Posts Tagged ‘Inverness’
Labour addicted to union cash while Libdems get bought off by Labour UK
Secret papers reveal Labour’s dependency on union cash
Tuesday, March 30 2010
Previously unpublished papers reveal the true scope of Labour’s dependency on union cash.
Following Conservative pressure, the Government will publish the previously confidential minutes and papers of the Inter-Party Talks on the Funding of Political Parties.
Francis Maude, Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office, led the Conservative delegation in the Talks. “Gordon Brown wrecked the opportunity to clean up politics because he wanted the unions’ votes to become Labour Party leader”, he said. “These documents expose the Labour Party’s addiction to union cash”.
The Talks were chaired by Sir Hayden Phillips and were suspended without substantive agreement in October 2007.
Peter Watt, then Labour General Secretary and a delegate on the Talks, has subsequently written how the Talks failed since “the Labour Party could not resolve its internal issues”, “my own party was the biggest block to reform” and Gordon Brown “repeatedly warned the Prime Minister [Tony Blair] that he would block any attempt to reduce the unions’ power.”
Peter Watt also notes how the Liberal Democrats were bought off by Labour: “[Labour] managed to clinch a deal with the LibDems by promising that Menzies (Ming) Campbell would get a taxpayer-funded car and driver if the reforms went through.”
The newly published papers today reveal the true extent of the union funding of the Labour Party:
- Many union members would not pay a political levy to the Labour Party if given a choice.
- Some trade unions affiliate more individuals to the Labour Party than they have union members paying a political levy (only money from the political levy can be used for political purposes).
- From 2001 to 2006, the unions gave the Labour Party £45 million in cash.
- Trade unions pay £1 million a year to the Labour Party at a local and regional level, tying in local Labour Party branches through binding “Constituency Development Plans”.
Sir Hayden Phillips drew up detailed option papers on how the political levy could be reformed to give union members genuine choice. The Labour Party objected to these proposals. This was the key stumbling block that led to the Talks failing.
It’s wrong that union barons, not rank-and-file union members, decide how much to give to Labour”, Maude added.
“A Conservative Government will seek an agreed long-term settlement that would introduce an across-the-board cap on donations to end the big donor culture. As part of that reform, union members must have real choice on whether they want to pay a political levy and where it goes.”
Interesting to see how easy it was to buy off the Libdems. I suppose some things never change.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
‘Special Relationship’ With the U.S. Is Dead, Say British MPs UK
The UK should be “more willing to say no” to America.
There is no special relationship between the United States and Britain, a House of Commons select committee said March 28. The Commons Foreign Affairs Committee concluded that the term is “potentially misleading, and we recommend that its use should be avoided.”
“The UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the U.S. but there is a need to be less deferential and more willing to say no where our interests diverge,” said the committee’s chairman, Mike Gapes.
The committee said it was simply mirroring the attitude U.S. President Barack Obama had taken since coming into power.
“The UK’s relationship should be principally driven by the UK’s national interests within individual policy areas,” it said. “It needs to be characterized by a hard-headed political approach to the relationship and a realistic sense of the UK’s limits. The foreign-policy approach we are advocating is in many ways similar to the more pragmatic tone President Obama has adopted towards the UK.”
In the future the UK needs to be “more willing to say no,” it concluded.
Britain has been a staunch ally of the U.S. for decades. However, repeated snubs from the new administration led the committee to conclude that Britain is considered just one of many U.S. allies—with nothing special in the relationship at all.
Right at the start of his presidency, Obama insulted Britain by sending back a bust of Winston Churchill, and giving Prime Minister Gordon Brown a gift of 100 dvds that don’t even play on British dvd players.
The latest snub is America’s refusal to back Britain’s right to the Falkland Islands, instead backing Argentina’s calls for negotiation at the United Nations. This is despite the fact that Argentina’s claim on the Falklands is about as strong as Russia’s claim to Alaska. The Falkland Islands never had an indigenous population. Its currant inhabitants came from Britain. The last thing they want is to be ruled by Argentina. Argentina’s only claim is that it had a colony on the island a few hundred years ago.
