Shocking 'Super Injunction' Gags Guardian

A Guardian gagging order has raised the hackles of hacks and the blogosphere, highlighting the disgraceful rise of the super-injunction and long held rights to report on parliament.

The thin end of the wedge throws up basic issues of press freedom which has long been a campaigning cause célèbre for magazines like Private Eye.

Now the Guardian has been caught out by the catch-all super-injunction, prevented from reporting parliamentary proceedings on spurious legal grounds.

The blogosphere has been quick to flag up the outrage, most notably Guido, with others nudging the story along, blowing the gaffe on firms few had heard of before and making a mockery of the original gagging order.

Pre-emptive high court orders are common. But if a firm or individual tried to injunct a newspaper and the paper said it would fight and justify any subsequent libel action, that was enough for the judge to throw it out.

Not any more. Lawyers, it seems, can get a draconian injunction, no questions asked, at the drop of a hat, raising fundamental issues of press freedom and prior restraint.

The new breed of super-injunction is all-powerful and all-embracing. A catch-all, with newspapers left with a dog bites man non-story of 'an unnamed individual obtaining an unnamed injunction from an unnamed judge about an unnamed matter'.

Faced with getting something out in the open, the public interest recourse was to parliament, with a willing MP raising the matter under parliamentary privilege and the press then free to report parliamentary proceedings without fear of contempt of court.

The Orange Party has used that very legal device to name shame in the public interest, with an MP raising a matter under commons privilege, leaving journalists legally free to report and name.

But the Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, where the question is to be found and why the paper is prevented from reporting parliament.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves London libel firm Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, and therein lies the clue.

A quick glance at the published commons order papers contain an MPs' question to be answered by a minister later this week.

Parliamentary questions are in the public domain on the official commons order paper and hence can be reported - by everyone except the Guardian. And that makes the whole gagging thing kinda pointless.

Questions by MP, Paul Farrelly, over Carter-Ruck and oil trader Trafigura are there for all to see and draw their own conclusions.

"Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of legislation to protect (a) whistleblowers and (b) press freedom following the injunctions obtained in the High Court by (i) Barclays and Freshfields solicitors on 19 March 2009 on the publication of internal Barclays reports documenting alleged tax avoidance schemes and (ii) Trafigura and Carter-Ruck solicitors on 11 September 2009 on the publication of the Minton report on the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, commissioned by Trafigura."

Private Eye's long running legal battle with former law society president, Michael Napier, doesn't escape the commons question.

"Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what assessment he has made of the Court of Appeal judgment in May 2009 in the case of Michael Napier and Irwin Mitchell v Pressdram Limited in respect of press freedom to report proceedings in court."

Indeed Private Eye reports the Guardian has been served with at least 12 notices of injunctions that cannot be reported this year alone, compared with six in 2006, five in 2005.

This is the real outrage. No one knows just how many super-injunctions there are or which judges are issuing them because by their very nature they cannot be reported. Farrelly's questions cut to the quick.

"Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, if he will (a) collect and (b) publish statistics on the number of non-reportable injunctions issued by the High Court in each of the last five years."

"Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme): To ask the Secretary of State for Justice, what mechanisms HM Court Service uses to draw up rosters of duty judges for the purpose of considering time of the essence applications for the issuing of injunctions by the High Court."

Since the 18th century, when MP John Wilkes' stand led to chants of 'Wilkes and Liberty', the right to keep the public informed has been enshrined in law.

At the heart is the public's constitutional right to know what their elected representatives are up to. And the right to know about the dodgy dealings of public figures and big corporations.

LibDems are now calling for a parliamentary debate on the press gagging and urging justice secretary Straw to answer MPs' questions on the outrage.

UK courts have become a safe-haven where it seems anyone from anywhere in the world can get a gagging injunction and big corporations and rich individuals can exploit the 'no publicity' culture.

The only recourse is to faux-outrage, with newspapers joining a bandwagon condemning "vile and viscous rumours swirling around" about some celebrity or politician, which at a stroke gets the allegations from the private into the public eye.

UPDATE 1.15pm: The Guardian has been ungagged and is now free to report, er, what everyone else has been reporting. A small victory for the freedom of the blogosphere.

Read More...

The Queen And Her People Are Not Amused

The future of prime minister Gordon Brown and his ruling New Labour Party hang in the balance as the people of this once proud kingdom round on the scandalous behaviour of the political elite and the Queen steps in to tell a shamed self-styled Supreme Leader she is not amused.  

As Brown fights for his political survival, with a relentless round of scandals over MPs' expenses, there are growing demands for a root and branch parliamentary purge and general election to clear the stench of corruption from air. 

