South Korea on Tuesday reported the country’s first case of the Zika virus, a mosquito-borne disease that has been linked to birth defects and other health issues.
A 43-year-old man who recently returned from Brazil was diagnosed with the virus after suffering fever, muscle pain and rash, according to a statement from the state-run centres for disease control and prevention.
Zika virus: pregnant women warned against travel to affected areas
Read more
The tropical disease, which has become epidemic in Latin America and the Caribbean, usually causes a mild illness.
But the World Health Organisation last month declared the explosive spread of Zika in the Americas to be a global emergency, due to its link to the spike in the number of babies born with abnormally small heads, a condition known as microcephaly, and the rise in a rare neurological syndrome, Guillain-Barré, that can cause paralysis and death.
The virus has so far triggered outbreaks in more than 40 countries.
Thanks for reading.
Boris Johnson: Osborne made ‘mistake’ over personal independence payments
George Osborne made a mistake in placing cuts of £1.3bn from personal independence payments (PIP) to disabled people in his budget in a move which triggered the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith, Boris Johnson has said.
As the chancellor’s close political allies warned that he will need to rebuild his reputation with Tory MPs after watching his second budget in a row run into trouble, the London mayor hailed the decision to “push” the welfare cuts to one side.
Speaking on ITV’s The Agenda with Tom Bradby, Johnson said: “The government has decided collectively and quite rightly to take the PIP aspect of it [the budget] and try to sort it out. It’s obvious from what’s happened that its admitted that it was a mistake.”
The London mayor praised the decision by Downing Street and the Treasury, in the hours leading up to the announcement of Duncan Smith’s resignation on Friday night, to shelve the reforms to PIP which are made to disabled people to help with the costs of aids and appliances.
The former work and pensions secretary agreed with the Treasury to reform the system of PIP after a series of court cases led to a growth in the PIP budget by easing the tests in 10 daily activities for disabled people. But Duncan Smith resigned after saying that it was wrong to cut benefits to disabled people in a budget which also introduced tax cuts for wealthy people in the form of a reduction in capital gains tax.
Johnson, who has joined Duncan Smith in campaigning for a British exit from the EU, indicated that his sympathy for the former work and pensions secretary was limited when he distanced him from some of his criticisms of the Treasury.
The London mayor said: “It would have been much better quite frankly if he had stayed in and fought his point of view from within the cabinet ... I have to say where I do part company from some of the criticism is that I don’t think you can reasonably say this government has lost touch with its mission to help all the people in this country or to be a one nation Conservative government and that is what some people are now saying and I totally and utterly reject that.”
Advertisement
Lord Hague, Duncan Smith’s predecessor as Conservative leader, went further and described his resignation as “unequivocally wrong”. In his weekly Telegraph column, the former foreign secretary challenged Duncan Smith’s criticism of the chancellor for cutting taxes at the same time as cutting disability benefits.
Hague wrote: “Depicting the budget as a zero-sum reduction in welfare spending to pay for tax cuts – or juxtaposed with them, as Iain Duncan Smith put it – is simply playing into the hands of a left wing fallacy that would take us back to Gordon Brown’s policies if put into practice.”
The interventions by Hague and Johnson came as friends and allies of the chancellor said in private that Osborne has been damaged by the resignation of Duncan Smith. His suggestion that the chancellor is failing to act as a one nation Tory, by appearing to show he had little interest in non-Tory voters, has raised concerns about Osborne’s political touch.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
Allies say that Osborne, who takes great pride in his reputation as the government’s master strategist, is proving increasingly accident-prone. The chancellor was forced to row back on planned cuts to tax credits, outlined in his summer budget, in his autumn statement in November.
Osborne has told friends in private that Duncan Smith had acted unreasonably. They had agreed the changes to PIP payments after tough negotiations around two weeks before the budget. Duncan Smith then reportedly raised no objections after their agreement.
Advertisement
But the chancellor is understood to be aware of the concerns and realises he is entering a difficult period. Osborne thought hard whether he should have responded to an urgent question in the House of Commons by the shadow chancellor John McDonnell. In the end he decided to leave it to David Gauke, the third most senior member of his Treasury team, after deciding it would set an unhelpful precedent for a chancellor to respond to an urgent question.
