But it faced protests that it was dealing
another blow to personal privacy by creating a "snooper's charter" and enabling
thousands of civil servants to access sensitive information with ease.
Two months ago Richard Thomas, the Information Commissioner, warned that Britain
was "waking up to a surveillance society that is already all around us". But
ministers dismiss such fears and are pressing ahead with the world's most
ambitious identity scheme, as well as a rapid expansion of the DNA database.
Details of all children will be held in a single register to be launched next
year, medical records are being transferred to a central NHS database and plans
are being examined to track motorists' movements by satellite.
The idea of sharing personal details between departments follows a review of
public services designed to make them more efficient. Ministers reached the
conclusion that data protection rules limiting access to information about
adults were too tight.
John Hutton, the Work and Pensions Secretary, cited an incident yesterday where
a bereaved family were contacted 44 times in a six-month period by different
parts of his department to confirm details of an accident. Mr Hutton said: "The
Government already stores vast amounts of data about individual citizens, but
actually doesn't share it terribly intelligently. There is room for
improvement."
The Government intends to legislate later this year to ease the curbs on
data-sharing between departments. It is also refusing to rule out the idea of a
single "super-database", where everything from benefits and pensions records to
information on motorists and TV licence payments are stored. More details are
expected to be announced by the Prime Minister today.
Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, said: "This is an accumulation of
our Government's contempt for our privacy. This half-baked proposal would allow
an information free-for-all within government - ripe for disastrous errors and
ripe for corruption and fraud."
Phil Booth, the national co-ordinator of the anti-ID group No2ID, warned of the
danger posed by "the development of government surveillance of the population
through computer records". He added: "It can be stopped, if only people stand up
and say they have had enough."
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat leader, said: "Blair's Britain now
has the most intrusive government in our history. It's time we put a halt to
this."
The Tories ridiculed the proposal in the light of the Government's record on
managing databases, citing failures in the Sex Offenders Register, the Criminal
Records Bureau, and recent problems tracking criminal records from overseas.
David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said the ID cards database was likely to
be a "white elephant" costing £20bn, and the money could be better spent on
policing or border controls.
Oliver Heald, the shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary, told the BBC that
ministers were "moving one step closer to a Big Brother state". He warned
against the Government being able to "set up a database from the cradle to the
grave".
He asked: "Are they going to have enough security with this massive new database
to ensure it isn't hacked into and that identity theft doesn't occur?"
Ministers are convinced the proposal will win widespread public support, and Mr
Blair will announce today that so-called "citizens' panels" will be used to
gauge reaction to relaxing privacy procedures. The consultation is due to finish
in March with ministers prepared to move swiftly after that to legislate.
The Government has repeatedly argued that the public is prepared to sacrifice
small measures of personal liberty in return for improving safeguards against
terrorism, crime and identity theft.
Critics say the cumulative effect of such initiatives, as well as the spread of
store loyalty cards and Oyster travel cards, is to undermine privacy.
SUPER-COMPUTER
Tony Blair is expected to announce today that sensitive personal data could be
swapped by Whitehall departments. Ministers believe restrictions on data-sharing
between civil servants are too strict. A 'super-database' or 'super-computer'
holding everyone's records would be similar to a planned children's database.
DNA DATABASE
The Prime Minister has suggested that the DNA of every British adult should be
stored by the state. The national database already holds 3.7 million samples, 6
per cent of the population, far higher than any other country. More than one
million have been taken from people never convicted of an offence.
CCTV
The British are among the world's most observed people. Some 4.2 million
closed-circuit television cameras record our every move - one for every 14
people and more per head than any other country in Europe or North America. The
average Londoner can be caught on camera 300 times a day.
MEDICAL RECORDS
Millions of medical records are to be transferred to a central NHS database,
allowing staff anywhere to access patients' information. People who object will
not be able to opt out. The most personal information will be available to
hospital managers, IT departments, high street pharmacists and civil servants.
IDENTITY CARDS
The first identity cards will be issued next year to foreign nationals and from
2009 to UK citizens. Anyone who renews a passport will be forced to register and
the Government aims to make ID cards compulsory within six years. Fifty-two
pieces of information, including fingerprints and iris scans, will be held.
SPY IN THE SKY
Motorists are already monitored through the soaring number of road cameras. In
an effort to cut congestion, the Department of Transport is examining plans to
use satellite technology to keep tabs on every vehicle's exact movements.
Motorists, forced to have a black box fitted in their cars, would be billedfor
every journey they make.
Growth of surveillance
1984: DNA fingerprinting method discoverd by accident by Sir Alec Jeffreys
1985: Outdoor CCTV camera erected in Bournemouth
1994: Government paves the way for huge expansion of CCTV
1995: The world's first National DNA Database established in England and Wales.
