James Brokenshire, the communities secretary, has announced in a written ministerial statement that he is sending commissioners to take over the governance and strategic financial management of Northamptonshire County Council.
As the Press Association reports, the action comes after an independent inspection report found that the Conservative-run authority had lost control of its budgets and failed in its duty to provide best value for money. The report, which recommended the abolition of the council, came after Northamptonshire imposed emergency spending controls in February, with its chief financial officer projecting a £21.1m overspend.
That’s all from me for today.
Thanks for the comments.
The Belhaj family’s supporters confirmed that the government will pay the “substantial” costs of their six-year legal fight, which will probably run into millions of pounds. As the Press Association reports, speaking alongside Fatima Boudchar outside Parliament, Cori Crider, from the Reprieve human rights campaign, said:
The government spent a heck of a lot of money on its own legal team defending the case. We offered absolutely at the outset of the case to walk away for a full apology – which we now have – and no money at all. This could have been done immediately and pretty cheaply.
A spokesperson for the digital, culture, media, and sport committee said MPs also expected to learn on Monday whether Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg would respond to his formal summons to attend a hearing before the end of the current parliamentary session.
MPs have been consistently frustrated in their efforts to convince the social network boss to appear. One possibility is that he could give evidence via video link and officials are attempting to co-ordinate an evidence session with his speculated appearance in front of the European Parliament.
The spokesperson also confirmed that unlike in 2011, when MPs despatched the deputy Serjeant at Arms in person to hand-deliver a formal summons to Rupert Murdoch, both Alexander Nix and Dominic Cummings were informed of the requests over email. (See 4.01pm.)
The Commons culture committee has announced that it has issued a formal summons to Alexander Nix, the former head of Cambridge Analytica, and to Dominic Cummings, the former Vote Leave campaign director, requiring them to give evidence to its “fake news” inquiry, on 6 June and 22 May respectively. It took the unusual step of using this procedure because Nix and Cummings are both refusing conventional invitations to appear.
Both have argued that they cannot give evidence while the Information Commissioner’s Office and the Electoral Commission are investigating their activities in the EU referendum, but Damian Collins, the committee chair, said the ICO and the commission both said sub judice was not an issue and that select committee hearings would not hinder their investigations.
In a statement Collins said:
The committee needs to get to the truth of what has happened. Mr Nix and Mr Cummings are important witnesses to the inquiry, and the committee needs to hear from them.
The committee has made entirely reasonable requests of both witnesses, issuing invitations over a period of time, with clear reasons put forward for why it would like to speak to them. Ignoring or refusing our requests adds up to resisting being held accountable by a democratically elected legislature.
Should Mr Nix or Mr Cummings fail to comply, the committee can report the matter to the House. This could result in a decision that a contempt of parliament has been committed.
The former Lib Dem leader Tim Farron has said he will withdraw from a Christian conference where organisers said churches were “wavering under the onslaught of the gay lobby” and claimed Muslim immigration was causing problems for Christians.
Farron, who came under fire for his beliefs about gay sex during the election campaign, said he had not seen the promotional material when he agreed to speak at the Northern Mens’ Convention, run by Christian Conventions.
A pamphlet advertising the conference, which is billed as “hold the word of God in the worst of times” has been circulated on Twitter. “Even in biblical teaching churches, many appear to be wavering under the onslaught of the gay lobby, Add to this the scenario the increasing problems associated with immigration and Islam in particular and indeed many other things which push Christians further and further to the margins.”
Farron is billed in the same pamphlet as one of the speakers.
MarkH
(@markrhewerdine)But wait. There’s more. For those playing Bigotry Bingo at home, we’ve got some Islamophobia thrown in too!
May 9, 2018
The MP said he would no longer attend.
“I agreed many months ago to attend a church-organised event but just today I’ve seen promotional material for it which contains things I’m deeply concerned and saddened by,” he tweeted. “As a result, I have withdrawn from the event.”