Osborne was also wary of appearing in the Commons amid concerns in the Treasury that pro-Brexit Tory MPs could have tried to ambush the chancellor. Gauke, a popular figure who is admired for a light but authoritative touch, received a relatively warm reception from Tory MPs.
One old friend thought the chancellor had made a mistake by not appearing in the Commons. “This was his moment to show us a new George and he has missed his chance,” the friend said. “If he wants to be prime minister, he should be able to turn round a moment like this.”
One ally thinks Osborne is in trouble. “This is damaging for George. He has misjudged a budget again. He has lost a lot of support. You can feel it. He will need to rebuild.”
The chancellor’s old friend believes he is experiencing a bumpy period, but fully expects him to bounce back. “This is not terminal for George. Things come and go. There are waves. Better to have bout of scarlet fever now than in 2018.”
Thanks for reading
Castro demands return of Guantánamo Bay during historic Obama visit
President Raúl Castro of Cuba demanded that Barack Obama hand back Guantánamo Bay and fully end the US trade embargo as their historic first summit in Havana witnessed an unexpectedly spirited clash of political values.
Obama lands in Cuba as first US president to visit in nearly a century
Read more
Despite emotional scenes of reconciliation that earlier saw the Star Spangled Banner played to spine-tingling effect by a Cuban band in Revolution Square, the two leaders made clear that rapprochement had only come so far.
“There are profound differences between our countries that will not go away,” said Castro as he turned the tables on the question of human rights and criticised the US for its failures to ensure universal healthcare and equal pay for women.
“In our view, civil, economic, social and cultural rights are indivisible, interdependent and universal,” he added. “We find it inconceivable that a government does not defend and secure the right to healthcare, equal pay and the rights of children. We oppose political double standards in the approach to human rights.”
The Cuban leader also angrily rejected questions by a US journalist who questioned his country’s human rights record, a subject he said should not be “politicised”.
When asked why Cuba still held political prisoners, a visibly irritated Castro responded by asking: “What political prisoners? Give me a list of the political prisoners and I will release them immediately.
“If we have those political prisoners they will be released before tonight.”
The Cuban government released 53 political prisoners soon after announcing the restoration of diplomatic relations with the US in December, but human rights groups say that dozens more remain in the country’s prisons.
Obama agreed that the two countries still had much to disagree about and said the two had “frank and candid” exchanges during nearly three hours of bilateral meetings earlier on Monday.
“After five very difficult decades, the relationship between our two countries will not be transformed overnight,” said the US president. “We continue to have significant differences … and that includes democracy and human rights.”
Che Guevara's son on Obama in Cuba: 'Maybe we can influence US in a positive way'
Read more
But the US president stressed that the “normalising” of relations with Cuba should allow discussion of such disagreements – some of which he personally sympathised with.
“President Castro spoke about what he believes are shortcomings in the US: around basic healthcare and race relations. We welcome that constructive dialogue.”
“Cuba’s destiny will not be decided by the United States or any other country,” Obama added. “Cuba has great pride and the future of Cuba will be decided by Cubans … but the US will continue to speak out on behalf of democracy and human rights.”
Advertisement
Obama’s conciliatory remarks – in which he predicted Congress would soon lift the embargo – may anger critics back home, who claim he has given away too much for too little by restoring diplomatic relations without guarantees of political reform.
But the president, who steps down in nine months’ time, insisted the US needed to play a longer game.
“We might disagree today on something that we may agree on tomorrow,” Obama said.
The White House suggested the administration would not immediately respond to Castro’s call for a list of people who the US claims are political prisoners.
National security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters at a briefing in Havana: “I have shared many such lists with the Cuban government over two and a half years of dealing with them. We shared 53 who they released around the time of the December 15 announcement. Some more were addressed ahead of this visit. However there are certainly additional names that we raise almost every time we meet.”
Castro defends Cuba: 'Not one country' complies with all human rights – as it happened
Obama welcomed by Cuban president on three-day trip to Cuba, the first by a US president since Calvin Coolidge visited in 1928
Read more
“It’s not their lack of awareness, it’s their belief that they are not political prisoners: that they are in prison for crimes and offences against Cuban law,” added Rhodes.
