Downing Street Says » Immigration

Asked to explain why Steve Moxon, an employee at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND), had been suspended when the Home Office Minister, Beverley Hughes, had said in a Statement to the House this afternoon that two e-mails from him, dated 12 January, had not reached her until last night due to a variety of inexplicable circumstances, the PMOS said he did not think it was appropriate for him, as the Prime Minister’s Official Spokesman, to comment on what were clearly internal staffing issues at the IND. Pressed repeatedly as to why Mr Moxon had been suspended when he had apparently gone through all the appropriate procedures to highlight his concern that figures on immigration from Eastern Europe were being massaged, the PMOS repeated that internal staffing issues were a matter for the Home Office and IND. Beverley Hughes had acknowledged in her Statement this afternoon that there was no question of any instruction having been given by Ministers or senior managers. It was a decision which had been taken by staff in Sheffield. She had announced that there would be an investigation by a senior immigration official from outside the Managed Migration Directorate to find out what had happened. Asked repeatedly why it was that ‘whistleblowers’ always seemed to be the ones who suffered, the PMOS said that Mr Moxon had been suspended pending the investigation. His allegations had been taken seriously and there would now be a further investigation. This was obviously a Home Office issue and he thought journalists would find it more useful to direct their questions to the Department rather than to him. Asked what he thought the Home Office’s justification might have been in deciding to suspend Mr Moxon, the PMOS said that these were decisions which had been taken by Mr Moxon’s employer. It was appropriate that the procedures that were in place were worked through by those involved. He was not one of those people. In answer to further questions, the PMOS said he hoped that journalists understood he was not being deliberately unhelpful rather than declining to become involved in a personnel issue.

23 Comments »

On a more objective note; Simon Carr pretty much summed it up in the Independent this morning: – "I refute categorically the suggestion this was a deliberate policy to reduce the impact of accession on 1 May." Beverly Hughes said, confirming that it was indeed a deliberate policy to reduce the impact of accession on 1 May…
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 11:56 am | Link
Who do I think should be in charge of our political future? Well certainly not the list of candidates you drew up, David – none of them are any better than politicians! In fact, maybe priests should be on there too…

In actual fact, I personally think it is high time that our whole political system was brought out of the 17th century. We no longer need someone to speak for us in the corridors of power – that whole system was designed in a day when communication was slow at best, impossible most of the rest of the time. We now have technology which we should be using to make ALL of our lives better, but that means using our brains, getting rid of preconceived notions (like politicians should run the country!) and doing something about it.

Sadly, this is a nation of sheep led by donkeys, and nothing is likely to change.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:01 pm | Link
[Moderators note – we removed PapaLazzzaru’s ‘constructive comment’ referred to here because it was a long and useless rant, now followed up by some more measured thoughts below. Also, we’re not sure if inciting coup d’etat is legal 🙂 ]