Grand old Labour parliamentarian Tony Benn was asked recently what he made of these scandalous events. He doesn't say much. He looks crest-fallen. His eyes well up with tears. He looks set to cry. That's probably how Her Maj felt when Brown met the Queen at Her Majesty's displeasure. 

Has it really all come down to this? The short answer is yes. 

"Claims for lawnmower repairs, dog food, porn films and moat cleaning have angered recession-hit Britons already disenchanted with the political classes. The affair has also fuelled growing dissatisfaction with a Labour government in power since 1997," is how news wire service Reuters tells it to the world.

Parliament and democracy face one of their biggest tests. And that requires a golden bullet of trust, bold leadership and a fresh start with a thorough clean-out of the stinking commons stables to restore public faith. 

Beleaguered Brown is trying it on with a last ditch bid to salvage the reputation of his failed leadership and restore some public trust in his shamed government with a manic catch-up piece in the News of the Screws of all places, beautifully fisked by Peter Hoskins. 

Trying to claim the leadership high ground from the leader-in-waiting is a forlorn hope. Knacker of the Yard is set to set up shop launching a criminal inquiry into the expenses scandal.

It's all too little too late for bunkered Brown as he fights a belated rearguard action to stave off early general election annihilation. 

Brown can't do anything to rescue this tragedy. He cannot show leadership because his tribal instinct for party political posturing is too deep rooted. 

The Supreme Leader has made the fatal mistake of putting himself and his ruthless grip on the Party above the People.

The bad and the downright ugly have been finally forced out of the woodwork as the damaging perks scandal which has been simmering for years finally exploded. Only a few good'uns who have not milked the system for all it's worth remain, tarnished and tarred with the same brush.

But two years into his premiership and Brown is still scrabbling around as the rotten chickens come home to roost. He utterly failed to take any action against any of his cronies that cheated the taxpayer until the Telegraph and then Cameron forced his hand trying to clear up the mess from his own Party.

The outside world can only look on at the staggering hypocrisy of the political elite and their scandalous behaviour.

All political parties are left licking their wounds. All have been shown up and shamed. All part of the same conspiracy to defraud. New Labour and its rotten cabinet in particular have born the brunt. They after all have the most MPs and over a decade of power and familiarity has bred contempt and that contempt bred greed and corruption. 

The Tory opposition squirearchy revealed its feudal aristocratic colours as they packed their wellies into the Range Rovers and moved into the cushy common. Holier-than-thou LibDems have been shown up with an eye on the fat chance and nose in the trough. 

It's a plague on both your houses and both Houses as New Labour cronies in the Lords are exposed as cheating vermin dressed in weasel-worded ermine.

The expenses scandal claimed its first scalps last week. The public wants more. Political leaders are left scrabbling around to satisfy the public's blood lust for rightful vengeance. 

Bunker and blinkered, Brown holds the key but doesn't want to open the door to democracy. Without a snap election to clear the air that key may be taken out of his hands. 

Brown today promises action but the public want him to put their money where his mouth is. Restoring trust means turning our back on Brown's squalid political scheming style of brutal petty politics. 

Without strong leadership, rebellion and revolution are in the air, from both the people who are taking matters into their own hands and from parliament. The storm clouds are gathering.

For the first time, cross-party MPs, are pushing a motion of no confidence in the disgrace of a speaker and Brown's New Labour crony who's been at the centre of the scandal at every twist and turn as he waged "a reign of terror" over expenses. 

For the first time since the Rump Parliament of 1653, there are calls for the speaker to quit led by LibDem leader, Nick Clegg.

For the first time since the English Revolution the house of lords is set to suspend two New Labour lords caught a-leaping into the 'cash for laws' scandal. 

With most politicians tainted with sleaze it's now sunk to a new low of just who can you trust. A quick flick through the Telegraph and Sunday Times will show up MPs who haven't been fingered by the fiddles and show up the rest. 

Cherish the few who have come out of this with some integrity and dignity. The rest can rot in the hell of their own making. 

The scandals of MPs' expenses has rocked Westminster to its very foundations, left the public rolling with shock and disgust and threatens to wreck the once cherished democracy.

This is the last chance to purge from public life the chancers, spivs and crooks who have brought shame on themselves, parliament and democracy. In Cromwell's words: In the name of God, go!

A ruthless purge is the only solution to stop the rot in its tracks. Only a snap general election now can clear the air of the rotten stench. 

Brown's had his chance and he blew it. If he won't call a snap election to clear the air of the rotten stench, then make way for a woman who can.

