Get all your news in one place.
100’s of premium titles.
One app.
Start reading
The Guardian - UK
The Guardian - UK
Politics
Andrew Sparrow

MPs debate the Shrewsbury 24 case - Politics live

Dennis Warren, left, and Ricky Tomlinson in 1975. Both were jailed after being pickets in the 1972 strike by building workers
Dennis Warren, left, and Ricky Tomlinson in 1975. Both were jailed after being pickets in the 1972 strike by building workers Photograph: Alamy

Afternoon summary

  • Ministers have refused a request from Shrewsbury 24 campaigners to release government papers relating to the case. In a Commons Westminster Hall debate, Labour MPs said the papers would shed light on claims that there was a serious miscarriage of justice when 24 building workers were charged in 1972 in relation to conduct during a strike. Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, used the debate to present new information about how the prosecution was supposedly rigged. He suggested that Labour might refuse to support the investigatory powers bill if the government did not cooperate. But Mike Penning, the policing minister, said the government would not release the papers in question because they were not relevant to the case and because they related to national security. However he did agree to meet the campaigners to discuss the case. Ricky Tomlinson, the actor who was one of the Shrewsbury workers sent to jail, was in Westminster Hall to hear the debate and later complained they were being treated worse than the Cambridge spies.
  • David Cameron and Russian president Vladimir Putin have agreed that their countries should “work together” in the fight against the Islamic State terror group, Downing Street has said. As the Press Association reports, the two men spoke by phone early on Wednesday, after the prime minister called Putin to update him on Britain’s military action in Syria, following last week’s House of Commons vote to extend RAF missions against Islamic State over the border from Iraq. Cameron also said he would consider Putin’s request for British experts to analyse data from the black box of a Russian warplane downed by Turkey near its border with Syria.
  • Over a million council workers have been offered a two-year pay deal from next April, worth 1% a year for most employees. As the Press Associaton reports, the majority of workers - those on salaries starting at £17,714 - would receive an uplift of 1% on April 1 2016 and a further 1% on April 1 2017, with those on lower salaries receiving higher increases to take account of the new national living wage.
    The national employers, who negotiate pay on behalf of 350 local authorities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, made the offer to unions today.

That’s all from me for today.

Thanks for the comments.

Updated

Mike Penning, the policing minister, is replying on behalf of the government.

He says he was only 14 at the time this happened. He says that he is sympathetic to trade unions, and has been a union member himself. He says he has not seen the documents presented by Andy Burnham. But he says it is important to point out that successive Labour governments did not release the papers that the Shrewsbury 24 campaigners wanted. And he says that the cabinet secretary has looked at this case, and decided that the government is entitled to withhold the documents in question on the grounds of national security.

Labour’s Rob Marris says the MPs are not saying the Shrewsbury 24 were innocent. They are saying that the new evidence that has emerged shows that they were denied a fair trial.

Penning says the Criminal Cases Review Commission should be allowed to review this.

He says the Home Office is looking at the documents it holds on this to see if they are relevant. If they are, it see what it can do to publish them.

But there has been a decision - not my decision, a decision made by the cabinet secretary [Sir Jeremy Hewyood] and the chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster [Oliver Letwin] - to say that what they have seen - and I think the cabinet secretary is fairly independent on these things - that there is no relevance in the documents that they have withheld to the case of the Shrewsbury 24. And the Cabinet Office stands by their decision, and the government stands by their decision, not to release those documents on the grounds of national security.

I know that is not the answer perhaps that honourable members on the other side wanted me to say, but that is the position of Her Majesty’s Government.

Penning also says he will do as much as he can to help the campaign.

Updated

And Burnham turns to evidence that the security services were involved in producing a film that was broadcast that was shown at a time when it could influence the jury.

A memo to a senior Foreign & Commonwealth Office official from the Head of the Information Research Department, a covert propaganda unit operating within the FCO, refers to a television programme, ‘Red Under the Bed’, by Tory MP, Woodrow Wyatt aired on commercial television on 13 November 1973 - the day that the prosecution closed their case at Shrewsbury.

It notes: “We had a discreet but considerable hand in this programme.”

“In February, Mr Wyatt approached us direct for help. We consulted the Department of Employment and the Security Service through Mr Conrad Heron’s group. With their agreement, Mr Wyatt was given a large dossier of our own background material. It is clear from internal evidence in the programme that he drew extensively on this; there is no doubt, for instance, that he drew on our paper on ‘Violent Picketing’ to good effect” ...

On 17 January 1974, the prime minister’s principal private secretary, RT Armstrong, sent a handwritten note to the PM: “You may like to glance through this transcript of Woodrow Wyatt’s “Red Under The Bed” TV programme. RTA”. Heath wrote on the memo: “We want as much of this as possible.”

Burnham says it is astonishing the security services were involved in this.

Burnham turns to another piece of evidence, which he describes as “the smoking gun”. (Again, this is the summary in the note sent out by his office in advance.)

