David Cameron ‘warned he cannot stop pay rise for MPs’

BBC found out that the Prime Minister David Cameron will most probably not succeed to block plans for a big pay rise for MPs.

The salaries of the backbench MPs’ are expected to increase from £66,000 to more than £70,000.

PM did not agree with these plans but he could do nothing to stop these.

In the words of the BBC’s political editor the recommendation of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority’s (Ipsa) would make voters angry because the time was such of pay restraints in the public as well as in the private sectors.

Later this month Ipsa is going to announce its initial recommendations. Before it publishes them. MPs and members of the public would be given the possibility to participate in a consultation and right after it finishes the final plans would come into force.

Several newspapers published that the expected increase of backbench MPs salaries is of 15%. Obviously many business documents will be signed before we see it working, but let`s see what the PM thinks.

Speaking in Pakistan, Mr Cameron said:

“Anything would be unthinkable unless the cost of politics was frozen and cut, so I’ll wait and see what Ipsa have to say. What I said to Ipsa was that restraint is necessary.”

Nick Robinson said that in case the government decided to ignore Ipsa’s recommendations MPs would not support its decision.

Last year the Commons agreed to extend the pay freeze into 2013.

However, due to an anonymous online survey 69% of the MPs who were asked were underpaid. They suggested an average salary of £86,250.

Former Labour minister and chairman of the Home Affairs select committee Keith Vaz said: “The last thing on earth MPs should be talking about is their own pay.”

 

David Cameron: Intelligence Agencies Work within Law

According to PM David Cameron intelligence agencies operate within the law.

There are allegations that certain agencies have gathered and shared phone records and internet data.

It is still not confirmed or denied if GCHQ had been given access to a US spy programme called Prism but America’s National Security Agency and the FBI are expected to get access to the systems of Google, Facebook, Skype, Microsoft and some other of the world’s top internet companies. They all said they would not give the US government access to their servers.

Mr. Cameron stated that UK’s intelligence agencies kept people safe as at the same time operated within the law. The Legal Stop also keeps their clients safe and helps them find a wide variety of business documents, corporate documents, employment documents and HR documents.

In the words of Conservative MP Sir Malcolm Rifkind due to the British law such agencies need to get ministerial authority so that they get the opportunity to look at the content of the emails of British citizens.

An increase of 137% was registered for the intelligent reports GCHQ did in the 12 months to May 2012.

However, the minister with responsibility for GCHQ announced that UK citizens had nothing to worry about.

Shadow foreign secretary Douglas Alexander told Today: “These agencies do vital work for us week in and week out. But it’s also vital that the public have confidence that they are operating in a framework of legality.”

Conservative MP Dominic Raab shared his opinion that the happening changes influenced seriously the view of the people so public confidence would erode.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution protects the content of people’s phone conversations.

Government officials may scoop up information on duration and timing of certain calls.

Mr. Obama announced surveillance programmes would protect the US from terrorist attacks

 

PM to Crackdown on Legal Challenges Against Government Schemes

In his speech to the CBI (Confederation of British Industries) Prime Minister Cameron announced his intention to to cut the number of legal challenges against government policies, by assigning tighter time limits and higher charges. According to him this “bureaucratic nonsense” was preventing the UK from growth and prosperity. that`s why he declared he will put a stop to it.

The measures to be taken include rise in the cost and short time periods for judicial reviews to be submitted and in addition the number of appeals allowed against a decision will be halved from four to two.

Currently individuals or firms, believing the decision made by the authorities was wrong have the right to demand a judicial review. The Prime Minister sees there judicial reviews as ” an obstacle to economic growth “. A typical example of such a case is the Virgin’s recent legal challenge of First Group’s acquisition of the West Coast Mainline’s franchise.

Mr Cameron cited a Downing Street resource, according to which more than 11, 000 judicial review applications were made in 2011, compared to 160 in 1975.

We urgently need to get a grip on this,’ Cameron said

Together with slashing the ability to bring legal challenges against government policies, Cameron is determined to end the equality impact assessments, ensuring the polices do not discriminate anyone on a gender, race or religious ground.

In his speech he made a good analogy with the WW II. he compared the curent economic situation to the fight with the Nazis in the 40s;

“When this country was at war in the ’40s, Whitehall underwent a revolution,” said Cameron. “Normal rules were circumvented. Convention was thrown out. As one historian put it, everything was thrown at ‘the overriding purpose’ of beating Hitler.

“Well, this country is in the economic equivalent of war today – and we need the same spirit. We need to forget about crossing every ‘t’ and dotting every ‘i’ – and we need to throw everything we’ve got at winning in this global race.”

Although Cameron is very excited about his plans, not everybody shares the same mood about it.

Dan McLean, of the Campaign to Protect Rural England, has hit back, saying: “The system is already stacked against local people trying to protect the areas they love. The only way for local people to oppose a bad development that has already been granted planning permission is through judicial review.”

“This is already very expensive and time-consuming. Putting this option further out of reach for many people will only make it even harder for local people to take a democratic role in planning decisions where they live.”