“What we have said is, if someone is detained for a non-violent political offence, like expressing yourself or taking part in protest, those people are inherently political prisoners.”
The White House also insisted Obama will not be meeting Fidel Castro this week, despite an interview in which the president said he was open to the idea.
Advertisement
“On this trip the president will not be meeting Fidel,” said Rhodes. “He was speaking generally about the potential.”
The contrasting styles of the consummate communicator Obama and the gruff former general Castro made for absorbing viewing, particularly among a domestic audience hungry for news of progress in relations.
Restaurant waiter Víctor Aguilar said it was unusual to see Castro asked about human rights at a press conference. “It’s good, really good. Cuba needs a free media,” said the 21-year-old, who hopes to go to the US for the first time later this year. “It’s a change and we need a change.”
Jean Robert, who works in a photography studio in central Havana, said both leaders came across well. “Raúl and Obama are trying to do the right thing,” he said. “I was very happy that they talked about political prisoners and internet freedom. That’s really important for us. If Raúl says he will release prisoners, then he will. I believe him.”
Pro-democracy activist Rosa María Payá said the spectacle was ridiculous but revealing, particularly with regard to questions on human rights. “This is the first time I have seen Raúl trying to avoid these kind of questions ... This regime and the dynastic old general can no longer hide their oppressive methods. From now on the democratic world should choose between accepting the rules of the Cuban dynasty or, as Obama, said, supporting the right of all Cubans to decide.”
She said she hoped the US president will make a still clearer statement of support for a national plebiscite in his speech tomorrow.
On a day many thought they would never live to see, the presidents of the former cold war enemies grinned as they shook hands in Havana ahead of a summit that aims to foster a new era in bilateral relations.
The genial encounter between Obama and Castro at the presidential palace was the highpoint of an emotionally and historically charged morning that also saw a Cuban military band play the US national anthem and US officials standing respectfully in front of giant portraits of revolutionaries Che Guevara and Camilo Cienfuegos.
Some among the huge visiting delegation of officials and journalists said they felt chills down their spines at a wreath-laying ceremony in which Obama paid his respects to José Martí, the intellectual leader of the Cuban independence movement in the 19th century.
“It is a great honour to pay tribute to José Martí, who gave his life for independence of his homeland,” Obama wrote in the museum guest book. “His passion for liberty, freedom and self-determination lives on in the Cuban people today.”
Obama’s Cuba visit is latest step towards ‘new alliance of the Americas’
Read more
The show of respect for the host nation’s sovereignty set the stage for a visit that aims to reset neighbourly ties that have long been marked by confrontation and threats. No serving US president has visited Havana since Calvin Coolidge in 1928.
In the intervening years, a revolution led by Fidel Castro brought a communist one-party government to Cuba, briefly brought the nuclear frontier of the cold war to the doorstep of the United States, and led to a US embargo that has contributed to the dismal condition of the Cuban economy today.
Having broken the ice with a surprise bilateral deal with President Castro on 17 December 2014, the Obama White House has steadily relaxed controls on trade, travel and finance. This week’s visit is the most tangible sign yet of warming ties and ensures that Washington’s new Cuba policy will be one of the president’s main legacies.
Advertisement
Obama rolled into the Cuban capital at the head of a huge delegation, estimated at somewhere between 800 and 1,200, that includes four state secretaries, dozens of congressmen, secret service agents, logistics staff and journalists. As well as the summit between the two leaders, top officials from the State, Commerce and Agriculture departments will hold bilateral talks on Monday.
Many thorny issues remain unresolved. Cuba is adamant that no full rapprochement is possible unless the US lifts its embargo and returns the US navy base at Guantánamo Bay. Neither are acceptable to the Republic-controlled US Congress.
Washington, meanwhile, is encouraging Havana to press forward with market reforms, improve human rights and allow the Cuban populace more say in decision making. The challenges in this area were apparent just hours before Obama arrived on Sunday, when dozens of pro-democracy protesters were arrested by police.
Thanks for reading.
