Category Archives: Government

Britain, Government, Legal, Politics

An inquiry is needed into torture

RENDITION & TORTURE

Former cabinet minister David Davis is pressing the Prime Minister to order a judge-led inquiry into Britain’s involvement in the mistreatment of terror suspects – or face the prospect of a legal challenge.

In a major intervention, the former Brexit Secretary calls on Theresa May to set up an independent probe to investigate UK complicity in “wicked” torture and rendition during the so-called “war on terror”.

Failing to fulfil the Tory party’s pledge to hold an inquiry, chaired by a senior judge, into the abuse of captives will mean never discovering the truth about some of Britain’s “darkest days”, he says.

Mr Davis has backed a hard-hitting letter to Downing Street on torture signed by senior MPs.

It comes just weeks after he quit the Cabinet in disgust at Mrs May’s Chequers blueprint for leaving the EU.

He claims that Government inaction following confirmation that Tony Blair’s New Labour and the security services colluded with the US’s torture programme after 9/11 also contributed to his decision to walk out.

Mr Davis condemns Mrs May for hindering the search for the truth by preventing British agents from giving crucial evidence to Parliament’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC).

He says: “If the Government rejects the cross-party calls then they will open themselves up to being challenged in the courts. That is an outcome none of us wants to see. We have to hope common sense prevails.”

He also says it was “amazing” that Mr Blair and his ministers appeared not to have questioned spy chiefs about their actions, which raised the prospect that they were “deliberately avoiding asking them to maintain deniability”.

The letter, written by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Rendition, argues that a judge-led inquiry is the “only way to get to the bottom of this shameful episode in our recent history and draw a line under it”.

A damning ISC report in June said British spy chiefs tolerated “inexcusable” mistreatment of terror suspects in the years after 9/11. The 152-page dossier, which took three years to compile, laid bare in unprecedented detail the UK’s complicity in torture and “extraordinary rendition”, where suspects are flown to another country for imprisonment and interrogation.

Mrs May said the security and intelligence agencies “regretted” not recognising sooner the “unacceptable practices”. But the Government said only that it would give “careful consideration” to holding a judge-led inquiry and make a decision within 60 days – around August 27.

Former prime minister David Cameron supported such an inquiry and appointed judge Sir Peter Gibson in 2010 but the probe was scrapped in 2012 before completing his work.

A spokesperson for the human rights charity Reprieve said: “The Prime Minister should listen to her colleagues and call an independent judge-led inquiry, to ensure Britain learns from its mistakes.”

MR Davis says any government that permits UK involvement in torture should be held to firmly account. Unfortunately, he declared, this has not happened in cases where UK ministers and officials got mixed up in “war on terror”- era torture.

That is why Theresa May should deliver on the Government’s long-standing commitment to launch an independent judge-led inquiry into these matters. That is the only way we can ensure we don’t become complicit ever again.

The reports revealed Tony Blair’s ministers planned and bankrolled score of illegal kidnap operations and allowed the UK to become involved in hundreds of cases where officials knew of or suspected abuse.

In one incident cited an MI6 officer took part in the questioning of a detainee alongside US personnel before witnessing the man being driven in a “6ft sealed box” to be illegally rendered on an American plane.

The report also details the account of one British agent describing an American “Torture Centre” in Iraq, to which the UK military were no longer allowed to send detainees as a result of what went on there.

In what the ISC report condemns as an unacceptable “workaround”, MI6 simply took detainees held there to an adjacent cabin, where they could be interviewed, before being sent back to their abuse.

In another incident, an MI6 officer was assisting with a US interrogation – until being asked to leave the room, so that the US official could “rough up” the detainee without any witnesses present. When the UK officer returned, the ISC report describes the detainee as visibly hurt.

These revelations, Mr Davis says, represent only the tip of the iceberg, as the Parliamentary committee investigating UK involvement in torture was barred by Downing Street from following critical leads.

Roadblocks thrown up by No 10 meant the ISC was able to question 13 times fewer witnesses than it sought. This led to its chairman, in his own words, to “draw a line” under the committee’s efforts.