No wonder Britain has concluded that there is no special relationship. This is a trend the Trumpet has been predicting for years. For more information on the future of this relationship, see our article “The Tie That Binds America, Britain and Israel.” •
Tweet this!
Labour will kill the recovery with their tax on jobs UK
We will stop Labour’s damaging NIC increase
Monday, March 29 2010
The Conservatives have announced that a Conservative Government will stop Labour’s tax rise on jobs by cutting waste.
Stopping the planned increases in National Insurance Contributions will result in 7 out of 10 working people being better off.
A Conservative Government will take immediate action to start cutting Government waste, in order to spend £6 billion less in 2010-11 than Labour’s plans.
“The re-election of a Labour Government under Gordon Brown – with more debt, waste and taxes – will bring us a new recession”, George Osborne said, speaking alongside Ken Clarke and Phillip Hammond.
“Labour will kill the recovery with their tax on jobs. We will cut Labour waste to stop it.”
Former Government advisers Sir Peter Gershon and Dr Martin Read, now members of the Conservatives’ Public Sector Productivity Advisory Board, advise that savings of £12 billion across all departmental spending are possible in-year without affecting the quality of front line services.
Having identified these savings the Conservatives can now commit to stop Labour’s tax rise on working people and jobs at the same time as reducing the deficit faster:
Labour are planning to raise Employees National Insurance Contributions (NICs) for everyone earning over £20,000. We will stop this increase altogether for everyone earning under £35,000 by raising the primary threshold at which people start paying NICs by £24 a week, and raising the Upper Earnings Limit by £29 a week.
Relative to Labour’s plans everyone liable for Employees NICs earning between £7,100 and £45,400 – which is 7 out of 10 working people – will be up to £150 better off a year under the Conservatives. Lower earners will get the greatest benefit as a percentage of their earnings. Nobody will be worse off.
Labour are also planning to raise Employers NICs for everyone earning over £5,700. This is a tax on jobs that will undermine the recovery. We will raise the secondary threshold at which employers start paying NICs by £21 a week, saving employers up to £150 for every person they employ relative to Labour’s plans. This will reduce the cost of Labour’s tax rise on employers by more than half.
Tweet this!
Obama rudely snubs Israeli leader Binyamin Netanyahu
For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.
After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.
“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.
Left to talk among themselves Mr Netanyahu and his aides retreated to the Roosevelt Room. He spent a further half-hour with Mr Obama and extended his stay for a day of emergency talks to try to restart peace negotiations. However, he left last night with no official statement from either side. He returned to Israel yesterday isolated after what Israeli media have called a White House ambush for which he is largely to blame.
Related Links
Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.
Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, cast doubt on minor details in Israeli accounts of the meeting but did not deny claims that it amounted to a dressing down for the Prime Minister, whose refusal to freeze settlements is seen in Washington as the main barrier to resuming peace talks.
The Likud leader has to try to square the rigorous demands of the Obama Administration with his nationalist, ultra-Orthodox coalition partners, who want him to stand up to Washington even though Israel needs US backing in confronting the threat of a nuclear Iran.
“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said.
In their meeting Mr Obama set out expectations that Israel was to satisfy if it wanted to end the crisis, Israeli sources said. These included an extension of the freeze on Jewish settlement growth beyond the ten-month deadline next September, an end to building projects in east Jerusalem and a withdrawal of Israeli forces to positions held before the second intifada in September 2000.
Newspaper reports recounted how Mr Netanyahu looked “excessively concerned and upset” when he pulled out a flow chart to show Mr Obama how Jerusalem planning permission worked and how he could not have known that the announcement that hundreds more homes were to be built would be made when Mr Biden arrived in Jerusalem.