What a constructive comment that truly was

Who do you think should be in charge of our political future, if not ‘politicians’? Civil Servants? Judges? Peers of the Realm? Hang on, wouldn’t that make them ‘politicians’ too?
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 11:52 am | Link
Seems my earlier post on this topic has been pulled; Ed, can you tell me why?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:08 pm | Link
Ah, that’ll be why!!! Apologies to all, it was a long rant – although I take umbrage at the word "useless" – I enjoyed it, and it brought my blood pressure back down a couple of notches!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:10 pm | Link
Taking a step back from the immediate issues, and I would have said this generally during previous Governments, I think you have to remember that there is no separate category of human being called ‘politician’. People involved in politics are no more, but no less, likely to cover up unhelpful facts, mislead about their previous opinions, take actions in their own interest while giving what seems an objective reason, etc. etc. than any other person.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:16 pm | Link
True, and it is obvious to even the most blind that there are lots of holes in the system. The problem to my mind with politicians in general in this context is, the holes and pitfalls in the system are plain to see, they are obvious to everyone, and therefore it makes it all the more unbelievable to me when one or more politicians use these very holes, black-spots, unchecked bits, call them what you will, to hide behind instead of having the guts to stand up and be counted from time to time. When was the last time one politician said to another "you are being untrustworthy" – and something actually happened about it? Take Tony Blair, the prime example (no pun intended!) After Hutton, as regards his integrity, he is bombproof. Even though we KNOW Hutton was a sham, he knows we know. But that’s ok. As long as we can’t PROVE that the PM lied, that’s ok. And now that a tame judge has decreed that he never did anyfing guv, he can lie all he wants, even when he knows we all know he’s lying, and he can pull that integrity card and say "look, Hutton has already cleared me of ever telling an untruth", and that’s that. I know it’s kind of childish, idealistic, but I believe in honesty and I think that "Right Honorable" should mean exactly that – and from recent evidence it is obvious that the amount of politicians (ok, MPs in this instance) who put the same stock by that title is in a minority.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:30 pm | Link
Hutton was not a sham. You have obviously not read it. I have and his conclusions are unarguable. To calmly discredit a well-thought through report because you happen to wish it had come up with different conclusions is an intellectual crime of vastly greater proportions than that of which you accuse the Prime Minister.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 12:40 pm | Link
I have read it, as it happens. And I have to disagree. The justifications given for exonerating the PM were largely based on technicalities, and Hutton’s avoidance of some points while giving undue prominence to others was nothing short of disgraceful. Hutton even went so far as to coin the phrase "subliminally influenced" – and this was in relation to the main allegation. I followed the Hutton inquiry day in, day out, not because I wished it to come up with certain conclusions, but because I wanted to see justice done. And justice was not done. Nowhere near. I think here the intellectual crime is your own, for blithely accepting the conclusions of a tame flunkey because of the eminence of his position. The very fact that people like Alistair Campbell were chairing meetings and suggesting "presentational changes" in relation to such an important document raises enough questions, and the fact that Hutton skillfully avoided this muddy water discredits his report in my eyes. The Hutton report may have answered the specific question, ie, was the PM aware that the intelligence was false, but it left unaswered too many others to be worth anything.

And as regards the crimes of which I accuse the PM, of whom you seem to be an avid fan, I would add to the list war crimes to the extent of mass murder. And if you think that I am committing another "intellectual crime", perhaps you could explain how the non-stop bombing of the Former Yugoslav Republic back into the stone age could be justified (as he did recently) as a humanitarian action?!?!
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:07 pm | Link
What do you mean by "exonerating the PM"? He was not even accused of anything. The point of a Judge is to identify the crucial factors and those less important.<P>
The Dossier was presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister. The Joint Intelligence Committee had never written anything for the public before. Isn’t it reasonable that they asked for advice on writing for the public? Then the Chairman rejected those suggestions which were not consistent with the intelligence. Hutton did not avoid that; he found that it was entirely reasonable.<P>
As a matter of fact I did not support the bombing of Serbia. But it is quite clear that that and the invasion of Iraq were not war crimes.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:22 pm | Link
As we have strayed back to the PM’s integrety and Hutton
I have read the report
If we applied Hutton’s logic to computers we would need them to break before they became useful.
It was a complete whitewash – see my previous comments in the archives.
Comment by Roger Huffadine — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:34 pm | Link
The very fact that he wasn’t accused makes it a sham, I think.
Comment by Lodjer — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:38 pm | Link
If he wasn’t accused of anything, why the triumphant scenes in the Commons along with his pal Alistair when he was "cleared" of lying, exaggerating, or whatever the perception was?

And no, I don’t think it is reasonable that the Joint Chiefs needed advice before presenting the document to the public. Why? They were supposed to be presenting raw intelligence in a readable format. I have served in the military and I have seen intelligence reports, both raw and processed. And you know what, there is very little difference between them other than processed intelligence is usually more conservative and comes with more caveats. So why was Alistair Campbell’s input so important? Are you trying to tell me that there was no-one in the JIC who knew how to put a document into a legible form? Please!!!

And the Chairman rejected the suggestions not consistent with intelligence?!?! When? Then why didn’t he correct the most dramatic pronouncement of all, re: the 45 minute claim? Why remove all the caveats, all the "coulds" and "maybes", and replace them with "can" and "will"? From what I saw, the only person insisting on changes was Alistair Campbell – and the JIC went along like a tame lap-dog.