On 20th September 1973, a letter sent from assistant chief constable administration to the junior prosecution counsel in the case and the DPP refers to the altering of witness statements. Paragraph 16 states: “So that Counsel would be aware it was mentioned that not all original hand-written statements were still in existence, some having been destroyed after a fresh statement had been obtained. In most cases the first statement was taken before photographs were available for witnesses and before the Officers taking the statements knew what we were trying to prove.”

Burnham says the “trying to prove” line is crucial.

Burnham turns to his next piece of evidence.

In early February, a memo from the home secretary to the prime minister, says: “I have taken a close personal interest in this problem since I came to the Home Office and I have myself discussed it with the chief officers of those police forces which have had to deal with the most serious picketing. I believe that chief constables are now fully aware of the importance we attach to the matter [...].” The pickets were charged on 14 February 1973 - five months after the strike had ended.

Sir Gerald Howarth, a Conservative, intervenes. He says he remembers this period, and wrote a letter to the Times at the time about the case. It was right for the home secretary to take a close interest in the case, he says, because the public were very concerned about militant trade unionism.

Burnham says Howarth’s comment backs up his case; this was politically motivated, he says.

Andy Burnham
Andy Burnham Photograph: Parliament TV

Andy Burnham's speech on the Shrewsbury 24

Andy Burnham is speaking now.

He is running through the new documents that he has uncovered.

This is what he says about the first three. I’ve taken the quotes from the notes his office sent out in advance.

1. A letter headed “Intimidation Dossier” from the National Federation of Building Trades Employers on 20 September 1972, a week after the dispute had been resolved, to the regional secretaries of the organisation. It states: “You will be aware that we are compiling a dossier on incidents of intimidation and violence during the recent wage dispute. The intention is to pass this document to the Home Secretary for his consideration with a view to tightening up the law on picketing in industrial disputes.”

2. The director of public prosecution’s file on the Shrewsbury defendants dated 29 December 1972 notes “the home secretary is interested in this case. 2 counsel to be nominated.”

3. A letter from the attorney general Peter Rawlinson to the home secretary dated 25 January 1973 supports the assertion that political interference led to the decision to bring changes. The attorney general states his view, shared by the DPP and Treasury counsel, that as “there was no evidence against any particular person of violence or damage to property […] the prospects of securing a conviction […] were very uncertain, and […] proceedings should not be instituted.” The attorney general also notes that a delay in bringing the case to trial “would lead to an air of unreality about the proceedings long after the strike has been settled, and this would be likely to work in favour of the accused” and also “juries tend to treat mere words more leniently than actual violence.” The Shrewsbury 24 Campaign believes a personal intervention by the Home Secretary led the DPP and attorney to change the position that the cases did not pass any threshold test for prosecution.

In the debate Burnham says the phrase “juries tend to treat mere words more leniently than actual violence” is particularly significant. It shows that violence was not involved.

In the debate the Labour MP Ian Lavery said the Shrewsbury 24 deserved justice. The youngest was now 68, the oldest was 90, and five have already died, he said. He said they refused to accept a guilty plea at the time because they knew they were innocent.

These are people, principled people, who at the time were offered a fine of £50 if they would walk away. You can be home at 3 o’clock if you accept a guilty charge. They wouldn’t be here now, we wouldn’t be here now. Fifty pounds. Out of principles, they said we are not guilty of any charges. That’s principle. It’s about time that we as a country assured that these people got justice. And let us see who was behind the decisions that were being made at the time.

Ian Lavery
Ian Lavery Photograph: Parliament TV/BBC

According to the extracts from Burnham’s speech released in advance, this is what he will say about why the Shrewsbury 24 papers should be released.

The Shrewsbury 24 were the convenient scapegoats of a government campaign to undermine the unions; the victims of a politically-motivated show trial orchestrated from Downing Street, the Home and Foreign Offices and the security services.

What possible justification can there be, 43 years on, for information about it to be withheld on national security grounds? The failure to disclose has less to do with national security and much more to do with the potential for political embarrassment.

And this is what he will say about possibly withdrawing support for the investigatory powers bill if the government does not cooperate.

The government is asking for Labour’s support to give the police and security services more expansive investigatory powers. I have said that I am prepared to consider the case for that. But, if the government wants our support, it needs to do something in return to build trust. It should hold up a mirror to the past and be honest about times when powers have been misused. By doing that, we will have honesty and transparency and be able to be able to build in safeguards going forward, learning from this country’s past mistakes.

Andy Burnham has sent out a news release with some details of the new documents about the Shrewsbury 24 case that he has obtained. Here is an extract summarising the key points.

· Six months after the strike, the Home Secretary assured prime minister Ted Heath of his “close personal interest” in the case and the builders were arrested and charged days later – overturning the view of the attorney general, director of public prosecutions and Treasury lawyers that the cases did not pass the threshold for prosecution, due in part to no evidence of violence.

· Police notifying lawyers for the prosecution that original hand-written witness statements were ‘destroyed’ and rewritten once officers “knew what we were trying to prove”;

· Mid-way through a trial, a television documentary – ‘Red Under the Bed’ - was produced with the “discreet” yet “considerable” assistance of a major department of state and security services and conflated footage of the accused with claims of Communist party infiltration of the strike. It was watched by the judge, aired the day the prosecution completed its case and Prime Minister Ted Heath wrote in a private note “We want as much of this as possible”;

· The building employers’ federation compiled a document for the home secretary on intimidation with a view to tightening up strike laws and accused pickets of violence and ‘mobster’ tactics.

