uk politics
MP’s Sexual Assault Investigation Moved From Met Police Due to ‘Misogyny’ Fears
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
An investigation into an allegation of serious sexual assault against MP Julian Knight was moved from the Metropolitan Police to a local force because the complainant believed it was “institutionally misogynistic” and “could not be trusted” to prosecute a serving Westminster politician, Byline Times can reveal.
This newspaper has seen emails detailing how the case was transferred to Essex Police in May following high-level discussions between the Conservative Chief Whip Simon Hart and Scotland Yard, after Knight’s alleged victim expressed her dissatisfaction with the Met to Hart.
The woman’s decision was further motivated by the Casey Review, which found the Met to be “institutionally misogynistic” and revealed that it could be employing more officers like Wayne Couzens – the Westminster-based armed officer who was jailed for life for the 2021 murder of Sarah Everard.
It has also emerged that Essex Police is now looking into multiple serious sexual offence allegations against former select committee chair Knight, who was interviewed by its officers for several hours.
A source close to the case told Byline Times: “The complainant thought her allegations against Julian were not being taken seriously by The Met. She felt officers assigned to the case were not competent and didn’t appear to know what they were doing.
“Given the Met had an armed Metropolitan Police officer working around Parliament who went on to kill a woman, and the Casey report said there might be others, she didn’t think it could be trusted to investigate her allegations.
“It is another example of how, yet again, the Metropolitan Police has let itself down and, more importantly, let down the women it’s meant to serve.”
Nazir Afzal, former Chief Crown Prosecutor for North West England, said moving the case was unprecedented.
EXCLUSIVE
Senior police officers are ‘alarmed’ by former Home Secretary’s meetings with Fair Cop, which promotes nationalist ideology and has links to the Reclaim Party
Tom Latchem and Dan Evans
“It’s not uncommon for another police force to investigate allegations where there may be potential conflicts of interest or perceptions of bias because one of the suspects, alleged victims, or witnesses has some significant connection with the exporting force," he said. “But I can’t recall a situation where a case has been transferred because the culture has been misogynistic. What confidence does that give the thousands of other alleged victims whose cases haven’t been moved?”
Caroline Russell, leader of the Green Party in the London Assembly, said it was a “grim situation” when women don’t trust the Met to investigate serious sexual assault claims against politicians. “It shows just how much work is needed to rebuild the trust and confidence of Londoners in our police service,” she added.
Patsy Stevenson, who was awarded compensation from the Met over her treatment following a vigil for Sarah Everard, said she is "not surprised that women do not trust the Met" but that she is "scared because now there is nowhere to turn when things like this happen".
“Right now, I can’t see a way forward for the Met – apart from completely starting from scratch or defunding the police to put money into organisations that actually help,” she added.
'More Supportive and Communicative'
The Met confirmed last December that it was conducting an investigation into a single allegation of serious sexual assault against Julian Knight, then Conservative MP for Solihull, and the chair of the House of Commons’ Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Knight had the party whip withdrawn after the inquiry was launched, but insisted he is “entirely innocent of any wrongdoing whatsoever” and branded the move “wrong and unjustified”.
The force then announced in late March that it was "no longer proceeding with an investigation".
With the Conservative Party refusing to reinstate the whip, the following month Knight announced he would be resigning from the committee, and would not be standing as an MP in the next election.
Six days later, the BBC reported that four women had made complaints to parliamentary authorities about Knight since police dropped the investigation into him. It reported that the complaints are “thought to allege inappropriate comments and behaviour”.
In a statement, Knight said: "I am fully aware of the circumstances of the single complaint made against me to the Metropolitan Police and the motivations of those involved in making it. This baseless complaint was dismissed by the police without their even feeling the need to interview me, which they never did.
"I have not been made aware of any details of allegations supposedly made subsequently against me to any parliamentary authorities. Nor am I the subject of any investigation by Parliament's Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. Should I become the subject of any such investigation, I will fully and publicly defend myself against any allegations.
"Meanwhile, it is deplorable that, despite the police decision, I remain the subject of what appears to be a smear campaign conducted through leaks, false innuendo and briefings."
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
In May, the case was then handed over to Essex Police, which confirmed it was investigating a single allegation of serious sexual assault. It was not clear at the time why the case was referred. But Byline Times has learned that the complainant expressed her concerns about the Met to Conservative Chief Whip, Simon Hart.
He is understood to have personally intervened by making an appeal to high-ranking Scotland Yard officials that the case be referred elsewhere.
While a spokesman for Hart declined to comment while the investigation was ongoing, a source said: “It’s fair to say that Simon’s actions saved the complainant from pulling out and the case collapsing altogether. The case was transferred to a really well thought of department of Essex Police, which is led by someone who is highly-experienced in this area of investigating. Since the move, there is a feeling that Essex Police has been far more supportive and communicative.”
Essex Police confirmed to this newspaper that it is currently investigating multiple allegations against Knight. A spokesman said: “A man has been voluntarily interviewed in connection with an investigation into allegations of serious sexual assault. The investigation relates to alleged incidents outside of Essex which are non-recent. Our investigation is ongoing.”
The Metropolitan Police and Julian Knight MP were contacted for comment.
Revealed: The British Army is Training Soldiers From Countries that have had Recent Coups
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The Ministry of Defence has, since 2012, trained troops from at least eight countries that have had recent military coups, new evidence from charity Action on Armed Violence reveals.
These international cadets were attendees of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (RMAS), where all officers of the British Army are trained.
The international troops came from Mali, Niger, Egypt, Thailand, Burundi, Sudan, Chad, and Gabon – which have all experienced military coups since 2012.
According to the analysis of two Freedom of Information requests to the UK Ministry of Defence (MoD), as many as 1,123 overseas cadets were trained in Sandhurst between 2012 and 2022. In total, cadets at the officer training academy have come from at least 61 countries since 2012.
A comparison of those nations with a global coup dataset compiled by American researchers Powell and Thyne shows that eight countries that have sent military cadets for British army training since 2012 have also gone on to witness military coups.
It is not known if the trained cadets from Mali, Niger, Egypt, Thailand, Burundi, Sudan, Chad and Gabon were involved in the military coups, as the MoD would not release the names of its attendees.
In 2018, the British Army was paid some £4.6 million by countries sending students to train at its Berkshire academy. The MoD’s website states that “other nations choose to send their personnel to RMAS for officer training because it is recognised as a world-leading military training academy”.
