included

Assembly Rejects 2 Forest Protection Bills : Environment: The measures, which had the backing of Gov. Wilson, included a ban on clear-cutting in old-growth tracts. Lobbying by the Sierra Club is blamed for the defeat.

Pro-business conservatives and environmentalist liberals joined forces in the Assembly on Monday to engineer the surprise defeat of two forest protection measures that had the backing of Gov. Pete Wilson and a powerful coalition of timber companies and conservation organizations.

Swayed by arguments that the measures could lead to the destruction of ancient forests as well as the loss of hundreds of logging jobs, a bitterly divided Assembly voted against the bills that had been designed to stop overcutting in the state’s 7.1 million acres of privately owned timberlands.

A similar alliance in the Senate failed, however, to stop two other measures in the four-bill package, and they passed easily by separate 22-14 votes.

Buoyed by the Senate action, the bills’ Assembly authors said they would bring the defeated measures up again for another vote, possibly as early as today, but they acknowledged it would be difficult to win passage. Both bills need 41 votes to garner Assembly approval and they drew just 28 and 31 votes Monday.

The legislation, which was the result of a compromise reached after months of negotiations between environmental organizations and timber companies, would ban clear-cutting in ancient and old-growth forests, limit its use in other types of forests, provide protections for forest watersheds and wildlife and place restrictions on timber harvesting that are designed to prevent loggers from cutting more than they can grow.

Although the measures had support from environmental organizations like the National Audubon Society and the Planning and Conservation League, Assembly sponsors blamed a heavy lobbying attack from the Sierra Club for siphoning off key Democratic votes and leading to the unexpected defeat.

“I think the Democratic side bought the Sierra Club argument,” said Assemblyman Byron Sher (D-Palo Alto), a sponsor of the package.

Sher said pro-environment lawmakers were drawn to the Sierra Club argument that last-minute fine-tuning of the legislation had led to changes that would exempt 30,000 acres of old-growth forest owned by Pacific Lumber Co. from some of the new restrictions on harvesting.

While he insisted there was no such exemption in the bills, Sher said it may be necessary to make changes to satisfy Sierra Club objections in order for the measures to pass the Assembly.

But in the Senate, Republicans who had backed the bills after winning assurances from Wilson that there would be no changes insisted they would withdraw their support if the legislation was altered in anyway.

“If it takes an amendment to line up Democratic votes, that amendment will cause me and I’m sure many other Republicans to drop their support,” Sen. Tim Leslie (R-Auburn) said firmly.

Insisting the defeat had been motivated by partisan politics, Assemblyman Chris Chandler (R-Yuba City) predicted the measures would eventually pass without any changes with more support from Republicans.

“I think the issue will come together quite nicely (Tuesday),” he said, adding that he expected at least two more Republicans to vote yes.

Other lawmakers agreed, saying that many Democrats had not voted on the measures, preferring first to wait and see how much Republican support they would garner. Some grumbled privately that even though Wilson was backing the measure, only 10 Republicans had voted for the bills while 18 had voted against them.

On the Assembly floor, however, the debate avoided politics and focused on the issues of jobs and ancient forests.

Conservative Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Thousand Oaks) said the new restrictions would put 17,000 families on the North Coast out of work as timber companies were forced to cut back on harvesting and reduce saw mill production.

“Is it possible that even now, this Administration and this Legislature does not understand the enormous damage which they have done to our economy?” McClintock said. “That even now, while the governor postures about his concern for the economy, he is waging unrelenting war against the remaining job base of our state?”

On the Democratic side, Assemblyman Tom Hayden, (D-Santa Monica), objected to the measures on environmental grounds, arguing that while they banned clear-cutting in ancient forests they also allowed a schedule of harvesting that permitted those forests to be decimated in the next two decades.

“It’s a legalized schedule for their destruction,” Hayden said, “with the possibility held out that a few (trees) will be retained like animals in the zoo.”

Source link

Manchester Arena bereaved families say MI5 must be fully included in new law on cover-ups

Daniel De SimoneInvestigations correspondent

AFP via Getty Images People look at flowers in St Ann's Square in Manchester on 29 May 2017.AFP via Getty Images

Twenty-two people died and hundreds were injured when Salman Abedi detonated a homemade device at the end of an Ariana Grande concert in Manchester on 22 May 2017

Families bereaved by the Manchester Arena bombing say MI5 failed them and must be fully included in a new law designed to stop cover-ups in public life.

In a letter to Sir Keir Starmer, seen by the BBC, they ask the prime minister: “How many times must MI5 show that it cannot be trusted before something is done?”

MI5 was found by a public inquiry not to have given an “accurate picture” of the key intelligence it held on the suicide bomber who carried out the attack which killed 22 people and injured hundreds on 22 May 2017.

The “Hillsborough Law”, making its way through Parliament, follows campaigning by families affected by the 1989 Hillsborough disaster that claimed 97 lives.

Police leaders were found to have spread false narratives about that disaster, blaming Liverpool fans, and withheld evidence of their own failings.

The new law will force public officials to tell the truth during investigations, including those into major disasters.

But a director of the campaign behind the new law told the BBC he has been “misled” by the government during negotiations over how it will apply to the intelligence services.

The government said: “We are listening to feedback about how to strengthen [the law] whilst also protecting national security.”