Tim Farron
(@timfarron)I agreed many months ago to attend a church-organised event but just today I’ve seen promotional material for it which contains things I’m deeply concerned and saddened by. As a result, I have withdrawn from the event.
May 10, 2018
Party activists expressed outrage at the billing. Jennie Rigg, the chair of LGBT Lib Dems, tweeted it was a “sexist, racist and homophobic” event. She said she had lost faith in Farron. “I’m sorry I ever defended him and I’m sorry to those of you I defended him to. I got it wrong. I apologise.”
Jennie Rigg
(@miss_s_b)Tim Farron is the star speaker at this sexist, racist AND homophobic event (many more details in the thread).
I’m sorry I ever defended him, and I’m sorry to those of you I defended him to. I got it wrong. I apologise.May 10, 2018
The party said it would not be taking any further action now Farron had pulled out.
Abdel Hakim Belhaj has been holding a press conference in Turkey following the government’s announcement of a settlement to his rendition case.
- Belhaj welcomed the outcome, thanked Theresa May, and said the settlement brought him joy.
There is no doubt that our arrival at this end point, which I consider to be the realisation of the justice that I sought, and which required great patience. We lived through these stages, a continuation of the suffering we endured in jail, including torture and bad conditions. There is no doubt that we are filled with joy, and we value this step that is a realisation of justice that we all must seek, regardless of our identity, culture, religion or geography.
- He said he particularly appreciated the reaction from MPs.
What I saw from the responses of the MPs today, it was like a balm, and I felt that there were those who saw the need for laws and guarantees to prevent this from happening again.
- He said he was always after just an apology, not compensation.
From the very first moment, I insisted that there must be an apology. I never asked for monetary compensation because I don’t want to impose on the taxpayers, and so I can put a quick end to this suffering, but what led us to the courts is the rejection of the demand for an apology. I welcome this step, the acceptance of the apology condition, and I hope this is not repeated with someone else.
Asked if the apology he received was sufficient, he said that having to wait so long had made things worse but that what mattered was the result in the end. He said:
The wording of the apology was heartfelt. There was a feeling of concern, an admission of the shortcomings, an expression of unreserved apology, lessons learned, admission of failings and an expression of disappointment towards the international partners that I was handed over to. All of these sentiments that came through in the apology, I welcome them.
- He said President Trump’s decision to nominate Gina Haspel as director of the CIA was a “step in the wrong direction”. Asked about her nomination, he said:
I think the American administration is acting with arrogance and negativity in particular towards the Muslim world. What does it mean for someone to be elevated and honoured, someone who oversaw a secret prison in Thailand where torture was being practiced? That is a step in the wrong direction and an expression of poor intent towards the other, and it is regrettable.
The Home Office has announced that the compensation scheme it is setting up for Windrush-era migrants who lost out because of government immigration policies will be overseen by a QC whose own parents belonged to that generation. The news has come in the form of a written ministerial statement although, confusingly, it is in the name of Amber Rudd. Someone has forgotten that she resigned, and was replaced as home secretary by Sajid Javid.
The statement also announces a consultation on how the compensation scheme will work. Here are the key paragraphs.
As a first step to establishing the compensation scheme the Home Office is today launching a call for evidence that is addressed to those who have been affected by this situation, and to their families. This will be the first step of the consultation process, and will be published on gov.uk. A copy of the document will also be placed in the House Library.
It is always important for government to listen, and it is especially important to do so now. To put things right we need to understand more about what happened, to understand the personal stories, which will help to inform the design of the compensation scheme. As well as receiving written contributions I have asked officials to reach out to the people and communities most closely affected, listen to their concerns directly and, in particular, understand properly how we might address them through a compensation scheme.
I believe it is also important to have some external assurance that the compensation scheme meets the needs of those affected. So I will appoint an independent person to oversee the running of the scheme when it is in place. Martin Forde QC has agreed to provide independent advice on the design of the scheme. He is himself the son of Windrush parents and brings a wealth of experience in complex public law and compensation matters. I am confident that he will ensure that the interests of those affected will be properly represented and reflected in the scheme.