Here is the Observer’s story about Burnham’s dossier.

In the debate the Conservative MP David Davis intervened. Referring to the BBC reports about what Andy Burnham will say, Davis said there was a case for demanding the release of the Shrewsbury 24 papers, and a case for obstructing the investigatory powers bill. But mixing the two issues would “diminish” both arguments, he said. He urged Rotheram to win his case “by persuasion, not by coercion”.

Rotheram said Burnham would address this point when he wound up the debate.

The debate was opened by the Labour MP Steve Rotheram.

Rotheram and Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, have produced a dossier of evidence that they say further shows that the convictions of the Shrewsbury 24 building workers were unsound.

As the BBC reports, Burnham will use a speech in the debate to suggest that, unless the government releases more papers about the case, Labour could refuse to support the investigatory powers bill.

In his speech Rotheram said:

Two years ago I said that I believed the course of natural justice had been denied because of “arrests on trumped up charges, a dodgy trial and unsound convictions that quite simply would not be allowed or acceptable today, and should not have been allowed or acceptable then, and a legal process that would have shamed a third world dictatorship”. Given the new evidence seen by [Andy Burnham] and myself, I now believe this to be the case even more than I did following the debate 23 months ago. It is quite frankly bonkers that the documents we requested then, and which the House of Commons overwhelmingly supported in a vote, should remain under lock and key now.

Steve Rotheram
Steve Rotheram Photograph: Parliament TV

MPs debate the case of the Shrewsbury 24

In Westminster Hall (a subsidiary Commons debating chambers, used for less important debates not involving a vote) MPs have started a debate on the case of the Shrewsbury 24.

Paul Mason wrote about this in his Guardian colleague this week.

Lunchtime summary

  • Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary and shadow first secretary of state, has mocked David Cameron for failing to make significant progress with his EU renegotiation. Standing in for Jeremy Corbyn, in a performance that has been widely praised, she challenged Osborne about claims from Donald Tusk, the president of the European Council, about the renegotiation having a “destabilising effect” on the EU.
  • Osborne has said that payday lenders could be forced to pay a levy to fund organisations that help the victims of illegal loan sharks. Speaking at PMQS, he said:

Of course we take very seriously illegal loan sharks and indeed excessive interest charges on payday lending, which is why it was Conservatives who introduced the first ever cap on payday lending.

And on the specific question you raise about the funding for illegal money laundering and loan shark teams, we are looking actually now at a levy on the industry to meet the funding requirements that you identify.

  • Osborne has said the government will tighten the regulations about the flammability of children’s fancy dress costumes. Last year, Strictly Come Dancing host Claudia Winkleman’s daughter was taken to hospital with burns after her Halloween costume caught fire. Speaking at PMQs Osborne said:

We all saw the tragedy that befell the family of the Strictly Come Dancing presenter and the campaign her family have undertaken to change the regulations in this space. It is true we don’t have the same flame retardant regulations for fancy dress costumes for children. That seems wrong, I know the business secretary is looking at it and we will make sure it changes.

  • Osborne has said the RAF has hit four targets since MPs approved air strikes against Islamic State (Isis) in Syria. Speaking at PMQs he said:

We have 16 aircraft conducting strikes as well as our Reaper drones. The RAF have flown 11 missions and conducted four strikes, principally against the oil fields, and we are also supporting Iraqi security forces. The foreign secretary is going to be in New York next week for the talks on trying to bring an end to that horrendous conflict in Syria.

  • Angus Robertson, the SNP leader at Westminster, has raised concerns about plans to transport “dangerous” nuclear material on public roads across the north of Scotland. Speaking at PMQs he said:

There are growing reports in the north of Scotland about plans to transport dangerous nuclear material, including potentially nuclear weapons grade uranium from the Dounreay nuclear facility on public roads to Wick airport. It’s believed that it will then be flown to the United States. What will this nuclear material be used for and have any of his colleagues or himself spoken with a single minister in the Scottish government about this?

Osborne said there were established procedures for transporting nuclear materials.

Ladbrokes have taken exception to my comment about the leadership odds that bookmakers send out. (See 1.02pm.)

Actually, they are right. “Completely fatuous and nonsensical” is a bit harsh. All the main bookmakers produce odds on who the next party leaders will be and the names at the top of their lists are a fair guide to Westminster conventional wisdom, although it is important to remember that by the time a leadership election takes place circumstances may have changed dramatically.

But the bookies do put out quite a lot of nonsense too, not least because they often end up padding out their lists with increasingly unlikely names just to make them look more interesting. For example, here is the start of a press notice Ladbrokes sent me last month.

CBI conference hecklers Peter Lyon & Phil Sheppard are 50/1 to become the leaders of the official leave campaign, according toLadbrokes.

The bookies have added the teenagers to their list of candidates to front the campaign, placing them alongside Dan Hannan and Paul Nuttall and ahead of the likes of Jeremy Corbyn (66/1), Mark Reckless and Philip Davies (both 100/1).

