The US is to send another 4,000 troops to Haiti to assist the earthquake relief effort in its third troop surge to the devastated country.
The move, which will increase the number of US troops involved in the huge aid effort to 16,000, will mean diverting Marines who were to be deployed in the Gulf and Africa.
The surge will comprise a three-ship unit of 1,700 sailors and 2,300 Marines, the US Defence Department announced today, joining the 12,000 troops already there.
The 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit and USS Nassau Amphibious Ready Group will significantly increase the ability to quickly provide aid, the US Navy said in a statement.
The Marines were originally destined for the US Central Command region, which covers Iraq and Afghanistan. Admiral Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, decided to divert the troops based on the “urgent needs” in Haiti, the navy said.
Master Sergeant Keith Milks, a Marine spokesman, told Fox News that the unit was doing what it was built to do “They’re designed to be ready for any mission and to go anywhere in the world they’re needed,” he said.
“Their mission in Haiti will depend on the needs of the Haitians but the group will bring with them food and medical supplies with the means to distribute it all over Haiti.”
As the disaster entered its eighth day, international rescue teams began to pull back, with hopes fading of finding many more survivors in the rubble. However, there were still extraordinary tales of survival as a 23-day-old baby girl, a five-year-old boy and an 11-year-old girl were dragged from the ruins.
The baby was found alive in the rubble of a house in Jacmel, in southern Haiti, on Tuesday after surviving for a week without food, French radio reported.
The survival of the 11-year-old, dug from the wreckage of her family’s home by neighbours, “truly is a miracle”, said doctors at a clinic run by French charities, adding that she “came back to life bit by bit”.
The girl’s mother, a cleaning lady at the UN mission in Port-Au-Prince, said that one of her five children, a five-year-old boy, was killed in the quake.
She said of her daughter: “I haven’t told her yet that her favourite little brother died. She’s still very weak.”
Shadow Chancellor George Osborne told pay back mortgage overclaim
George Osborne was today ordered to repay £1,666 after a House of Commons watchdog ruled he had committed an "unintended and relatively minor" breach of expenses rules over claims for the mortgage on his second home.
It came after the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner found that the Shadow Chancellor breached the rules in two years in the claims he made for mortgage interest on his property in Cheshire.
But he also found that the mistake was not intended. Overall Mr Osborne over claimed by £1936. He has already paid back £270.
The report is a slight embarrassment for Mr Osborne, particularly given his current job and the prospect of him becoming the next Chancellor.
Commissioner John Lyon conducted an investigation into Mr Osborne’s claims after complaints that he claimed for the interest on a £450,000 mortgage on his farmhouse in Cheshire when the property cost him only £445,000.
However, the commissioner did find that Mr Osborne did break the rules over his decision in 2001 to nominate his property in Cheshire as his main home because he was making claims on his London property to meet the mortgage interest costs of his Cheshire property. He was not allowed to claim those costs because he had identified that property as his main home.
But the Commissioner accepted that Mr Osborne had made the arrangement on the basis of advice from the Fees Office which was "flawed." There was also no evidence that Mr Osborne personally benefited from the arrangement and concluded it would be "unfair to see this as serious breach of the rules." In a letter to the committee chairman earlier this week, Mr Osborne said he was happy to accept Mr Lyon’s conclusions and made clear he had already offered to return the overpayment in full.
Responding to today’s ruling, the shadow chancellor said: "I am happy to accept the Committee’s report. I am glad that they acknowledge that any breaches of the rules were not intentional, not major, and did not provide me with any significant financial benefit. "As the Committee appreciate, I always sought to minimise the cost of my expenses to the taxpayer, and followed the advice I was given. The Committee has now decided that advice was flawed.
"Last year I offered to pay back any money that had been inadvertently over claimed due to the flawed advice I received, and the Committee has accepted that offer."I understand the damage the expenses crisis has done to Parliament, and the paramount importance of restoring trust in our politics. I want to ensure that the claims I have made are entirely beyond reproach."
Mr Osborne was found to have committed another breach of the rules, although again the commissioner accepted it was not he basis of "flawed" advice.
Mr Osborne pointed out that he had also taken out an increased mortgage in 2005, to cover £10,000 for repairs to the Cheshire house and £25,000 for costs related to the original purchase.