The call for evidence will run until 8 June. Once we have listened and considered those contributions, I will then launch a public consultation as soon as possible to provide the technical detail on proposals for the compensation scheme. I want to put in place a compensation scheme as quickly and as carefully as possible, to help redress what has gone wrong.
Forde is a barrister with 1 Crown Office Row chambers. There is more on him here.
At first minister’s questions in the Scottish parliament at lunchtime the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie called on Nicola Sturgeon to back a second EU referendum, noting that a number of senior SNP figures had given it their support.
Sturgeon responded that it was “not the SNP that is going to be a block for a second referendum”, but that the Lib Dem’s would be better off trying to convince Labour in Westminster, though she didn’t hold out much hope given their stance on the customs union.
She added that the hope in holding a second referendum would be to produce a different result. She went on:
But the problem in Scotland is that our remain vote was entirely ignored. What guarantee can Willie Rennie give that our remain vote would not be ignored entirely again?
Fatima Boudchar emerged from parliament at 1.30pm to appear before the cameras triumphant holding up a copy of the letter of apology she received from the prime minister. Speaking through an interpreter, she said: “The British government has apologised after six years.”
Sapna Malik, a partner at the law firm Leigh Day which represented Boudchar and her husband, said:
After six years the government has accepted that there ate lines that should not be crossed.
During the statement Jeremy Wright, the attorney general, also said the rendition events took place at a time when UK and its international partners “were suddenly adapting to a completely new type and scale of threat”. He went on:
It is clear with the benefit of hindsight that the government, the agencies and their staff were in some respects not prepared for the extreme demands suddenly placed on them.
The unacceptable practices of some of our international partners should have been understood much sooner.
Wright said the government had learnt lessons from this period. He said:
The government has enacted reforms to ensure that the problems of the past will not be repeated. We’ve made it clear that ministers must be consulted whenever UK personnel involved in a planned operation believe a detainee is at serious risk of mistreatment by a foreign state.
We have also improved parliament’s ability to oversee the actions of the agencies through the Justice and Security Act of 2013.
In the Commons, during the Jeremy Wright statement, Andrew Mitchell, the Conservative former international development secretary, said Fatima Boudchar was mistreated in a “black site” in Thailand partly run by Gina Haspel, who has been nominated as the new director of the CIA. He said:
The lesson from all of this is, surely, that the officials who help us stay safe and who defend our country in the shadows must never play fast and loose with human rights and international humanitarian law which are the rocks upon which the safety of all of us depends.
Will Wright ensure that he sends to his opposite number in Washington the relevant details of this issue in respect of Gina Haspel whose hearings for the role of director of the CIA are currently taking place and who was involved in the management of the black site in Thailand where Fatima Boudchar was held and so grievously mistreated?
Wright said he did not want to get involved in who should be the next head of the CIA. But he said the UK would be giving the clearest possible signals to its allies about what its standards were and what it would and would not accept.
For more on Haspel, read this, an article by my colleague Julian Borger from earlier this week saying her confirmation hearing would be “a public reckoning of one of the darker chapters in modern US history”. And here is a live blog by my colleague Lauren Bambino of her confirmation hearing before the senate intelligence committee yesterday during which she refused to say whether torture techniques are immoral.
These are from the BBC’s Dominic Casciani.
Dominic Casciani
(@BBCDomC)The Belhaj rendition & torture legal battle was all about secret documents that showed MI6’s actions led to the abduction of the dissident and his then-pregnant wife. The documents were found in Tripoli after Gaddafi’s downfall.
May 10, 2018
Dominic Casciani
(@BBCDomC)So here are some of the documents that Belhaj’s team said were so damning. Number One: In 2001, MI6’s Mark Allen struck up a relationship with the Libyans to share intelligence on Islamist & jihadist groups
May 10, 2018
Dominic Casciani
(@BBCDomC)Number two: The Libyans began to ask the Brits for information on Mr Belhaj – referred to here in this document under one of his pseudonyms.