Known as the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, the new law has three pillars:

  • The first establishes a general duty of candour on all public officials, meaning they will be required to tell the truth proactively in their working life
  • The second is an ancillary duty of candour that applies to official investigations, which includes inquiries and inquests
  • The third is set to re-balance funding for legal representation for state bodies and victims during inquiries

The bill would create criminal sanctions for breaches in the duty for candour.

Labour’s manifesto for the 2024 general election said: “Labour will introduce a ‘Hillsborough Law’ which will place a legal duty of candour on public servants and authorities”.

Speaking last year, Sir Keir said the new legislation would change “the balance of power in Britain” to ensure the state could “never hide from the people it is supposed to serve”.

But barrister Pete Weatherby KC, director of Hillsborough Law Now (HLN) campaign group, told the BBC the government had “misled” him during negotiations over how the law will apply to MI5, MI6 and GCHQ.

He represented victims’ families during the landmark Hillsborough inquests a decade ago and has played a central role in making the new law a reality.

He also represented families bereaved by the Manchester Arena attack during the public inquiry into that atrocity, during which MI5 was criticised for giving a false account.

Weatherby said the “government have tried to put forward measures relating to intelligence services which look better than they are, and we’ve ended up in a position which certainly wasn’t the position that we negotiated with them”.

He said it was a “major problem” and “very disappointing”.

He said HLN accepts there are some caveats that will apply to MI5 and the intelligence services, as the prime minister himself has said.

During the Manchester Arena public inquiry, and an earlier official review, MI5 provided a false narrative about intelligence it received about the suicide bomber before the attack.

The public inquiry chairman concluded that the statements had not presented an “accurate picture”. He also found MI5 missed a significant opportunity to take action that might have prevented the attack.

Handout Profile pictures of (clockwise from top left) Liam Curry, Chloe Rutherford, Megan Hurley, Eilidh MacLeod and Kelly Brewster, victims of the Manchester Arena attackHandout

The families of (clockwise from top left) Liam Curry, Chloe Rutherford, Megan Hurley, Eilidh MacLeod and Kelly Brewster have written a letter to the prime minister

The families of five people killed in the Manchester Arena attack in 2017 have written to the prime minister, calling on him to ensure the new law will apply in the fullest way to MI5 and the other services.

The authors of the letter are the families of Liam Curry, 19, Chloe Rutherford, 17, both from South Shields, Megan Hurley, 15, from Liverpool, Eilidh MacLeod, 14, from the Isle of Barra, and Kelly Brewster, 32, from Sheffield.

In the letter, the bereaved families say: “You made a personal promise that you would bring in the law.

“We’re now asking you to keep that promise in full by ensuring the new law applies to the security and intelligence agencies in the same way it applies to everyone else.”

The letter adds: “MI5 failed our loved ones and failed us.

“It did so by failing to prevent the Arena bombing. But it then failed and hurt us further through its lack of candour after the attack.

“During the Manchester Arena inquiry, MI5 lied about the key intelligence it held about the suicide bomber before the attack.

“Despite MI5 lying to a public inquiry in this way, no one has been held to account.

“This lack of accountability needs to change. Creating a full duty of candour responsibility on MI5, MI6 and GCHQ is the clearest route to creating this change.

“We are dismayed that, as the draft bill is currently written, MI5 and the other organisations are being allowed to escape the full duty of candour responsibility.

“Every security and intelligence officer should be required the tell the truth, and the leaders of the organisations should also bear full responsibility.

“How many times must MI5 show that it cannot be trusted before something is done?

“We are calling on you to keep your promise and ensure that MI5, MI6 and GCHQ are held to the same standards as everyone else.”

Claire Booth, a sister of Kelly Brewster, survived the bombing and her daughter was severely injured. She told the BBC that MI5’s conduct after the attack was “infuriating” and made her feel like “we were collateral damage”.

She added: “It was just one of them things as far as MI5 were concerned.

“They didn’t stop it [the attack], but the fact that they’ve then not been truthful about what their involvements were, what they knew… it all just adds insult to injury. It’s not fair.”

In response, a government spokesperson said: “The Hillsborough Law will once and for all end the culture of cover-ups and hiding the truth, ensuring transparency, accountability, and support for people affected.

“The law will apply to all public authorities including the intelligence agencies.

“The Bill creating the Hillsborough Law is currently going through Parliament and we are listening to feedback about how to strengthen it whilst also protecting national security.”

Weatherby said the key problem is a provision which would have the effect of “disapplying” the ancillary duty of candour to individual security and intelligence officers.

He said that, in the context of Manchester Arena case, this is crucial, adding that if the duty falls on the organisation only, nothing will change.

If it falls on the individual officers as well, they will risk criminal liability and sanction if they sit on their hands whilst the corporate body lies to inquiries and courts.

Last year MI5 was forced to apologise after it gave false evidence to three courts in a neo-Nazi spy and is currently under investigation by its regulator.

In December, MI5 apologised after it was heavily criticised by a major police investigation into the IRA spy known as Stakeknife. MI5 had disclosed documents years late and provided misleading evidence about its knowledge of the spy.

Booth said that the intelligence services “should have the same duty as everybody else to be open and honest.

“And I think if it’s not applied to them, we’re never going to get to the bottom of when things like terrorist attacks or the Hillsborough disaster”.

Source link