Category Archives: Politics

Britain, Business, Defence, Government, National Security, Politics, United States

Defence Secretary to be quizzed by MPs over hostile bid for GKN

TAKEOVER BID OF GKN THREATENS NATIONAL SECURITY

GOVERNMENT ministers face a grilling in the House of Commons this week over the hostile £7.4billion takeover bid for engineering giant GKN.

Theresa May is under pressure to intervene amid mounting concern about the impact the buyout could have on industry and national security.

Redditch-based GKN makes parts for the F-35 Anglo-American fighter jet, the Eurofighter Typhoon and the US’s B-21 stealth bomber, as well as car parts such as driveshafts for the automotive industry.

Its future has been thrown into doubt after the City turnaround group Melrose lodged a £7.4billion offer last month. GKN’s board is attempting to fight the deal. Melrose is known for asset stripping which often leads to large numbers of people losing their jobs through restructuring.

It has emerged that the Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson is set to be questioned about the bid when he appears this week before the defence select committee. Its chairman Julian Lewis said: “The committee have had correspondence strongly against and in favour of the hostile takeover bid and I therefore wouldn’t be surprised if the topic came up [during the committee hearing].”

There is growing concern across Whitehall about the impact this aggressive takeover of GKN would have, especially the long-term defence and security implications it may have for the UK.

The takeover already faces the prospect of wider investigations, with the business, energy and industrial strategy committee expected to scrutinise it further after initial questions were raised by chairman Rachel Reeves.

The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is understood to be monitoring the situation closely, and a senior civil servant has been appointed to examine the impact of a takeover.

The US’s own committee on foreign investment will also have to examine any takeover, as will the authorities in France and Germany.

GKN dates back nearly 260 years and made cannonballs for the British Army during the Napoleonic Wars.

It now has around 6,000 employees in the UK among 58,000 worldwide. It is a key supplier to aerospace firms including Airbus, with bases in towns including Redditch, Luton and Telford.

Melrose specialises in buying underperforming firms and selling them on at a profit within three to five years. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable has urged the Government to block the bid for GKN, calling Melrose an “utterly unsuitable owner”.

Speaking in the Commons earlier this month, the Prime Minister said: “Of course the Business Department will be looking closely at, and has been following closely, the issue. I and the Government as a whole will always act in the UK national interest.”

Concern about a GKN takeover has also been raised in the United States, where Congressman Neal Dunn has written to the committee on foreign investment urging it to block the bid.

He said: “In addition to concerns over who may ultimately acquire GKN, Melrose’s business strategy will undermine long-term investments in research and development and secure supply chains, which are critical to the major defence platforms GKN currently supplies.”

Any takeover would have to be considered by Germany’s federal ministry of economic affairs and energy and the French ministry of economy, according to documents made available by Melrose.

Melrose’s executive officers say that they “welcome any and all opportunities to explain to government why we [Melrose] believe a merger with GKN will create an industrial powerhouse of which the UK can be rightly proud”.

They added: “Melrose builds businesses to long-term health and prosperity and has an impeccable pension track record.”

Standard
Britain, Foreign Affairs, France, Government, Politics, Russia, Syria, Ukraine

UK blames Russia for ‘huge cyber-attack’

SECURITY

War of words: The Defence Secretary, Gavin Williamson

BRITAIN has publicly blamed the Russian government for a “reckless and destructive” cyber-attack.

In an extraordinary move likely to spark a diplomatic storm, the Foreign Office accused the Kremlin of “malicious cyber activity”.

The attack, which occurred last year, targeted Ukraine and spread across Europe. Its primary targets were the Ukrainian financial, energy and government sectors.

But it was designed to spread further and affected other European and Russian firms in June.

Defence Secretary Gavin Williamson accused Vladimir Putin of “ripping up the rule book”.

Mr Williamson said: “We have entered a new era of warfare, witnessing a destructive and deadly mix of conventional military might and malicious cyber-attacks.

“Russia is ripping up the rule book by undermining democracy, wrecking livelihoods by targeting critical infrastructure, and weaponising information. We must be primed and ready to tackle these stark and intensifying threats.” Ukraine has been locked in a simmering conflict with Russia-backed separatists since Moscow annexed Crimea in 2014.

Foreign minister for cyber-security Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon said the UK’s decision to identify the Kremlin as responsible for the attack underlines the fact the Government will not tolerate “malicious cyber-activity”.

He said: “The UK Government judges that the Russian government, specifically the Russian military, was responsible for the destructive Not-Petya cyber-attack of June 2017.

