British forces have killed one of the most dangerous Taliban leaders in Helmand province, southern Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said today.
Mullah Mansur was killed by fire from an Apache helicopter in the early hours of Monday in an isolated area near Nahr-e Saraj, north-east of the provincial capital Lashkar Gah, MoD officials said.
They said Mansur and a colleague, who was also killed, were on motorbikes at the time of the strike. Mansur is believed to be behind a number of suicide bombings against British and Afghan forces in and around Lashkar Gah.
They included two suicide attacks last month in Gereshk – one which killed Sergeant Ben Ross and Corporal Kumar Pun, and the second which killed 13 Afghan police and civilians and wounded 27.
Mansur is also said to be behind a suicide bombing on the Helmand police headquarters in March. Nine Afghan policemen and two civilians were killed and 28 people wounded in that attack.
British defence officials said the Taliban leader was known to have strong links to insurgent commanders from the Baloch tribe in southern Helmand and acted as the link between the insurgency there and in the centre of the province.
Lt Col Nick Richardson, spokesman for the British military mission in Helmand, said: "UK forces conducted a successful precision strike against one of the most dangerous men in Helmand, and what we consider to be the most dangerous man in the central area around Lashkar Gah."
He said Mansur supplied and constructed improvised explosive devices. "The attacks he helped plan and execute have probably killed or wounded hundreds of people, and most of them have been either Afghan civilians or police," Richardson said.
However, the attack came as British officials are increasingly coming round to the view that killing insurgents is not the answer to solving the many problems, including poverty, facing most Afghans.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
Peace index ranks New Zealand the safest country in the world
On top of the many humiliations that have rained down on Iceland recently – the implosion of its economy, banks and currency to name just three – the erstwhile Viking tiger today lost its title as the safest place in the world.
New Zealand is now officially your best bet for a risk-free destination, according to the new Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual ranking of the world's nations on the basis of how peaceful they are.
Despite the much-vaunted progress on security, Iraq remained bottom of the list, below Afghanistan, Somalia and Israel, which found itself listed as more dangerous than Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the top, the usual Nordic suspects clustered below New Zealand: Denmark, Norway and Iceland came second, third and fourth, followed by Austria and then Sweden.
Britain was 35th: better than last year, and one position higher than Italy, but still below most of Europe and countries as diverse as Botswana, South Korea, Malaysia and Qatar.
The United States has clawed its way up six places to 83rd – still weighed down by two foreign wars, a high prison population and the general availability of guns. Its slight rise was attributed to the number of years since 9/11 that the country has avoided a terrorist attack, and the relative decline of other countries.
The index was collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit for a new thinktank called the Institute for Economics and Peace. It uses a weighted mix of 23 criteria, including foreign wars, internal conflicts, respect for human rights, the number of murders, the number of people in jail, the arms trade, and degrees of democracy.
This year's results found the economic downturn had made the world a little less peaceful. That, say the authors, "appears to reflect the intensification of violent conflict in some countries and the effects of both the rapidly rising food and fuel prices early in 2008 and the dramatic global economic downturn in the final quarter of the year.
"Rapidly rising unemployment, pay freezes and falls in the value of house prices, savings and pensions is causing popular resentment in many countries, with political repercussions that have been registered by the GPI through various indicators measuring safety and security in society."
The results come from a groundbreaking study, released alongside the 2009 GPI, which estimates the economic impact of lost peace on the global economy at $7.2tn (£4.4tn) a year.
Of this, $4.8tn is made up of business activities that never see the light of day because of violence; a further $2.4tn relates to the redeployment of resources and expenditure away from industries benefiting from violence to those that benefit from peace.
"The reality is that the net economic benefit of peace to humanity is substantial, and governments and businesses should seriously consider how adopting practices and policies that promote peace helps their bottom line," said Clyde McConaghy, who oversees the index at the institute. "It is this kind of thinking that the Institute for Economics and Peace will promote."
New Zealand is now officially your best bet for a risk-free destination, according to the new Global Peace Index (GPI), an annual ranking of the world's nations on the basis of how peaceful they are.