The Profitable Nexus: How Ex-British Military Leaders Find Lucrative Roles in Business and Defence
Concerns swirl in Whitehall around retired senior British officers looking to advise foreign governments – conflicts of interest persist even if there is no wrongdoing, writes Iain Overton
Iain Overton
The MoD argues that all overseas officers attending RMAS are taught to lead by example and positively shape the cultures and behaviours that are defined by the British Army’s “values and standards” – including courage, discipline, respect for others, integrity, loyalty, and selfless commitment. Their actions must be lawful, appropriate, and professional.
The number of cadets has also increased in recent years. In 2017/8, just 96 troops from overseas countries were trained at Sandhurst by the British Army. In 2022/23, this had risen to 149 – an increase of 55%, with nearly every year showing an increase in numbers.
The research also showed that, of the 97 nations that have experienced military coups – both successful and foiled – since 1950, RMA Sandhurst has recently trained up army cadets from at least 24 of them.
These are Afghanistan, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Burundi, Egypt, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Indonesia, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Lebanon, Libya, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Yemen.
Mali
In 2021, Mali's coup leader Colonel Assimi Goïta seized power, orchestrating the ousting of President Bah Ndaw and Prime Minister Moctar Ouane. Goïta claimed their removal was necessary due to their failure to consult him about a recent Cabinet reshuffle.
There had been another coup in 2020, in which the junta leader had sought to lead the interim government. However, the regional body, the Economic Community of West African States, (ECOWAS), which mediated the transition deal, insisted on a civilian leader.
Yet Colonel Goïta clearly remains in power as ‘Interim’ President of the West African nation.
The power struggle underscores the ongoing political instability in Mali, with the regional implications and potential consequences remaining uncertain.
Niger
In July 2023, democratically elected President Mohamed Bazoum was overthrown by the very presidential guards responsible for protecting his office.
General Abdourahmane Tchiani was installed as the new head of state, suspending the country's constitution.
The coup was driven by concerns about escalating security threats from jihadist groups in the Sahel region.
International reactions include stern condemnations from France, Niger's former colonial power, and calls from the US and various international bodies for the president's release. The coup threatens Niger's cooperation with European nations on migration issues and efforts to combat human trafficking.
Egypt
In 2013, the Egyptian army ousted President Mohammed Morsi, suspended the constitution, and announced plans for new elections following widespread protests.
Army Chief General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi led the coup to remove Morsi, who was Egypt's first freely elected President.
Violent clashes and detentions followed, including the arrest of key Muslim Brotherhood figures. US President Barack Obama expressed deep concern and called for a swift return to civilian rule.
Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was sworn in as President of Egypt in 2014 and remains in office.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Thailand
In 2014, Thailand's military, led by Army Chief General Prayuth Chan-ocha, seized control of the Government, and suspended the constitution, following months of political unrest.
Martial law and a nationwide curfew were imposed, the Cabinet was ordered to report to the military, TV broadcasting was halted, and political gatherings were banned.
Thailand has witnessed at least 12 military coups since 1932.
General Prayuth justified the coup as a necessary action to prevent further loss of life and property.
Burundi
In 2015, an attempted coup was staged in Burundi, targeting President Pierre Nkurunziza.
It was announced by Major General Godefroid Niyombare, leading to celebrations in the capital, Bujumbura. However, the coup failed and was met with international concern, including from then UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon who urged restraint.
General Niyombare, once a close ally of the President, cited the President's unconstitutional bid for a third term as the motivation for the coup.
Chad
In 2021, the death of Chad's long-serving President Idriss Déby triggered a political crisis in the country, prompting accusations of a "dynastic coup" by the main opposition parties.
Déby, who was 68 and had been in power for three decades, died after being shot in combat with rebels. Following his death, his son Mahamat Idriss Déby Itno, a 37-year-old four-star general, was swiftly appointed as the country's new leader, dissolving the Government and Parliament.
This move was met with widespread condemnation, including from rebels who insisted that "Chad is not a monarchy". The African Union (AU) expressed "grave concern" over the military takeover.
Sudan
A military coup consumed Sudan in 2021, during which Prime Minister Abdallah Hamdok and his Cabinet were arrested and the Government dissolved.
The coup drew international concern, especially as Sudan had only recently begun re-establishing global ties after years of isolation.
The country had been in a transitional phase since the overthrow of authoritarian President Omar al-Bashir in 2019, with a joint military-civilian Sovereign Council governing.
General Abdel Fattah Abdelrahman Burhan, the head of the Sovereign Council, announced a state of emergency and dissolved both the Council and the Cabinet.
Gabon
In 2019, the Government of Gabon successfully quashed a coup attempt led by a group of soldiers who briefly seized the state radio station. The soldiers called for a public uprising while President Ali Bongo was in Morocco, recovering from a stroke.
All coup plotters were apprehended, and both the African Union and the French Foreign Ministry condemned the attempt.
This year, another Gabon coup succeeded. Gabon's new military leader, General Brice Oligui Nguema, declared a temporary suspension of democracy but did not provide a timeline for new elections.
The move came after the military seized control of the government, ending the Bongo family's 55-year hold on power and placing President Ali Bongo under house arrest.
The coup has drawn criticism from international bodies such as the UN and the African Union, as well as from Gabon's former colonial power, France.
Gabon's main opposition group, Alternance 2023, has called for the restoration of civilian rule, describing plans for General Nguema to be sworn in as transitional President as "absurd".
US Sanctions Rwanda Over Child Soldiers – As UK Sings President Kagame’s Praises
The latest sanctions stand in stark contrast to the UK Government’s often inaccurate descriptions of life in Rwanda, where it plans to send some asylum seekers
Brian Latham
Highlighting the recent “succession of military coups” across Africa, UN Secretary-General António Guterres in August 2023 emphasised the need for durable democratic governance and the rule of law.
“Many countries face deep-seated governance challenges – but military governments are not the solution,” Guterres told the press at the UN Headquarters in New York. “They aggravate problems. They cannot resolve a crisis; they can only make it worse.”
In addition, research shows that cadets trained by the British Army over the 11-year period under review (since 2012) came from 13 nations that are also on the latest 2021 list of nations of human rights concern that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) publishes annually.
The FCDO stated that these 13 nations were among 31 countries “where we are particularly concerned about human rights issues, and where we consider that the UK can make a real difference”.
These 13 countries were Afghanistan, Bahrain, Bangladesh, China, Colombia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Sudan, Sudan and Yemen.
A British Army spokesperson said: “Whilst at Sandhurst, personnel are exposed to UK doctrine and training on international humanitarian law and other international conventions along with the values and standards of the British Army, which promote concepts of accountability, human rights and transparency.
“Sandhurst has a long and proud tradition of training overseas military and civilian personnel. We welcome the overseas personnel who attend Sandhurst, bringing with them unique skills and experiences.”