Opportunity knocks … but Jeremy Corbyn fails to answer
It’s an easy mistake to make. You’ve been away on a silent yoga retreat. You spent the entire weekend watching Sky Sports. You overslept and all the newspapers had been sold by the time you got to Costcutter. These things happen. It’s just a bit unfortunate when you happen to be the leader of the Labour party and you’ve managed to miss the biggest crisis in the Conservative party since the last election.
David Cameron had ostensibly come to the Commons to give a statement on the EU summit on migrants, but his more important mission was to firefight the damage done by the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith. “Europe ... migrant ... Turkey,” he rambled, only partially engaged. When your own career is on the line, the lives of a few hundred thousand Syrian refugees are just collateral damage.
With migrants now off the menu, Dave moved on to the main business. “Can I just say how much I respect and love the former work and pensions secretary,” he said. “Iain was the most brilliant and friendly colleague I’ve ever had and I can’t describe how much I’ll miss squeezing his chubby little cheeks as we josh one another about giving the poor and the disabled a hard time. And when I called him a complete and utter shit, what I really meant was that I was totally delighted Princess Duncan Smith (PDS) had conveniently remembered he had a conscience during the EU referendum campaign after managing to live quite happily without one for the past six years.”
A collective “Ahhh, how sweet!” rumbled through the packed Tory benches who had been briefed that One Nation Conservatism – or One Nation Conservatism Minus One, as PDS was nowhere to be seen – meant trying to pretend everyone was in it together, rather than ripping out each other’s throats over Europe. “Long live Dave! Long live Iain!” The only person who seemed to be fooled by this veneer of unity was Jeremy Corbyn.
The stories you need to read, in one handy email
Read more
“I thank the prime minister for giving me advance notice of half his statement,” Corbyn bellowed, having clearly decided that shouting made him sound more commanding. What Corbyn didn’t say was that because Dave had only let him see half the statement, he was only going to comment on half the statement. Maybe he thought it would be impolite to mention PDS; maybe he had scribbled down some thoughts and couldn’t read his own writing; maybe he is just a terrible performer in the chamber.
The Labour benches waited. And waited. And waited. Surely Corbyn would seize the moment to twist the knife into a government that PDS had described as lacking in compassion? This was the moment for which they had been praying for nearly a year; a self-inflicted Tory death-spiral. The Conservative benches waited. And waited. And waited. This was the moment when they had to sit back and take the hit for their indifference to the disabled and their disunity over Europe.
“Europe... migrants... Turkey... Thank you and good night,” Corbyn bellowed. It took the Labour backbenchers a while to realise their leader had passed up the opportunity to deliver a devastating – possibly terminal – blow to the Dave and George show. After the shock, the disappointment soon set in. A few of the Labour old guard tried to make good the loss with some PDS jibes, but the moment had passed.
Dave looked like a man who couldn’t believe his luck. As did those on the Conservative benches behind him. They had got away with it. They were once more free to squabble among themselves to their heart’s content. One by one, the Eurosceptics rose to moan about the EU and the Turks. Dave couldn’t have been more charming. PDS may be gone, but he is not forgotten. Yet.
For the Tories it was a case of lightning striking twice on the same day, as earlier in the afternoon the shadow chancellor had tabled an urgent question on the government’s U-turn on disability payments and the £4bn hole it left in last week’s budget. This wasn’t a question George Osborne particularly wanted to answer – he had some holiday plans to make – so he sent David Gauke, a junior treasury minister, along to take the hit instead.
“The chancellor is insulting the house by not turning up in person,” McDonnell shouted. Like Corbyn, he now mistakes volume for passion; perhaps they’re both only half way through their media training. McDonnell was so busy being insulted by George’s absence, he completely forgot to go for the jugular. Gauke merely smiled and soaked it up. This wasn’t the first time George had used him as a punchbag and doubtless it wouldn’t be the last.
It took Labour’s Yvette Cooper to get to the heart of the government’s chaotic budget, but Gauke merely shrugged. A £4bn black hole in the budget was well above his pay grade. “The questions are deteriorating in quality,” he observed drily. As were his answers. But being a bit rubbish had been always been Gauke’s main objective. Better that than truthful.
Thanks for reading.