Despite the much-vaunted progress on security, Iraq remained bottom of the list, below Afghanistan, Somalia and Israel, which found itself listed as more dangerous than Sudan and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. At the top, the usual Nordic suspects clustered below New Zealand: Denmark, Norway and Iceland came second, third and fourth, followed by Austria and then Sweden.
Britain was 35th: better than last year, and one position higher than Italy, but still below most of Europe and countries as diverse as Botswana, South Korea, Malaysia and Qatar.
The United States has clawed its way up six places to 83rd – still weighed down by two foreign wars, a high prison population and the general availability of guns. Its slight rise was attributed to the number of years since 9/11 that the country has avoided a terrorist attack, and the relative decline of other countries.
The index was collated by the Economist Intelligence Unit for a new thinktank called the Institute for Economics and Peace. It uses a weighted mix of 23 criteria, including foreign wars, internal conflicts, respect for human rights, the number of murders, the number of people in jail, the arms trade, and degrees of democracy.
This year's results found the economic downturn had made the world a little less peaceful. That, say the authors, "appears to reflect the intensification of violent conflict in some countries and the effects of both the rapidly rising food and fuel prices early in 2008 and the dramatic global economic downturn in the final quarter of the year.
"Rapidly rising unemployment, pay freezes and falls in the value of house prices, savings and pensions is causing popular resentment in many countries, with political repercussions that have been registered by the GPI through various indicators measuring safety and security in society."
The results come from a groundbreaking study, released alongside the 2009 GPI, which estimates the economic impact of lost peace on the global economy at $7.2tn (£4.4tn) a year.
Of this, $4.8tn is made up of business activities that never see the light of day because of violence; a further $2.4tn relates to the redeployment of resources and expenditure away from industries benefiting from violence to those that benefit from peace.
"The reality is that the net economic benefit of peace to humanity is substantial, and governments and businesses should seriously consider how adopting practices and policies that promote peace helps their bottom line," said Clyde McConaghy, who oversees the index at the institute. "It is this kind of thinking that the Institute for Economics and Peace will promote."
Nancy Sutley: Obama to stake political prestige on passing US climate bill
Barack Obama is prepared to stake his own political prestige on getting climate change legislation through Congress, and would be willing to intervene directly to ensure passage of America's first law to reduce the carbon emissions that cause global warming.
Nancy Sutley, who is pivotal in setting Obama's green agenda as the chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told the Guardian that the president is ready to use his considerable personal popularity to rally Congress behind a sweeping climate change bill.
"When the bill is further along in the legislative process there are some things where it may make a difference in expressing a strong view," Sutley said in an interview. "What [Obama] has been saying consistently is that he wants a bill and that this represents a very important step forward. "
Congress is now working against a six-month deadline to pass a sweeping package of environmental legislation through both houses before the world gathers at Copenhagen in December for talks on a global climate change treaty.
World leaders have warned US officials that Congress needs to take concrete action to reduce emissions if Washington hopes to bring China and other major polluters to a deal at Copenhagen.
Some Democratic leaders are pushing to bring forward the original timeline for putting in place the most crucial element of Obama's green agenda - the greenhouse gas cutting laws. The president told Congress in February he wanted legislation by the end of its current session in November 2010.
The accelerated pace set by some Democrats seems designed to capitalise on recent momentum behind a climate change bill which cleared a crucial committee in late May. The strategy also seeks to take advantage of Obama's current popularity - Gallup gave him a 65% average approval rating last month.
The Senate voted down a climate change bill a year ago and it was thought it might not attempt to move a vote on the issue again before the Copenhagen talks. But in a sign of growing confidence from the Obama administration, Democratic leaders are reportedly planning to move forward the date for the full vote in the house of representatives to the end of this month.
The house energy committee, which is weighed heavily towards coal and oil state Democrats, was the first major obstacle for the climate change bill, and Obama drew on his political capital help get it passed.