But the revelation that RMA Sandhurst has trained cadets from countries that later witnessed military coups raises ethical and strategic questions about the UK's military engagement with nations that have dubious human rights records and unstable political landscapes.
It also highlights a potential dissonance between the UK's professed commitment to human rights and democratic governance, and its military training practices.
A transparent review of how and why such training is being provided, and its potential implications for international peace and security, might allay future concerns.
Iain Overton is the executive director of the Action on Armed Violence (AOAV) charity
Government Faces Court Action Over Arms Sales to Israel Amid Claims of Gaza “Genocide”
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Human rights groups are taking the UK Government to the High Court over arms exports to Israel.
Palestinian human rights organisation Al Haq and the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) announced the launch of legal proceedings earlier this week.
The legal filing comes amid claims Israel's policies explicitly call for collective punishment and forced displacement of Gaza’s trapped population, along with increasingly aggressive settlement activity in the West Bank.
The legal action was taken after written requests to suspend arms sales to Israel due to grave breaches of international law and UK rules were “repeatedly ignored”, the groups say.
The filed papers detail indiscriminate attacks on civilians, destruction of infrastructure critical for their survival, starvation, forced displacement, and the risk of genocide.
The action is supported by the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians, and the briefing will also have contributions from other UK organisations, including the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT).
Since 7 October, more than 14,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel according to the health ministry, around half of whom are children. It comes as Israel continues to respond to Hamas' terror attacks six weeks ago.
Don't miss a story
Under the UK Government’s 'strategic licensing criteria', weapons may not be exported where there is a clear risk that they might be used in serious violations of international law.
Israel’s policies and actions have resulted in widespread indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on civilians, killing thousands and levelling entire neighbourhoods to the ground, Al Haq and GLAN argue.
Protected sites such as hospitals, schools, and food sources have been repeatedly and, in the eyes of human rights observers, targeted by airstrikes. Israel has also ordered the forced displacement of more than a million Gazans from north to south Gaza. The UN stated this transfer would have "devastating humanitarian consequences".
Earlier this month, UK health workers protested to demand an immediate end to UK arms sales to Israel.
The UK Government has authorised nearly £500 million worth of arms exports to Israel in the past eight years, according to MedAct, a non-profit for social-justice focused health workers.
In the statement by Health Workers for a Free Palestine, the group said: “As health workers, we are responding to the call from our colleagues in Palestine for us to stand with them in solidarity.”
Elizabeth, a foundation doctor, told the protest: “We are horrified at the attacks on hospitals, the thousands of deaths, the collective punishment of the Palestinian people, and how politicians are justifying this. As health workers in the UK, it is our responsibility to demand the UK ends its support for genocide.”
Recent statements by Israel’s Defence Minister, Yoav Gallant, strongly suggest that the military is conducting reprisal attacks against civilians, with Gallant ordering a "complete siege" of the Gaza Strip.
"There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed. We are fighting human animals and we act accordingly". In the context of ordering the evacuation of northern Gaza, he also stated on 9 October that the aim is "to change the face of reality in Gaza 50 years ahead".
An IDF spokesperson has admitted that, in the large-scale bombardment of Gaza, Israel’s "emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy", and an unnamed Israeli official told local media that Gaza would be reduced to a "city of tents" by the end of the campaign.
Legal experts have even suggested that these statements demonstrate “genocidal intent” to destroy Palestinians as a national group.
On 16 November, UN experts made a statement calling on the international community to prevent genocide against the Palestinian people, saying "grave violations committed by Israel against Palestinians in the aftermath of 7 October, particularly in Gaza, point to a genocide in the making".
The Israeli regime violates most of the fundamental human rights of Palestinians.
EXCLUSIVE
‘They are Cutting Down the Cemetery Trees for Firewood’: Life in the Middle of Gaza Amid War
‘The cemetery has no more space for dead bodies. The graves are full’, British-Palestinian journalist Hamza Elbuhaisi tells Byline Times
Josiah Mortimer
More than 800 scholars recently signed a letter aiming to “sound the alarm about the possibility of the crime of genocide”.
The backers of the UK legal claim over arms sales say that Israel imposes a comprehensive system of “apartheid in occupied territory”, including constructing a separation barrier (or 'Apartheid Wall') which the International Court of Justice has declared illegal.
“Its soldiers regularly shoot unarmed civilians with live ammunition; it constantly monitors the Palestinian population and impedes their movement through dozens of checkpoints and advanced technology; it destroys Palestinian property and moves its own population into occupied territory," the groups said in a statement. "This brutality against Palestinians in the West Bank has only worsened since 7 October."
The UK Government has granted licences for the sale of British weapons to Israel under a wide range of categories in recent years. For example, since 2015, there has been £472 million in limited value ‘standard’ licence grants, and 58 unlimited value ‘open’ licences.
The categories include: body armour, military communications equipment, military electronic equipment, components for military radars and targeting equipment, components for military aircraft displays and unmanned air vehicles, components for military support and combat aircraft, naval vessel components, and much more.
Given that these items are all capable of being used in Israel’s actions against Palestinians, many of which are criminal acts under international criminal law, some legal experts argue there is a "clear risk" of human rights abuses under the strategic licensing criteria, meaning the Government should not be issuing these licences.
Dearbhla Minogue, GLAN senior lawyer, said: “No self-respecting state should allow its weapons anywhere near the atrocities that Israel is currently committing against the entire population of Gaza. These licences are outrageous, and I am curious to see how the UK Government will defend itself before the High Court.”
‘I was Assaulted by the Far Right for Protesting Peacefully – and this Government was Complicit’
Maddy Fry was assaulted on the march last weekend demanding a cease fire in Gaza. She is not going to forget how the authorities let her down
Maddy Fry
Dr Gearóid Ó Cuinn, director of the Global Legal Action Network, argued that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is the result of “numerous war crimes and crimes against humanity committed over time”.
“Recent statements by Israeli military leaders now obligate states to review their transfer of arms," Dr Ó Cuinn said. "There should be no doubt that these weapons are at acute risk of being used to commit further criminal acts and, possibly genocide."
Other experts say that it is not possible to prove Israel’s actions meet the legal threshold for genocide so far.
“I don’t think it’s genocidal yet – I think it can easily be,” Ernesto Verdeja, an associate professor of political science and peace studies at the University of Notre Dame, told the US outlet Vox. “At this point, it’s a little hard to put all the pieces together."
Israel has vociferously rejected claims of genocide in Gaza.
The Israeli Foreign Ministry said on 17 November: "Israel rejects all allegations made by the [UN] Special Rapporteurs. Those who signed the statement insult the victims of genocide throughout history… Israel is committed to international humanitarian law and will continue to take measures to prevent civilian harm in Gaza."