The long and winding road: how Paul McCartney is clawing back his catalogue
To misquote Oscar Wilde, to lose one attempt to control your publishing may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose a second looks like carelessness. This, however, is the prism through which to understand the move by Paul McCartney – which started in December last year but has only recently been made public – to take control of his composition rights during his time in the Beatles.
In brief, under the US Copyright Act of 1976, writers can move to recapture the publishers’ share of songs they wrote before 1978. Their claim must be filed with the US copyright office between two and 10 years before a 56-year period (or, more precisely, two consecutive 28-year terms; if the songwriter has died, their estate can make a claim for the rights after the first 28-year term) elapses. McCartney’s initial filing covers 32 songs, but not all are from the early days of the Beatles, which would start to become available in chronological order. Among the songs named are several from the Abbey Road album, released in the band’s dying days in 1969.
Context is all. As revealed in face-clasping detail in Peter Doggett’s forensic analysis of their injudicious business deals in You Never Give Me Your Money, the Beatles signed a string of abysmal contracts that monumentally undervalued their worth and that today have still not been properly unpicked. Their 1962 management contract with Brian Epstein was their first bad deal because it was weighted so heavily away from them; their second bad deal was their publishing deal covering, originally, the compositions of Lennon and McCartney. In order to understand why McCartney is doing what he is doing, it’s essential to trace the bumpy history of his assignment of rights.
The Beatles on TV in 1964.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
The Beatles on TV in 1964. Photograph: ITV/Rex Features
Frustrated by the lacklustre work of Ardmore & Beechwood, EMI’s publishing company in the early 1960s, on Love Me Do, producer George Martin suggested the Beatles speak to publisher Dick James. From that sprung Northern Songs, a company set up specifically to handle their publishing rights. McCartney later claimed he never read the contract properly and simply trusted Epstein to do a good deal. He didn’t. Between them, Epstein, McCartney and Lennon held half the shares while James and his business partner Charles Silver held the other half. (Martin turned down a stake as he felt it was a conflict of interest.) It was only later that McCartney and Lennon discovered they were not in the driving seat of the company – or even in the back seat. They were in the boot.
Advertisement
After Epstein’s death in 1967, they attempted to renegotiate the deal but reached an impasse. Then in 1969, without warning, James sold his stake to ATV, TV mogul Lew Grade’s company, for £1.5m. The Beatles got their ruthless business manager Allen Klein to attempt to buy out ATV in 1969, but a combination of the band’s relationship turning toxic and, amazingly, them running out of money meant it never happened, and they sold their stake in October 1969 for £3.5m. An earlier attempt to buy out the 14% owned by a group of investors known as The Consortium also failed.
It took another twist in 1982 when Australian businessman Robert Holmes à Court acquired ATV’s holding company. McCartney, meanwhile, was buying up publishing catalogues including those of Buddy Holly and Broadway shows. When working with Michael Jackson in the early 1980s, he made the mistake of showing the singer a binder with all the publishing rights he owned, telling him he regretted losing his own composition rights so was buying up other catalogues. Jackson, then the biggest pop star on the planet, needed to invest the huge sums he was earning and got his business manager John Branca to investigate publishing options. In September 1984, Branca called Jackson and said: “I think I heard of a catalogue for sale.” It was ATV, which had a catalogue of about 4,000 titles with an estimated two-thirds of its revenue coming from Lennon/McCartney songs.
Collaborators … McCartney and Michael Jackson in 1983.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Collaborators … McCartney and Michael Jackson in 1983. Photograph: Bettmann/Corbis
Through complex negotiations and brazen brinkmanship, Branca outmanoeuvred not just Richard Branson but also Marty Bandier, then head of EMI Music Publishing and now, paradoxically, the CEO of Sony/ATV, to close the deal for $47.5m. Two things swung it in Jackson’s favour, even though Bandier had offered more money. Jackson agreed to appear at an event in Perth for Holmes à Court’s favourite charity; he also removed the rights for Penny Lane so that Holmes à Court could give them as a gift to his daughter, Penny. Branca claimed that he cleared the deal with Yoko Ono first, making sure she and McCartney were not going to make a joint offer. “No, no, if we [Ono and McCartney] had bought it, then we’d [Ono and ATV] have to deal with Paul,” she reportedly said.