1999: Tony Blair gives a sample of his DNA
2001: Sir Alec Jeffreys calls for profiles of entire UK population to be held
2004: Number of DNA profiles hits the two million mark
2004: Information Commissonaire Richard Thomas warns that Britain is
'sleepwalking into a surveillance society'
2005: MPs vote to introduce identity cards
2006: National Black Police Assocation call for inquiry into why black people
are over represented on DNA database
2006: Identity Cards Act becomes law
2007: Data-sharing by Whitehall departments likely to be introduced
2008: Foreign nationals will have to start supplying fingerprints, eye or facial
scans added to a National Identity register
2008: Children's database, covering all under-16s in England and Wales, will be
launched
2009: The first biometric identity cards will be issued to British citizens when
they renew their passport
2010: NHS Database will store the records of 50 million patients providing
details over the internet
2012?: ID cards compulsory
Big Brother: What it
really means in Britain today, I, 15.1.2007,
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2154844.ece
Shoot the messenger:
PM blames media for anti-war mood
Published: 13 January 2007
The Independent
By Colin Brown and Kim Sengupta
Tony Blair has turned the blame for his disastrous military
campaigns in the Middle East on anti-war dissidents and the media.
Warning it would take the West another 20 years to defeat Islamic terrorism, the
Prime Minister used a wide-ranging "swansong" lecture on defence to denounce
critics and the media who have been a thorn in his side since the invasion of
Iraq.
He also dismissed those - including many defence chiefs - who claimed the
invasion of Iraq and its aftermath had fuelled insurgents and terrorism.
The Prime Minister rejected as "ludicrous" the notion that removing two
dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq and replacing them with a UN-backed
process to democracy had made Britain a greater target for international
terrorism.
However, Mr Blair's speech last night provoked widespread criticism from MPs and
military chiefs.
Speaking to an invited audience of military commanders and academics on board a
warship in Plymouth, the Prime Minister disclosed his fears that the West no
longer had the stomach for sustained military campaigns. He also appeared to
blame the media for the global outrage provoked by the war in Iraq.
"[Islamic terrorists] have realised two things: the power of terrorism to cause
chaos, hinder and displace political progress especially through suicide
missions; and the reluctance of Western opinion to countenance long campaigns,
especially when the account it receives is via a modern media driven by the
impact of pictures.
"They now know that if a suicide bomber kills 100 completely innocent people in
Baghdad, in defiance of the wishes of the majority of Iraqis who voted for a
non-sectarian government, then the image presented to a Western public is as
likely to be, more likely to be, one of a failed Western policy, not another
outrage against democracy."
Acknowledging the public backlash against the Iraq war, Mr Blair said: "Public
opinion will be divided, feel that the cost is too great, the campaign too long,
and be unnerved by the absence of 'victory' in the normal way they would reckon
it.
But the Prime Minister added: "They will be constantly bombarded by the
propaganda of the enemy, often quite sympathetically treated by their own media,
to the effect that it's really all 'our', that is the West's fault. That, in
turn, impacts on the feelings of our armed forces. They want public opinion not
just behind them but behind their mission."
He warned that the terrorists had learnt how to use the media to undermine
public opinion. He cited a website, called LiveLeak, showing "gruesome images"
of the "reality of war" as the kind of propaganda weapon that was being used by
international terrorism.
The Prime Minister's targets also appeared to include military chiefs, such as
the former head of the army, General Sir Mike Jackson, who have criticised the
Government for failing to look after the soldiers.
"The military and especially their families will feel they are being asked to
take on a task of a different magnitude and nature. Any grievances, any issues
to do with military life, will be more raw, more sensitive, more prone to cause
resentment," he said.
Mr Blair seemed desperate to provide a lasting justification of his support for
the US in the "war on terror". The Prime Minister had wanted to use his lecture
to start a debate on the future of Britain and its military strength, on "tough"
and "soft" defence. Some countries had retreated to peacekeeping while Britain
maintained a force to fight wars. "We must do both," he said.
Seeking to stiffen the resolve of the West, he said: "Terrorism cannot be
defeated by military means alone but it can't be defeated without it." He added:
"The parody of people in my position is of leaders who, gung-ho, launch their
nations into ill-advised adventures without a thought for the consequences. The
reality is we are those charged with making decisions in this new and highly
uncertain world; trying, as best we can, to make the right decision. That's not
to say we do so but that is our motivation."
