Datasets:

Nikhitha2310

/

preprocessed_summaries

like 0

Howard attacks cost of asylumMichael Howard has launched an attack on the cost of Britain's "chaotic" asylum system under Tony Blair.The Tory leader said English local authorities have spent more than £3bn - or £140 per household - on asylum since Labour won power in 1997. Mr Howard is expected to tell activists in Kent that voters' tolerance and desire to help others are being abused. Other parties and refugee agencies have already attacked Tory plans for annual limits on numbers.Mr Howard said Britain should take its fair share of the world's "genuine refugees"."The anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz - where my grandmother was murdered along with over a million others - has reminded all of us that we have a moral responsibility to those fleeing persecution," he was due to say. "But if we are to fulfil responsibility, we have to get a grip of the system. "Fair play matters. People want a government that upholds the rules - not one that turns a blind eye when they are bent and abused," he said. "And let's be clear. Our asylum system is being abused - and with it Britain's generosity." Earlier this week, Mr Howard said his party's plans to cut immigration were not racist, arguing they would make the asylum system fairer for genuine refugees. If elected, his party would institute an annual limit on asylum and all claims would be processed overseas.That prompted some charities to say the plans would put refugees' lives at risk if they were turned away once quotas were filled. "If we have a moral responsibility towards people fleeing persecution, then these policies will not provide a safe haven," said Hannah Ward of the Refugee Council. "If people turn up in the UK asking for help they will be turned away. Michael Howard's policy effectively means there is no safe haven in the UK. "When it comes to costs, then perhaps we should start with how decisions are made on asylum seekers. So many of them are shown to be wrong - one in five decisions that are appealed are successfully overturned, rising to half for some nationalities. "We need good quality decision-making on asylum applications because it is delays in the system which cost so much."Tony Blair said Labour would set out workable plans for tackling immigration abuse in the next few weeks and attacked the Tory plans. "By cutting the number of front-line immigration staff at our borders, they will actually make the problem worse," said Mr Blair. Liberal Democrat chairman Matthew Taylor said there needed to be a quick, fair and firm asylum system. But he said it was "absolutely disgusting" to propose a system which could turn away genuine refugees. The Conservatives say there is little risk of this happening as demand for asylum will be considered when quotas are set. On Monday, Mr Howard said: "It's not racist, as some people to claim, to talk about controlling immigration far from it."

Earlier this week, Mr Howard said his party's plans to cut immigration were not racist, arguing they would make the asylum system fairer for genuine refugees.Liberal Democrat chairman Matthew Taylor said there needed to be a quick, fair and firm asylum system.But he said it was "absolutely disgusting" to propose a system which could turn away genuine refugees.Our asylum system is being abused - and with it Britain's generosity."Michael Howard has launched an attack on the cost of Britain's "chaotic" asylum system under Tony Blair.Mr Howard said Britain should take its fair share of the world's "genuine refugees".On Monday, Mr Howard said: "It's not racist, as some people to claim, to talk about controlling immigration far from it."Tony Blair said Labour would set out workable plans for tackling immigration abuse in the next few weeks and attacked the Tory plans."If we have a moral responsibility towards people fleeing persecution, then these policies will not provide a safe haven," said Hannah Ward of the Refugee Council.People want a government that upholds the rules - not one that turns a blind eye when they are bent and abused," he said.The Tory leader said English local authorities have spent more than £3bn - or £140 per household - on asylum since Labour won power in 1997.