"But it is quite clear that that and the invasion of Iraq were not war crimes". Really? How is it clear? Who says? And if the physically unprovoked acts of aggression on both Iraq and FRJ "clearly" do not qualify as war crimes then what does? Being on the losing side?
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:39 pm | Link
Well, my lunchbreak won’t permit involvement on this one, but I’m with PapaLazzzaru.

The intelligence on Iraq was wrong, so now it was a "humanitarian" cause, like Serbia.

Suddenly became a pressing issue after 30 years (or whatever it was) of Saddam’s rule did it? how convenient. How long before it happens again? Iraq for the Iraqi’s, oh sure. Just as long as the US and Britain get the oil.
Comment by Lodjer — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:51 pm | Link
The bombing campaign in Serbia was largely driven by the US administration’s traditional reluctance to commit ground forces and was agreed on and carried out by NATO as a whole.

I would also like to know what type of action you think may have induced the Serbian regime to desist in their policy of genocide against yet another ethnic group? Put in more UN troops and watch as yet again they can merely wring their hands while the paramilitaries butcher civilians? More resolutions to ignore.

Rather than now being reduced to the stone age the Serbs have now returned to at least a halfway representive democracy. Of course since you argue that politicians should not govern perhaps an monsterous demagogue such as Milosovic would be preferable to you.
Comment by Ian Potter — 9 Mar 2004 on 1:58 pm | Link
Is (or was) Milosevic not a politician then?
Comment by Lodjer — 9 Mar 2004 on 2:00 pm | Link
The sole comment Alistair Campbell made about the ’45 minute’ "well sourced piece of intelligence" (the words of C) was to say that the wording in the text was different to that in the summary. He did not say which should be changed. The JIC had never written for the public before.

Where Andrew Gilligan went wrong was using the term "government" in his broadcast. It was quite clear in the evidence to the Hutton Inquiry that concerns over the 45 minutes were raised in the Defence Intelligence Staff, dismissed by those higher up in the DIS, never seen by the full JIC, and certainly never seen by anyone in 10 Downing Street. Even Dr Brian Jones’ section thought it should go in the Dossier, however.

But "Civil servants included a claim in the Dossier that other civil servants thought might be a bit dodgy" doesn’t make much of a story and doesn’t generate a complaint from Alistair Campbell, so Gilligan reported something else.
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 2:05 pm | Link
Oh please!!! Killing half the population from the air is better than allowing them to be killed by their own people?!?!?! What kind of half-witted justification is that?

And personally, I would have taken no action. It is in the nature of human beings to kill each other, to try to rise above each other. It’s called "survival of the fittest" and it exists everywhere in the world and always will. If we are going to intervene because of genocide or any other so-called humanitarian principle, why not intervene in Burma? N. Korea? half of Africa? A touch hypocritical, wouldn’t you say, that our higher principles apply only to some but not to others. Have no doubts; this same Government of so-called democratic, civilised people would be abusing their powers to the same extent as Milosovic did, given half the chance.

But I know some of the warmongers out there, who have no conception of the horrors of conflict (and I include most of our Government in that) say "let’s get ’em" about anyone whose own idea of democracy doesn’t tally with our own. Apart from the fact that Governments like the power of having a heavily armed force to do their bidding, these kinds of conflicts also give them the opportunity to try out new equipment, new tactics and so on. And to forestall the protests, it does and has happened; witness the Spanish Civil War – Hitler used this almost as a dress rehearsal.

No, you can only apply that kind of heavy handed "democracy" if you have the will to apply it to all – or not at all. Halfway measures and picking and choosing smacks of politically expedient hypocricy.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 2:13 pm | Link
And now we seem to be getting into picking the Hutton report apart again. I think it would be a fair comment to say that since he reported, there has been widespread dissatisfaction with his findings. Whether one agrees or not is down to interpretation, the very same grounds that Lord Hutton gave for savaging the BBC and exonerating the Government.