This week's chat between the Queen and Brown will remain under wraps but the Mail reports, well-placed sources say the Queen is 'deeply troubled' by the scandal and had made it clear that she feared it could inflict 'long-lasting damage' to the commons.

One of the benefits of a constitutional monarchy is that Her Maj has sworn an oath to serve the people. Time to put the finest traditions of our cherished democratic process to the test. It is the monarch who dissolves parliament not the prime minister. 

Dissolve parliament. Force a general election. Put the politicians on the spot. See just how many will stand and how many will survive. 

That's democracy. That's politics. And that is the will of the people. 

Read More...

Whose Parliament Is It Anyway?

MPs right to launch an immediate cross-party inquiry into the Greengate scandal is being stifled by a government trying every trick in the book to put a lid on the whole affair.

As MPs meet for the first time to fully discuss the outrage, the future of parliament is at stake. MPs should tell government ministers and their political police poodles to stuff it.

The heavy-handed anti-terrorist police raid on senior opposition spokesman, Damian Green's private commons office has made a mockery of the elected House, left democracy in tatters and the country appalled and afraid we are slipping further into a police state. The Greengage scandal exposes a government which preaches tolerance at the expense of justice, truth and freedom.

But this is showing all the signs of descending into a squalid party political squabble over the future of the speaker and the right of parliament to investigate the twist and turns of this monumental blunder and affront to civil liberties.

MPs do not hold a divine right to rule, they are elected. Their overriding job is to uphold the rights of parliament, not their Party, not the speaker, certainly not the police and not the government of the day. And that truism holds just as much for the prime minister and his home secretary as it does for a humble backbencher.

At the centre is the role of the police, the government, the commons ringmaster, Michael Martin and the right of MPs to mount an immediate cross-party inquiry.

The motion to hold back on an inquiry until the police investigation is over, tabled by leader of the House, Harriet Harman, has its own delicious irony. As a civil liberties lawyer in the 1980s, Harman herself was found in contempt of court in a landmark battle with the home office, the outcome of which is used as a legal precedent to this day (harman v home office [1983]).

Some of the government's own backbenchers are accusing ministers of trying to kick the row into touch, well aware that a police investigation could take months to complete, bringing the MP's inquiry hard up against a general election.

There are enough top legal minds at Westminster to form a committee, round up the usual suspects, subject them to forensic questioning and bring this matter to a swift conclusion. With full parliamentary privilege and no issues of national security here, that should be held in public.

But asking the key players what they knew and when they knew it, is just what the government does not want to happen. Already a likely committee of seven, stuffed with government supporters, has led the LibDems to threaten a boycott, joined this afternoon by the Tories.

The discredited speaker is toast, despite last-ditch government smokescreens. A letter from Met commissioner Bob Quick, to the home secretary Jacqui Smith, posted here, flatly contradicts the speaker's version of events. Someone is clearly telling porkies. Now the only question left to resolve is does he jump or will he be pushed into cosy retirement in the Lords.

With the top job at the Met up for grabs, the issue has become more political than ever. The convenient ongoing police inquiry, as feared by the Orange Party earlier, as this debacle unfolded, is a neat move to allow the government to hide behind that inquiry with little comment.

The opposition, with LibDem support, has been joined by outspoken voices from the Labour backbenches. But government ministers, backed by the powerful whips, hope they can rely on the huge gang of payroll MPs to steamroll through their wishes.

The New Year bring a whole different ball game, as Brown sets off on his 'meet the people' tour of the country as part of his election campaign. By then Greengate will take a back seat, as party politics and electioneering move into top gear.

Parliament reflects the will of the people through its elected members. It is for parliament to decide when and how to hold an inquiry, what to do about their discredited speaker and how to stop the police from descending further into a mere political tool of government.

That is not something to be decided and engineered for political advantage on the whim of a government of the day nor by party political bickering or misplaced tribal loyalties.

Private Eye editor, Ian Hislop, jokingly described the Greengate scandal as the most important challenge facing parliament since - Magna Carta. Only Hislop probably wasn't joking.

5pm UPDATE: Blair's former home secretary, Charles Clarke, intends to vote against the government over the outrageous plan to put off the commons inquiry. Clarke has told whips the vote is a "House of Commons matter" - commons code for voting against the government, according to the Westminster Mole. With a packed House, a full Tory and Lib Dem turnout and a good number of angry backbench Labour MPs, it is set to be a knife-edge vote this evening.

Read More...

Will The Queen Be Left Speechless?

The Queen's Speech looks set to be written on the back of a fag packet as Downing Street continues to strip out unpopular vote-losing bills or anything that could cause a commons confrontation. Though a Greengate confrontation could be just what is on the cards, as MPs gather on Wednesday. 