David Cameron, who was on the receiving end of the heckle, is a 200/1 outsider to tie his colours to the out mast officially.

PMQs - Verdict from the Twitter commentariat

This is what political journalists and commentators are saying about PMQs. Everyone agrees it was Angela Eagle’s day, with some describing it as a triumph for her.

From the New Statesman’s George Eaton

From the Sun’s Harry Cole

From the Mirror’s Jason Beattie

From the Telegraph’s Asa Bennett

From the Guardian’s Gaby Hinsliff

From ITV’s Paul Brand

From the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg

From the Independent’s Nigel Morris

From Sky News’s Faisal Islam

From the Morning Star’s Luke James

From Nyta Mann

From Tony Grew

From the Guardian’s Rafael Behr

From the Spectator’s Isabel Hardman

From the Mirror’s Kevin Maguire

From the Telegraph’s Michael Deacon

From the Independent’s Jane Merrick

From BuzzFeed’s Emily Ashton

From Prospect’s Josh Lowe

From the Guardian’s Nicholas Watt

From the BBC’s Norman Smith

From the Times’s Michael Savage

From Huffington Post’s Owen Bennett

From Channel 4 News’s Michael Crick

It did not take long for my prediction about the Labour leadership odds (see 1.02pm) to come true.

The last time Ladbrokes sent out odds, about a week ago, Angela Eagle wasn’t even on the list.

PMQs - Verdict

PMQs - Verdict: George Osborne will be satisfied with that performance, and Angela Eagle will be pleased. It wasn’t an encounter likely to linger in the parliamentary memory for long, although it is possible that Eagle’s chances of becoming the next Labour leader might look slightly better the next time bookmakers produce one of those (completely fatuous and nonsensical) set of odds.

Eagle’s performance certainly seemed to please Labour MPs. She was genuinely funny, sharp, and unifying. She was not critical of her leader, Jeremy Corbyn, but she adopted a tone that was distinctively different, and she asked a question that affectionately mocked his crowdsourcing PMQs strategy. She also had the ideal response to Osborne’s inevitable jibe about Tony Blair’s Spectator article. She quoted Blair saying:

Just mouth the words ‘five more Tory years’ and you feel your senses and reason repulsed by what they have done to this country.

It is from a speech Blair gave in 1996. The only possible drawback with Eagle’s performance was that it was too funny; her jokes slightly blunted her political edge.

That was not the case with Osborne. In his exchanges with Eagle, and in PMQs generally, he seemed slightly too eager to apply the political cosh. This was most apparent when asked a question by an SNP MP about how the government intends to honour its promise to ensure that mothers do not lose child tax credits if their third child is born as a result of a rape. Osborne’s reply, which involved a default response about welfare reform, was emotionally tone deaf. Overall, though, he was perfectly competent. But it served as a reminder that doing PMQs is actually much harder than it looks and that David Cameron, who has now had 10 years’ practice, is a hard act to follow.

Updated

Asked if the government will ban Donald Trump from the UK, Osborne says the best thing to do is to engage with what Trump said, and have a “robust exchange of views”, rather than to seek to ban presidential candidates.

Peter Bone, a Conservative, says a report today said the election TV debates were a great success. Will Osborne, who has a personal interest in this, encourage them at the next election?

Osborne sidesteps the question. Cameron did well in them, he says.

Labour’s Ian Mearns says his authority, Gateshead, could lose £9.4m a year from the government’s plans to decentralise business rates.

Osborne says a top-up and tariff system will apply to compensate authorities. He expected Labour to support devolution, he says.

Labour’s Stephen Timms asks Osborne to correct the impression given by Donald Trump about London.

Osborne says he is happy to do so. He says Trump’s comments “fly in the face of the principles of the US”, and those principles are one of the reasons the US has been an inspiration. He says Trump was talking “nonsense”, and honest debate allows these ideas to be challenged.

Anne Main, a Conservative, asks Osborne to legislate to tighten the laws on flammable children’s costumes.

Osborne says Main is right to raise this. He says Sajid Javid, the business secretary, is looking at this, “and we will change it”.

Alison McGovern, the Labour MP, says Cameron said in September that he could not remove refugees from the immigration figures. But the Office for National Statistics told her that could be done. So will the government do it?

Osborne says in this government people talk to each other. “They should try it in the Labour party.” Osborne ducks the question, but says the government is taking 20,000 Syrian refugees.

Labour’s Daniel Zeichner say students will have to pay thousands more because the threshold for repaying tuition fee loans has been frozen.

Osborne says Labour forgets that it introduced tuition fees. When Labour brought them in, the threshold was £15,000, not £21,000 as it is now. Freezing the threshold helps fund provision from more students to go to university, he says.

Osborne says the government will match by up to £1m the money the Cumbrian foundation is raising for its flood appeal.

Osborne says the government is reforming nursing, making more training places available, so that those who apply are more likely to get a place.

In response to a Tory MP, Osborne says he is bad the MP likes the government’s red book, and has less time for the Little Red Book brandished by Labour.

Philippa Whitford, the SNP MP, says hospitals have been bombed in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan. How will the government avoid this in future?