Under the UN Genocide Convention – which came into force in 1951 and has been ratified by 153 states – genocide means acts to specifically destroy a "national, ethnical, racial or religious group” by “killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, [or] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”.
Israel and Hamas have agreed a four-day ceasefire to allow humanitarian aid into the conflict zone, which began on Friday (24 November) morning.
A Conservative bill to ban council boycotts of countries like Israel on political grounds is currently making its way through Parliament and will soon head to the House of Lords.
GLAN has launched a crowdfunder to support its legal challenge.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him...
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
MPs Slam Parliament’s Slow Rebuilding Programme Progress – As Executives Receive Hundreds of Thousands in Bonuses
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The executives running Parliament’s rebuilding programme have been accused of a “staggering” failure to answer questions on the slow progress of the scheme – while raising eyebrows after receiving bonuses of hundreds of thousands of pounds between them.
According to a letter by the chair of the House of Commons’ Public Accounts Committee, Labour MP Dame Meg Hillier, RAAC – reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete – which has led to school closures has been found in 17 areas on the parliamentary estate: 13 in the Palace of Westminster, and four in outside buildings.
The letter questions why David Goldstone, chief executive of the Delivery Authority, in charge of the rebuilding programme, received a £168,000 “discretionary performance award” on top of a £10,500 pay rise – taking his pay to £478,500 from £300,000 between 2022 and 2023.
Six other executives also received bonuses between £45,000 and £86,000 a year.
Hillier points out that it has been six years since Parliament voted to rebuild the premises and that progress has been slow. Mr Goldstone's bonus therefore "surprised us given the slow pace of the programme”.
The earliest MPs will receive detailed proposals and costing for the rebuilding of Parliament is now set to be 2025, after slippages in the schemes.
“The prospect of works beginning in earnest remains a distant one and considering the amount of time already devoted to considering the options, it is staggering that so many questions remain unanswered,” Hillier says in the letter.
Costs Rise on Parliament’s £4 Billion Revamp
Delayed decisions are adding millions of pounds every week to the cost of refurbishing Parliament, reports David Hencke
David Hencke
The committee expressed serious concerns that the Delivery Authority may choose what is known as the 'continued presence' option – whereby rebuilding takes place while Parliament is still in session and open to the public.
“The ‘continued presence’ option brings with it the risk of even higher costs, taking far longer and being a far greater danger to security, health and safety," the letter states.
"You said that there are ‘very significant concerns and risks’ associated with the continued presence, not least that halfway through such an approach the disruption experienced could be such that you decide that a full decant is required after all, adding further cost, time and risk.”
The letter also reveals that the Delivery Authority is planning to spend another £1.2 million just to develop this option before it can publish its plan.
Initial maintenance on the parliamentary estate is now down to £1.45 million a week from £2 million – but the authorities have changed the parameters of the reporting so it only includes the Palace of Westminster and excludes other buildings on the estate.
So far, the letter reveals, the authorities are only investigating the extent of RAAC and will not have a full picture as to whether the concrete needs replacing until next year. But Hillier said staff don’t seem to be informed of what is happening.
“We were concerned that the Delivery Authority and client team are not communicating sufficiently with those who work in the Palace about what work is planned or taking place, and what has been found,” the letter states.
Don't miss a story
The Delivery Authority has previously defended the bonuses of the top executives in charge of the programme saying that “the Palace of Westminster needs extensive restoration work to continue serving as the home of our democracy for future generations and we are making good progress working with Parliament to agree a shortlist of options for the work as well as carrying out extensive building investigations".
It has added: “This is a highly complex project and all elements of pay for the Delivery Authority experts needed to plan and carry out the restoration work are benchmarked and broadly comparable to other major construction programmes.”
It has been asked to reply to the Public Accounts Committee to answer all its questions.
Eat Out to Help The Virus: How Rishi Sunak Avoided the Science on Covid
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
“At all steps in this [pandemic] we have taken the advice of our scientific advisers”, Rishi Sunak told the House of Commons back in April 2021.
We now know this wasn’t true. According to testimony this week from the Government’s former Chief Scientific Adviser Sir Patrick Vallance, and the current Chief Medical Officer Chris Whitty, we now know that far from "following the science" the Prime Minister actively avoided it.
According to both men, Sunak failed to seek any scientific advice before launching his controversial ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ scheme in the summer of 2020.
“There was no consultation”, Whitty told the Inquiry.
“Neither Patrick nor I can recall it and I think we would have done”.
Sunak’s scheme, which sought to encourage millions of people to visit restaurants in the middle of a global pandemic at a time when there was no working vaccines, was linked to a subsequent spike in infections.
That this would be the case was obvious. Encouraging people into close physical contact during the outbreak of a deadly virus was obviously never going to end well.
As Vallance himself told the Inquiry, "It's very difficult to see how it wouldn't have [increased] transmission and that would've been the advice that was given had we been asked".
Yet the scientists were not asked, for the simple reason that the then Chancellor appeared not to want the answer he would have been given.
Indeed, avoiding such advice appeared to be a priority for Sunak. According to Vallance, the former Chancellor told one meeting during the pandemic that his real priority was “handling the scientists, not handling the virus”.
In other words he was more concerned with managing those trying to tell him the truth about the virus than managing the virus itself. This was, in the view of Johnson’s former adviser Dominic Cummings, because “Rishi thinks just let people die and that's okay.”
While this may be an exaggeration of Sunak’s motivations at the time, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that this was essentially the position the Government took in the early months of the crisis.
All the Bad News Jeremy Hunt Buried in His Autumn Statement
Details buried in the Chancellor’s statement show we are heading for years more of tax rises, low growth and public sector cuts thanks to his Government, reports Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
Abandoned Standards
Like Sunak, Johnson also reportedly expressed his desire for the virus to be allowed to “let rip” through the population.
In records unearthed by the Inquiry, officials recall that Johnson believed that the country was being “pathetic” about Covid and should just have “a cold shower” and get over it. In one exchange he is recorded as sympathising with the idea that the virus was simply “nature’s way of dealing with old people”.
Yet while there are few people who will still be surprised by Johnson’s comments, the revelations about his successor are in some ways more troubling.
When Sunak belatedly called for Johnson’s resignation last year he claimed to be doing so because “the public rightly expect government to be conducted properly, competently and seriously”, adding that “I believe these standards are worth fighting for”.
Unfortunately everything we have seen since suggests that far from wanting to “fight” for these standards, as he suggested, Sunak was actually as content for them to be disregarded as his predecessor.