May 10, 2018
Dominic Casciani
(@BBCDomC)Number Three: By late 2003/early 2004. the agency was agreeing to help the Libyans capture Mr Belhaj in south-east Asia, in return for Libya’s co-operation with the West over disarmament. This memo refers to him being in China
May 10, 2018
Dominic Casciani
(@BBCDomC)Number Four: March 2004 – and MI6 tells the Libyans that Mr Belhaj (referred to here under a false name) is in custody in Malaysia – a crucial tip-off that led Tripoli and the CIA to work together to abduct him.
May 10, 2018
Dominic Casciani
(@BBCDomC)Number Five: The CIA flew Mr Belhaj and Mrs Boudchar to Tripoli where they were imprisoned. Sir Mark Allen later penned this memo to his Libyan counterpart – again referring to Mr Belhaj with a false name
May 10, 2018
Jack Straw, who was foreign secretary at the time of the rendition of Abdel Hakim Belhaj and Fatima Boudchar and who was being sued by them until the claim was withdrawn, has put out a statement about today’s settlement. He said:
I welcome the withdrawal of the proceedings against me that had been brought by Mr Belhaj and Ms Boudchar. I recognise that the events they describe will have been deeply distressing for them.
As foreign secretary I was responsible for approving or authorising a wide range of matters to protect our national security, including by meeting our international obligations to share information with international partners.
I took these responsibilities very seriously. As I have said on many occasions I sought to act at all times in a manner which was fully consistent with my legal duties, and with national and international law.
Straw said he had “limited” recollection of the events, but had ascertained that on March 1 2004, he gave oral approval for “some information to be shared with international partners”. He said in the statement:
The events to which this case referred took place in March 2004. I moved from the Foreign Office in May 2006. I was then first asked to recount my involvement in 2012. Over the last six years I have considered the extent of my involvement in considerable detail.
Although my recollection of what took place is limited, what is clear from what has now been ascertained is that on 1st March 2004 my approval was sought for some information to be shared with international partners. In almost every case such approvals were made by me in writing, on the basis of written submissions to me. However in rare cases of great urgency, oral submissions could be made and oral approvals given by me. This is what happened on this occasion, as is confirmed by the CPS statement of 9th June 2016 see fourth paragraph of the conclusions.
In every case where my approval was sought I assumed, and was entitled to assume, that the actions for which my approval was sought were lawful. This included in appropriate cases obtaining assurances as to the humane treatment of those concerned.
This case clearly raises serious issues. However I remain constrained for national security reasons as to what further I can say publicly.
Straw also noted that he has already been interviewed as a witness by police investigating the case, and he said that he was ready to provide a full account of his knowledge of the circumstances of Belhaj’s case to the parliamentary intelligence and security committee if requested to do so.
Cori Crider, the lawyer who is representing the Belhaj family on behalf of the human rights organisation Reprieve, said that the extent of the government’s apology was unprecedented. She said:
It’s broader and deeper and more sincere than apology we have seen from the war on terror. We are very gratified by it.
They have said point blank that they believe the accounts given by Abdul Hakim and Fatima.
We have withdrawn the judicial review challenge against the DPP’s decision not to prosecute anyone for the rendition because the apology us so comprehensive.
This is the close of the matter for the UK. We said we are prepared to walk away for the apology and that is what we have done.
This is from the Intercept’s Glenn Greenwald.
Glenn Greenwald
(@ggreenwald)Both Canada and the UK have apologized and paid compensation to at least a couple of the innocent people they rendered & subjected to torture. Only the US – for 17 years and counting – refuses to acknowledge or provide justice to its rendition victims
May 10, 2018
And here is a long read from Ian on the story from November last year.
Ian Cobain
(@IanCobain)ICYMI: The Guardian’s Long Read on the Belhaj kidnap and torture scandal
May 10, 2018