Mr Obama then suggested that Mr Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to consider his proposals so that if he changed his mind he could inform the President right away. “I’m still around,” the daily newspaper Yediot Aharonot quoted Mr Obama as saying. “Let me know if there is anything new.”
With the atmosphere so soured by the end of the evening, the Israelis decided that they could not trust the telephone line they had been lent for their consultations. Mr Netanyahu and Ehud Barak, his Defence Minister, went to the Israeli Embassy to ensure that the Americans were not listening in.
The meeting came barely a day after Mr Obama’s health reform victory. Israel had calculated that he would be too tied up with domestic issues to focus seriously on the Middle East.
Its a pity that Obama is taking such a line with a country that has been a sure ally all these years. Perhaps he thinks America will be safer without Israel. Either way its a betrayal of a close friend. Then again Obama is a liberal so what do we expect.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
Empty promises and an empty Budget from an empty Labour Government UK
David Cameron responds to Labour’s empty Budget
Wednesday, March 24 2010
David Cameron has responded in the House of Commons to the Chancellor’s presentation of the last Budget before the general election.
He said Labour “have made a complete mess of the British economy and they are totally failing to clean it up”.
Cameron set out the big argument in British politics: Labour say “don’t do anything before the election, let’s just sit tight and keep our fingers crossed”, and the Conservatives say “we need real action to get our economy moving – and urgently”.
Highlighting new policies that copied existing Conservative proposals, such as the stamp duty cut and new university places, he said the “only new ideas in British politics are coming from this side of the House” and that “the only thing Labour bring are debt, waste and taxes”.
The figures that stands out above any other, he said, was that Labour have “doubled the national debt, and they’re going to double it again”.
Outlining the Government’s failure Cameron criticised “all those schemes that they launched with great fanfare” for failing to help enough people. He also drew comparisons on the state of the economy when Labour came to power to the present – including the huge increase in the debt and deficit, and a falling down the global league tables in terms of competitiveness, tax and regulation.
We need a credible plan to deal with Britain’s record debts”, he said, criticising the Chancellor’s repeated hope to halve the deficit by 2014 as giving us a deficit “almost as big as when Denis Healey went to the IMF in the 1970s”.
Moving on to the delay in dealing with the deficit, he said “the risk to recovery is not in dealing with the deficit now, it’s in not dealing with the deficit now”. Cameron said that “every family knows that when your debts mount up, you need to start paying them off or things will only get worse”, and that it is time for the Government to learn the same lessons”.
“The Prime Minister and Chancellor faced a choice – between bold action in an election year or playing politics. Once again, they chose politics.”
Cameron also emphasised the need “to show the world that we are back open for business”, saying that because Labour “flunked the difficult decisions on spending, they are raising tax after tax after tax – all after the election”. “These are the ticking tax bombshells timed to go off the day after the election and that will destroy our recovery.”
He said that the greatest risk to Britain’s economic recovery was another Labour government. “No one has yet thought of a question to which the answer is five more years of this Prime Minister”, he said.
“We need a credible plan to cut the deficit. We need an unleashing of enterprise across the nation. We need a plan to boost employment through radical welfare and school reform. If ever there was a time when this country needed a radical change of direction it is now.”
He concluded that Britain needs a Conservative government “to clean up the mess made by this Labour Government”.
“Britain needs new energy, leadership and values to get this country moving again. That’s the argument we’ll take to the country the moment the Prime Minister has been forced by the law of the land to call the election he has avoided for so long.”
Tweet this!
Britains internal security damaged by Google street view – MI5 – UK
At a time when Britain is perceived as weak by those hostile to the British way of life thanks to Labour’s mishandling of most things to do with the management of Britain I find it incredulous to see the latest reports that suggest that Britain’s most sensitive sites are listed like this.
Surely even Cash Gordon must know the risk he is putting the United Kingdom under by not ensuring adequate protection of sensitive military sites. !
