Daily Archives: June 24, 2013

Britain, Economic, Government, Politics

UK Government Spending Plans 2015-16…

SECOND SPENDING REVIEW

The Chancellor, George Osborne MP, will unveil his second spending review tomorrow when he will set out spending plans for 2015-16.

Mr Osborne’s problem is that this is the review he never wanted to deliver. The original plan was that the deficit would be under control in time for the election with no more cuts needed. Weak growth and lower tax receipts have blown that plan out of the water.

The result is that Mr Osborne will be announcing more deep cuts to public services. That is a given. And to put the scale of those cuts into perspective they will be, if anything, a little deeper than the average cuts experienced each year during this parliament.

For a number of key areas of public spending, including the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and the Department for the Environment, this will mean cuts of more than 30 per cent since 2010.

By any standards those are large budgetary chunks to be dispensing with. The question that many will be asking is why the cuts needed are so big? The scale of these cuts cannot be explained by deficit cutting alone. For the remarkable fact is that total government spending is not falling at all.

Some bits of spending are continuing to rise, while others are not falling – due to debt interest payments rising as debt levels continue their upward trend. Public service pensions are also rising, with state pensions, the NHS and schools ‘ring-fenced’.

In effect, this means that all of the strain is being taken by a limited range of areas. That is why cuts in defence, police, justice, local government, and welfare have been so deep already. And it is for this reason that further deep cuts will be a priority for a Chancellor anxious to balance the books.

We have already been told that this pattern will continue. Health and pensions will again be protected. The longer these two budgets are left untouched the greater the pain that others will feel.

Unless the Government can deliver some truly surprising plans for health, pensions or social security, most other government departments can expect cuts averaging around 8 per cent in 2015-16 – a big cut in any year but all the more so in being layered on top of what has already happened.

There are some in Whitehall, though, feeling rather emboldened by their success so far. Not only have all of the planned cuts actually happened, but in many areas there has been over delivery.

Government budgets were significantly under-spent last year even in the face of extremely tight plans. And so far at least the budget cuts have not provoked visible crises or the sort of public demonstrations and backlashes seen in some other countries.

Equally, it is not surprising that gaining agreement with all Cabinet ministers for a further tightening of the screw in their departments has not been easy. We have been told that all departments have settled, and know that the small ones, on average, have settled for the required 8 per cent cut.

But we are yet to get the details of some big and very difficult departments – education, local government and business among them. Decisions here will make big differences.

Within education it is only schools that are protected. Other services for children and young people could lose out.

The business department – which pays for skills, training, universities and research – has made the case that its spending is uniquely important for growth.

Local government spending has been squeezed hard already and ministers have expressed concern about the effects of a further squeeze on vital social care services.

But even after all that, tomorrow’s spending review will only raise the curtain on at least another two years of tough choices. For much more extensive cuts will be needed if the deficit is to be dealt with in the planned time horizon.

Unless, of course, the next government chooses to raise taxes, or gets fortuitous with an unexpectedly-strong economic upturn.

Standard
Britain, Defence, European Court, Government, Military, National Security

ECHR verdict for British troops on the battlefield…

BRITISH troops could be prevented from carrying out vital missions after an explosive human rights ruling.

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond MP, said military commanders will be ‘living in fear’ of being prosecuted.

Mr Hammond believes our forces risk being reduced to Continental-style peacekeeping roles – which see some countries refuse to let their personnel go out after dark – after judges in Strasbourg at the European Court decreed that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies on the battlefield.

The Defence Secretary is understood to be so furious at the Supreme Court ruling that he is considering demanding a revocation – and believes it strengthens the case for Britain quitting the ECHR. Mr Hammond said:

… We can’t have troop commanders living in fear of how lawyers back in London might interpret their battlefield decisions that are vital to protecting our national security.

… There could be serious implications for our ability to work with international partners not bound by the ECHR.

If the ECHR ruling applies to personnel on operations it is feared that commanders may be reluctant to make decisions in the field that will then be second-guessed by lawyers sitting behind a desk in London. Commanders will not want to be tied up by health and safety rules that prevent troops patrolling at night or only with certain items of equipment.

Families of some British soldiers killed or injured fighting in Iraq have been given the go-ahead to bring compensation claims against the Government.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cases of troops killed while driving Land Rovers could be brought under the ‘right to life’ enshrined in article two of the ECHR. This potentially outlaws future deployment of troops with outdated equipment.

It also ruled that families of soldiers killed by ‘friendly fire’ from Challenger tanks could sue for negligence.

The mother of Private Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, who died in July 2005 after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up, said it meant soldiers could no longer be treated as ‘sub-human with no rights.’

Conservative MP Dominic Raab, a lawyer, and who seeks reform of human rights law, said:

… The Supreme Court ruling will endanger our forces and undermine democratic accountability.

Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of British forces in Afghanistan, said:

… We cannot allow a constricting health and safety culture to creep in and prevent the vital job our soldiers do.

COMMENT 

Is it still a matter of great shame to Britain’s political class that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers were sent to fight and die without being properly equipped?

But, there is a dichotomy. While it is vital that ministers should be held to account, it’s impossible not to be alarmed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that soldiers in warzones should, for the first time, be given protection under the Human Rights Act.

Doubtless, the judges felt that giving soldiers and their families the right to sue the Ministry of Defence would focus the minds of the Government and Army on minimising risk.

On the face of it, it appears that they have failed to accord due weight to the fact that military commanders are regularly tasked with making instant life-or-death decisions. Any fear of future litigation which might cause them to hesitate for even a moment could have disastrous consequences.

What is more, if the Defence Budget is drained by fighting vexatious claims brought by city lawyers, there will inevitably be less to spend on equipment and training.

The great fear of Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is that the ruling could diminish Britain’s standing in the world, as our forces are reduced to that of a peacekeeping role. He understandably questions how we can continue to work side-by-side with our US allies, when they are not beholden to the same human rights edicts.

Standard