Advertisement
Having burned through a frightening amount of cash over the next decade, Jackson needed capital desperately, so Branca tabled a deal in 1995 whereby Sony could take a stake in ATV as part of a 50/50 joint venture. Zack O’Malley Greenburg’s book Michael Jackson, Inc explains just how unusual the deal was. “The company paid Jackson $115m for the privilege of merging its less valuable catalogue with his, plus an annual guarantee just shy of $10m that has since been negotiated upwards.” The deal also gave Jackson total control over his compositions under Mijac Music as well as those by other songwriters.
More than anything, this illustrates a huge sea change in how musicians approached the music business. Pop stars in the 80s learned to become incredibly business savvy precisely because the stars of two decades earlier had been recklessly naive in their dealings with the money side of things. This must surely have stung McCartney – that the next generation of pop stars had learned from his mistakes, made more money than him and could now buy and sell him. That process continued last week, when Sony announced it was buying out the Jackson estate’s share in Sony/ATV for $750m.
McCartney and his third wife Nancy Shevell.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
McCartney and his third wife Nancy Shevell. Photograph: Sipa/Rex/Shutterstock
So what does McCartney’s move – made public just a week after the Sony/ATV deal – mean for the company that currently owns his Beatles songs? Lennon/McCartney songs represent a lot of earning potential, but their songs are only a drop in the ocean of the estimated 4m compositions Sony/ATV controls. Plus, if McCartney is successful, this will only affect, for now, his share of 32 co-writes in the US alone. Sony will still control Lennon’s share after brokering a deal with Ono in 2009 and will continue to control the rights to all Lennon/McCartney songs outside the US.
If not quite revenge, then McCartney’s move here is at least an attempt to right his past wrongs and make peace with something that has been eating away at him for half a century. He has always had a complex relationship with his publishing and the legacy of the band. Aside from twice losing the chance to buy his rights, in 2002 he listed Beatles songs on his Back in the US live album as being written by McCartney/Lennon and not the other way round, as they had been traditionally credited. “I think it’s fair and accurate for the songs that John declared were mine to carry my name first,” he said at the time. The following year, a new version of the Let It Be album was released under the title of Let It Be … Naked in which McCartney stripped everything producer Phil Spector did on it, because he had always been unhappy with the album that had been released.
It could be argued that, inch by inch, McCartney has been rewriting Beatles history. Until now, it has mainly been about the creative side of things, but this is one of the biggest financial recalibrations he has undertaken. Whether or not it will salve the pain and frustration of a half-century of bad deals for McCartney is debatable, but its power to add to his and his third wife Nancy Shevell’s estimated net worth of £730m is unarguable. Thanks for reading.
Co Donegal pier accident: victim told rescuer to ‘save the baby’
A man who rescued a four-month-old baby from a car that was sinking into the sea in County Donegal, Ireland, has described how the father of the infant passed her to him through a broken side window, told him to “save the baby” and then attempted to rescue the rest of his family.
Davitt Walsh from Donegal, who swam out to the car, said the father, Sean McGrotty, had given the baby to him then gone back into the vehicle to try to get the others out. McGrotty died, along with four other members of his family.
Speaking to RTE News last night, Walsh said: “It was terrible. I was out there. I was swimming. I didn’t know how I was going to help or what was going to happen. The baby was handed to me.
“When it happened, the father looked at me and he had to make a decision. He could have saved himself because he was out of the car. But he went back into his family. I couldn’t do nothing else. The car went down instantly.
“The younger child was trying to get out the back. The father knew deep down – he knew I was only going to be able to save one person. The thing he said, he handed it to me and said: ‘Save the baby.’ He went back and stayed with his family and the car just disappeared.”
The child, Rionaghac-Ann, was taken to Letterkenny general hospital in Donegal where she was said to be “doing well”.
Louise McGrotty, from Derry, Northern Ireland, was at a hen party in Liverpool when her husband, Sean, sons Mark, 12, and Evan, eight, her 59-year-old mother, Ruth Daniels, and her sister Jodie Lee Daniels, 14, drowned after the Audi Q7 they were travelling in slipped off the pier at Buncrana at about 7.30pm on Sunday.
