So far, not a British scandal

Eternal vigilance being the price of uncorrupt government, it is natural that there should be close scrutiny by the media and the Opposition of the Government's relations with Enron in the aftermath of the American scandal. Labour, after all, is not averse to a little cosying up to big business, and has had its inglorious moments, not least the Ecclestone affair. No one denies that there have been links between Enron and Labour.

But we should beware of concluding that the Government has been involved in a corrupt relationship unless its guilt can be clearly demonstrated. Eyebrows may be raised at the fact that Enron has lobbied ministers face to face on their policies on gas-fired power stations. Yet it is perfectly proper for companies to make their views known to governments, global conglomerates included.

As the law stands there is no objection to political parties accepting financial contributions from industry. What matters is whether it can be shown that policy has been changed in a reprehensible manner in direct response to illicit pressure from a political donor. To date there is no evidence that this has happened in the Enron case. Common sense suggests that no administration is likely to inflect policy in such a major area of public interest in order to placate a firm that has added a modest £36,000 to party coffers.

What we do know is that in both Britain and America Enron have spread their bets widely, in an attempt to ingratiate themselves with whoever might be in power. Having been in receipt of similar sums themselves, the Tories are not well placed to put on a show of righteous indignation, though the Westminster game being what it is, that is unlikely to stop them. Indeed, it is the Tory Lord Wakeham who faces the most serious personal embarassment in this case. On the Government side, however, the public should beware of thinking Enron represents a British political scandal unless a 'smoking gun' is found.

Generally speaking, sanctions representa clumsy, ineffectual weapon. The political animosity they cause tends to obstruct rather than facilitate diplomatic dialogue, and far too often the effect of sanctions is felt first and most oppressively by the poorer classes, and scarcely touches the elite.

On the first count, however, the behaviour of Mr Mugabe has become so brutal and intractable that the likelihood of any meaningful dialogue between Britain and Zimbabwe is remote. On the second, Mr Straw's sanctions are deliberately weighted against the President himself, not against his oppressed countrymen. They include the freezing of assets Mr Mugabe holds in European banks, and a ban on travel for the President and his ministers.

Mr Mugabe will no doubt make arrangements to get round both of these, but they will inconvenience him, and serve to remind him that Britain's quarrel is not with the people of Zimbabwe but with their dictator who is using the repressive measures of a police state to overturn the principles of democracy.

CSL effectually drove George Hilleard to his death by failing to process his council tax benefit, despite Mr Hilleard's two visits to the council offices over a three month period. Beside the carpenter's body was a note covered in calculations of a debt he did not owe.

The Ombudsman has rightly excoriated both the council and CSL, whose administration of benefits has elicited a torrent of complaints since it took them over in 1997. Why does Southwark council not have a register of adults with learning difficulties?