Downing Street has described Wednesday's Queen's Speech as "work in progress", though "spin in progress" would be more appropriate in these heady days of Mandelson management. 

The forthcoming legislation is a pale shadow of measures Brown announced earlier this year in his Queen's Speech by proxy. 

That draft, unveiled in the spring, surprised many with a detailed list of at least 18 bills, covering everything from reforms to hospitals, schools, police and welfare.

Slowly it seems unpopular legislation has been shelved or watered down and amalgamated in other legislation.

One of the earlier casualties was the Big Brother surveillance in the Communications Data Bill, to hold details of all phone calls, emails and internet visits.

The latest casualty, on the orders of business secretary, Lord 'call him Moses' Mandleson, according to reports, is to drop plans for more draconian anti-smoking measures with more restrictions on the sale of cigarettes and packet advertising. 

Not content with closing down our cherished pubs with a smoking ban, the new tougher anti-smoking measures would have marked the end of the corner shop. Another example of using 'sin' as an excuse for political and social control. 

The Orange Party believes a stripped down Queen's Speech, which sets out the government’s proposed legislation up to a June 2010 general election date, is the latest sign an early election is on the cards, despite efforts of New Labour and its supporters to dampen down speculation. 

The new list of bills before Parliament is being spun as a way to put more emphasis on efforts to help the economy. In reality it cuts down commons time to allow ministers to hit the campaign trail and get across its political message. 

After the shambles of the pre-leaked pre-budget Budget, the government has been forced to rethink its strategy, though what will eventually be in the Queen's Speech may have to wait until details are leaked for political advantage.

As the outrage over Greengate shows no signs of abating, speaker, Michael Martin is expected to come under fire on Wednesday, with MPs demanding he explains his actions at the start of the Queen’s Speech debate.

The Tory leader has called on the prime minister to at least show some concern, let alone outrage or condemnation. Both the prime minister and home secretary are refusing to apologise.

The role of the speaker has been brought into focus, with the vexed question of who allowed the political police, as servants of the Crown, to enter and search the MP's office, in the sacrosanct precincts of the Palace of Westminster. 

With comparisons made today to US president Nixon's ruthless and illegal pursuit of political opponents, the issue now centres on the Watergate adage - what did ministers know and when did they know it?

Private Eye cover: October 1964, The Queen reads speech for Wilson's first Labour government.

Read More...

Benn's Public Banks The Only Solution

Labour grandee, Tony Benn, has called on the government to put the banks into public ownership. Power has switched from parliament to the City. Brown's doomed £500 billion bank bail-out is the final straw. 

The City now calls the shots and voters will see through it. On this issue, the Orange Party is more than happy to nail its colours to his mast. 

It has been observed here on a number of occasions how New Labour has cosied up to their pals in the City. 

Now, when times are tough, like Bush in the US, the answer has been to throw them more taxpayer's cash and borrow billions getting the country deeper in debt. The piper is calling the tune.

There's plenty of life in the old Labour dog yet. In June, Benn delivered a masterclass in politics over civil liberties. Now Benn's argument, over public-ownership, is a simple one and he makes the point forcefully: 

"The trouble is that the Prime Minister and the American President have been relegated to mere spectators, commenting on what has happened, and whose only role is to dish out more and more taxpayers’ cash."

Benn argues for public ownership of the banking system and the reason is accountability, sadly lacking in current economic policy.

Strategic public services such as the army, police, fire service, health care and education are still, in the main, in public ownership, despite New Labour's best efforts to sell them off. Why should the banks be any different. The seeds have already been sown with a nationalised Northern Rock.

For ordinary people, banks are somewhere you can trust to look after your hard earned cash. And somewhere to go for a loan without fear of being ripped off. That's a public service. 

"I have concluded that a publicly owned and accountable banking system would be better for Britain and judging from the way opinion is moving, I suspect that those views would appeal to people from right across the political spectrum," said Benn.

His view is shared by LSE economics professor and former MPC member, Willem Buiter, who believes nationalisation may be the only answer to restore confidence, as a temporary solution.

Liberal economist, JK Galbraith, referred to here on a number of occasions, doesn't call for public ownership but his acute analysis of the failed banking system in the years after the Great Depression has prophetic warnings of the doom ahead. 