Five members of family who died in Co Donegal pier accident are named
Read more
Irish police are investigating whether the driver lost control of the four-wheel-drive car after it slipped on a thick buildup of algae towards the end of the pier.
Sean McGrotty’s brother Jim said an “unspeakable tragedy” had been visited upon his family. “I was sitting at home when news of the tragedy started to emerge last night. My thoughts were for the families of those involved. Little did I realise then that it was my own family members who had died.”
He singled out Walsh, saying: “On behalf of the family, we want to thank that brave man who swam into the sea and who saved the life of Louise’s baby Rionaghac-Ann. We have since found out that Rionaghac-Ann’s father Sean handed his baby daughter out of the window of the car into the arms of the brave man who dived in to help just seconds before the car sank with the other family members inside it.”
Describing his brother as totally devoted to his family, Jim McGrotty added: “There has been a constant stream of callers arriving at the house since word of who was involved has become public. On behalf of the family, we wish to thank those people for their support and for their love at this very difficult time for us all.
“Words cannot express the enormity of the tragedy which has befallen our family. We are all numbed by this tragedy which has visited us. If there is anything good which has come out of it is the fact that baby Rionaghac-Ann has been saved.”
The slipway on the Buncrana pier in a Google street view image, dated September 2009, with algae growing on the surface.
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
The slipway on the Buncrana pier in a Google street view image, dated September 2009, with algae growing on the surface. Photograph: Google Maps
Among those who called on the McGrotty family yesterday was Martin McGuinness, the Derry-born deputy first minister of Northern Ireland.
“I have just come from meeting a young woman who has lost her partner, her two sons, her mother and her sister and it is a very, very sad house. Truly heartbreaking, mind-numbing and shocking beyond belief,” McGuinness said.
Advertisement
A witness in Buncrana, Francis Crawford, told Radio Foyle in Derry of the harrowing scenes around the pier. “I could hear them, the children in the car, as water started to come and that’s heart-rending in itself … Totally distressing and that will stay with me for a long time.
“I was standing there in a totally hopeless and helpless position waiting on help arriving. It was hopeless, you need a boat there right away. By the time the boat arrived, there were already bodies in the water and they tried to resuscitate them but it was hopeless,” Crawford said.
He also praised Walsh, saying: “Great that he did, he came back with a wee baby. I didn’t know how he got it, he said it was handed out of the window to him. He was shouting: ‘Grab the baby, grab the baby’. He was totally exhausted, I’d say if there was another five yards he wouldn’t have made it. He was taken to hospital then with cuts and different things, so heroic,” Crawford added.
John Carter, of the RNLI, said he had never witnessed anything of this magnitude on Lough Swilly before. “It is a very distressing thing to deal with any kind of tragedy, but particularly when children are involved,” he said.
Father Paddy O’Kane, the parish priest in the McGrottys’ home area of Ballymagroarty in Derry, also visited the family home on Monday.
“The grief of the family cannot be measured. There is a numbness and stillness in the family home and my thoughts and prayers and the thoughts and prayers of the entire parish and further afield with those bereaved,” O’Kane said.
One of the boys who died, Evan, had Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a muscle-weakening disease that starts in early childhood and for which there is no cure. He was with the Make-A-Wish Foundation charity which helps children with terminal illnesses and their families. Neighbours of the family said Evan’s condition was a life-limiting illness and his mother had been constantly raising money for the charity.
All five of the victims will be buried on Thursday at 2pm in the Holy Family church in Derry. The mayor of Derry and Strabane district council have opened a book of condolences in the city to allow the public to express their thoughts on the tragedy. Thanks for reading
Disability benefits U-turn leaves Cameron with £4.4bn to find
David Cameron has been forced to concede that a £4.4bn black hole created by the U-turn over disability benefits will not be filled by further cuts to welfare as he fought to shore up his credibility following the shock resignation of Iain Duncan Smith.
The spending climbdown was announced on Monday by Stephen Crabb, the new work and pensions secretary, an hour after Cameron addressed the political crisis engulfing the Conservative party by offering his support to George Osborne and praise for the work of Duncan Smith.
