´óÏó´«Ã½

It was obvious as soon as you picked up the report - Professor Phil Jones was in the clear.

The , however, was not.

It was heavily criticised for a culture of non-disclosure.

Phil Willis, the outgoing Chairman of the called their behaviour
"reprehensible" and said Professor Jones had been made a scapegoat.

The MPs said Professor Jones had done nothing wrong except send, on his own admission, "appalling e-mails", just the same as the rest of us.

The committee recommended that the University review its policy on Freedom of Information requests.

And it would like to see an official statement from the Information Commissioner on whether a breach of the Freedom of Information Act was committed.

Although the committee said Professor Jones should have been more open, the blame should lie with the University who assisted the in blocking the disclosure of information.

Professor Jones' actions, in not disclosing his methodology and computer codes, were said to be in line with common practice.

But the committee called for this to change because there is "no more important science going on on the planet at the moment."

The MPs hoped the report will help correct some of the hysteria surrounding Professor Jones and the University of East Anglia, that almost derailed the Copenhagen summit.

I certainly hope so, for Professor Jones' sake, who is is a shadow of his former self.

This was only the first hurdle. The MPs were looking at whether there's been a cover up - there hasn't, they conclude.

Now the UEA awaits the results of the independent Inquiry it set up, headed by Sir Muir Russell. It's expected to publish its report this spring.

And there's a separate inquiry into the actual science, headed by Lord Oxburgh, which is hoping to report as soon as possible.

Not soon enough, I expect, for Professor Jones.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

Is this it then?

The last day of official business before parliament is prorogued...

Will next week see wash up - the clearing of fag ends of legislation before the next general election?

Walking through the House of Commons this evening I bumped into Henry Bellingham, the Conservative MP for North West Norfolk and Shadow Justice Minister; he seemed to think so.

"Oh yes, we'll have next week and then that's it."

And is the mood good in the Conservative camp?

"Oh yes, very happy."

Not so, Norman Lamb, the Lib Dem MP for North Norfolk, striking a lonely figure at a dinner table in Portcullis House.

I decided to liven up his chicken and rice.

It had been a long day for the Lib Dem health spokesman.

Of course, today saw the launch of Labour's .

"It'll be 11 o'clock tonight before we start with the social care debate and midnight when we vote - another long day," he grinned.

The budget debate was still in full flow in the chamber, although judging from the noise coming out of , many members had started their Easter break early.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

There must be an election coming.

Labour's launched a

So what did the good people of Norwich make of such gems as 'secure the recovery', 'protect frontline services' and 'raise family living standards'?

Well quite a lot, surprisingly...

"I do quite like them. I agree with them," one man told me - "they're common sense to me. I'd like to protect second line services too."

"I like them. Something for the younger people. I agree with that," said a lady alongside, looking at the 'raise family living standards' pledge.

But others weren't so impressed.

"They're not SMART are they? You can't measure them and there's nothing about the environment," I was told by one woman. "The child tax credit is two years off: they're all aspirational."

Her colleague agreed: "They're not specific enough."

"All the parties are saying the same thing, there's nothing different here," added a young woman.

In 1997, Tony Blair published a list of five pledges which summed up the key targets for Labour's first term in office.

1. We will cut class sizes to 30 or under for 5, 6 and 7 year olds by using money saved from the assisted places scheme.

2. We will introduce a fast track punishment scheme for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest to sentencing.

3. We will cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100m saved from NHS red tape.

4. We will get 250,000 under-25 years-olds off benefit and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities.

5. We will set tough rules for government spending and borrowing and ensure low inflation and strengthen the economy so that interest rates are as low as possible to make all families better off.

How times have changed.

Now we get 'fairness in communities' strengthened by a crack down on anti-social behaviour. How exactly?

Labour can take succour from the voters of Norwich.

• Bookmark with:
• |
• |
• - What's this?

"The people of Norwich and Norfolk deserve better than this."

This week the House of Lords approved the orders to create a Unitary authority for Norwich.

Now only the courts or the election of a Conservative Government stand in the way of it happening.

The debate was an impassioned one. Baroness Shephard the former MP for South West Norfolk told the chamber: "It is impossible to imagine a more incompetent and unconvincing process than the one that has got us here."

Lord MacGregor, the former MP for South Norfolk accused the Government of living in a different world to most people from Norfolk.

While Baroness Hollis, a former Labour leader of Norwich City Council, claimed that: "Norfolk people not just Norwich people need a vibrant, strong unitary Norwich if they are not to be left behind."

It was all predictable stuff. And then the Bishop of Norwich rose to speak. The Rt Revd Graham James is very good at identifying what's really going on in a situation. He thinks very carefully before speaking out and he explains himself simply but eloquently.

The "misjudgements" of the boundary commission had created "unnecessary conflict" in Norwich and Norfolk he said.

Norwich was part of Norfolk and Norfolk was part of Norwich he argued - the two shouldn't be separated.

He questioned whether the plan would deliver strong Government; he argued that the boundaries of the proposed unitary authority were too small. "A significant proportion of those living or working in Nowich would not find themselves within the boundaries of the city. They would be in the City but not of it, or of the City but not in it."

Because of those boundaries, he said, four major secondary schools including the biggest in Norwich would end up still being run by the County Council.

"The process has been so mishandled that you would have thought the Boundary Committee and the Government wanted to ensure as much dissension as possible and aimed to build tensions between City and County."

And he concluded: "The story of the past three years has done little to build trust in our political processes or indeed faith in their transparency. Whatever the outcome, the people of Norwich realy do deserve better than this."

The Government won the vote. The Local Government minister, Lord McKenzie of Luton claiming the public consultation had been more than adequate.

"We are clear there are real benefits to the residents of Norwich arising from Unitary Status as well as real advantages to all the residents of Norfolk," he said.

The Bishop said he would work with whatever structure was in place but he's clearly not happy.

His speech clearly shone a light on the problems with Unitary Status. If it goes ahead, those promoting them could be well advised to take notice of what he said.

• Bookmark with:
• del.icio.us |
• Digg |
• Reddit
• - What's this?