This can be seen not just in his behaviour during the pandemic, but also in his behaviour since. His decision to hire Suella Braverman just days after she was sacked for breaking the ministerial code, was an early and crucial sign that his commitment to “professionalism, integrity and accountability” was not what it first appeared.
His subsequent appointment of David Cameron, whose ties to China and previous business interests are already been covered up by Sunak’s Government is further proof of quite how unattached to proper standards the Prime Minister really is.
BREAKING
David Cameron’s Appointment is the Final Nail in the Coffin of Sunak’s Political Integrity
Sunak’s appointment of the disgraced former Prime Minister gives the lie to his claims to be restoring accountability to Government, writes Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
Yet it is his behaviour during Covid which should trouble us the most.
Throughout the pandemic Sunak and Johnson insisted they were “following the science” on Covid.
As Vallance pointed out this week, this claim was not only untrue but also potentially harmful.
At the start of the pandemic scientists were unsure about exactly how virulent the virus would prove to be. As such there was no single “science” which the Government could follow. What there was instead was a growing body of evidence and some reasonable scientific inferences that could be drawn from that evidence.
The job of the Government’s scientific advisers was not to tell ministers what “the science” was to be followed, but to simply inform them what the evidence was and then allow them to make their own political decisions based on that evidence.
As Vallance said this week, what Johnson’s Government did instead was to “hide” behind the scientists and use them as justifications for doing what they wanted to do anyway.
The problem was that this was not always possible, as Sunak inadvertently revealed with his frustration at being unable to “handle the scientists”.
This was particularly exposed by the Eat Out to Help Out scheme.
It was obviously the case that encouraging people into hospitality settings during a pandemic was going to be in conflict with any scientific advice the Government might have sought at the time.
One way to deal with this might have been for Sunak to say that while the scheme risked increasing infections, it was still justified for economic reasons. Yet instead of being honest about that, Sunak and Johnson simply refused to seek any advice and pretended that there were no risks involved at all.
Thanks to the Inquiry we now know that the Government's mantra that it was "following the science" was not only untrue, but harmful.
Far from following the science on Covid, the Prime Minister and his predecessor actively avoided it.
Austerity 2.0 Snuck into Chancellor Jeremy Hunt’s Autumn Statement as NHS and Services Face Huge Cuts
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
A new round of austerity is on its way if the next Government sticks to plans snuck out in the Autumn Statement - with Chancellor Jeremy Hunt pushing huge cuts to departments onto the next Government to balance his budget.
The NHS alone faces cuts of £5bn in real-terms, according to Lib Dem analysis of Wednesday’s major fiscal event.
Jeremy Hunt has cut day-to-day spending in cash terms for NHS England in 2024-25 from £165.9bn in his March Budget to £162.5bn in the Autumn Statement, a cut of £3.4 billion.
Taking inflation into account, that will leave the NHS budget £4.7 billion (2.9%) lower compared to 2022-23. It comes despite the Conservative Government handing £3.8bn a year of tax cuts to the banks.
Jeremy Hunt cut the Bank Surcharge from 8% to 3% in April this year, even as he increased taxes on millions of families by extending the freeze in income tax thresholds.
It follows Conservative cuts to the Bank Levy every year from 2016 to 2021. The two bank taxes are forecast to raise a combined £2.4 billion next year, down from £4.7 billion in 2016-17 – a 60% real-terms cut.
Don't miss a story
Analysis by the Liberal Democrats shows that banks will pay £22 billion less over the next five years than if revenues from the Surcharge and Levy had been maintained at 2016-17 levels in real-terms.
Jeremy Hunt failed to mention the crisis in the NHS in his Autumn Statement, instead kicking cuts to health budgets down the road.
The Trades Union Congress (TUC) has been vocal in its criticism of the Chancellor's latest round of austerity measures. The trade union body said the Chancellor has confirmed “another round of punishing spending cuts to public services and investment”.
Cutting National Insurance won’t make up for “13 continued “years of economic failure on living standards and growth” the organisation said in a statement.
Growth forecasts have been revised down and real wages are set to remain below 2008 level until 2028.
TUC General Secretary Paul Nowak said: “At a time when our schools and hospitals are crumbling – the Chancellor has confirmed another round of punishing and undeliverable spending cuts to public services and investment. Be in no doubt – if the Tories win the next election, even more austerity is on the way.”
All the Bad News Jeremy Hunt Buried in His Autumn Statement
Details buried in the Chancellor’s statement show we are heading for years more of tax rises, low growth and public sector cuts thanks to his Government, reports Adam Bienkov
Adam Bienkov
Dr. John Puntis, Co-Chair of Keep Our NHS Public, expressed grave concerns about the state of the NHS, pointing out the £1.5 billion gap in current Integrated Care Systems budgets alongside record waiting lists. He criticised the Chancellor for ignoring the healthcare crisis and for policies that he views as punishing sick and disabled people.
Instead of investing in the NHS, Dr Puntis said: “[The Conservatives] have a Victorian workhouse mentality that seeks to further demonise and impoverish sick and disabled people by withdrawing benefits unless they get into work.
“Extra and more timely medical appointments are promised to people as a solution to support this, yet without announcing any additional NHS funding or capacity to enable it…We desperately need a Government that will seek to improve all our lives and not further degrade them by choosing a second phase of austerity."
Under the Government's spending plans, real-term cuts are coming to public investment from next year, signalling a “new round of austerity, which could hinder economic growth and prosperity,” a spokesperson for the progressive Institute for Public Policy Research think tank said.
Carys Roberts, IPPR executive director, said: “The chancellor claimed to be making long-term decisions, but his actions prove otherwise. The UK sorely needs investment - in schools, homes, hospitals, and in net-zero industries of the future. But the chancellor announced real-terms cuts to public investment, which will hold back economic prosperity, and he chose to cut taxes which will suck money out of public services.
“This is despite the public favouring higher rather than lower taxes and spending. Many of his most consequential plans are put off to the next parliament, when we could have a different chancellor altogether.”
Real-terms capital spending - investment in infrastructure - is projected to fall by £20 billion in real terms (or a reduction of a third) in a few years, according to the Resolution Foundation. The economy is in the weakest state in the run up to an election in three decades, the Resolution Foundation said in a post-statement briefing.
RDEL = Real Terms (Inflation Adjusted) Departmental Expenditure. Unprotected departments (green line) see major cuts in the coming years. Picture: Resolution Foundation briefing
Unprotected Government departments will see their real budgets fall by 14% under Chancellor Hunt’s plans, delayed until the next Government is in. An election is expected around May or Autumn next year.