It was in relation to this increased borrowing that the commissioner found he breached the rules, which did not allow him to claim for interest payments in relation to the costs of the original purchase. It was also not permitted at that point for MPs to claim interest on the cost of repairs added to their existing mortgage, though this rule was changed soon afterwards.
Again, Mr Lyon found that the shadow chancellor was "acting in accordance to flawed advice given by the House authorities when he added these costs to his borrowing".
Following his six-month investigation, which was sparked by a complaint from the chairman of the Tatton constituency Labour Party, Mr Lyon concluded: "I do not regard as particularly serious the breaches of the rules which I have identified.
"Mr Osborne has been consistent in pointing out that he took advice at all times from the House authorities and acted on that advice.
"The breaches were not major ones, were not intentional and did not provide Mr Osborne with any significant financial benefit. He has offered to pay back the excess sums he claimed for and received in 2005-06 and 2006-07. These amount to £1,936, less the sums he has already repaid."
It came after the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner found that the Shadow Chancellor breached the rules in two years in the claims he made for mortgage interest on his property in Cheshire.
But he also found that the mistake was not intended. Overall Mr Osborne over claimed by £1936. He has already paid back £270.
The report is a slight embarrassment for Mr Osborne, particularly given his current job and the prospect of him becoming the next Chancellor.
Commissioner John Lyon conducted an investigation into Mr Osborne’s claims after complaints that he claimed for the interest on a £450,000 mortgage on his farmhouse in Cheshire when the property cost him only £445,000.
However, the commissioner did find that Mr Osborne did break the rules over his decision in 2001 to nominate his property in Cheshire as his main home because he was making claims on his London property to meet the mortgage interest costs of his Cheshire property. He was not allowed to claim those costs because he had identified that property as his main home.
But the Commissioner accepted that Mr Osborne had made the arrangement on the basis of advice from the Fees Office which was "flawed." There was also no evidence that Mr Osborne personally benefited from the arrangement and concluded it would be "unfair to see this as serious breach of the rules." In a letter to the committee chairman earlier this week, Mr Osborne said he was happy to accept Mr Lyon’s conclusions and made clear he had already offered to return the overpayment in full.
Responding to today’s ruling, the shadow chancellor said: "I am happy to accept the Committee’s report. I am glad that they acknowledge that any breaches of the rules were not intentional, not major, and did not provide me with any significant financial benefit. "As the Committee appreciate, I always sought to minimise the cost of my expenses to the taxpayer, and followed the advice I was given. The Committee has now decided that advice was flawed.
"Last year I offered to pay back any money that had been inadvertently over claimed due to the flawed advice I received, and the Committee has accepted that offer."I understand the damage the expenses crisis has done to Parliament, and the paramount importance of restoring trust in our politics. I want to ensure that the claims I have made are entirely beyond reproach."
Mr Osborne was found to have committed another breach of the rules, although again the commissioner accepted it was not he basis of "flawed" advice.
Mr Osborne pointed out that he had also taken out an increased mortgage in 2005, to cover £10,000 for repairs to the Cheshire house and £25,000 for costs related to the original purchase.
It was in relation to this increased borrowing that the commissioner found he breached the rules, which did not allow him to claim for interest payments in relation to the costs of the original purchase. It was also not permitted at that point for MPs to claim interest on the cost of repairs added to their existing mortgage, though this rule was changed soon afterwards.
Again, Mr Lyon found that the shadow chancellor was "acting in accordance to flawed advice given by the House authorities when he added these costs to his borrowing".
Following his six-month investigation, which was sparked by a complaint from the chairman of the Tatton constituency Labour Party, Mr Lyon concluded: "I do not regard as particularly serious the breaches of the rules which I have identified.
"Mr Osborne has been consistent in pointing out that he took advice at all times from the House authorities and acted on that advice.
"The breaches were not major ones, were not intentional and did not provide Mr Osborne with any significant financial benefit. He has offered to pay back the excess sums he claimed for and received in 2005-06 and 2006-07. These amount to £1,936, less the sums he has already repaid."
Judge's 'act of mercy' on Munir Hussain fuels row on self-defence
The political debate on the right to defend one’s home and family was inflamed last night after a man jailed for a violent attack on a burglar was freed by the Court of Appeal.
Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said that he was commuting Munir Hussain’s 30-month prison term to a suspended sentence as an “act of mercy”.
Britain’s most senior policeman later entered the argument over the right to self-defence, saying that citizens who tackled criminals should be applauded for their courage.
Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said that those who put themselves in personal danger to thwart criminals were heroes and that society was all the better for their bravery. He insisted that he was not commenting directly on the Hussain case, but his remarks will be interpreted as supportive of a change in the law.
The Conservatives’ draft manifesto promises greater protection for those who intervene to stop criminals. The party plans to “change the rules so that anyone acting reasonably to stop a crime is not arrested or prosecuted”. Householders would also be given “greater protection if they have to defend themselves against intruders in their homes”.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, who has himself intervened to stop crime, insisted that there was no need for new legislation — a position supported by Keir Starmer, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A close aide said: “We have the law in the right place for those people who seek to protect their property, their family and their home and for others who intervene to prevent a crime.”
Hussain, 53, said that he was very happy to be home from prison but that he remained concerned for his brother Tokeer, 35, whose sentence was reduced from 39 months to two years but not suspended.
“I thank the whole country for supporting us,” he said. “That support has been comforting.”
The brothers chased a gang of masked burglars after Munir Hussain’s family suffered a “terrifying ordeal” in which they were tied up and threatened. They caught one, Walid Salem, who was struck so hard with a cricket bat that it broke into pieces. He suffered a permanent brain injury.
Lord Judge, England’s most senior judge, said that the serious violence inflicted on the intruder was a response to the threatening experience that Hussain endured. Describing the case as one of “true exceptionality”, he added: “He feared for their lives and the honour of his wife and daughter.” The violence that the brothers used was not lawful and in normal cases would have resulted in “very long” prison sentences being imposed. But, the judge said, this was not an ordinary or normal case in large part because of the men’s good character.
He said: “It is rare to see men of the quality of the two appellants in court for offences of serious violence.”
The judge said that the “call for mercy” on their behalf was intense and that the court had concluded that it “must be answered”. But he stressed: “This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes. The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them.”
Despite his comments, the case has reawakened concern over householders’ rights in a way not seen since the jailing a decade ago of Tony Martin, who shot dead a burglar at his home in Norfolk.
Speaking at Scotland Yard, Sir Paul said that the authorities were often too quick to criticise people who tried to stop crimes. “We should be starting off by applauding them, thanking them. We ought to be saying these people are heroes, they make society worthwhile,” he said.
Sir Paul, whose wife stepped in to stop a “yob” shouting racial abuse at a woman on a London bus, said that there were always risks associated with intervening. People had to use their common sense and judgment to assess the threat, and a first step for anyone seeing a crime being committed should be to dial 999.
But he added: “We shouldn’t be discouraging people from being active, responsible citizens. I shouldn’t be nannying people and saying you’re not allowed to make this judgment. I’m not trying to criticise the people who don’t take action, I’m applauding those who do.”
He said that he would engage fully with any review of the law. “Any review should make it clear that you have the right to take reasonable action to defend yourself, your family and your property.”
Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said that he was commuting Munir Hussain’s 30-month prison term to a suspended sentence as an “act of mercy”.
Britain’s most senior policeman later entered the argument over the right to self-defence, saying that citizens who tackled criminals should be applauded for their courage.
Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, said that those who put themselves in personal danger to thwart criminals were heroes and that society was all the better for their bravery. He insisted that he was not commenting directly on the Hussain case, but his remarks will be interpreted as supportive of a change in the law.
The Conservatives’ draft manifesto promises greater protection for those who intervene to stop criminals. The party plans to “change the rules so that anyone acting reasonably to stop a crime is not arrested or prosecuted”. Householders would also be given “greater protection if they have to defend themselves against intruders in their homes”.
Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, who has himself intervened to stop crime, insisted that there was no need for new legislation — a position supported by Keir Starmer, QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions.
A close aide said: “We have the law in the right place for those people who seek to protect their property, their family and their home and for others who intervene to prevent a crime.”
Hussain, 53, said that he was very happy to be home from prison but that he remained concerned for his brother Tokeer, 35, whose sentence was reduced from 39 months to two years but not suspended.
