Category Archives: Government

Britain, Government, Politics, Scotland, Society

Brexit and the devolution settlement

BREXIT

For most of the two decades following Scottish devolution, nobody would have anticipated for a moment that the UK would be leaving the European Union or that this would have consequential effects on relations between Edinburgh and London.

But, given we have had two years of dithering as the UK Government decided what kind of Brexit it wanted, there was surely a time when a sensible compromise could have been delivered that respected the devolution settlement and one that did not undermine the UK’s own internal market.

. See also Scotland’s EU Continuity Bill now being tested in Supreme Court

Instead, what we have witnessed is relations descending into a bitter row over what the SNP has described as a “power grab” over issues that are currently controlled by the EU (but which would otherwise be devolved).

In the context of the arguments, both the UK and Scottish Governments had a point. Westminster wants to make sure the UK doesn’t leave the wealthiest single market in the world and end up with further sub-divisions inside the UK. Yet, it’s not unreasonable for the SNP to be concerned that matters which are supposed to be devolved might end up being controlled in London. Whilst the UK Government insists this will not happen and that powers transferring from the EU will all be sorted out eventually, it does feel like ministers ran out of time to sort out a deal in advance of Brexit.

What has transpired since is the potential start of a constitutional crisis. The Scottish Parliament passed its own Continuity Bill in an attempt to safeguard the disputed powers of which the bill’s legitimacy is currently being considered by the UK Supreme Court.

An indication of the reason behind the chaos has emerged in a report by MPs that says Whitehall officials don’t actually understand devolution. This is all the more surprising given that the committee is chaired by Sir Bernard Jenkin, a prominent Conservative Brexiteer.

Scotland’s Constitution Secretary Mike Russell remarked it is an “astonishing state of affairs” and one that should be rectified as soon as possible (which will only happen after Brexit now). There is perhaps, though, a silver lining that stands out from the conclusions of the report, in that the UK Government hasn’t been deliberately trying to grab powers that should be devolved. It’s simply been struggling to understand what to do.

Might this just be the basis for a general cooling of tensions between Holyrood and Westminster and a chance to find a reasonable way forward? In these turbulent times, that would certainly help.

Standard
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