Jim Ferguson
By Gordon Thomas
LONDON – British security chief Jonathan Evans, head of MI5, has warned the Brown government that the country’s most sensitive military and security bases have been “seriously damaged by Google’s Street View.”
Agents with MI5 are satisfied that thousands of images have been downloaded by U.K.-based Muslims, suspected associates of al-Qaida. The images show close-ups of Britain’s atomic weapons research center and the nation’s doughnut-shaped eavesdropping center at Cheltenham.
MI5 has found its buildings across Britain included in the “Street View” service.
Google has been warned that placing any of the images on its website contravenes the Official Secrets Act. The penalty of any breach can carry lengthy prison sentences under British law.
“This week Google has removed most of the images. But the damage has been done. The images are now in the hands of suspect terrorists,” Evans has told the government.
One site is at Menwith Hill, in the north of England near Harrogate. Its giant “golf balls” are linked to satellites and are clearly visible. The image shows the access roads to the “golf balls.” The U.K. shares the base with America’s National Security Agency.
The golf ball shapes are the very core of the base’s role as a global eavesdropper. Known as radomes, each shape is positioned on a carefully aligned course known as the “Runway,” which allows them to intercept messages from communications from space.
Coated in toughened Teflon to shed the rain that constantly develops across the North Sea, the “golf balls” are each equipped with computers which interdict the networks as they bounce their messages around the world.
Another image that would be of “high value to a terrorist group is the Hanslope Park base near Milton Keynes, where MI6 officers analyze data from GCHQ,” said an intelligence source.
One of the most guarded entrances in London – Thames House, the headquarters of MI5, clearly is pinpointed.
“Until recently the Google Map published information only on major British cities, [giving] no more than a broadspan view of the area. Now it has clear images of almost every street,” said the intelligence source.
Another facility – secret until now – is the SAS Counter-Terrorism training center in Pontrilas in Herefordshire.
The Google site has photographed it to reveal there one of the SAS aircraft used for special forces training exercises.
Another top-secret facility on the website is the exterior of the new ORION Laser Research Facility at Aldermaston, the atomic weapons research center in Berkshire.
Across the Irish Sea, on the edge of a Belfast housing estate, is the Ulster facility of MI5′s Loughside headquarters. It is from there that the Security Service monitors Irish extremists.
“If they didn’t know where we were they most certainly do now,” said an intelligence officer in Northern Ireland.
The Special Boat Service – classified as Highly Secret in Ministry of Defense manuals – has on the website an easily readable sign in red outside. It reads: “Prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act. Loitering, sketching, photography forbidden.”
Faced with the full fury of MI5, a Google spokesman said that, “if mistakes are made we will remove the images. We are unaware of any official concerns about security. But we are happy to discuss any issues as they arise.”
Tweet this!
MP’s and sleaze – more scrutiny for candidates required – Scotland UK
Gordon Brown now leads a discredited Government.
The latest revelations regarding the three Labour MP’s who were caught in a sting operation offering to influence Government policy for money is sickening. Confidence in the members of Parliament is at an all time low as people form the opinion that none can be trusted with even the basic decency of someone expected in such high office.
I find it quite embarrasing to see the greed of people surface like this and ofcourse as a political candidate I feel uncomfortable with the fact that as a political candidate people are looking at me and asking if I am the same. Would I also conduct my self in this greedy dishonest way ?
The answer is no. I am horrified at how far those we trusted to run the country have fallen but perhaps we are also to blame !
Thats right we as in the electorate are also to blame. Let me explain.
Its not political parties who elect MP’s to parliament. Yes they select the candidates but its the people who vote and give those people they elect the mandate to enter parliament.
Perhaps we need to look at what we base our decisions on not only on party policy but to look with a far more critical eye at those we are preparing to vote for.
I believe that the general public need to be very certain that they know exactly where the political candidates stand on the fundamental issues of importance to them and to the good of the country.