And support for Galbraith comes from a seemingly unlikely source. Jeff Randall writing in the Daily Telegraph is firmly of the belief that Galbraith got it right: 

"His analysis of the greed and self-delusion that led to the unravelling of America’s stock market and the subsequent Depression is undimmed by time ... Replace 1929 with 2008 and the story, I’m afraid, is eerily familiar: a speculative orgy, crescendo, climax and crash. As this plays out, important people – business and political leaders – rely on “the power of incantation” to keep the rest of us calm. Their efforts are doomed to fail."

Brown is keen at the moment to spin the banking "crisis" for his own political ends. Blair developed a notorious "taste for war". Brown, a taste for the City. Both leave a bitter taste in the mouth.

As the devil in the detail of Brown's bank bail-out is exposed and share prices crash on the stock market, Benn's answer - fully accountable public ownership - is looking increasingly like the only realistic solution.

Read More...

The English Question Still Unanswered

Ken Clarke's Democracy Taskforce group, looking at the vexed 'West Lothian Question', comes with a stark health warning: "We underestimated the resentment the Scots were feeling. We do not want to wait until English resentment builds up and we have a crisis."

The question is a simple one. Should Scottish MPs vote on English matters at Westminster - when Westminster MPs cannot do the same at Holyrood? 

But Clarke's report raises just more questions than answers.  The answers go to the very heart of our democratic legacy and have been highlighted  by the Orange Party  here. 

One solution put forward by the Taskforce is that Scottish MPs should not vote on amendments to England-only bills.

In his report, Clarke is proposing banning Scottish MPs from voting at the committee stage of bills relating to England.

However, they would still be allowed to vote at the earlier second reading stage and the third reading stage, when the bill as a whole either passes through the commons or fails.

What has to be made clear is exactly what are 'English-only matters' at Westminster? And would that not be better served by an English Parliament sitting alongside the UK Parliament at Westminster? 

But the real problem is over the representation to the parliaments and assemblies which have evolved piecemeal over time. 

The present system has been described by Labour MP, Frank Field, as "one of the festering sores in English politics", with English voters becoming increasingly resentful of the present system that allows a range of "fiscal discriminations". 

But the New Labour government is being, not surprisingly,  rather quiet on this vexed issue. The Scottish Labour Party is in disarray and Brown is under increasing pressure to reduce the Scottish grip in the cabinet.

The 'West Lothian' question, will never go away. Sooner or later it will fall on the government of the day to have to grasp the nettle and sort out the 'English Question'. 

Read More...

The English Question Answered

Sooner or later someone is going to have to grasp the nettle and sort out the 'English Question'. What kind of democratic representation should we have in the 21st century?

The present system has been described by Labour MP, Frank Field, as "one of the festering sores in English politics", with English voters becoming increasingly resentful of the present system that allows a range of "fiscal discriminations". 

And the Conservative's Ken Clarke, is looking at the same issue. 

The New Labour government is being, not surprisingly given the Scottish grip on the Party, rather quiet on this vexed issue. 

But this shouldn't be about nationalism. It should be about democratic structures and representation. Yes, it creates resentment, anger (and a headache) but that doesn't mean it can be hidden away. Sooner or later it will come to head. 

The problem is the simple democratic legacy. England doesn’t have a parliament. And whatever solution is put forward, this lack of an English parliament has to be settled once and for all. 

And the fact that Labour MPs, representing Scottish and Welsh constituencies, can vote through laws for England that do not effect their own constituents, is causing a growing backlash among English MPs and voters. 

An actual structure is becoming clear. Westminster, the Mother of all Parliaments, represent the United Kingdom - and that remains sacrosanct. MPs from all over the UK sit at Westminster.

But that UK parliament should only deal with matters which have not been devolved to the four nations. 

What has to be made clear is exactly what powers are devolved to the national parliaments and assemblies and what must remain for the UK as a whole to decide. Defence is obvious. So too must be national security, strategic transport, immigration policy, national taxation and the NHS. 

The Scottish parliament should be given more devolved powers. The Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies should move faster towards their own parliamentary status and the London Assembly must be considered as part of this devolution. 

But in the end, it is the UK parliament which should decide which powers are devolved.

And it would be an English assembly first, then parliament later, which also sits at Westminster, but clearly separate from the UK parliament, to decide English matters. 

That's the structure. Pretty clear and straightforward. Such a structure is inevitable anyway. 

The real problem isn't this structure or the cost. The problem is over the representation to the parliaments and assemblies which have evolved piecemeal over time. 

There's no way round this. England will have to produce another tier of government in the form of English members of parliament (EMPs) - similar to those in Scotland. 

But there's no reason why a present UK MP for an English constituency, sitting in the UK parliament, cannot be the same person as the English parliament MP.

It has to happen soon. Before it all turns nasty.

Read More...