“The attack showed a continued disregard for Ukrainian sovereignty. Its reckless release disrupted organisations across Europe costing hundreds of millions of pounds.”

He added: “The Kremlin has positioned Russia in direct opposition to the West, yet it doesn’t have to be that way. We call on Russia to be the responsible member of the international community it claims to be rather than secretly trying to undermine it.

“The United Kingdom is identifying, pursuing and responding to malicious cyber-activity regardless of where it originates, imposing costs on those who would seek to do us harm.

“We are committed to strengthening, co-ordinated international efforts to uphold a free, open, peaceful and secure cyberspace.”

His comments point to UK intelligence agencies discovering evidence indicating the involvement of the Russian military.

Meanwhile, the Defence Secretary has risked igniting a diplomatic firestorm by claiming there is no point in Britain listening to Emmanuel Macron.

Mr Williamson has taken aim at the French president amid growing concerns in London at his hard-line position on Brexit.

He spoke out after Mr Macron threatened to launch strikes on the Syrian government for allegedly using chemical weapons against civilians. Mr Williamson, who has been tipped as a potential future Prime Minister, said the UK felt no need to “copy” decisions in neighbouring countries.

“What is the point in listening to French politicians,” he said. “We have our own foreign policy, we don’t need to copy.”

He said he would “dutifully study” Mr Macron’s comments but refused to be drawn on a change in the UK’s policy.

The UK refused to join retaliatory strikes launched by Donald Trump in Syria last year over suspected chemical weapons use. Former defence secretary Sir Michael Fallon later said Britain would support similar actions if “legal, proportionate and necessary”.

Mr Williamson’s dismissal of Mr Macron, during a ministerial meeting at NATO’s Brussels headquarters, will stoke fears that ties between Paris and London are under increasing strain.

Mr Macron threatened a major escalation in Syria this week by threatening to launch air strikes against president Bashar al-Assad’s government.

The warning followed claims that Syrian government forces dropped a chlorine bomb from a helicopter on Saraqeb, a rebel-held town, earlier this month.

The Syrian Government has denied the accusations, while Mr Macron said that French officials had yet to find enough evidence to launch a strike.

Standard
Britain, Charity Sector, Government, Politics, Society

Oxfam and the watchdogs neglectful in their duty

OXFAM

FURTHER horrifying details of the Oxfam scandal that are emerging raises many questions for the watchdogs who are responsible for seeing that our taxes and donations are properly spent.

The Charity Commission should be first in the dock. Why was it left to newspapers to expose this shocking affair, when the torpid regulator now admits it is receiving some 1,000 complaints of serious incidents – including sexual assault – a year? It is quite astonishing for a body charged with overseeing the proper regulation of the charity sector has been so somnolent.

Or next on the list, the Department for International Development, which shovels millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money into Oxfam. The number of staff in this scandal-ridden organisation on six-figure salaries has doubled since 2010. It seems inconceivable that ministers so desperate to offload the foreign aid budget – a staggering £13.3billion last year alone – could turn such a blind eye to reports of abuse.

It is noted that since orgies in Haiti were reported in the UK Press, past and present overseas aid secretaries have led the charge against the charity, with Priti Patel condemning its handling of the affair as “scandalous”, while the present International Development Secretary, Penny Mordaunt, threatens cuts in public spending.

But their stand would be more compelling if they had acted on past complaints of sexual abuse, instead of saving up their moral courage until now.

Next, is the charity bosses themselves: most are drawn from a cosy elite of quangocrats, who spend their lives moving from one handsomely paid public-sector job to another.

At the time of the Haiti scandal in 2010, Dame Barbara Stocking oversaw the running and was in charge of Oxfam. A former NHS director, she stands accused of allowing one of the charity’s worst offenders a “dignified exit”, fearing that sacking him would highlight allegations of child prostitution and harm Oxfam’s reputation.

Then there is the current chairman of Oxfam’s trustees, Caroline Thomson. The wife a Labour peer, she received an astounding £670,000 pay-off from the BBC – even though she flounced out (after her failure to secure the job of director-general).

How can anyone place confidence in such a chairman, steeped in the BBC’s lax public-sector mentality, to oversee the reform and overhaul Oxfam desperately needs? If the charity sector is to flourish it must surely cast its net wider than this politically correct elite.

And, is there any good reason why charities, enjoying vast public funding and tax reliefs, should be exempt from media Freedom of Information requests? Haven’t taxpayers every right to know how their money is spent (and misspent)?

Standard