The president invited key members of Congress to the White House to make a personal appeal for the bill. Those at the meeting say the pitch was crucial to securing the support of wavering Democrats.
Obama would be ready to take further gambles on his personal popularity, Sutley said.
She said he was unlikely to intervene in the near future to shore up targets for emission reductions - already criticised by some environmentalists as failing to go as far as dictated by the science to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. However, the president may feel compelled to step in to shield consumers from higher electricity bills. "He has talked about the idea that we have to think about consumers," she said.
The bill in its current form would force polluting industries to reduce steadily their emissions of carbon and the other greenhouse gases that cause global warming. It would also require power companies to get 15% of their electricity from clean sources of energy like wind and sun.
As Congress resumes this week, the bill now undergoes review by as many as eight committees, which could all attempt to put their stamp on the bill. The biggest threat to the bill's survival comes from the agriculture committee, where the Democratic chairman, Collin Peterson, has threatened to impose a veto.
Peterson, and other Democrats from farming states, say the bill would hurt farmers and producers of corn-based ethanol. He told MinnPost.com: "If they don't fix this, there isn't going to be a bill."
Environmentalists are concerned that those competing pressures during the review process could force compromises that would seriously weaken the bill.
The bill is already is doing less than scientists recommend to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. In its current incarnation, the bill calls for a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020 - which is much lower than the European Union's targets. However, the US matches the longer-term EU target of 80% reductions by 2050.
Obama, when running for president, supported a 2020 target of a 14% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. However, Sutley said the president was unlikely to press for that original target, or to explicitly adopt the new more stringent 17% cut.
Nancy Sutley, who is pivotal in setting Obama's green agenda as the chairwoman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, told the Guardian that the president is ready to use his considerable personal popularity to rally Congress behind a sweeping climate change bill.
"When the bill is further along in the legislative process there are some things where it may make a difference in expressing a strong view," Sutley said in an interview. "What [Obama] has been saying consistently is that he wants a bill and that this represents a very important step forward. "
Congress is now working against a six-month deadline to pass a sweeping package of environmental legislation through both houses before the world gathers at Copenhagen in December for talks on a global climate change treaty.
World leaders have warned US officials that Congress needs to take concrete action to reduce emissions if Washington hopes to bring China and other major polluters to a deal at Copenhagen.
Some Democratic leaders are pushing to bring forward the original timeline for putting in place the most crucial element of Obama's green agenda - the greenhouse gas cutting laws. The president told Congress in February he wanted legislation by the end of its current session in November 2010.
The accelerated pace set by some Democrats seems designed to capitalise on recent momentum behind a climate change bill which cleared a crucial committee in late May. The strategy also seeks to take advantage of Obama's current popularity - Gallup gave him a 65% average approval rating last month.
The Senate voted down a climate change bill a year ago and it was thought it might not attempt to move a vote on the issue again before the Copenhagen talks. But in a sign of growing confidence from the Obama administration, Democratic leaders are reportedly planning to move forward the date for the full vote in the house of representatives to the end of this month.
The house energy committee, which is weighed heavily towards coal and oil state Democrats, was the first major obstacle for the climate change bill, and Obama drew on his political capital help get it passed.
The president invited key members of Congress to the White House to make a personal appeal for the bill. Those at the meeting say the pitch was crucial to securing the support of wavering Democrats.
Obama would be ready to take further gambles on his personal popularity, Sutley said.
She said he was unlikely to intervene in the near future to shore up targets for emission reductions - already criticised by some environmentalists as failing to go as far as dictated by the science to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. However, the president may feel compelled to step in to shield consumers from higher electricity bills. "He has talked about the idea that we have to think about consumers," she said.
The bill in its current form would force polluting industries to reduce steadily their emissions of carbon and the other greenhouse gases that cause global warming. It would also require power companies to get 15% of their electricity from clean sources of energy like wind and sun.
As Congress resumes this week, the bill now undergoes review by as many as eight committees, which could all attempt to put their stamp on the bill. The biggest threat to the bill's survival comes from the agriculture committee, where the Democratic chairman, Collin Peterson, has threatened to impose a veto.