Mr Blair was accused of "delusional ramblings" by John McDonnell, leader of the
left-wing Campaign Group of Labour MPs. Alan Simpson, a leading Labour anti-war
MP said: "Tony Blair is whingeing about the hundreds of thousands of people like
me who opposed the war on Iraq. He totally fails to realise that soldiers and
their families blame him for the reckless way he launched an illegal war with no
coherent exit strategy."
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, who also opposed the war, said:
"The Prime Minister does not seem to have learnt the lessons of Iraq. Without
United Nations authority the military action was illegal and severely damaged
Britain's reputation. This will be the Prime Minister's legacy."
Air Marshal Sir John Walker, former head of defence intelligence and deputy
chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said: "This is politics, not
morality. The only reason Mr Blair is saying this now is because he cannot
airbrush Iraq out of the news. He is talking about renewing the covenant with
the armed forces because they are the ones having to bear the fallout from his
mistakes."
His attack on the media was "particularly rich coming from a party which made a
such a fetish out of spin," added Sir John.
The shadow Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said: "This is yet another episode
of 'Ten Wasted Years', by Tony Blair. His legacy will be an overstretched army,
navy and air force.
"Our servicemen and women want to know what Tony Blair is going to do about the
failure to deliver armoured vehicles to protect troops from roadside bombs in
Iraq. They want to know when they will have enough helicopters in Afghanistan
and when the Hercules transport fleet will get proper protection."
Tony Blair's spin unspun
By Colin Brown
* BLAIR SAYS: "The parody of people in my position is of
leaders who, gung-ho, launch their nations into ill-advised adventures without a
thought for the consequences."
ANALYSIS: No amount of lectures will erase the fact that Iraq is now a mess
because of the failure to plan for the peace after Saddam was toppled, and it
has made Iran the dominant force in the region.
* BLAIR SAYS: "Public opinion ... will be constantly bombarded
by the propaganda of the enemy ... to the effect that it's really all "our",
that is the West's, fault."
ANALYSIS: Mr Blair is losing the propaganda war over Iraq, but blaming the media
for covering the reporting of the horror of daily life in Baghdad is a sign of
his desperation.
* BLAIR SAYS: "The risk here - and in the US where the future
danger is one of isolationism not adventurism - is that the politicians decide
it's all too difficult and default to an unstated, passive disengagement, that
doing the right thing slips almost unconsciously into doing the easy thing."
ANALYSIS: Mr Blair appears worried that after handing over power to Gordon
Brown, his successor may come under pressure to do the "easy thing" and bring
the troops home before the 'job is done'.
* BLAIR SAYS: "The extraordinary job that servicemen do needs
to be reflected in the quality of accommodation provided for them and their
families, at home or abroad. So much of what is written distorts the truth."
ANALYSIS: Mr Blair is clearly irritated not only at the media but also at
defence chiefs for criticisms of the "overstretch" of the armed forces.
* BLAIR SAYS: "September 11 wasn't the incredible action of an
isolated group. It was the product rather of a worldwide movement, with an
ideology based on a misreading of Islam."
ANALYSIS: Mr Blair still linked September 11 with the overthrow of Saddam
Hussein. But there is no evidence that Iraq was used as a training ground for
terrorism. It is now.
Shoot the messenger:
PM blames media for anti-war mood, I, 13.1.2007,
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2149762.ece
3pm update
Blair pledges increased military spending
as he defends
intervention
Friday January 12, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Deborah Summers and agencies
Tony Blair promised more cash for Britain's armed forces today
as he defended his policy of intervention in countries such as Iraq and
Afghanistan.
The prime minister pledged to increase government spending on
equipment, personnel and living conditions as he embarked on a "hearts-and-minds
battle" to convince the country that Britain should remain a major defence
power.
In a keynote defence lecture Mr Blair argued that there were two types of
nations: "Those who do war fighting and peacekeeping and those who have,
effectively, except in the most exceptional circumstances, retreated to the
peacekeeping alone."
Mr Blair, speaking on board HMS Albion in Plymouth, added: "Britain does both.
We should stay that way."
The speech comes just a day after the US announced it was sending more than
20,000 extra troops to Iraq.
The foreign secretary, Margaret Beckett, welcomed the move but insisted that the
UK had no current plans to follow suit.
Britain has said that it will withdraw "thousands" of troops from Iraq in the
coming months, amid claims that the armed services are being "overstretched" by
fighting two campaigns, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In November, a National Audit Office report warned that the UK's armed forces
were 5,170 under strength and had been operating at or above planned-for levels
since 2001.
It said that the strain of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time was
one reason for shortages.
The Ministry of Defence acknowledged "additional strains" on staff, but denied
forces were overstretched.