"2010 levels of austerity are coming” Smith added, something that is “absolutely undeliverable given public services pressures”. Almost all the handouts in National Insurance tax cuts come from reducing departmental spending in the future, several other analysts have noted.
Real household disposable income has also collapsed under Johnson/Truss/Sunak compared to previous Prime Ministers, with high inflation following the pandemic having a major impact on family finances.
The independent Office for Budget Responsibility says that if fuel duty rates are held at the current rate then more than 43 per cent of the supposed £13bn spending headroom for Government in 2028-29 would be removed. The Government has repeatedly frozen fuel duty over the past decade following lobbying from motorists.
Moreover, the financial damage from tax threshold freezing far outweighs the benefit to people from the National Insurance cuts by a factor of around four. Meanwhile, tax as a percentage of GDP is continuing to grow past its highest levels ever, even with the NI reduction, James Smith, Research Director at the Resolution Foundation said.
In a Progressive Britain event on Wednesday night, Shadow Environment Secretary Steve Reed indicated Labour's intention to diverge from the Conservative spending cuts, saying: “The party isn’t going to walk into an open trap,” according to Politico.
he Government could raise £7.5 billion a year for vital public services by closing unfair tax loopholes, according to new research by tax campaigners shared by Byline Times this week.
Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH
Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.
So for more from him...
Do you have a story that needs highlighting? Get in touch by emailing josiah@bylinetimes.com
Ammonia Land: Agricultural Development and Pollution ‘Gone Rogue’ in Northern Ireland
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The Northern Ireland Environment Agency – housed within the devolved Department of Agriculture, the Environment and Rural Affairs – introduced a “pause” on 38 planning applications for livestock farming and biogas plant developments earlier this year.
But it has lifted this temporary suspension to processing applications despite not having changed the wording of the advice on ammonia levels that it issues to Northern Ireland's 11 councils which rule on the plans, Byline Times can reveal.
Campaigners say that DAERA may now risk inviting various forms of legal action, with one claiming a top NIEA scientist had warned publicly that it was vulnerable to such action only four years ago.
Ninety-eight per cent of protected habitats in Northern Ireland are estimated to be exceeding critical thresholds of ammonia – the point at which ecological damage occurs – by up to as much as 300%.
Scientists and public health experts have consequently dubbed Northern Ireland “ammonia land” and warned that its current emissions levels pose serious dangers to protected plant species (such as sphagnum moss, which acts as a carbon sink), as well as to human health.
The NIEA announcement comes as two separate probes are under way into more than 100 applications for new pig and poultry developments, as well as for biogas plant facilities. The investigations are examining the widespread use of falsified soil samples in applications.
DAERA told Byline Times that none of the 38 “paused” applications were ones in which falsified documentation was suspected to have been used.
A "pause" on issuing ammonia advice for livestock unit planning applications was announced in May, as the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP) watchdog announced its first ever NI investigation, assessing whether this government advice has been lawful.
Of the 38 suspended applications, the highest number were in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area, where seven were highlighted by the NIEA. Five were suspended in both the Lisburn and Castlereagh City Council and Derry City and Strabane District Council areas.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
With the aim of beefing up its regulatory regime, the OEP’s remit was extended to Northern Ireland last year. But campaigners argue its ability to adequately investigate DAERA may be limited by the fact DAERA funds the regulator. The watchdog has stressed that its ammonia advice probe will be not impacted by this funding arrangement.
It is now questioning how the NIEA has taken the step of lifting its pause amid the OEP probe, without having altered the text of the advice it issues to councils which prompted the watchdog’s investigation over questions of lawfulness.
“Ammonia pollution is in the top five of the greatest threats to nature in Northern Ireland but of even more concern is the grave threat to public health,” James Orr, director of Friends of the Earth NI, told Byline Times.
“The polluted air is literally killing people. DAERA has known for years its ammonia protocol is vulnerable to legal challenge yet it is going back to the bad old days of caving into pressure from agri-food corporations.
“DAERA's failure to deal with water pollution has led to the dying of Lough Neagh. Now we are seeing the same reckless attitude to air pollution. Yet again, they are protecting polluters instead of protecting the air we breathe.”
Lough Neagh, the biggest freshwater body across the UK and Ireland in surface area, has been blighted by a resurgent blue-green algae bloom over the summer and autumn months. Locals say it is the “worst” they have ever seen, following years of farm-source nutrient overload.
Around 62% of the lough’s phosphate inputs are estimated to come from agricultural run-off, while 24% is thought to come from human sewage discharges within the lough’s vast catchment area.
Geraint Ellis, a professor at Queen’s University Belfast’s School of Natural and Built Environment, said the NIEA’s decision raised questions around transparency and lawfulness.
“Although pausing these planning applications may cause some difficulties for the applicants, the overriding public interest is to make sure they are assessed thoroughly and that we are sure that they do not exacerbate existing environmental problems," he told Byline Times.
“Given the significance of this issue, the high level of public concern over water quality in bodies such as Lough Neagh, and a declining confidence in the planning system, I find it remarkable that there is a lack of transparency about why this pause has been lifted. This lack of clarity will only fuel suspicions over the regulatory capture by big business.
“Although we do not know the full circumstances of why this pause is lifted, a lack of explanation significantly increases the risk of a legal challenge on this decision.”
A spokesperson for DAERA said: “NIEA took a decision in May to temporarily pause the issuing of ammonia planning advice while senior officials considered the use of the advice.
“Having considered the current situation in the context of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation etc) Act 2022, as amended by the Northern Ireland (Interim Arrangements) Act 2023, NIEA determined that there is not sufficient additional information or evidence, that wasn’t already available to the minister when he gave instructions for officials to continue to apply the operational protocol, to make a new decision that would change or set aside the policy/instructions set out by the former minister.
When Will the Sea Claim England’s Lowlands? We Don’t Know
As we continue to worsen climate change by burning fossil fuels, all these places will become harder and more expensive to defend – until the day they can’t be defended any more
Charlie Gardner
“Therefore, the pause has been lifted and NIEA has resumed offering advice based on the extant ammonia standing advice/protocol.”
Industry groups such as the Ulster Farmers’ Union have campaigned extensively since the “pause” was introduced by the NIEA to the applications for livestock farming and biogas plant developments.
Biomethane has just been introduced into Northern Ireland’s gas network for the first time, following a sustained period of industry lobbying.
A Stormont official’s note from more than a decade ago pointed out that the by-product of the anaerobic digestion process – which converts organic material to biomethane gas – does not address Northern Ireland’s emissions problems since this by-product, digestate, still contains high levels of ammonia and other harmful contaminants.