Peterson, and other Democrats from farming states, say the bill would hurt farmers and producers of corn-based ethanol. He told MinnPost.com: "If they don't fix this, there isn't going to be a bill."
Environmentalists are concerned that those competing pressures during the review process could force compromises that would seriously weaken the bill.
The bill is already is doing less than scientists recommend to prevent a catastrophic rise in temperature. In its current incarnation, the bill calls for a 17% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions below 2005 levels by 2020 - which is much lower than the European Union's targets. However, the US matches the longer-term EU target of 80% reductions by 2050.
Obama, when running for president, supported a 2020 target of a 14% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. However, Sutley said the president was unlikely to press for that original target, or to explicitly adopt the new more stringent 17% cut.
Pakistan releases 'top militant'
A Pakistani court has ordered the release of the leader of an Islamic charity suspected of being a front for a group accused of the Mumbai attacks.
The court ruled the continued house arrest of Jamaat-ud-Dawa founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed was unconstitutional.
The charity is accused of being a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group India says was behind the attacks. Jamaat-ud-Dawa denies any links with militants.
India has expressed its disappointment, calling the release "regrettable".
More than 170 people died in the Mumbai (Bombay) attacks last November, including nine gunmen.
Mr Saeed, who denies the charges against him, was placed under house arrest in December after the UN added him to a list of people and groups linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
India 'unhappy'
Emerging from the Lahore High Court to shouts of support, Mr Saeed's lawyer, AK Dogar, said the court had ruled the house arrest was "against the law and constitution of the country".
The court also ordered the release of three other Jamaat-ud-Dawa members. A copy of the court order was not immediately available.
Pakistan's Attorney General Sardar Latif Khosa said the government would read the judgment before deciding whether to appeal against it.
India was swift to express its concern about Pakistan's commitment to fighting militancy following the court order.
"Pakistan has not shown the degree of seriousness and commitment it should have to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks," Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram told reporters.
This is not the first time Mr Saeed has been placed under house arrest following militant attacks in India - only to be subsequently released.
The BBC's Chris Morris in Islamabad says the decision is likely to complicate efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan.
But the US - which has listed Jamaat-ud-Dawa as a terrorist organisation - is also likely to be dismayed by the ruling, our correspondent adds.
Mumbai denial
A spokesman for Jamaat-ud-Dawa told the BBC the group had been confident that Mr Saeed would be vindicated.
"We have nothing to do with militancy or militants," he said.
In an interview with the BBC just before being placed under house arrest in December, Mr Saeed denied any connection with the Mumbai attacks.
But the Indian authorities say there is evidence to show that they were planned and financed by Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan.
Mr Saeed has been named on the official charge sheet in connection with the attacks.
Pakistan has admitted that they had been partly planned from its soil. The sole surviving suspected gunman is Pakistani and is currently on trial in Mumbai.
Founded in the late 1980s, Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of most feared groups fighting against Indian control in Kashmir.
After it was banned in Pakistan in 2002, the organisation divided itself into Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Lashkar-e-Taiba, correspondents say.
Jamaat-ud-Dawa works as an Islamic charity all over Pakistan.
The court ruled the continued house arrest of Jamaat-ud-Dawa founder Hafiz Mohammad Saeed was unconstitutional.
The charity is accused of being a front for Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group India says was behind the attacks. Jamaat-ud-Dawa denies any links with militants.
India has expressed its disappointment, calling the release "regrettable".
More than 170 people died in the Mumbai (Bombay) attacks last November, including nine gunmen.
Mr Saeed, who denies the charges against him, was placed under house arrest in December after the UN added him to a list of people and groups linked to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.
India 'unhappy'
Emerging from the Lahore High Court to shouts of support, Mr Saeed's lawyer, AK Dogar, said the court had ruled the house arrest was "against the law and constitution of the country".
The court also ordered the release of three other Jamaat-ud-Dawa members. A copy of the court order was not immediately available.