Mr Blair said: "It is true that operation commitments are at a higher level than
originally planned. Service personnel are working harder and for longer than
intended."
The premier admitted that service housing had become a "prominent issue".
"We know there are real problems," he said. But Mr Blair argued that much of
what had been written about soldiers' families living in squalor "distorts the
truth or greatly embellishes it".
Mr Blair warned that, following the September 11 attacks on New York in 2001,
Britain faced an enemy akin to "revolutionary communism in its early and most
militant phase".
"A world-wide movement, with an ideology based on a misreading of Islam... Its
belief system may be utterly reactionary, but its methods are terrifyingly
modern," he said.
Mr Blair warned that the battle to defeat this new threat would be long.
"It has taken a generation for the enemy to grow. It will, in all probability
take a generation to defeat."
Mr Blair said his choice for Britain's armed forces was for them to prepare to
engage in a "difficult, tough, challenging campaign".
"To be war-fighters as well as peacekeepers."
To make that choice, it was important that the covenant between the armed
forces, the government and people was renewed.
"For our part, in government, it will mean increased expenditure on equipment,
personnel and the conditions of our armed forces, not in the short run but for
the long term," Mr Blair said.
"On the part of the military, they need to accept that in a volunteer armed
force, conflict and therefore casualty may be part of what they are called upon
to face.
"On the part of the public, they need to be prepared for the long as well as the
short campaign, to see our participation alongside allies ... as a necessary
engagement in order for us to protect our security and advance our interests and
values in the modern world." Mr Blair concluded by saying that the world had
changed and we had to change with it.
"I have set out the choice I believe we should make. I look forward to the
debate," he said.
Earlier, Mr Blair was warned that Britain could not afford to be a
"mini-America", intervening around the world
Lord Garden, a former assistant chief of defence staff now a Liberal Democrat
defence spokesman, said that the country would have to divert a higher
proportion of national income to defence if it wanted to sustain the current
level of operations over the long term.
"If you want to be able to do everything, be a mini-America, so you can do
high-intensity conflict, go everywhere where there are international problems,
you really need to scale up by quite a large amount," he told the BBC Radio 4
Today programme.
"I don't think that we can afford to. America is spending half a trillion
dollars a year, 10 times what we spend. They spend more on research than we
spend on defence."
Lord Garden accused Mr Blair of trying to pre-empt the chancellor, Gordon Brown,
who is expected to succeed him when he steps down as prime minister later this
year.
"What he is trying to do is make sure he ties the hands of his successor, Gordon
Brown, who has rather different views about Britain's role in the world," he
said.
Clare Short, the former international development secretary who quit the Labour
party whip to sit as an independent, dismissed the prime minister's speech.
"Blair is delusional. His role has made the world much more dangerous, much more
divided, diminished international law, diminished the prospects of the world
cooperating in international humanitarian interventions," she told BBC Radio 4's
The World At One.
The chairman of the Commons Defence Select Committee, Tory MP James Arbuthnot,
gave the speech an "unreserved welcome".
"The prime ninister is recognising both the strain under which the armed forces
are operating and the steps needed to put it right," he said.
"What is essential is that the chancellor should now, immediately, endorse what
the prime minister is saying."
Blair pledges
increased military spending as he defends intervention, G, 12.1.2007,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/military/story/0,,1988945,00.html
Blair says terror battle
will carry on after his departure
January 12, 2007
Times Online
Devika Bhat and agencies
Tony Blair today said that British forces had to continue
fighting in order to defeat global terrorism, admitting his choice of foreign
policy had been controversial but insisting that military force would continue
to be crucial after he had stepped down from office.
Warning that terrorism could take a generation to defeat, the Prime Minister
said in a major speech that retreat would nonetheless be a "catastrophe" and
that UK forces had to accept that they may encounter "conflict and therefore
casualty" as they continued to fight wars to maintain Britain’s influence in the
world.
"The battle will be long. It has taken a generation for the enemy to grow. It
will, in all probability, take a generation to defeat," he said, adding that if
Britain shrank its role to peacekeeping alone, its "reach, effect and influence
(would be) qualitatively reduced"
Acknowledging that there was anger and scepticism within the military, he
promised that the Government would plough more money into improving conditions,
equipment and housing for the Armed Forces.
"In general the British Armed Forces are superbly equipped," he said. "But talk
at any length to serving soldiers and there will be amongst the pride, some
anger at faulty weapons or ammunition, boots and body armour, the right vehicles
or the wrong ones, and the problems of transport to and from the battlefield and
home."
"Single living accommodation, in particular, and also a minority of family
accommodation is below standard, though being improved.