This interference by government means that despite the reports’ damning findings there are too many gaps and unanswered questions. The need for a full, independent, judge-led inquiry is clear.

When the Conservatives entered government in 2010, the party rightly promised that it would get to the bottom of Britain’s involvement in these practices, and make whatever changes were needed to stop them happening again. The job has been started, but it remains incomplete. Mr Davis says this is not about blaming individuals who were undoubtedly operating under extreme and highly pressured conditions, but that we will never be able to understand what those on the ground understood their orders to be unless they can be asked.

What were they being told? What information were they feeding back? And what questions were they raising with their supporters?

 

ALSO central to understand is what ministers at the time knew about the operations they were signing off on. Amazingly, it seems that they were not asking questions of the agencies about what was being sanctioned.

Did they fail to do this because they wrongly assumed everything was in order? Or were they deliberately avoiding asking them to maintain deniability?

An inquiry into these issues must be led by someone untainted by a connection to the intelligence services. It is also clear that the chair must have full legal powers to compel the production of evidence.

Measures will, of course, need to put in place to protect genuinely sensitive material, but it is perfectly possible for this to be done while ensuring that relevant testimony is publicly heard.

If the Government rejects the cross-party calls then they will open themselves up to being challenged in the courts.

Standard
Consumer Affairs, Energy, Government, Society, Technology

Smart Meters: Energy giants can remotely cut supply

HOUSEHOLD METERING

ENERGY giants can use smart meters to cut the power supply to homes and force customers to pay their bill up front.

It is now known that suppliers have the power to switch the new digital devices to a prepayment setting without visiting the house.

This would force the occupier to top up their account before they use any gas or electricity – and if their balance runs out, their power could automatically be cut off.

More than 11million smart meters have been installed across the country as part of a national upgrade programme ordered by the Government.

. See also Smart Meters and the ‘hidden agenda’

The new meters automatically send readings to suppliers as often as every half an hour and show customers in pounds and pence exactly how much energy they use.

The aim is to make bills more accurate and help customers save money by encouraging them to reduce their power consumption. Experts warn, however, that smart meters give firms unprecedented power over their customers, including access to reams of data about how and when customers use energy and the ability to control a customer’s supply remotely.

Major energy companies said they had not yet used the feature, but admitted it was possible.

A spokesperson for auto-switching service Look After My Bills, said: “Suppliers now have a frightening level of power to hit customers in the pocket. In the past, the Big Six have proven far too eager to force expensive prepayment meters into people’s homes – despite warnings from OFGEM that they should only ever be used as a last resort.

“If they can switch someone to a prepayment meter with a flick of a switch whenever they choose, this is very worrying for families across the country already struggling with unfair price rises.”

A prepayment meter works like a pay-as-you-go mobile phone in that customers have to top it up with credit before they can use any power.

They are most commonly found in households where the homeowner or occupier is struggling financially, because they provide a better means of controlling how much is spent on energy.

Energy firms said that one of the benefits of new smart meters is that they can switch a meter from prepayment to the more popular credit setting remotely.

Energy watchdog OFGEM has strict rules on when suppliers can force customers to have a prepayment meter.

It is supposed to be a last resort when recovering debt, and suppliers should put households on to repayment plans first.

Currently, power companies need a warrant to install a prepayment meter against a customer’s wishes because they need access to their property. But if suppliers can switch someone’s meter remotely it would remove the need to go through the courts.

Under OFGEM rules energy firms would still have to show they had done everything possible to avoid forcing someone to have a prepayment meter and take steps to ensure that any vulnerable customers are protected.

An OFGEM spokesman said: “For suppliers that are considering if it is appropriate to offer prepayment to smart meter customers, the same rules apply as for those on traditional meters.

“Suppliers must be clear in their communications and establish that prepayment is practical and affordable for a customer. OFGEM would take any breach of these rules by a supplier very seriously.”

Standard
Britain, Economic, European Union, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Treasonous myths of the Brexiteers’

BREXIT

JUST as an alliance with the EU is important to the UK, European immigrants are also vital to the British economy.