Pakistan's Attorney General Sardar Latif Khosa said the government would read the judgment before deciding whether to appeal against it.
India was swift to express its concern about Pakistan's commitment to fighting militancy following the court order.
"Pakistan has not shown the degree of seriousness and commitment it should have to bring to justice the perpetrators of the Mumbai attacks," Indian Home Minister Palaniappan Chidambaram told reporters.
This is not the first time Mr Saeed has been placed under house arrest following militant attacks in India - only to be subsequently released.
The BBC's Chris Morris in Islamabad says the decision is likely to complicate efforts to improve relations between India and Pakistan.
But the US - which has listed Jamaat-ud-Dawa as a terrorist organisation - is also likely to be dismayed by the ruling, our correspondent adds.
Mumbai denial
A spokesman for Jamaat-ud-Dawa told the BBC the group had been confident that Mr Saeed would be vindicated.
"We have nothing to do with militancy or militants," he said.
In an interview with the BBC just before being placed under house arrest in December, Mr Saeed denied any connection with the Mumbai attacks.
But the Indian authorities say there is evidence to show that they were planned and financed by Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan.
Mr Saeed has been named on the official charge sheet in connection with the attacks.
Pakistan has admitted that they had been partly planned from its soil. The sole surviving suspected gunman is Pakistani and is currently on trial in Mumbai.
Founded in the late 1980s, Lashkar-e-Taiba is one of most feared groups fighting against Indian control in Kashmir.
After it was banned in Pakistan in 2002, the organisation divided itself into Jamaat-ud-Dawa and Lashkar-e-Taiba, correspondents say.
Jamaat-ud-Dawa works as an Islamic charity all over Pakistan.
S Asia hunger 'at 40-year high'
A UN report says hunger in South Asia has reached its highest level in 40 years because of food and fuel price rises and the global economic downturn.
The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.
It names the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The report says South Asia's governments need to urgently increase social spending to meet the challenge.
It says that climate change and urbanisation also need tackling.
Poverty trap
According to the World Bank, three quarters of the population in South Asia - almost 1.2 billion people - live on less than $2 (£1.2) a day. And more than 400m people in the region are now chronically hungry.
The report focused on the impact the economic crisis had on women and children, saying they are the people most vulnerable during a downturn.
"We are on the verge of a crisis," Aniruddha Bonnerjee, a Unicef consultant said.
The report cites a number of factors for and symptoms of the sharp rise in people living in hunger and poverty:
Declining wages at home
A drop in remittances from abroad
Poor women often go without food to feed their families
Children can be pulled out of school and sent to work
High prices have forced people to borrow money at high interest
Income is spent on food but not on other essentials
'Worst affected'
Millions of South Asian people live on less than $2 a day
Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan are the worst affected but even the region's economic giant, India, has suffered because of job losses and lower remittances from Indians living abroad.
Unicef says the region's governments need to increase spending on food, health care and education to alleviate the crisis.
But it acknowledges that the economic slowdown means there is less money to spend.
It said that it was important for the two biggest countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to reduce their defence budgets to allow for increased social spending.
Governments of the region can also use fiscal stimulus programmes and aid from abroad to expand the provision of basic social services in fields like health and education, it says, while funding training programmes - especially for young people.
The report by the UN children's fund, Unicef, says that 100 million more people in the region are going hungry compared with two years ago.
It names the worst affected areas as Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan.
The report says South Asia's governments need to urgently increase social spending to meet the challenge.
It says that climate change and urbanisation also need tackling.
Poverty trap
According to the World Bank, three quarters of the population in South Asia - almost 1.2 billion people - live on less than $2 (£1.2) a day. And more than 400m people in the region are now chronically hungry.
The report focused on the impact the economic crisis had on women and children, saying they are the people most vulnerable during a downturn.
"We are on the verge of a crisis," Aniruddha Bonnerjee, a Unicef consultant said.