Speaking on board HMS Albion in Plymouth, Mr Blair said that the covenant
between the forces and the public had to be renewed, as soldiers were asked to
undertake unprecedented challenges, accepting "that in a volunteer armed force,
conflict and therefore casualty may be part of what they are called upon to
face."
He called on the public to recognise the importance of Britain’s military
campaigns to international security. "They need to be prepared for the long as
well as the short campaign, to see our participation alongside allies in such
conflict not as an atavistic, misguided attempt to recapture past glories, but
as a necessary engagement in order for us to protect our security and advance
our interests and values in the modern world."
Since September 11 2001, Mr Blair said, it had become clear that the attacks of
that day were not a one-off. "What we face is not a criminal conspiracy or even
a fanatical but fringe terrorist organisation," he said.
"It has realised two things: the power of terrorism to cause chaos, hinder and
displace political progress, especially through suicide missions; and the
reluctance of western opinion to countenance long campaigns, especially when the
account it receives is via a modern media driven by the impact of pictures."
He said that the enemy was not a conventional one that could be defeated through
conventional means, but insisted that to retreat from the challenge would be a
"catastrophe".
"It would strengthen this global terrorism; proliferate it; expand its circle of
sympathisers. Given the nature of it and how its roots developed, long before
any of the recent controversies of foreign policy, such retreat would be
futile."
Mr Blair admitted that soldiers’ feelings were more raw than ever and that the
public was "unnerved" by the lack of a clear victory. "For their part, the
military and especially their families will feel they are being asked to take on
a task of a different magnitude and nature," he said.
"Any grievances, any issues to do with military life, will be more raw, more
sensitive, more prone to cause resentment. Public opinion will be divided, feel
that the cost is too great, the campaign too long, and be unnerved by the
absence of ‘victory’ in the normal way they would reckon it.
Mr Blair blamed the media for what he said was its role in encouraging a
negative attitude in the public towards the fight against terrorism. "They [the
public] will be constantly bombarded by the propaganda of the enemy, often quite
sympathetically treated by their own media, to the effect that it’s really all
‘our’ - that is the West’s – fault," he said.
Blair says terror
battle will carry on after his departure, Ts, 12.1.2007,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2544369,00.html
From the grave and beyond,
Cook swipes at Blair over war
Published: 10 January 2007
The Independent
By Paul Kelbie
The late Robin Cook's role as the leading parliamentary critic
of Tony Blair's drive to war in Iraq will be made plain to future generations by
a statement on his headstone
As a final rebuke to the Prime Minister from whose government he resigned over
the conflict, Cook's gravestone at Grange Cemetery in Edinburgh carries the
legend: "I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right
of Parliament to decide on war." The quotation, taken from his memoir, Point of
Departure, was chosen by his widow, Gaynor, and his two sons, Peter and
Christopher.
The Livingston MP died aged 59 from a heart attack while walking in the Scottish
Highlands 16 months ago. The 5ft 2in headstone also describes the former foreign
secretary and leader of the House of Commons as a "parliamentarian and
statesman", as well as a "beloved husband" and "much-missed father".
Mr Blair was criticised at the time of Cook's funeral, for failing to attend,
despite a big turnout from many senior Labour MPs, including John Prescott and
Gordon Brown.
Cook won a standing ovation when he resigned in March 2003 after delivering a
withering speech on the Government's decision to go to war without any proof
that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.
"From the start of the present crisis, I have insisted, as Leader of the House,
on the right of this place to vote on whether Britain should go to war," he told
MPs. "It has been a favourite theme of commentators that this House no longer
occupies a central role in British politics. Nothing could better demonstrate
that they are wrong than for this House to stop the commitment of troops in a
war that has neither international agreement nor domestic support."
He dismissed Mr Blair's claim that the Iraqi dictator had weapons of mass
destruction capable of being deployed, and demanded to know: "Why is it now so
urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that
has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create?"
In announcing his intention to vote against the Government Cook, who had spent
almost 20 years as a frontbench MP, said he had been left with little
alternative but to resign. However two days later, after nine hours of debate
and a serious backbench rebellion, the Government won the backing of MPs to send
UK troops into Iraq after they voted 396 to 217 against a motion declaring that
the case for war "has not yet been established". The former foreign secretary
took some consolation that he had at least helped ensure Parliament should vote
on the war before troops were committed - an "historic precedent".
Gordon Brown and David Cameron have publicly committed themselves to ensuring
Parliament has the final say in future and a House of Lords committee last year
recommended enshrining a vote over the declaration of war into parliamentary
convention.