However, I still disagree – and I refuse to believe even for a second – that no-one higher up the chain was aware of any dissatisfaction. Firstly, by that time the powers that be were not in a mood to be swayed from their aim – going to war. I’m sure that the Government was made aware of every tiny little complaint, purely because of the import of the document, but decided that it’s own goals were more important than establishing if there was any reason for the doubts. This government, and by extension Tony Blair, knew long before committing to war that there were no WMD in Iraq – certainly useable WMD at the very least. Exactly what TBs overall angle is or was (UK/US relations, bribery, blackmail, etc) I really don’t know; I am inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was wrongly influenced by the US. But I do believe, and I know there are many others who believe the same, that this government knew exactly what it was doing when it escalated the war of words with the BBC – it was all purely a smokescreen because they always knew they were on dodgy ground.
Comment by PapaLazzzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 2:25 pm | Link
There is widespread dissatisfaction with Hutton from those who wanted him to say something else, to the detriment of the Government, which was inconsistent with the evidence.

Where is your evidence for the claim that the Government was aware of every tiny detail of the drafting of the Dossier?

Where is your evidence for the claim that the Government knew there were no usable WMD in Iraq before the war?
Comment by David Boothroyd — 9 Mar 2004 on 2:30 pm | Link
You seem to be still stuck on this hypothesis that the only reason people disagree with the Hutton report is because they wanted to see the Government discredited. What about the truth? The truth that there were no WMD and we were led into war on the basis of lies.

Incidentally, the only evidence I have of this is logic, to my everlasting regret – as much as I’d like to have some photos of the PM busy with a bottle of Tippex while Alistair Campbell watches the door. The logic being that inspections over the years have uncovered nothing – admittedly, they have also uncovered things missing, but let’s face it, we were supposed to be concerned with the WMD Iraq had, not the ones they didn’t have any more. So, since the first gulf war nothing new has (or had before the war) been discovered. Claims of attemps to secure WMD material from elsewhere (Niger) were discredited in a childish way – in a laughable way, actually. A plagiarised thesis!!! Good intelligence, Tony… And since the latest war, nothing has been found. Now, as I said I served in the military, and I know that we would never have gone into combat without at least one spare respirator canister. However, this time around, the troops were not even warned by their local commanders of the possibility of chemical or biological weapons. A lot of the troops in theater didn’t even have one new canister, let alone a brand new spare. They knew there was no need. And that means that the government knew.

And I didn’t say that the government was aware of every tiny detail in drafting the document, I said I’m sure they were aware of every tiny complaint. I’m sure they weighed these up at the time and decided that they weren’t serious enough to embarrass the government if (or when, as the case now is) they became public.
Comment by PapaLazzaru — 9 Mar 2004 on 2:44 pm | Link
OK,
Evidence that the Government knew every little deatail in the dossier : if you were ultimately responsible for the decision to go to war, wouldnt you want to know every little detail to make that decision ?

Evidence that the Government knew there were no WMD in Iraq : if they had it, they would have shown it to prove the fact (they didnt!)

As for Hutton – he did actually say the dossier had been ‘sexed up’ in regarding basically making it ‘as strong as possible’ ie.more than it was.
Comment by Tony — 9 Mar 2004 on 11:30 pm | Link
Hutton was required to investigate the reasons behind the death of Dr David Kelly, not the veracity or otherwise of Gilligans’ journalism. Gilligan was clearly wrong, the WMD claims were not sexed up, they were a complete fabrication.
Comment by Hugh Tattersall — 11 Mar 2004 on 12:27 am | Link

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Post a public comment

Name (required)
E-mail (required)
(You must give an email address, but it will not be displayed to the public.)
Website
(You may give your website, and it will be displayed to the public.)

Comments:

This is not a way of contacting the Prime Minister. If you would like to contact the Prime Minister, go to the 10 Downing Street official site.

Privacy note: Shortly after posting, your name and comment will be displayed on the site. This means that people searching for your name on the Internet will be able to find and read your comment.

Original PMOS briefings are © Crown Copyright. Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. Click-use licence number C02W0004089. Material is reproduced from the original 10 Downing Street source, but may not be the most up-to-date version of the briefings, which might be revised at the original source. Users should check with the original source in case of revisions. Comments are © Copyright contributors. Everything else is © Copyright Downing Street Says.

» Monday, March 8, 2004

Immigration

23 Comments »

Post a public comment

Search

Supported by

Recent Briefings

Archives

Links

Syndicate (RSS/XML)

Credits

Enquiries