The report cites a number of factors for and symptoms of the sharp rise in people living in hunger and poverty:
Declining wages at home
A drop in remittances from abroad
Poor women often go without food to feed their families
Children can be pulled out of school and sent to work
High prices have forced people to borrow money at high interest
Income is spent on food but not on other essentials
'Worst affected'
Millions of South Asian people live on less than $2 a day
Nepal, Bangladesh and Pakistan are the worst affected but even the region's economic giant, India, has suffered because of job losses and lower remittances from Indians living abroad.
Unicef says the region's governments need to increase spending on food, health care and education to alleviate the crisis.
But it acknowledges that the economic slowdown means there is less money to spend.
It said that it was important for the two biggest countries in South Asia, India and Pakistan, to reduce their defence budgets to allow for increased social spending.
Governments of the region can also use fiscal stimulus programmes and aid from abroad to expand the provision of basic social services in fields like health and education, it says, while funding training programmes - especially for young people.
Home Secretary Smith to step down
Jacqui Smith is to stand down as home secretary in the cabinet reshuffle, sources close to her have told the BBC.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is set to shake up his cabinet after Thursday's European and English local elections.
The source said she was stepping down for her family, who had been "at the forefront" of a row over her expenses.
Ms Smith, who wants to remain an MP, was criticised for listing her sister's London house as her main home - and her husband's claim for an adult movie.
It is understood Ms Smith, the first woman home secretary, intends to defend her Redditch seat at the next election.
It comes as Labour backbencher Ian Gibson is told he cannot stand again for the party over his expenses claims and three other MPs announce their intention to stand down at the next general election.
Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson, a close ally of Mr Brown, is also expected to stand down from the government in the reshuffle - expected in the next week.
Mr Brown confirmed to the BBC he is planning a reshuffle but refused to be drawn on individual ministers' roles, amid speculation that Chancellor Alistair Darling, whose expenses have also been questioned, may also be moved.
The BBC understands that Ms Smith, 46, told Mr Brown during the Easter recess that she wanted to step down as home secretary.
A source close to Ms Smith said she was quitting her cabinet job because it was the "right thing for her family".
The source told the BBC that the row had put pressure on her children and her parents and while she regretted wrongly submitting a claim for the adult movie, she felt "vindicated" in her overall approach to claims, now those of other MPs had been published.
She made no mention of her plans while moving the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill in the Commons on Tuesday afternoon but received several "hear hears" as she stood up.
Expenses row
But her opposite number Chris Grayling suggested it was her "final appearance" as home secretary and said she had "pre-announced the reshuffle".
She was promoted to the job when Mr Brown became prime minister in 2007 and initially won plaudits for her handling of the car bomb attack on Glasgow Airport.
But she has since come under pressure over issues - including attempts to extend pre-charge detention limits for terrorist suspects and the Home Office leaks inquiry that led to the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green.
Weeks before the Daily Telegraph began its revelations about MPs' expenses, Ms Smith's own claims came under question.
She had designated her sister's home, where she stays when she is in London, as her main home - rather than her constituency home where her family live.
Later she agreed to pay back allowances claimed for pay-per-view television services, which included two adult films apparently watched by her husband.
Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, interviewed on BBC Radio 4's World at One, said she could not confirm the "speculation" about Ms Smith.
But she added: "I think she is an outstanding home secretary. And yes there has been controversy around her expenses and she's not alone in that.
"On any side of the House there's been controversy but I don't think she's ever wavered from her commitment to her job as home secretary."
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said it was "extraordinary" that leaks suggested Alistair Darling was also "on the way out".
He said: "For a government to lose both the chancellor of the exchequer and the home secretary, two of the top four people, in one reshuffle does suggest that the real problem isn't the top four, it's the person right at the top, it's the prime minister."
Hewitt and Hughes
Mr Darling and Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon have also found their expenses claims questioned and have paid back some money claimed on their second homes.
Earlier BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked the prime minister if both should remain in the cabinet. Mr Brown said so far people only had "the newspapers' version" of much of what had been claimed.