"Before the decision to hold a vote on whether to go to war in Iraq, Parliament
had never had the right to make a decision. Whatever one's views on the war this
is an important constitutional point and a suitable legacy for him," said
Alistair Darling, the Trade Secretary and Edinburgh South West MP.
"Everybody accepts that, in the normal course of events, Parliament should have
a right to vote on whether UK troops go into war. Gordon Brown and others have
said so and I think there is now a political consensus."
No 10 refused to comment on the epitaph. "The Prime Minister paid his tribute to
Robin at the time of his death and we have nothing more to say," said Mr Blair's
spokesman.
Robin Cook's stand against the decision to go to war
"For the first time in the history of Parliament, the Commons formally took the
decision to commit Britain to conflict.
Now that the Commons has established its right to vote on the commitment of
British troops to action, no future government will find it easy to take it away
again. And one consequence of the controversy over the Government's
justification for the war is that next time the case for war will be more
thoroughly tested by a more sceptical Commons.
I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of
Parliament to decide on war."
From Robin Cook's memoirs, The Point of Departure, published by Simon &
Schuster
From the grave and
beyond, Cook swipes at Blair over war, I,
10.1.2007,
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2140259.ece
7.15pm
Blair criticises manner of Saddam execution
Tuesday January 9, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
Staff and agencies
The way in which Saddam Hussein was executed was "completely
wrong", Tony Blair said tonight in his first public comment on the subject.
Speaking at a Downing Street press conference with Japan's
prime minister, Shinzo Abe, Mr Blair also stressed that the manner of Saddam's
execution should not "blind us to the crimes he committed against his own
people".
The prime minister, who was on holiday in Florida at the time of Saddam's
execution on December 30, has faced criticism for his subsequent silence. Mobile
phone footage shot at the execution showed the former Iraqi dictator facing
sectarian taunts before his death.
A week ago, when the mobile phone footage emerged, Mr Blair's deputy, John
Prescott, condemned the events as "deplorable". At the time Downing Street said
Mr Blair backed an inquiry into the circumstances of the execution called by
Iraq's government but refused to specifically endorse Mr Prescott's comments.
After the chancellor, Gordon Brown, used a television interview at the weekend
to echo Mr Prescott's line, Downing Street issued a new statement calling the
circumstances of the execution "wrong and unacceptable".
Today, Mr Blair said his stance had remained consistent.
"As has been very obvious from the comments of other ministers and indeed from
my own official spokesman, the manner of the execution of Saddam was completely
wrong," he said.
"But that should not blind us to the crimes he committed against his own people,
including the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, one million
causalities in the Iran/Iraq war and the use of chemical weapons against his own
people, wiping out entire villages.
"So the crimes that Saddam committed does not excuse the manner of his execution
but the manner of his execution does not excuse the crimes.
"Now I think that is a perfectly sensible position that most people would
reasonably accept."
Pressed again on the subject, Mr Blair said that the manner of Saddam's
execution was "wrong and unacceptable".
He added: "But we should bear in mind and not allow that while saying it's wrong
then to lurch into a position of forgetting the victims of Saddam, the people
who he killed deliberately as an act of policy, hundreds of thousands of them in
Iraq.
"So of course any sensible, moderate person makes those points about the scenes
that we have seen, about the execution, but it should not be then translated
into some sort of excuse for the crimes he committed against his own people."
Blair criticises
manner of Saddam execution, G, 9.1.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1986511,00.html

Why is my
dad far away
in that place called Guantanamo Bay?
Young boy's plea to Tony Blair
Published: 09 January 2007
The Independent
By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent
Ten-year-old Anas el-Banna will walk to the door of Number 10 Downing Street
this week to ask for an answer to the question he has been trying to have
answered for four years: Why can't my Dad come home?
His father, Jamil, is one of eight British residents languishing among the
almost 400 inmates at the American base at Guantanamo Bay, which opened five
years ago to the day this Thursday - the day of Anas's protest.
Mr Banna, was taken to Guantanamo Bay four years ago after being seized in
Gambia along with fellow detainee Bisher al-Rawi. He was accused of having a
suspicious device in his luggage. It turned out to be a battery charger. No
charges have been made.
He suffers from severe diabetes, but his lawyers say he has not been offered
medication and has been denied the food he needs. His eyesight is now failing.
A year ago, his son wrote to Tony Blair for the second time to ask why the
Government was not helping him return home. The then six-year-old did not even
receive a reply. The second letter elicited a cursory note from the Foreign
Office. It stated that because Mr Banna is not a British citizen, although his
wife and children are, nothing could be done for him.
So on Thursday, carrying yet another letter, Anas and his mother Sabah will
return with campaigners and MPs to demand the closure of the camp and action to
free the British residents.
