Monthly Archives: July 2021

Broadcasting, Government, Media, Politics, Society

Public interest journalism under threat

REFORMS TO OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT

JOURNALISTS could be hit with lengthy prison sentences if their stories and reports upset the Government under “sweeping reforms” to the Official Secrets Act.

Proposals for legislation to “counter state threats” risk criminalising public interest journalism.

There are concerns that reporters could be branded spies if, for example, they handle leaked documents.

The proposals could also expose whistleblowers to “harsh new penalties”.

A Home Office Consultation, which closed this week, is seeking to reform the 1989 Act to account for changes in the modern age. It could increase the maximum two-year sentence for “unauthorised disclosure”.

The Law Commission recommended a public interest defence, which would protect journalists, should be included.

But the Home Office rejected this, saying it would “undermine our efforts to prevent damaging unauthorised disclosures, which would not be in the public interest”. The News Media Association (NMA), which speaks for UK media organisations, warned the plans could “open the floodgates” to the media and its sources being prosecuted “despite acting in the public interest”. A source at the NMA said: “As part of any thriving democracy, the public and a responsible press must be free to shed light on the state’s injustices.

“The proposed measures will deter whistleblowers from coming forward with vital information which the public have a right to know and place a chill on investigative journalism which holds power to account.” Newspaper and media bodies are strongly urging the Government to reconsider these measures and instead work with the industry to place appropriate protections for journalism at the heart of the Official Secrets Act so that freedom of speech is enhanced by the new regime rather than weakened further.

The NMA has called for a public interest defence to be introduced, and a Statutory Commission to be created to provide redress for whistleblowers. The National Union of Journalists said the proposals were “truly chilling”. A spokesperson for the NUJ said: “Government proposals to reform the Official Secrets Act are truly chilling and authoritarian. They could brand journalists spies, just for doing their job.

“They could remove the defence for whistleblowers and reporters of publishing information in the public interest and water down protections on the police being able to seize journalistic material”.

Standard
Britain, Defence, Government

Colonel facing dismissal after failing drugs test

DRUGS MISUSE

A LIEUTENANT colonel is facing dismissal after becoming the most senior British Army officer known to have failed a drugs test.

The disgraced officer, who is paid round £80,000 a year, was caught at a British military base in Cyprus.

The vast majority of troops who fail Compulsory Drugs Tests (CDTs) are young private soldiers, lance corporals and corporals.

Most commonly these inexperienced junior rank soldiers are caught having been persuaded to take cocaine or a cocktail of banned substances on a night out.

If officers suspect they have taken illegal drugs, tests are arranged as quickly as possible, reducing their chance to flush the narcotics out of their system by drinking water.

For any officer to be caught taking an illicit substance is rare but it is unheard of for a lieutenant colonel who has served in the Armed Forces for decades to fail a drugs test.

The senior officer is now fighting to save his career. The recent test is said to have proved he was taking an illegal steroid with a Class C categorisation under the UK’s Misuse of Drugs Act.

He is apparently claiming that he requires the drug as a painkiller. But, according to defence sources, the drug had not been approved by a registered British medical doctor and he is understood not to have declared he was taking it before the test.

The Ministry of Defence confirmed that administrative action was being taken against the lieutenant colonel, who is contesting the most likely sanction against him – dismissed with disgrace and loss of pension.

Soldiers who fail CDTs may be granted waivers but only if they are particularly young or inexperienced, or there are significant mitigating circumstances and commanders are convinced they made a one-off mis-judgment that will not be repeated.

While in recent years waiver protocols have been massaged to reprieve soldiers who the Army is eager to keep – for example, when they possess certain skills and experience that are in short supply – it is considered highly unlikely that any exception would be made for a soldier holding the rank of lieutenant colonel.

A serving soldier said: ‘Junior ranks have been kicked out for taking Class C substances so officers should be too. Really committed soldiers were booted out for taking performance-enhancing “gym drugs” in recent years. They should have been retained.’

The soldier added: ‘An officer with his rank and experience should definitely have known better. It can’t be one rule for him and another for everyone else.’

The Ministry of Defence said: ‘Administrative action for this case is ongoing and as such it would be inappropriate to comment further at this stage.

‘The Army does not tolerate drugs misuse by service personnel. Those found to have fallen short of the Army’s high standards face being discharged from service.’

Earlier this year, it emerged that ten elite soldiers are facing dismissal from the Army’s new £120million high-tech unit, the Experimentation Battlegroup, after being caught taking cocaine in Cyprus. They failed drugs tests at their base.

Standard
Competition and Markets, Government, Legal, NHS, Society

Price-hiking pharmaceutical firms fined £260m

CMA RULING

PHARMACEUTICAL companies have been fined £260million after overcharging the NHS for life-saving drugs for almost a decade.

UK firms increased the price of hydrocortisone by more than 12,000 per cent and paid would-be rivals to stay out of the market, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found.

The watchdog said Auden Mckenzie and Actavis UK, now known as Accord-UK, charged “excessively high prices” for the pills, used to treat adrenal insufficiency. The cost of a pack rose from 70p in 2008 to £88 by 2016 – a 12,471 per cent increase.

Meanwhile, NHS spending on the drug, which is taken by tens of thousands – including for the life-threatening condition Addison’s disease – rose from £500,000 a year to £80million.

Andrea Coscelli, chief executive of the CMA, said: “These are without doubt some of the most serious abuses we have uncovered in recent years. The actions of these firms cost the NHS – and therefore taxpayers – hundreds of millions of pounds.” The firms exploited the fact that de-branded drugs are not subject to NHS price regulation, enabling them to increase their prices without constraint.

Auden Mckenzie bought the licences for hydrocortisone and launched generic versions in 2008. It paid off rivals AMCo, now Advanz Pharma, and Waymade. Actavis UK took over the business in 2015 and continued paying off AMCo to stay out of the market.

The CMA said: “Auden Mckenzie’s decision to raise prices for de-branded drugs meant that the NHS had no choice but to pay huge sums of taxpayers’ money for life-saving medicines. These were egregious breaches of the law that artificially inflated the costs faced by the NHS, reducing the money available for patient care.

“Our fine serves as a warning to any other drug firm planning to exploit the NHS.”

The regulator said that Accord-UK will be liable for £65.6million of the fine, while former parent company Allergan is solely liable for £109.1million. The pair are also jointly liable for £2million.

Accord-UK, Accord Healthcare and the current parent company Intas are jointly and severally liable for £44.4million, the CMA said. There is a total fine of £42.8million for AMCo, while Waymade will be required to pay £2.5million.

The CMA’s decision also means the NHS will be able to seek damages for the firms’ behaviour. Accord said it is “disappointed” by the ruling and intends to appeal.

Standard