A Source Material investigation since then has also suggested that biogas plant deals struck by major firms like Moy Park with DAERA have allowed new poultry farms to “bypass detailed scrutiny of their impact on sensitive habitats”.
The OEP told Byline Times it had “noted” the NIEA’s decision to lift the “pause” on livestock applications and is considering its next steps.
Helen Venn, the OEP’s chief regulatory officer, said: “Our investigation into the ammonia advice DAERA provides to councils considering applications for certain livestock installations (known as the operational protocol) is ongoing. We have noted the NIEA’s decision to lift the pause on its provision of ammonia planning advice based on the operational protocol. We have a number of options available under our powers and duties and we are considering these as we continue our investigation.”
James Orr urged the watchdog to consider a legal challenge “as a matter of urgency” and said that, amid an almost two-year hiatus of devolved government, “DAERA has gone rogue”.
“This is also a huge insult to the OEP who announced they are investigating the application of the ammonia protocol in Northern Ireland yet DAERA have not had the decency to wait until that investigation is complete," he added. “Pollution is only going to get so much worse unless the OEP intervenes as a matter of urgency. They have the power to judicially review DAERA and this must be considered as a matter of urgency.
“It feels that even without ministers, DAERA has gone rogue. It is failing to comply with its legal duties and is playing Russian Roulette with the health of nature and with people’s health.”
‘The Price of Democracy in the UK has Just Gone Up Massively: The Conservatives Once Again Set the Rules to Benefit Themselves’
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
The Government this week sneaked out an announcement increasing the amount that political parties can spend on general elections by around 80%. This major change in election rules cannot be challenged by opposition parties. It is the governing party setting the rules to benefit themselves.
In the six general elections since spending limits were introduced for national parties in 2000, a limit of approximately £20 million in the year before a general election has proved adequate. Only the Conservative Party has consistently come close to spending up to this limit.
In the last four general elections, the Conservatives have spent between 80% and 97% of the legal maximum.
In contrast, Labour has spent between 42% and 69% of the limit.
Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats spent between 25% and 36% of the limit until the 2019 General Election (when the party spent 79% of the limit fuelled by ant-Brexit donations).
Only one party is therefore likely to benefit substantially from increasing the maximum limit for party spending.
The change has not been supported by the Electoral Commission, the 'watchdog’ powers of which have been watered-down by the Government.
Revealed: Britain’s Broken Election Laws Just Got Even Worse
The Government has made it even easier for dark money, foreign influence, and the proceeds of crime to bankroll British politics
Peter Geoghegan
A House of Commons question from Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael revealed the Commission’s concerns in advance of the announcement. A member of the Commons committee overseeing the Commission, Labour MP Cat Smith, said: “The UK Government’s proposals to increase the spending limits and donation reporting thresholds represent a significant change to the UK’s political finance controls.
"The Commission’s research shows a long-term decline in public confidence in the political finance system. Any changes to spending or reporting thresholds must be supported by rigorous analysis, including on the likely impact on public confidence and transparency.
“The Commission has not seen any evidence to support these changes. It is concerned that the proposals risk damaging the transparency of political donations and give significantly more scope for higher-spending parties to campaign.”
The Government’s new policy is a complete reversal of the pledges made by David Cameron when he became Prime Minister in 2010 to “take the big money out of politics”. All attempts to place a cap on the size of a donation from any one source since then have been resisted.
It will now be legally possible for a single billionaire to stump up the entire £36 million, or for six billionaires to pay £6 million each, and cover a party’s total general election spend at the national level.
Don't miss a story
After a general election, it may never be known what price, and what positions, have been extracted in return for such donations.
UK citizens living overseas for longer than 15 years will also now be able to vote in next year’s general election – but should tax billionaire exiles be able to give millions to political parties?
If the kind of 'financial fair play rules' now being applied to football clubs were applied to political parties, then the Conservatives would be deducted dozens of seats – probably many more seats than those which give them their present majority to force through rule changes in their favour.
It is the equivalent of Manchester City winning the Premier League and then setting new rules now to allow it 15 players on the pitch, while its opponents have 10.
If, and when, this Government is defeated, we must have fairer, and more democratic, rules in place.
Lord Rennard is a Liberal Democrat peer in the House of Lords. He led for his party on the Political Parties, Elections, and Referendum Act (PPERA) of 2000 which introduced maximum limits for political parties to spend in the year before general elections
All the Bad News Jeremy Hunt Buried in His Autumn Statement
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Jeremy Hunt on Wednesday told the nation that he was "cutting taxes" and pushing the UK towards a brave new era of higher growth and prosperity.
However, official forecasts and figures released after his statement paint a very different picture.
Despite the Chancellor's claims, these figures show that the British economy, public services and taxpayers' pockets are set for a protracted period of pain for years more to come.
Here's all the bad news the Chancellor didn't want to tell us about today.
Low Growth for Years to Come
Rishi Sunak today claimed that his Government is "delivering" on growth thanks to the "difficult" decisions he has taken. However, the Government's own Office for Budget Responsibility today confirmed that growth is actually expected to be lower than previously expected for most of the years in its forecast.
This means that the long-run of anaemic growth presided over by the Conservatives since 2010 is expected to continue even longer than previously thought.
Far from "turning the corner", today's forecast suggests that the British economy is set to remain at a dead end for some time to come.
Taxes Will Rise to a New High
"Conservatives cut your taxes", Jeremy Hunt insisted today as he announced plans for cuts to National Insurance.
However, according to the Government's own figures, the overall tax burden paid by taxpayers in the coming years is actually going to increase.
Thanks to the extension of so-called 'fiscal drag' caused by the Government's decision to freeze tax thresholds, the overall tax burden will now rise to its highest level since the Second World War.
These rises mean that according to analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, taxes are set to rise by a larger amount in this parliament than in any other in post-war history.
"The overall effect of the tax changes we’ve seen is that for most people, this is still going to be a tax rise" the IFS Director Paul Johnson said.
Living Standards Will Continue to Fall
Despite Hunt's promise of a new era of prosperity under this Government, new OBR figures show that since 2019 the UK has experienced the biggest fall in living standards since records began in the 1950s.
And despite Sunak's claim to be "delivering" on reducing rising living costs, today's forecast shows that inflation is now expected to remain "higher for longer" than previously forecast, and will not reach the Bank of England's target of 2% until a year later than previously expected.
The truth is that most will continue to feel worse off for some years yet.
Public Services Will be Slashed to Pay for Tax Cuts
Hunt's statement confirms that his National Insurance cuts will be paid for by cuts to public spending.
The plans are predicated on a mere one per cent planned year on year increase in resource spending. For many departments that means real-terms cuts in expenditure with overall departmental budgets cut by £19 billion compared to plans last March.