Their MP, the the Liberal Democrat frontbencher Sarah Teather, said the Banna
children, who are of Jordanian origin but have grown up in North London, were
devastated by their father's detention.
The Downing Street protest will come during a week of action to mark the fifth
anniversary of Guantanamo Bay. Since its inception, the camp has drawn furious
protests from across the globe. Last night, Ian McCartney, the Foreign Office
minister, faced anger on the floor of the House of Commons as the MPs for Mr
Banna and another detainee, Bisher al-Rawi, lambasted the Government.
Today Ms Teather will present a petition to Parliament demanding his release,
while tomorrow, relatives and friends will hold a candlelit vigil outside
Downing Street.
Hundreds of protesters dressed in the notorious orange boiler suits that are the
uniform at Guantanamo, plan a separate protest outside the US Embassy.
Peace activist Cindy Sheehan is among a group of US activists that has travelled
to Cuba to protest outside the camp, on the Cuban side. With them will be former
inmate Asif Iqbal, one of the Tipton Three, who was released without charge in
March 2004.
Many of the British residents have families who are British citizens, and had
leave to remain in the UK, but the Government has refused to take responsibility
for them. Yesterday, Ed Davey, chief of staff to the Liberal Democrat leader Sir
Menzies Campbell, used the Commons debate to attack ministers for allowing
British residents to "languish" in the camp.
He said: "The Government has been both hypocritical and morally bankrupt. They
have condemned Guantanamo Bay but have failed to take action for the British
residents." He said the US administration had offered to send the men home, but
the UK had refused to accept them. He added: " The Prime Minister should stop
talking about closing Guantanamo and start doing something about it."
Human rights lawyer Zachary Katznelson, senior advocate at the charity Reprieve,
represents the eight men. He said several were held in solitary confinement,
some in cells that were lit 24 hours a day. He added: "If they have committed
any crime, of course they should be prosecuted and punished. But I have not seen
evidence that they have. If it's there, let's see it."
The Foreign Office said it had agreed to make special representations on behalf
of Bisher al-Rawi, but insisted that the courts had found that the Government
had "no locus" to intervene of behalf of the other men.
On Thursday, Anas el-Banna will try, for the third time, to persuade them to
change their minds.
British residents at Guantanamo
* JAMIL EL-BANNA, Jordanian. Held in Guantanamo since March 2003
Arrested, with Bisher al-Rawi, in the Gambia, where they had gone to set up a
mobile peanut-processing plant. He was taken by the Americans to Afghanistan and
then to Guantanamo Bay. He suffers from severe diabetes but his lawyers say he
has not been offered medication.
* BINYAM MOHAMED, Ethiopian. Held in Guantanamo since September 2004
Came to UK in 1996 seeking asylum and was granted indefinite leave to remain.
Travelled to Afghanistan in 2001 before fleeing to Pakistan. Charged in relation
to an alleged dirty bomb plot at the Guantanamo Bay military tribunal. The
tribunal was invalidated last year
* SHAKER AAMER, Saudi Arabian. Held in Guantanamo since February 2002
Was applying for British nationality after settling in Battersea, south London,
with his wife and four children, all of whom are British citizens. Seized in
Pakistan in 2002. Has been kept in isolation since September 2005 and has been
on hunger strike.
* BISHER AL-RAWI, Iraqi. Held in Guantanamo since March 2003
Fled Iraq for Britain with his family 20 years ago. Arrested in the Gambia where
he had travelled to help set up a peanut processing plant. Accused of taking a
weapon of mass destruction.
* OMAR DEGHAYES, Libyan. Held in Guantanamo since August 2002
Became a British citizen after fleeing to the UK with his family. He appears on
a "Chechnyan training video", which his lawyers insist is case of mistaken
identity.
* AHMED ERRACHIDI, Moroccan. Held in Guantanamo since May 2002
Worked as a cook in London for 18 years. Seized in Pakistan and accused of
attending a terrorist training camp in July 2001. His lawyers say he was working
in London at the time. He is in isolation.
* AHMED BELBACHA, Algerian. Held in Guantanamo since March 2002
Lived in Bournemouth, where he worked in the hotel trade. The 37-year-old was
refused refugee status in Britain, but granted indefinite leave to remain.
Arrested in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan in 2001. Alleged to have attended
a training camp, which he denies.