Why vote for someone who has never experianced the real working world for example. ? A Career politician who knows noting of the pressures or issues of everday life ? Some career politicians are perfectly capable ofcourse but the question remains valid.
Scrutiny of the candidates views is fundamental to ensuring that only candidates of good character and trustworthiness should enter parliament. If there had been more scrutiny of the candidates themselves and a hard look at what they may have already achieved in life instead of a blind vote cast purely on party lines then I believe we could have avoided a lot of the problems that we have seen.
Patricia Hewitt, Geoff Hoon and Stephen Byers are now disgraced former Labour cabinet ministers who have shown their true nature. What appals me is that these people were involved and sat at the most senior positions in Government. The question is did they conduct themselves in this way while in those positions of power and influence.
Are there more Government ministers on the take ?
As for myself I will stand with the people of the Highlands in this region and give every support and assistance in a truthful and honest way. If I am elected to Parliament then the trust that has been invested in me will not be wasted but I will lead this region with strength and integrity.
I have been involved in business and hold positions of the highest order in other organisations where truth and honesty are beyond doubt.
There would be no distinction made as far as my views on parliamentary affairs are concerned.
The people require politicians who can be trusted and who will assist the country to go forward with honesty, hard work and above all who they can trust.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
Liberal bias of BBC all too evident – Political candidates refused access to public debate Highlands Scotland
BBC BRIAN TAYLOR
As the Conservative Parliamentary Candidate for Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey at the forthcoming General Election I was delighted that the BBC had invited the various political parties to attend a live radio show in Avimore in the Scottish Highlands.
A number of us agreed to attend but on arrival despite having been on the list I was refused entry due to the fact I was a political Candidate.
The BBC told me that they had to remain impartial and that Candidates were not allowed in so that no one had an unfair advantage.
However Danny Alexander the LibDem MP who’s seat I am contesting is also a candidate. Not only was he allowed to attend but he was also on the panel. I pointed this out to the BBC, but they refused to listen. When the SNP Candidate arrived we discussed the situation and agreed that we would simply sit in the audience and not take part in the debate. Once again we were refused.
Later I spoke to security staff who had controlled entry to the room where the broadcast was taking place. They confirmed that they had been specifically told to refuse entry to the Labour Candidate Mike Robb as the BBC had been concerned that he was going to disrupt proceedings. I spoke with the hotel staff who also confirmed they were simply acting on instructions from their client.
While I accept that the BBC wish to remain impartial, why on earth then would they allow Danny Alexander to remain on the panel. It would have been easy to arrange to have a LibDem MSP to join the Conservative, Labour and SNP MSP’s who were also on the panel.
Danny Alexander should therefore never have been allowed to attend this event let alone sit on the panel.
With a General Election just around the corner this gave him a distinct advantage and high profile that was denied to the other political Candidates.
The BBC have been accused of left leaning, liberal bias before, but now I have experienced it for myself.
I have written to the BBC demanding a full and detailed explanation as to why they acted the way they did including the political editor Brian Taylor who Chaired the debate.
So far they have not even acknowledged my email.
I am sure that Danny Alexander is relieved. However he will have to face me on the various hustings where there will be no liberal bias allowed.
Bring on the General Election.
Jim Ferguson
Candidates barred from BBC debate
Anger over reception at Aviemore
By Iain Ramage
Published: 22/03/2010
A WOULD-BE Tory politician who was among three election candidates barred from a live BBC lunchtime debate at Aviemore Highland Resort claims they were “treated like terrorists”.
Jim Ferguson, the Conservative candidate for the forthcoming contest for the Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey constituency, is the boss of an Inverness security firm.
Stunned by the reception the trio had on Friday, he has written to the corporation asking for an explanation.
SNP candidate John Finnie and Labour’s Mike Robb were equally amazed to have been refused entry to Brian Taylor’s Big Debate on Radio Scotland despite being on the original audience guest list.