Aiming to strike a conciliatory tone in the Commons, Cameron said Duncan Smith had “contributed an enormous amount to the work of this government” in his work campaigning for welfare reform, which he said had reduced child and pensioner poverty and inequality.
He added that “none of this would be possible if it weren’t for the actions” of his friend Osborne, although the chancellor was not present in the house. Labour MPs repeatedly asked why he had failed to turn up in the House of Commons to sit alongside the prime minister.
In the debate on the budget that followed Cameron’s remarks, Crabb said his department would drop controversial reforms to personal independence payments (PIP), a disability benefit, adding: “We have no further plans to make welfare savings beyond the very substantial savings legislated for by parliament two weeks ago”.
The statement appeared to indicate that the government was ruling out cuts to the welfare budget for the rest of the parliament, but the government clarified the remarks by stressing that there were no plans to fill the £4.4bn gap caused by dropping PIP reforms with further cuts in welfare spending.
Mute
Current Time 0:00
/
Duration Time 0:44
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
Government rules out any further cuts to welfare – video
Crabb also revealed that the government would review the level of its welfare cap in the autumn statement. But he added that “it is right that we monitor welfare spending carefully”, arguing that the principle of having “discipline” through a cap was right.
The beleaguered Osborne is due to appear in parliament on Tuesday to defend his work by taking the unusual step of speaking in the debate following last week’s controversial budget, which caused anger on his own backbenches and culminated in the resignation of Duncan Smith.
The former work and pensions secretary had accused Osborne and Cameron of protecting wealthy Tory voting pensioners at the expense of the working poor, while a number of backbench MPs were openly attacking his chancellorship.
Adding to the pressure on Osborne, Boris Johnson, now the frontrunner to become the next Conservative leader, told ITV’s Agenda he believed that the cuts to PIP were a mistake. He added: “I think I have already said very clearly that the government has decided collectively and quite rightly to take the PIP aspect of it [the budget] and try to sort it out.”
Osborne will hit back, and is due to tell MPs: “It is a budget of a compassionate, one-nation Conservative government determined to deliver both social justice and economic security. It’s a budget that puts the next generation first.”
He will also address Duncan Smith directly, claiming that he is sorry he chose to leave government. “[I] want to recognise his achievements in helping to make sure work pays, breaking the old cycles of welfare dependency and ensuring the most vulnerable in our society are protected,” he will say.
Bookmakers further lengthened Osborne’s chances of becoming Tory leader, with new odds being offered on how long he will last as chancellor.
David Davis, the senior Tory MP who ran against Cameron for the leadership in 2005, said Osborne’s hopes of becoming leader of the Conservatives if the prime minister quits in the near future have “sunk without a trace”.
How convincing was David Cameron’s Commons statement?
Rafael Behr, Anne Perkins, Simon Jenkins and Martin Kettle
Read more
The Tory MP Karen Lumley released a letter that she and colleagues had sent to Osborne before the budget claiming the PIP cuts gave the impression of a “sustained attack on disabled benefits by the government” and could cause long-term damage to its reputation.
While the issue under debate is austerity and whether the government has gone too far in cutting benefits for the poor, the febrile mood on the Tory backbenches has been driven by the fight over Britain’s place in the EU, which is causing the biggest split in the party for two decades.
Advertisement
One cabinet minister told the Guardian that embarking on the referendum was like “pouring petrol” over the party and causing it to “go up in flames”. The minister said that some MPs simple “don’t like the prime minister and never will like him regardless of if he wins elections”.
The minister admitted that some politicians in the party wanted to launch a coup against Cameron on 24 June, the day after the referendum. They – and other MPs – said the most dangerous outcome for the prime minister would be a narrow victory for the Remain camp, which could make Brexit supporters feel “like we were robbed”.
Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 committee of Conservative backbenchers to whom MPs would write if they wanted to trigger a vote of no confidence in Cameron, called for calm. “We know that there are strong passions on both sides of the European debate and it is inevitable there will be tensions and at time the temperature may rise,” he told the Guardian.
“But it is important for the good of the party and credibility of the government that colleagues are careful to be respectful and courteous.” Thanks for reading.