We're doing a far more extensive examination of what's happened with expenses and everything else. If there's a reshuffle, that's a matter for me about people's competences, ministers as well," he said.
"If any mistakes have been made and if they were exposed - then people will have to accept the consequences".
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears has also faced widespread speculation that she will be axed as a result of controversy over her second home claims.
Bury North Labour MP David Chaytor, who is accused of claiming for a mortgage that was already paid off, said that he would not stand at the next election.
Also on Tuesday, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt and children's minister Beverley Hughes announced they would stand down at the next election, but said it had nothing to do with the expenses furore.
Ms Harman said Ms Hughes and Ms Hewitt were going due to family reasons and rejected suggestions that the "wheels are falling off" the government.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown is set to shake up his cabinet after Thursday's European and English local elections.
The source said she was stepping down for her family, who had been "at the forefront" of a row over her expenses.
Ms Smith, who wants to remain an MP, was criticised for listing her sister's London house as her main home - and her husband's claim for an adult movie.
It is understood Ms Smith, the first woman home secretary, intends to defend her Redditch seat at the next election.
It comes as Labour backbencher Ian Gibson is told he cannot stand again for the party over his expenses claims and three other MPs announce their intention to stand down at the next general election.
Cabinet Office minister Tom Watson, a close ally of Mr Brown, is also expected to stand down from the government in the reshuffle - expected in the next week.
Mr Brown confirmed to the BBC he is planning a reshuffle but refused to be drawn on individual ministers' roles, amid speculation that Chancellor Alistair Darling, whose expenses have also been questioned, may also be moved.
The BBC understands that Ms Smith, 46, told Mr Brown during the Easter recess that she wanted to step down as home secretary.
A source close to Ms Smith said she was quitting her cabinet job because it was the "right thing for her family".
The source told the BBC that the row had put pressure on her children and her parents and while she regretted wrongly submitting a claim for the adult movie, she felt "vindicated" in her overall approach to claims, now those of other MPs had been published.
She made no mention of her plans while moving the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill in the Commons on Tuesday afternoon but received several "hear hears" as she stood up.
Expenses row
But her opposite number Chris Grayling suggested it was her "final appearance" as home secretary and said she had "pre-announced the reshuffle".
She was promoted to the job when Mr Brown became prime minister in 2007 and initially won plaudits for her handling of the car bomb attack on Glasgow Airport.
But she has since come under pressure over issues - including attempts to extend pre-charge detention limits for terrorist suspects and the Home Office leaks inquiry that led to the arrest of Tory MP Damian Green.
Weeks before the Daily Telegraph began its revelations about MPs' expenses, Ms Smith's own claims came under question.
She had designated her sister's home, where she stays when she is in London, as her main home - rather than her constituency home where her family live.
Later she agreed to pay back allowances claimed for pay-per-view television services, which included two adult films apparently watched by her husband.
Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, interviewed on BBC Radio 4's World at One, said she could not confirm the "speculation" about Ms Smith.
But she added: "I think she is an outstanding home secretary. And yes there has been controversy around her expenses and she's not alone in that.
"On any side of the House there's been controversy but I don't think she's ever wavered from her commitment to her job as home secretary."
Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, said it was "extraordinary" that leaks suggested Alistair Darling was also "on the way out".
He said: "For a government to lose both the chancellor of the exchequer and the home secretary, two of the top four people, in one reshuffle does suggest that the real problem isn't the top four, it's the person right at the top, it's the prime minister."
Hewitt and Hughes
Mr Darling and Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon have also found their expenses claims questioned and have paid back some money claimed on their second homes.
Earlier BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked the prime minister if both should remain in the cabinet. Mr Brown said so far people only had "the newspapers' version" of much of what had been claimed.
We're doing a far more extensive examination of what's happened with expenses and everything else. If there's a reshuffle, that's a matter for me about people's competences, ministers as well," he said.
"If any mistakes have been made and if they were exposed - then people will have to accept the consequences".
Communities Secretary Hazel Blears has also faced widespread speculation that she will be axed as a result of controversy over her second home claims.