Mr Ferguson said: “We were treated like terrorists. It was totally bizarre.
“I was astonished to have been refused entry to a public debate. I explained that Danny Alexander was the MP, and also a candidate, and asked why he was allowed in and I wasn’t.
“It was embarrassing. It was humiliating. I felt this was absolutely undemocratic and very worrying of the BBC to be allowing the proceedings to happen like that.
“John Finnie and I even offered to observe the debate without asking questions, but they wouldn’t accept that.
“They have given Danny Alexander an unfair advantage.”
Mr Robb said: “I was initially told by the programme’s researcher that I could attend the event. However, I was later called by the programme to say that, as a declared local candidate, I would not be allowed to on the grounds of political impartiality.
“I was astonished to find out that the Lib Dems were to be represented on the panel by local MP Danny Alexander, rather than a Lib Dem MSP.
“He therefore had a platform to put his views to local voters whilst his political opponents at the coming general election were barred from even being allowed in the room.”
Mr Finnie, the opposition SNP group leader on Highland Council, said: “It does seem very peculiar.”
A spokeswoman for BBC Scotland said: “Participants and audiences at our debate programmes reflect our guidelines on impartiality.
“We are confident these guidelines were met.”
Mr Alexander declined to comment.
Tweet this!
Military chiefs savage Gordon Brown over incorrect evidence Iraq enquiry – Humiliation for British Government
This is a serious blow for Brown and his discredited Labour Government. Even the very top brass of the British armed forces cannot stomach his outright dishonesty and disrespect for our armed forces.
The sooner our brave men and woman of the United Kingdom’s armed forces have a Conservative Government they can trust the better.
Jim Ferguson
PM Admits Iraq Inquiry Defence Spending Error
6:54pm UK, Wednesday March 17, 2010
Miranda Richardson, Sky News Online
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has admitted giving incorrect evidence to the Iraq Inquiry on defence spending.
Mr Brown told Sir John Chilcot’s panel that the defence budget had risen “in real terms every year”.
But House of Commons reseach shows Mr Brown’s claim was wrong, and he has now written to Sir John to correct it.
The PM said that the Treasury had agreed spending with the MoD for 2002, 2004 and 2007.
“The Iraqi expenditure was being met, but at the same time the defence budget was rising in real terms every year,” he said.
Repeating his claim, he told them: “The spending review of 2004 gave the Ministry of Defence a rising level of real spending, moving from 1.2% to 1.4% in real terms each year.”
But a research note prepared by the House of Commons Library in October last year showed defence expenditure had fallen in real terms in four financial years since Labour came to power in 1997: 1997/98 (-2.2%); 1999/2000 (-0.4%); 2004/5 (-0.7%); and 2006/7 (-0.1%).
In real terms it is 12% higher, but I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms.
Gordon Brown
The average annual increase between 1997 and 2009 was 2.7%, it said, but noted that “this figure is likely to have been distorted by current operations”.
Asked at Prime Minister’s Questions whether he would correct the record, Mr Brown said: “Yes. I am already writing to Sir John Chilcot about this issue.
“Because of operational fluctuations in the way the money is spent, expenditure has risen in cash terms every year, in real terms it is 12% higher, but I do accept that in one or two years defence expenditure did not rise in real terms.”
The Prime Minister’s evidence to the Inquiry sparked condemnation from senior military figures.
Lord Boyce – who was the head of the military at the time of the invasion – called him “disingenuous” and insisted the MoD was starved of funds.
“He’s dissembling, he’s being disingenuous,” Admiral Boyce told The Times newspaper.
“It’s just not the case that the Ministry of Defence was given everything it needed
“There may have been a 1.5% increase in the defence budget but the MoD was starved of funds.”
Lord Boyce’s predecessor Lord Guthrie accused Mr Brown of costing soldiers their lives by failing to fund the army properly.