Osborne says the government has no control over what Assad does. That is one reason why the government wants him to go.

Alison Thewliss, the SNP MP, asks Osborne how he will get women to prove that they have had a third child by rape if they want to get benefits for a third child.

Osborne says it is fair to make the benefit system affordable. The government is considering how to address this particular issue of what to do about women who have a third child in these circumstances.

Snap PMQs Verdict

Snap PMQs Verdict: Old PMQs isn’t so bad after all, is it, on the basis of that exchange. That was a bit more like PMQs used to be before Jeremy Corbyn smothered it in seriousness and, although it was not particularly enlightening, it was at least jolly. Neither “deputy” really won, but Eagle was impressive because she managed to needle Osborne quite well while also managing to quote Tony Blair in a manner that won the approval of Labour MPs (a feat no one else has managed from the Labour front bench for almost 10 years, it seems) and, at the same time, affectionately mocking Corbyn’s PMQ’s strategy.

Updated

Eagle says she prefers another quote from Tony: just say the words five more years of the Tories, and feel how unhappy that makes you. She accuses Osborne of putting his leadership ambitions ahead of his job. Will he accept that Britain is better off in the EU.

Osborne says the government is delivering security. Economic and national security would be put at risk if Labour were back in power.

Eagle says, instead of attacking Labour, Osborne should be criticising Conservative Future. Osborne should worry about someone else on the frontbench, she says. She is referring to Theresa May. If Osborne won’t listen to his backbenchers, will he listen to someone who has written in. She has a letter, she says. It’s from Donald of Brussels. He says uncertainty about Britain’s future in the EU is a destablising factor. He’s right, isn’t he?

Osborne says, since the government announced its referendum, Britain has received the lion’s share of EU investment. On the subject of letters, Tony has been writing today. He says Labour is a tragedy. Why won’t Eagle ask serious questions about education or health?

Updated

Eagle says many Tory MPs are pretty unimpressed by Cameron’s effort. Jacob Rees-Mogg said they were “pretty thin gruel”. And Zac Goldsmith said yesterday they were “not that impressive”. Osborne is known for cultivating his backbenchers, and there is nothing wrong with that. Does Osborne aspire to be the first post-EU prime minister.

Osborne says, if he were Eagle, he would not be quoting backbenchers. Most opposition parties want to get momentum. Labour want to get rid of it. in the end, this will be something put to the people of Britain. That’s because the Tories won the election, he says.

Eagle says Labour will hold the government to account on this. Government figures suggest their flood defence spending will only protect one home in eight of those at risk.

Cameron is on his seemingly endless renegotiation tour, she says. He is jetting all over the place. No wonder he needs his own plane. How is it going?

Osborne says they have a party leader who is respected abroad. Cameron is in central and eastern Europe because the government is fighting for a better deal for Europe.

Eagle says the government has cut flood defence spending by £115m this year. She welcomes the announcement. But will Osborne confirm that families will get the same level of help as last time.

Yes, says Osborne. Families will get up to £5,000. Because the economy is strong and resilient, spending on flood defences is increases. Labour spent £1bn per parliament on flood defences. This government will spend £2bn.

Osborne announces a £50m fund to help victims of floods

Angela Eagle attracts lots of cheering when she stands up. It is nice to get such a warm welcome, she says.

She says our hearts go out to flooding victims. Yet one year on from the 2013-14 floods only 15% of people had had payments they needed. Will the government ensure this does not happen again?

Osborne welcomes Eagle, and points out she enjoys “warm support” from Labour MPs. That’s a dig at Jeremy Corbyn.

The government continues to support the rescue efforts, she says. He say he can announced a £50m fund for families and businesses in the area.

  • Osborne announces a £50m fund to help victims of floods.

Osborne says 16 aircraft are involved in the mission against Isis. RAF planes have flown 11 missions and conducted four strikes.

Labour’s Richard Burden asks about loan sharks. Why is the government cutting the budget for the England illegal money-lending scheme, when they have helped 24,000 loan shark victims to get their illegal loans written off.

Osborne says the government takes this seriously. They introduced the first cap on payday lending. And they are considering a levy on the industry to fund the kind of service Burden asked about.

George Osborne says the prime minister is away, visiting Poland and Romania.

George Osborne and Angela Eagle at PMQs

PMQs starts in just under 10 minutes. George Osborne, the chancellor and first secretary of state, is standing in for David Cameron because Cameron is in Romania. Osborne is not officially deputy prime minister, but he is in practice.

Tom Watson is Labour’s deputy leader. But during the deputy leadership contest he indicated that he was not pushing to go up against Osborne at PMQs, and when Jeremy Corbyn appointed his shadow cabinet he made Angela Eagle, the shadow business secretary, also shadow first secretary of state so that she could take on this role. As shadow leader of the House Eagle had a weekly slot asking the government questions on a wide range of issues and she did it very well.

Alistair Carmichael will try to recover his costs from the petitioners, my colleague Frances Perraudin reports.

One of the petitioners who took the Alistair Carmichael case to the election court has said Carmichael has not been exonerated.

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, has also welcomed the election court ruling. He said:

This was the right outcome and Alistair’s focus will remain on delivering for the people of Orkney and Shetland in parliament.