Bury North Labour MP David Chaytor, who is accused of claiming for a mortgage that was already paid off, said that he would not stand at the next election.
Also on Tuesday, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt and children's minister Beverley Hughes announced they would stand down at the next election, but said it had nothing to do with the expenses furore.
Ms Harman said Ms Hughes and Ms Hewitt were going due to family reasons and rejected suggestions that the "wheels are falling off" the government.
Monday, June 1, 2009
SC says senior’s nod needed to prosecute cop
Eight senior officers of Mumbai Police and Maharashtra Government, accused of organised crime by an Assistant Police Inspector, are now off the hook, thanks to a Supreme Court verdict.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Special Courts set up under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) cannot take cognizance of any organized crime without sanction from a police officer in the rank of Additional Director General of Police (ADGP).
The ruling came on the Maharashtra government’s appeal against the December 22, 2005, verdict of a full bench of the Bombay High Court, which held that prior sanction from the ADGP was not a pre-condition for taking cognisance of any offence under MCOCA.
The HC had directed the Special MCOCA Judge to consider the private complaint made by Mumbai Assistant Police Inspector Nitindra Singh on August 19, 2004 against 14 persons, including eight senior police and government officials and members of the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Some of the accused named by Singh were members of a raiding party that allegedly caught one Himmat Nanda accepting a bribe of Rs 3 lakh on behalf of Singh. To probe Singh’s allegations, the Special Judge had set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under JCP (Crime) Meera Borvankar.
After the SC verdict, no action can be taken under MCOCA against the persons named by Singh. Further, it would be impossible to prosecute a police officer under MCOCA without sanction from ADGP, irrespective of his involvement in an organized crime.
Earlier, two division benches of the Bombay HC had taken contrary views on the issue of sanction as required under Section 23(2) of MCOCA (see box).
Allowing the Maharashtra Government’s appeal, an SC bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir ruled that both in case of a private complaint and a police report sanction from ADGP was a must.
The state government had argued that by putting in place the requirement of prior sanction by a senior police officer, the Legislature intended to check filing of mala fide private complaints misusing the provisions of MCOCA.
The SC said the provisions of MCOCA would have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and a Special Judge cannot invoke the Code for ordering an inquiry on a private complaint without taking sanction from ADGP.
The Supreme Court has ruled that Special Courts set up under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA) cannot take cognizance of any organized crime without sanction from a police officer in the rank of Additional Director General of Police (ADGP).
The ruling came on the Maharashtra government’s appeal against the December 22, 2005, verdict of a full bench of the Bombay High Court, which held that prior sanction from the ADGP was not a pre-condition for taking cognisance of any offence under MCOCA.
The HC had directed the Special MCOCA Judge to consider the private complaint made by Mumbai Assistant Police Inspector Nitindra Singh on August 19, 2004 against 14 persons, including eight senior police and government officials and members of the Anti-Corruption Bureau.
Some of the accused named by Singh were members of a raiding party that allegedly caught one Himmat Nanda accepting a bribe of Rs 3 lakh on behalf of Singh. To probe Singh’s allegations, the Special Judge had set up a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under JCP (Crime) Meera Borvankar.
After the SC verdict, no action can be taken under MCOCA against the persons named by Singh. Further, it would be impossible to prosecute a police officer under MCOCA without sanction from ADGP, irrespective of his involvement in an organized crime.
Earlier, two division benches of the Bombay HC had taken contrary views on the issue of sanction as required under Section 23(2) of MCOCA (see box).
Allowing the Maharashtra Government’s appeal, an SC bench headed by Justice Altamas Kabir ruled that both in case of a private complaint and a police report sanction from ADGP was a must.
The state government had argued that by putting in place the requirement of prior sanction by a senior police officer, the Legislature intended to check filing of mala fide private complaints misusing the provisions of MCOCA.
The SC said the provisions of MCOCA would have an overriding effect over the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code and a Special Judge cannot invoke the Code for ordering an inquiry on a private complaint without taking sanction from ADGP.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)