Many people will remember the insidious campaign during the EU referendum debate in 2016 of Nigel Farage standing in front of a poster showing a queue of refugees with the slogan: ‘Breaking point: The EU has failed us all’ – an image that was rightly compared to Nazi propaganda – while others were allowed to peddle the myth that EU immigration had helped to cause austerity. It must surely be a matter of profound regret among leaders of the Remain campaign that they allowed the effects of immigration to be so utterly misrepresented in the run-up to the Brexit vote.

Since that fateful day, various employers appear to have woken up to the serious risks posed by a shortage of labour if the UK leaves the Single Market and ditches freedom of movement (as Theresa May insists will happen).

The latest sign of trouble comes from our schools, with the number of teachers from other EU countries – like Greece, Poland, Spain and Ireland – applying to work in Scotland “falling off a cliff”.

In 2017, some 186 teachers from the EU sought registration with the General Teaching Council for Scotland, but so far this year just 14 have done so. This comes at a time of teacher shortages with some 700 vacancies in Scotland at the start of the year.

Nine out of ten UK employers report they are struggling to recruit staff with the skills they need, threatening the ability of the UK economy to compete. Wages could rise as employers are forced to compete for a smaller pool of available workers, but this may prove to be a short-lived boon if firms with fewer skilled staff and higher costs start to lose business and trade to their EU rivals.

The economic chaos that could be caused by a no-deal Brexit could further exacerbate what is already an alarming situation.

What is equally important is the attitude adopted by our elected politicians towards the EU, described recently by President Trump as a “foe” while he cosied up to Vladimir Putin of Russia.

In a further twist and wholly unacceptable language, Conservative MEP David Campbell-Bannerman has claimed the Treason Act should be amended to apply to “those in future actively working undemocratically against the UK through extreme EU loyalty” because, “like extreme jihadis”, they were “seeking to destroy or undermine the British state”.

We should have welcomed immigrants to this country by freely acknowledging the massive contribution they have made to our society, but instead we have turned them into scapegoats for austerity. What a pitifully poor and degrading accusation.

Now there is a serious risk of another dangerous myth gaining a foothold in the public’s imagination – that the friendly democracies of the EU are in some way our enemy.

BRITAIN will be unable to forge a new trade deal with fast-growing Pacific countries unless it makes a clean break with the EU, a report has warned.

The Government’s White Paper on Brexit says the UK will “potentially seek accession” to the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) after leaving the EU.

The 11-member organisation, which aims to eliminate 98 per cent of all tariffs, is seen as a major potential growth market.

But a study by the Policy Exchange thinktank warns that Theresa May’s Chequers deal could make membership impossible.

The controversial deal commits the UK to following a “common rulebook” with the EU on goods and farm products, limiting the room for manoeuvre with trade negotiators.

The report warns that joining the partnership would require the UK to have more flexibility over its regulations.

Report author Geoff Raby, a former Australian ambassador to the World Trade Organisation, said: “By aligning UK policy to EU policy on agriculture and manufactured goods, the White Paper will constrain the opportunities that the UK has to pursue an independent trade policy.

“Without being able to participate fully in the agricultural and manufactured goods dimension it is most unlikely that the UK would be able to join, but if it did it would not be able to get the full benefits.”

The Chequers deal has caused uproar in the Conservative Party and prompted the resignations of Boris Johnson and David Davis.

The PM has insisted that it will not constrain the UK’s future trade policy. She told MPs this month: “We specifically looked at whether the plan that we were putting forward would enable us to accede to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and it will.”

But the report threatens to reopen the row over the potential impact on trade of the Chequers agreement. Donald Trump has warned that the restrictions would “kill” hopes of a US trade deal – although he rowed back following talks with Mrs May.

The CPTPP’s members include Australia, Canada, Japan, Mexico and New Zealand, with South Korea, Indonesia and Taiwan among those set to join.

Policy Exchange chairman Alexander Downer, the former Australian high commissioner to the UK, said Britain would be “a welcome addition” to the bloc, which would give it “unfettered access to many markets that represent a large part of the future of the world’s economy”.

Standard