Since the election, despite the distraction of the case, Alistair has continued to be an incredibly strong voice for Orkney and Shetland.

He has done a huge amount for the Northern Isles over his time in parliament and will continue to work to the best of his abilities.

And this is from Willie Rennie, the Lib Dem leader in Scotland.

The Scottish judicial system has vindicated Alistair’s election as MP for Orkney and Shetland. In the face of this politically motivated and often ugly legal campaign it has been a difficult time for Alistair, his family and his friends. But it is now over.

His top priority now, as it always has been, is doing what he does best; standing up for the people of Orkney and Shetland and being a strong Scottish liberal voice in parliament.

Carmichael says the case was 'politically motivated' and indicative of 'unhealthy polarisation of Scottish politics'

Alistair Carmichael has welcomed the court decision. But he has complained that the case was “politically motivated” and indicative of “the unhealthy polarisation of Scottish politics”.

Here is his statement in full.

I am pleased with the decision of the court.

Although I was always confident of winning the last few months have been a difficult and stressful time for me and my family.

We have been enormously grateful for the tremendous levels of support received from local people, in both Orkney and Shetland, regardless of which political party they normally support.

This support has sustained us and we are very thankful for it.

I should also like to thank my legal team, especially Rosie Walker and her colleagues at Gilson Gray who have been professional and caring throughout.

This case was politically motivated. It was a deliberate attempt by nationalists to remove the last Scottish Liberal voice at Westminster, and is a mark of the unhealthy polarisation of Scottish politics since the referendum.

I shall continue to represent Orkney and Shetland as a Member of Parliament to the best of my ability, as I have done for the past 14 years.

These are very special communities, and it is where my wife and I have made our home and where we are bringing up our family. The interests of the Northern Isles have always been, and always will be my first priority. It remains an honour and a privilege to be their member of parliament.

Alistair Carmichael
Alistair Carmichael Photograph: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

Updated

Court decision in the Alistair Carmichael case - Summary

Here are the key points from the summary of the election court’s decision on the Judiciary of Scotland’s website.

In summary, the court says Alistair Carmichael got off because he only told a narrowly-focused lie. If he had said, ‘I didn’t leak the memo, because I would never do that kind of thing’, he would have lost the case.

  • The court accepted that section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 saying candidates were not allowed to make “false statements of fact” could apply to statements a candidate makes about him or herself, not just statements about opponents.

Lady Paton and Lord Matthews had previously ruled that “a false statement by a candidate about his own personal character or conduct made before or during an election for the purpose of affecting his return at the election has the effect of engaging section 106” of the 1983 Act.

  • But the case hinged on two other issues, the court said. They were:

Did the words complained of in the petition amount to “false statements of fact…in relation to the personal character or conduct” of the first respondent?; and were the words complained of uttered “for the purpose of affecting the return of any candidate at the election”?

  • The court said Alistair Carmichael had told “a blatant lie” about his knowledge of the leak.

On the first issue, the court observed that the first respondent [Mr Carmichael] had told a “blatant lie” when, in the course of a Channel 4 interview on Sunday 5 April 2015, he claimed that he had only become aware when contacted by a journalist of a memo leaked to the press by his special adviser Euan Roddin, which stated that First Minister and leader of the SNP Nicola Sturgeon had told the French ambassador that “she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM”.

Lady Paton said: “There is no dispute that the words ‘I told you the first I became aware of this, and this is already on public record, was when I received a phone call on Friday afternoon [i.e. Friday 3 April 2015] from a journalist making me aware of it’ constituted a false statement of fact, in other words, a lie. Obviously the first respondent had been aware of the existence of the memo and its contents as described to him by Mr Roddin since the flight to the Faroe Islands in March 2015. Moreover he had authorised Mr Roddin to release the memo to the Daily Telegraph.”

  • But the court said Carmichael’s lie did not relate to a general statement about his character.

However, on the matter of whether the lie could properly be characterised as a false statement of fact “in relation to [his] personal character or conduct”, the judges were left with a reasonable doubt.

“It is of the essence of section 106 that it does not apply to lies in general: it applies only to lies in relation to the personal character or conduct of a candidate made before or during an election for the purpose of affecting that candidate’s return,” Lady Paton said.

The judges gave some examples of what might be regarded as false statements of fact in relation to personal character or conduct.

They explained that if a candidate made a false statement that he would never leak an internal confidential memo, no matter how helpful that might be to his party, as he regarded the practice of leaking confidential information as dishonest and morally reprehensible, and he would not stoop to such tactics, when in fact that candidate had leaked an internal confidential memo containing material which was inaccurate and highly damaging to an opponent, they would be likely to conclude that the candidate had given a false statement “’in relation to [his] personal character or conduct” because he would be falsely holding himself out as being of such a standard of honesty, honour, trustworthiness and integrity that, in contrast with what others in Westminster might do, he would never be involved in such a leaking exercise.