As the OBR's Richard Hughes said today: "The eagle-eyed amongst you will recognise that is roughly equal to the amount the chancellor spent on the two big tax cuts in this fiscal event."
As part of this plan, the government plans to slash the size of the civil service, with job numbers being cut to levels last seen before the pandemic.
Looking at the government's own plans released today, some departments are set for huge cuts to their budget on a scale that looks undeliverable.
'Levelling Up' will be Levelled Down
Hunt today claimed to be "levelling up" the country. However, according to the Government's own figures, the Department for Levelling Up is set to see its resource spending budget slashed in half from around £4 billion last year to around £2 billion in 2024-25.
Other departments set for cuts include the Home Office, Culture Department and HMRC.
Overall Public Investment will be Cut 
Sunak claimed last month that his Government is taking "long-term decisions for a brighter future."
However, as the recent collapsing schools scandal has shown, there is little evidence of such long-term thinking under this Govenrment, when it comes to the state of the public realm.
The long-term lack of investment seen over the past decade is set to become even worse according to today's Autumn Statement. Figures contained within it reveal that Hunt intends to implement a long-term cash freeze in public sector investment. This means that there will be significant real-terms cut in the amount of money being invested into public services under his plan for years more to come.
Revealed: Britain’s Broken Election Laws Just Got Even Worse
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
There has never been more money in British politics. Since the start of last year, Labour has raised more than £25 million. The Conservatives have taken in almost £40 million. Now, the parties can spend more than ever before.
On Monday, the Government rushed through massive increases in spending and donations thresholds – without holding a single parliamentary vote and with, seemingly, no media coverage (the eagle-eyed Seth Thevoz excepted).
But these new rules matter.
They mean that parties can spend more during election campaigns. They also mean more donors will be hidden from the public.
From now on, parties can accept donations of £11,180 – up from £7,500 – without publishing the donor’s name. That may not sound like a dramatic difference, but it’s actually a lot of money for British politics.
Just £12,000 bought Richard Desmond a seat next to then Housing Minister Robert Jenrick at a Conservative fundraising dinner in 2020, where the property developer was able to successfully lobby for a planning decision to be overturned, saving himself an estimated £50 million.
The new rules mean a family with two kids could donate almost £50,000 anonymously.
The Government’s own legislation admits that “a full impact assessment has not been produced for this instrument as no, or no significant, impact on the private, voluntary or public sector is foreseen”.
This is a truly extraordinary statement: legislation that will significantly increase the amount of 'dark money' in British politics is not judged to have any impact on, well, anything.
Why Are the Conservatives in a ‘Union’ with Viktor Orbán and Narendra Modi?
Peter Geoghegan examines the membership and funding of the International Democracy Union.
Peter Geoghegan
In the House of Commons, Conservative MP Jacob Young, a junior minister at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities – which is now in charge of British election laws – explained the changes as merely a reflection of “historic inflation” in the 20 years since the limits were initially set.
This is both true and deeply disingenuous. Why? Because, while inflation has risen sharply over two decades, the Committee on Standards in Public Life had previously called for the limits to be lowered.
And, even more importantly, political spending and donations thresholds have been increased by the very same Government that is completely failing to enforce British political finance laws and which has refused to close the many loopholes that allow dark money to pollute the political system.
Last year, it introduced the Elections Act, of which probably the most eye-catching measure was the introduction of mandatory voter ID.
More than £4.5 million was spent advertising voter ID online and off, according to a Freedom of Information request I submitted this summer. Nevertheless, an Electoral Commission study found that hundreds of thousands of voters could be excluded at the next general election – with the voter ID law disproportionately affecting poorer people, minorities, and those with disabilities.
How did the Department for Levelling Up respond? It said the roll-out of voter ID was “very encouraging”.
Voter ID is the start, but not the end, of the Elections Act’s calumnies. The legislation also gave ministers powers to set the strategy for, and guide the work of, the elections watchdog, the Electoral Commission. Forget the ‘cradle of parliamentary democracy’ talk – Britain, in effect, no longer has an independent elections regulator.
It is hard not to see the move as a victor’s punishment for the Commission’s decision to investigate the Vote Leave campaign’s breaches of electoral law during the 2016 EU Referendum. It is equally hard to conceive of a similar investigation happening again.
The Elections Act also removed the Commission’s power to initiate criminal proceedings. The watchdog had not used this power but – as Spotlight on Corruption has pointed out – its removal is likely to weaken its investigative and compliance activities.
The UK is heading into the next general election with no law enforcement body at a national level overseeing the political system. The National Crime Agency has no election finance expertise and has made it clear it is not interested in developing any. (Perhaps burned by its failed investigation into Brexit donor Arron Banks).
As the Electoral Commission has noted, UK elections law “is silent on whether or not money obtained from crime would make a political contribution unlawful”.
It's a good job there is no evidence of political donations being linked to the proceeds of criminal acts then.
But there’s more. The Elections Act introduced measures that will allow up to 3.5 million British nationals living overseas to be added to the electoral register. This is not a bad thing in itself, but the effect is added burdens on the electoral system at the same time as a weakening of its checks and balances.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
Foreign donors can still give money through UK-registered companies – even if the firm hasn’t made any profits.
The Government has also refused to do anything about shadowy unincorporated associations giving anonymous money to politics – despite repeated warnings, including from figures such as the former MI5 director Lord Evans.
Indeed, while most of the new donations and spending limits passed this week come into force in the new year, for unincorporated associations the legislation is explicitly backdated to October 1 2023. A cynic might wonder if there is any connection between this and the huge sums that the Conservatives receive in donations through these secrecy vehicles.
Would Labour reverse this if in power? There is little sign that this could be the case. Warm words about trust seem unlikely to be met with action.
Last month, I attended a fringe event about ethics and integrity at the Labour Conference – Neither of the two Labour representatives on the panel would commit to any substantive changes to tighten electoral laws or take dark money out of politics.
It is already clear that the next election is going to be the most expensive in British history. Labour’s private funding operation has massively ramped up. The Conservatives are taking in record sums, despite double-digit polling deficits. The legislation introduced this week means that parties can spend approximately a third more money during the next general election.
“We probably shouldn’t be surprised that this Government is increasing the amount of money they can bring in anonymously,” Labour MP Clive Lewis said. “This is a Government that has been far too cosy with, and facilitated a lot of the issues we have, with dark money in politics. Why? Because it’s benefited them.”
All this additional money will be spent in a political system with no checks and balances. This should worry everyone who cares about democracy.
Peter Geoghegan is the author of the bestselling 'Democracy for Sale: Dark Money and Dirty Politics’