“I thank the whole country for supporting us,” he said. “That support has been comforting.”
The brothers chased a gang of masked burglars after Munir Hussain’s family suffered a “terrifying ordeal” in which they were tied up and threatened. They caught one, Walid Salem, who was struck so hard with a cricket bat that it broke into pieces. He suffered a permanent brain injury.
Lord Judge, England’s most senior judge, said that the serious violence inflicted on the intruder was a response to the threatening experience that Hussain endured. Describing the case as one of “true exceptionality”, he added: “He feared for their lives and the honour of his wife and daughter.” The violence that the brothers used was not lawful and in normal cases would have resulted in “very long” prison sentences being imposed. But, the judge said, this was not an ordinary or normal case in large part because of the men’s good character.
He said: “It is rare to see men of the quality of the two appellants in court for offences of serious violence.”
The judge said that the “call for mercy” on their behalf was intense and that the court had concluded that it “must be answered”. But he stressed: “This trial had nothing to do with the right of the householder to defend themselves or their families or their homes. The burglary was over and the burglars had gone. No one was in any further danger from them.”
Despite his comments, the case has reawakened concern over householders’ rights in a way not seen since the jailing a decade ago of Tony Martin, who shot dead a burglar at his home in Norfolk.
Speaking at Scotland Yard, Sir Paul said that the authorities were often too quick to criticise people who tried to stop crimes. “We should be starting off by applauding them, thanking them. We ought to be saying these people are heroes, they make society worthwhile,” he said.
Sir Paul, whose wife stepped in to stop a “yob” shouting racial abuse at a woman on a London bus, said that there were always risks associated with intervening. People had to use their common sense and judgment to assess the threat, and a first step for anyone seeing a crime being committed should be to dial 999.
But he added: “We shouldn’t be discouraging people from being active, responsible citizens. I shouldn’t be nannying people and saying you’re not allowed to make this judgment. I’m not trying to criticise the people who don’t take action, I’m applauding those who do.”
He said that he would engage fully with any review of the law. “Any review should make it clear that you have the right to take reasonable action to defend yourself, your family and your property.”
Britain finally waves farewell to radioactive waste from abroad
A cargo of highly radioactive nuclear waste set sail for Japan last night, after a breakthrough agreement that will cut Britain’s stockpile of high-level waste by almost 40 per cent over the next decade.
After years of planning, a programme to repatriate all 925 tonnes of foreign atomic waste from Britain to Japan and four other countries began yesterday.
Under heavy security, 28 steel canisters of waste, each weighing half a tonne but sheathed in 100-tonne steel flasks, were moved by rail from the Sellafield plant in west Cumbria, where they have been held in temporary storage since the 1990s, to the port at Barrow-in-Furness. There they were loaded on to the Pacific Sandpiper, a custom-built, double-hulled ship that will be protected by armed guards throughout the six to eight-week sea journey to the Far East.
The initial cargo represents the first shipment of 1,850 canisters of foreign waste held at Sellafield that are due to be returned to Japan, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands by 2020.
The precise sea route, the timings of departure and arrival as well as details of the security measures have all been kept secret to deter piracy or nuclear terrorism, but campaigners said that the shipment highlighted the huge safety risks of transporting such hazardous materials around the world, a growing trend amid a global renaissance for the nuclear industry.
Jean McSorley, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace , said: “This shipment highlights the madness of trading in hazardous nuclear wastes. We are now forced to choose between keeping high-level radioactive waste here and making the UK a nuclear dumping ground, or pushing ahead with ten years of shipments which pose an environmental risk and could be terrorist targets.”
But Rupert Wilcox-Baker, the corporate responsibility director for International Nuclear Services, the company overseeing the shipments, rejected these concerns. “These ships are built to very high international standards,” he said. “We have been operating nuclear shipments for 40 years and have never had an incident involving the release of radioactivity.”
Under contracts made with Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, spent nuclear fuel rods from foreign power stations were transported to Britain for reprocessing, a complex chemical process designed to strip out uranium and plutonium for re-use while concentrating the remaining high-level waste for long-term storage deep underground.
It is this material, comprising isotopes that will remain highly radioactive for up to 100,000 years, that is being returned to foreign power companies. It was due to be returned a decade ago but problems with the Sellafield plant and commercial disagreements led to lengthy delays.