“In the present case, when speaking to the Channel 4 interviewer, the first respondent did not make such an express statement about his personal character or conduct,” Lady Paton continued. “We are not persuaded that the false statement proved to have been made was in relation to anything other than the first respondent’s awareness (or lack of awareness) of a political machination. Accordingly we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the words used by the first respondent amounted to a ‘false statement of fact in relation to [his] personal character or conduct’. It follows that we are not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that an essential element of section 106 has been proved. Even if we were to apply a lesser standard of proof (i.e. the civil standard of ‘on a balance of probabilities’), we would not be satisfied that the first respondent has been proved to have made a ‘false statement of fact in relation to [his] personal character or conduct’ in the course of the Channel 4 news interview…”

  • The court said that Carmichael’s lie had been intended to affect the election. But it dismissed the case because of the point above, about the lie not being a general statement about his character.

On the second issue, the judges were satisfied that it had been proved beyond reasonable doubt that the first respondent made the false statement of fact “for the purpose of affecting (positively) his own return at the election”.

Lady Paton said: “As the first respondent said in evidence, he wanted public attention to remain focused on that important political message, rather than becoming side-tracked by revelations that it had been he and his special adviser Mr Roddin who had leaked the memo to the Daily Telegraph. In his view, if public attention remained focused on that political message, voters who had anxieties about Scottish independence might find voting for the SNP a less attractive prospect…The inescapable inference, in our opinion, is that if the SNP became a less attractive prospect, the first respondent’s chances of a comfortable majority in what had become a ‘two-horse race’ in Orkney and Shetland would be enhanced.”

Furthermore, the judges considered that the evidence established that there was another purpose underlying the false statement, namely a desire not to be identified as being involved in the leak.

“Thus on the basis of all the evidence led before us we are satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that another purpose underlying the false statement was self-protection (a self-protection extending to Mr Roddin, provided that neither of them could be identified). Such self-protection would avoid attracting critical comment, losing esteem in the public eye, and being the subject of any disciplinary consequences, all at a very inconvenient time during the lead-up to the election. Such self-protection would avoid his presenting as a less attractive electoral candidate for the voters in Orkney and Shetland.”

Updated

You can read a summary of the decision here, on the Judiciary of Scotland website.

Here is my colleague Severin Carrell’s story on the decision.

And here is how it starts.

An election court has thrown out an attempt to unseat the Liberal Democrat MP Alistair Carmichael after he admitted lying about his role in leaking a controversial memo about Nicola Sturgeon.

Two judges in Edinburgh ruled that the former Scotland secretary’s dishonesty about the memo in a Channel 4 News interview had not been intended to mislead voters in his Orkney and Shetland constituency.

It has been confirmed that Alistair Carmichael has been cleared.

Alistair Carmichael 'has been cleared', Herald reports

The Herald is reporting that Alistair Carmichael has been cleared.

Updated

The constituents challenging Alistair Carmichael funded the case by crowdfunding. They reached their initial target, £102,000, back in June, but they are now trying to raise more than £200,000, suggesting they may be preparing for an appeal.

But their options would be limited. This is from my colleague Severin Carrell.

Under the Representation of the People’s Act 1983, the election court’s decision is final and can only be challenged by either side taking the issue to a judicial review. Election courts are odd beasts: they have two judges sitting, which means if they are split and cannot agree, the status quo stands and the MP survives.

Election court set to rule on Alistair Carmichael

Within the next half an hour we are due to get the decision from the election court in Scotland which heard a claim challenging the election of Alistair Carmichael, the Lib Dem MP and former Scottish secretary.

Constituents sought to have Carmichael’s election declared invalid on the grounds that during the election campaign he lied about his involvement in the leak of a government memo potentially damaging to Nicola Sturgeon, the SNP leader. The memo said that Sturgeon had told the French ambassador in private that she did not think Ed Miliband was suitable to be prime minister and that she wanted David Cameron to win the election. Sturgeon strongly denied this, and the French have accepted that this aspect of the memo recording the conversation was not accurate.

Carmichael said at the time that he was unaware of the memo until after it had been leaked to the Daily Telegraph. Subsequently it emerged that he had authorised his special adviser to leak it. But he did believe that what the memo said about Sturgeon was true.

The legal case has been brought under section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. If the court does decide that Carmichael’s lie about the leak made his election invalid, that could open the door to many more challenges of this kind in future.

For more than 20 years Tony Blair has been waging the “principles versus pragmatism” argument within the Labour party. He has always been very firmly on the “pragmatism” side, while also insisting that it is a false choice (because there is no point having principles and values unless you can implement them), but a recent YouGov poll showed quite to what extent he is losing the argument in his party. A majority of Labour members (54%) think it is more important for the party to have policies it believes in, even if they could lead to it losing an election, than for it to compromise.

In his Spectator article Blair goes over this familiar ground again. But he says that he is setting out his argument in a new way, and there are some points worth noting (beyond the swipes at Jeremy Corbyn, which I have already flagged up - see 9.03am.)

  • Blair says significant elements in Labour have always been opposed to the compromises inherent in governing.

The problem was that once in Government, where hard choices had to be made, and where supporters had to be disappointed as well as indulged, we fell short. In particular, significant elements of the Party saw the process of governing with all its compromises, pragmatism and embrace of changing times as implicit betrayal of our principles.