* ABDELNOUR SAMEUR, Algerian. Held in Guantanamo since June 2002
The 33-year-old decorator, who settled in north London, was granted refugee
status in 2000. Went to Afghanistan in 2001 and was shot in Pakistan trying to
reach the Algerian embassy. He was arrested in hospital. Alleged to have
attended a training camp, which he denies
Why is my dad far away
in that place called Guantanamo Bay? Young boy's plea to Tony Blair, I,
9.1.2007,
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2137687.ece
Carry on flying, says Blair
- science will save the planet
· Personal
sacrifices to cut emissions 'impractical'
· Green groups accuse PM of failing to set example
Tuesday
January 9, 2007
Guardian
Nicholas Watt
Tony Blair
today wades into the growing controversy over how individuals can help to tackle
global warming by declaring that he has no intention of abandoning long-haul
holiday flights to reduce his carbon footprint.
Days after
his environment minister branded Ryanair the "irresponsible face of capitalism"
for opposing an EU carbon emissions scheme, the prime minister says it is
impractical to expect people to make personal sacrifices by taking holidays
closer to home.
"I personally think these things are a bit impractical actually to expect people
to do that," Mr Blair says in an interview.
The prime minister, who recently had a family holiday in Miami, adds that it
would be wrong to impose "unrealistic targets" on travellers. "You know, I'm
still waiting for the first politician who's actually running for office who's
going to come out and say it - and they're not," Mr Blair says. "It's like
telling people you shouldn't drive anywhere."
His remarks contrast with the tone set by Ian Pearson, the environment minister,
who last week used strong language to criticise Ryanair for opposing the
European commission's plan to include all flights within Europe in the EU carbon
trading scheme from 2011.
Mr Blair's remarks are also at odds with the declaration last month by the
Prince of Wales that he would cut back on domestic and international flights.
David Cameron, the Tory leader, believes he has stolen a march on the government
by emphasising green issues and his own credentials - installing a wind turbine
on his new house.
The prime minister says: "I think that what we need to do is to look at how you
make air travel more energy efficient, how you develop the new fuels that will
allow us to burn less energy and emit less. How - for example - in the new
frames for the aircraft, they are far more energy efficient."
Downing Street was irritated last night that the interview, with Sky News, was
quickly interpreted as a snub to attempts to reduce people's carbon footprints.
"This is not about the prime minister's travel," a source said.
The prime minister's spokesman said that Mr Blair offset all his official
travel, though No 10 refused to say whether he did this on personal flights. He
added: "All government activity will be carbon neutral by 2015 and the prime
minister has taken the lead in this."
Mr Blair says in his interview that he is taking a difficult decision on whether
to replace Britain's nuclear energy capacity. In his Labour conference speech
last year the prime minister mocked Mr Cameron for adopting a "multiple choice"
approach by saying he would only endorse nuclear power as a last resort.
Mr Blair's message in the interview is that everyone needs to work together, but
imposing strict rules would only backfire."Britain is 2% of the world's
emissions. We shut down all of Britain's emissions tomorrow - the growth in
China will make up the difference within two years.
"So we've got to be realistic about how much obligation we've got to put on
ourselves. The danger, for example, if you say to people 'Right, in Britain ...
you're not going to have any more cheap air travel,' everybody else is going to
be having it. So you've got to do this together in a way that doesn't end up
actually putting people off the green agenda by saying you must not have a good
time any more and can't consume. All the evidence is that if you use the science
and technology constructively, your economy can grow, people can have a good
time, but do so more responsibly."
Emily Armistead, of Greenpeace, said: "Tony Blair is crossing his fingers and
hoping someone will invent aeroplanes that don't cause climate change. But
that's like holding out for cigarettes that don't cause cancer. Hoping for the
best isn't a policy, it's a delusion."
Mike Childs, of Friends of the Earth, said: "It's disappointing that Tony Blair
is refusing to set an example on tackling climate change, but it is even more
disappointing that his government is failing to take decisive action to cut UK
emissions."
Carry on flying, says Blair - science will save the
planet, G, 9.1.2007,
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/green/story/0,,1985981,00.html

Martin Rowson The
Guardian p. 27
8.1.2007
Blair still silent
on Saddam
Published: 06 January 2007
The Independent
By Andrew Grice, Political Editor
Tony Blair has refused again to comment on the execution of
Saddam Hussein, leaving himself out of step with members of his Cabinet.
On his first public appearance since returning from holiday in Miami, the Prime
Minister said at a London hospital: "I've decided to talk about health today. I
will talk about all those other issues next week but not today." Asked if he
thought he should be talking about the execution, he said: "I'll find a way to
talk about it, but not today. I want to concentrate on the NHS."
Mr Blair's refusal has angered MPs. He may not make his first public response
until Prime Minister's Questions next Wednesday, 11 days after the Saddam's
execution.
Blair still silent on
Saddam, I, 6.1.2007,
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2129997.ece
|