About 5,000 steel canisters of this material, direct exposure to which would kill a human being instantly, are held at Sellafield. Most are the product of Britain’s domestic civil nuclear power programme. The repatriation effort will cut Britain’s stockpile of high-level nuclear waste by about 37 per cent.
Japan, historically Britain’s biggest customer for nuclear waste services, plans to store the canisters temporarily at the Rokkasho nuclear facility. Like Britain, it has not yet built a repository for permanent storage.
After years of planning, a programme to repatriate all 925 tonnes of foreign atomic waste from Britain to Japan and four other countries began yesterday.
Under heavy security, 28 steel canisters of waste, each weighing half a tonne but sheathed in 100-tonne steel flasks, were moved by rail from the Sellafield plant in west Cumbria, where they have been held in temporary storage since the 1990s, to the port at Barrow-in-Furness. There they were loaded on to the Pacific Sandpiper, a custom-built, double-hulled ship that will be protected by armed guards throughout the six to eight-week sea journey to the Far East.
The initial cargo represents the first shipment of 1,850 canisters of foreign waste held at Sellafield that are due to be returned to Japan, Germany, Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands by 2020.
The precise sea route, the timings of departure and arrival as well as details of the security measures have all been kept secret to deter piracy or nuclear terrorism, but campaigners said that the shipment highlighted the huge safety risks of transporting such hazardous materials around the world, a growing trend amid a global renaissance for the nuclear industry.
Jean McSorley, nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace , said: “This shipment highlights the madness of trading in hazardous nuclear wastes. We are now forced to choose between keeping high-level radioactive waste here and making the UK a nuclear dumping ground, or pushing ahead with ten years of shipments which pose an environmental risk and could be terrorist targets.”
But Rupert Wilcox-Baker, the corporate responsibility director for International Nuclear Services, the company overseeing the shipments, rejected these concerns. “These ships are built to very high international standards,” he said. “We have been operating nuclear shipments for 40 years and have never had an incident involving the release of radioactivity.”
Under contracts made with Britain in the 1970s and 1980s, spent nuclear fuel rods from foreign power stations were transported to Britain for reprocessing, a complex chemical process designed to strip out uranium and plutonium for re-use while concentrating the remaining high-level waste for long-term storage deep underground.
It is this material, comprising isotopes that will remain highly radioactive for up to 100,000 years, that is being returned to foreign power companies. It was due to be returned a decade ago but problems with the Sellafield plant and commercial disagreements led to lengthy delays.
About 5,000 steel canisters of this material, direct exposure to which would kill a human being instantly, are held at Sellafield. Most are the product of Britain’s domestic civil nuclear power programme. The repatriation effort will cut Britain’s stockpile of high-level nuclear waste by about 37 per cent.
Japan, historically Britain’s biggest customer for nuclear waste services, plans to store the canisters temporarily at the Rokkasho nuclear facility. Like Britain, it has not yet built a repository for permanent storage.
Darling under pressure as public borrowing hits high
Public sector borrowing in Britain has hit another record high, new figures revealed this morning, putting futher pressure on Alistair Darling to set out plans in the final Budget before the general election to reduce the country's debt mountain.
Public sector net borrowing in December hit £15.7 billion, £1.9 billion higher than previous year and a new record for the month, while the public sector budget deficit also grew £400 million from the previous year, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
While the figures were slightly better than expected, Britain's net debt stood at £870 billion at the end of last year, the equivalent of 61.7 per cent of the UK's gross national product.
Tax receipts were 1 per cent higher than in December 2008 at £30.7 billion. Analysts said that the Chancellor was on course to meet his forecast for £178 billion borrowing in the year to March, with some forecasting that the total could be around £165 billion.
Colin Ellis, European economist at Daiwa Capital Markets, said: "Much will depend on this month's figures - January is typically a bumper month for tax receipts."
But despite the better than expected news, there are still major concerns about the overall state of the public finances.
Howard Archer, chief UK and European economist at IHS Global Insight, said: "The less dire-than-expected public finance data for December does not alter the fact that major fiscal surgery is needed for an extended period involving further, and clearer, spending cuts as well as tax hikes.