The Tories described Mr Brown’s admission as a “humiliating climbdown”.
Shadow defence secretary Liam Fox said: “He has made repeated and fundamentally false claims, misleading Parliament, the public and worst of all the Armed Forces and their families.”
A spokesman for the Prime Minister said Mr Brown had “taken the first opportunity” to tell MPs about the mistake.
<a href=”http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php/option=com_mobile/task=viewaltcast/altcast_code=2001437c67″>Prime Minister’s Questions</a>
Tweet this!
Catholic church wins against homosexuals adopting children UK
A Catholic adoption agency that refuses to place children with homosexual couples has won a key legal victory thanks to a loophole intended to protect gay charities.
By Matthew Moore
Published: 3:55PM GMT 17 Mar 2010
Catholic Care’s unexpected triumph paves the way for other groups forced to close or dissociate from the church to reopen as Catholic organisations.
Religious campaigners said that the judge’s ruling would galvanise growing resistance to Labour’s gay rights agenda, while secular activists warned of a “tidal wave” of similar legal challenges from Catholic groups.
Related Articles
Catholic Care, which serves the dioceses of Leeds, Middlesbrough, and Hallam in South Yorkshire, launched the legal action saying it would have to give up its work finding homes for children if it had to comply with the 2007 Equality Act
The law banned adoption agencies from discriminating against homosexual prospective parents.
The adoption agency claimed that a clause of the legislation – Regulation 18 – should permit charities to continue to refuse gay couples if the stated aim of the charity was to provide services to people of a particular sexual orientation. The loophole was inserted to ensure that gay charities could not be sued for discrimination by heterosexual couples.
Catholic Care’s application to write an explicit reference to serving heterosexuals into its constitution was rejected by the Charities Commission, but today Mr Justice Briggs ordered the commission to review its decision. He accepted that the adoption agency could still provided a public benefit even if it did not consider homosexual parents.
The Rt Rev Arthur Roche, Bishop of Leeds, said that the judgement would “help in our determination to continue to provide this invaluable service to benefit children, families and communities”.
He added: “We look forward to producing evidence to the Charity Commission to support the position that we have consistently taken through this process: that without being able to use this exemption, children without families would be seriously disadvantaged.”
Catholic Care was the last of Britain’s eleven Catholic adoption agencies to resist the changes. Some charities like the Catholic Children’s Society, Westminster, and the Catholic Children’s Rescue Society in Salford decided to close their adoption services, while others agreed to accept the regulations and cut ties with the church.
Christian campaigners said that the judgement opened the door for other adoption agencies to reopen under a Catholic banner.
Andrea Williams from the Christian Legal Centre said: “This is a great result and a step in the right direction. It’s upsetting that the other adoption agencies have been forced to close, but this ruling will help them reopen if they so wish.
“The ruling supports Christian groups which want to operate freely and according to traditional values with regard to the nature of family.”
Philippa Gitlin, director of the Caritas Social Action Network, an umbrella group of Catholic charities, said that the trustees of charities that had adapted to comply with the legislation would “carefully consider” the ruling.
She said: “It is entirely a matter for specific consideration by the trustees of each charity what action, if any, they decide is feasible and appropriate in the light of today’s judgement. ”
Secular campaigners condemned the judge’s decision as “alarming” and “a major setback” for gay rights.
Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: “It is unfortunate that the court has enabled Catholic Care to exploit what was obviously an error in the drafting of the equality legislation. The loophole this created was never intended to be used this way.
“If the Charity Commission reverses its previous decision – as the court is asking it to – we can look forward to a tidal wave of similar challenges from bigoted Catholic organisations who are determined not to accord any rights to gay people at all.”
Interesting to see this development. It would seem the Church is likely to start to exert its influence further in light of unhappiness about the way Labour have conducted themselves to matters that are of great importance to the Church and wider community.
Jim Ferguson
Tweet this!