  • He says his government was originally “timid” in relation to reforming public services, welfare, crime and pensions.
  • He says his decision to go to war in Iraq, and other security decisions after 9/11, were taken “not in defiance of progressive politics but in furtherance of them”.
  • He says Islamist extremism is “a modern form of fascism, albeit one based on religious doctrine”.
  • He says progressive should have more to say about macro-economic policy.

Macro-economic policy particularly the impact of Quantitative Easing and its relationship with fiscal policy and what is the right regulatory framework for banking which protects us as far as possible from crisis, but also recognises the cardinal importance to a thriving economy of a thriving financial sector, should be a huge topic of debate in progressive circles. It barely features.

  • He admits that Labour dropped its ideological commitment to socialism when he rewrote Clause IV.

When we re-wrote the Party’s constitution we put as the central tenet: ‘By our common endeavour we achieve more together than we do alone.’ So we retained the ‘social’ part of socialism, but effectively discarded the ideological one. We distinguished between State and social action.

In office, when he was asked if he was a socialist, Blair always tended to fudge his answer, saying it depended what socialism meant.

It is also worth noting the headline the Spectator has put on the article, which deserves a prize for its blunt simplicity.

Spectator headline on Blair’s article
Spectator headline on Blair’s article Photograph: Spectator

Following Labour’s victory in the Oldham byelection there have been calls for the party to unite now behind Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. It’s a theme that has cropped up in the Guardian letters page, among other places.

But Tony Blair, the former prime minister, is in no mood to reach an accommodation with the Corbynistas. He has written an article for the Spectator which has just been published and, although it does not mention Corbyn by name, or even refer directly to current developments in the party, it does include withering criticism of what is happening to Labour under the current leadership.

None of this is especially surprising, of course, but Blair does frame his critique in a defence of his record that contains some newish thinking about his time in office.

Here are the key points.

  • Blair criticises Corbyn for not being serious about aspiring to govern. He does not say that explicitly, but that is the only way to read the opening sentence. He says the state of Labour is a “tragedy”.

All wings of the Labour Party which support the notion of the Labour Party as a Party aspiring to govern, rather than as a fringe protest movement agree on the tragedy of the Labour Party’s current position.

  • He says “modernisers” are “the true progressives”.

Many – especially in today’s Labour Party – felt we lost our way in Government. I feel we found it. But I accept in the process we failed to convince enough people that the true progressives are always the modernisers, not because they discard principle but because they have the courage to adhere to it when confronted with reality.

I will post more from the article soon.

Later I will be focusing on PMQs and on the Shrewsbury 24 debate. Here is the agenda for the day.

9.30am: Nick Gibb, the schools minister, gives evidence to the education committee about supply teachers.

Morning: A court ruling on legal action challenging the election of the Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael is published.

12pm: George Osborne, the chancellor and first secretary of state, faces Angela Eagle, the shadow first secretary of state and shadow business secretary, at PMQs. The “deputies” are standing in because David Cameron is away.

2.30pm: MPs debate the case of the Shrewsbury 24 in Westminster Hall. Andy Burnham, the shadow home secretary, is expected to accuse the government of “perpetuating a cover up” and to say that Labour may refuse to support the investigatory powers bill unless the government releases papers about the case.

As usual, I will also be covering breaking political news as it happens, as well as bringing you the best reaction, comment and analysis from the web. I will post a summary at lunchtime and another in the afternoon.

If you want to follow me or contact me on Twitter, I’m on@AndrewSparrow.

Updated

Sign up to read this article
Read news from 100’s of titles, curated specifically for you.
Already a member? Sign in here
Related Stories
Top stories on inkl right now
One subscription that gives you access to news from hundreds of sites
Already a member? Sign in here
Our Picks
80 Dad Jokes That Are So Bad, They’re Actually Funny
What's wrong with groaning, if you're grinning too?
Bored Panda
Bored Panda
Taylor Swift's 'Release Party of a Showgirl' Gucci Shirt Has a Low-Key Travis Kelce Connection
The shirt is a deep pull from Swift's closet that she first wore to a 'Reputation Tour' meet and greet in 2018.
Marie Claire
Marie Claire
William, Prince of Wales, is a 'big fan' of American Pie
William, Prince of Wales, told American Pie star Eugene Levy in an episode of the actor's Apple TV+ The Reluctant Traveler series that he is a "big fan" of the raunchy sex comedy films.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Priscilla Presley: 'I felt that Michael Jackson was using Lisa Marie'
Priscilla Presley feared Michael Jackson was “using” her daughter Lisa Marie Presley when they got married in 1994.
BANG Premier
BANG Premier
Why do I use LOL so much in my texts?
My personal texts and work chats were littered with LOLs. I asked experts for advice on avoiding its ‘more insidious’ uses
The Guardian - US
The Guardian - US
There's one detail on coffee bags that tells you if it's worth buying — and most shoppers miss it
Discover how to identify fresh coffee and understand the optimal window for brewing quality coffee at home.
Tom’s Guide
Tom’s Guide
Fourteen days free
Download the app
One app. One membership.
100+ trusted global sources.
Download on the AppStore Get it on Google Play