"Alistair Darling still faces a very difficult March budget as last December's Pre-Budget Report left many questions unanswered over how exactly the Government will return the public finances to health over the medium term."
He added: "While it is likely that many spending cuts and tax rises will not be announced before the looming general election, if the next government fails to address the issues at an early stage, it is likely that the credit agencies and the markets will lose patience, with dire consequences for the UK economy."
Earlier this week, Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, rounded on the Chancellor, urging him to specify sharp spending cuts in his March Budget or risk a damaging backlash from the markets.
Mr King said that the patience of Britons was likely to be “sorely tried” over the coming years, with pay stagnating and inflation threatening to rise above 3 per cent. Britain’s economic health hinges on Alistair Darling being open about how he intends to slash the £178 billion deficit, he said.
A leading credit agency warned yesterday that the Treasury’s plan to halve the deficit within four years was too slow.
Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, also underlined the high stakes involved in the pre-election Budget. He warned that Britain, along with the rest of Europe, faced a phase of “rapid relative economic decline” if governments failed to cut spending.
Earlier this week, Fitch, the ratings agency reiterated its warning that the Chancellor's current plans to cut the deficit in half by 2014 was too slow.
David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said: “Action still needs to be taken to ensure that our AAA rating is not threatened. In the forthcoming Budget, the government must spell out its medium-term fiscal plans with greater detail.
"A freeze in the overall public sector wage bill, and efforts to contain ballooning public sector pensions, would enhance credibility and persuade the markets that the government is serious about cutting the UK’s unsustainable deficit, and about enabling business to drive recovery.”
Public sector net borrowing in December hit £15.7 billion, £1.9 billion higher than previous year and a new record for the month, while the public sector budget deficit also grew £400 million from the previous year, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).
While the figures were slightly better than expected, Britain's net debt stood at £870 billion at the end of last year, the equivalent of 61.7 per cent of the UK's gross national product.
Tax receipts were 1 per cent higher than in December 2008 at £30.7 billion. Analysts said that the Chancellor was on course to meet his forecast for £178 billion borrowing in the year to March, with some forecasting that the total could be around £165 billion.
Colin Ellis, European economist at Daiwa Capital Markets, said: "Much will depend on this month's figures - January is typically a bumper month for tax receipts."
But despite the better than expected news, there are still major concerns about the overall state of the public finances.
Howard Archer, chief UK and European economist at IHS Global Insight, said: "The less dire-than-expected public finance data for December does not alter the fact that major fiscal surgery is needed for an extended period involving further, and clearer, spending cuts as well as tax hikes.
"Alistair Darling still faces a very difficult March budget as last December's Pre-Budget Report left many questions unanswered over how exactly the Government will return the public finances to health over the medium term."
He added: "While it is likely that many spending cuts and tax rises will not be announced before the looming general election, if the next government fails to address the issues at an early stage, it is likely that the credit agencies and the markets will lose patience, with dire consequences for the UK economy."
Earlier this week, Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England, rounded on the Chancellor, urging him to specify sharp spending cuts in his March Budget or risk a damaging backlash from the markets.
Mr King said that the patience of Britons was likely to be “sorely tried” over the coming years, with pay stagnating and inflation threatening to rise above 3 per cent. Britain’s economic health hinges on Alistair Darling being open about how he intends to slash the £178 billion deficit, he said.
A leading credit agency warned yesterday that the Treasury’s plan to halve the deficit within four years was too slow.
Lord Mandelson, the Business Secretary, also underlined the high stakes involved in the pre-election Budget. He warned that Britain, along with the rest of Europe, faced a phase of “rapid relative economic decline” if governments failed to cut spending.
Earlier this week, Fitch, the ratings agency reiterated its warning that the Chancellor's current plans to cut the deficit in half by 2014 was too slow.
David Kern, chief economist at the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC), said: “Action still needs to be taken to ensure that our AAA rating is not threatened. In the forthcoming Budget, the government must spell out its medium-term fiscal plans with greater detail.
"A freeze in the overall public sector wage bill, and efforts to contain ballooning public sector pensions, would enhance credibility and persuade the markets that the government is serious about cutting the UK’s unsustainable deficit, and about enabling business to drive recovery.”
订阅：
评论 (Atom)