UK heading wrong way - HowardTony Blair has had the chance to tackle the problems facing Britain and has failed, Michael Howard has said."Britain is heading in the wrong direction", the Conservative leader said in his New Year message. Mr Blair's government was a "bossy, interfering government that takes decisions that should be made by individuals," he added. But Labour's campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp responded: "Britain is working, don't let the Tories wreck it again". Mr Howard also paid tribute to the nation's character for its generous response to the Asian quake disaster. The catastrophe was overshadowing the hopes for the future at this usually positive time of the year, Mr Howard said."We watched the scenes of destruction with a sense of disbelief. The scale, the speed, the ferocity of what happened on Boxing Day is difficult to grasp. "Yet Britain's response has shone a light on our nation's character. The last week has shown that the warm, caring heart of Britain beats as strong as ever." He went on to reflect on the values that "most Britons hold dear". Looking ahead to the coming general election, he pledged to "turn these beliefs into reality" and set out the choices he says are facing Britain. "How much tax do people want to pay? Who will give taxpayers value for money, the clean hospitals and good, disciplined schools they want? "Who can be trusted to get a grip on the disorder on our streets and the chaos in our immigration system?"Mr Blair has failed to tackle these problems, he claimed, saying he has the "wrong solution" to them."The result is big government and higher taxes eroding incentives, undermining enterprise and denying people choice. "Worst of all, it is a government that has wasted people's money and failed to tackle the problems families face today." The Tories, he said, can cut crime and improve public services without asking people to pay more taxes. "We can have progress without losing what makes Britain great - its tolerance, the respect for the rule of law, the ability of everyone to fulfil their potential. "We simply need to change direction. The election will give Britain the chance to change." This is the record Mr Blair will have to defend in the coming months, he said, urging voters to hold him to account.But Labour spokesman Mr Kemp said: "It would be more appropriate for this message to come out on 1 April, not 1 January." "Let us never forget that when Michael Howard was in government Britain suffered mass unemployment, 15% interest rates, record home repossessions, and the introduction of the poll tax. "With Labour Britain is working. Rather than alluding to false promises Michael Howard should be starting 2005 with an apology to the British people for the misery that the government, of which he was a member, inflicted upon the country.

Tony Blair has had the chance to tackle the problems facing Britain and has failed, Michael Howard has said.The election will give Britain the chance to change."Mr Blair has failed to tackle these problems, he claimed, saying he has the "wrong solution" to them."Let us never forget that when Michael Howard was in government Britain suffered mass unemployment, 15% interest rates, record home repossessions, and the introduction of the poll tax."Britain is heading in the wrong direction", the Conservative leader said in his New Year message."With Labour Britain is working.The catastrophe was overshadowing the hopes for the future at this usually positive time of the year, Mr Howard said.This is the record Mr Blair will have to defend in the coming months, he said, urging voters to hold him to account."Worst of all, it is a government that has wasted people's money and failed to tackle the problems families face today."The last week has shown that the warm, caring heart of Britain beats as strong as ever."But Labour spokesman Mr Kemp said: "It would be more appropriate for this message to come out on 1 April, not 1 January."

Kennedy predicts bigger turnoutVoters' "pent up passion" could confound predictions of a low turnout in the coming general election, Charles Kennedy has said.The Liberal Democrat leader predicted concerns over Iraq and other international and domestic issue would express themselves during the campaign. His comments come as an inquiry looks at how best to boost voter turnouts. Ex-foreign secretary Robin Cook said people were not apathetic but fed up of "pager politics" and not being heard. He, like Mr Kennedy, pointed to the hundreds of thousands of people who demonstrated against plans for the Iraq war.Mr Cook, who is giving evidence to the Power inquiry into voter turnout rates, told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme it was not fair to blame the public who were "more interested in politics than ever before". "They are turned off by the way we do politics in Britain. There's a message there for politicians." He urged politicians to avoid negative campaigning and to "speak more from the heart". "We should be not so afraid to say what we stand for." He also criticised the cult of personality politics: "There's far too much interest in celebrities. "Politics are in danger of becoming another branch of the celebrity industry." The government has tried a number of things in an attempt to boost voter turnout, which fell to 59% in the last general election in 2001. This has included bringing in directly elected mayors to head local authorities and trialling postal voting.

Mr Cook, who is giving evidence to the Power inquiry into voter turnout rates, told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme it was not fair to blame the public who were "more interested in politics than ever before".The government has tried a number of things in an attempt to boost voter turnout, which fell to 59% in the last general election in 2001.Ex-foreign secretary Robin Cook said people were not apathetic but fed up of "pager politics" and not being heard.He also criticised the cult of personality politics: "There's far too much interest in celebrities.Voters' "pent up passion" could confound predictions of a low turnout in the coming general election, Charles Kennedy has said."They are turned off by the way we do politics in Britain.

Brown and Blair face new rift claimsFor the umpteenth time, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are said to have declared all out war on each other.This time the alleged rift is over who should take the credit for the government's global aid and debt initiatives, particularly in the wake of the tsunami disaster - an issue many hoped and believed was above such things. It dominated the prime minister's monthly news conference, which saw Mr Blair start in full irritation mode as he was forced to bat away question after question about his relationship with his neighbour. As he told journalists: "I am not interested in what goes in and out of newspapers. There is a complete unity of purpose." And he again heaped praise on Mr Brown saying he was doing a great job, and would continue doing it - although he would not commit to any job for Mr Brown after the election.So why did he arrange his press conference at the last moment so it coincided with Mr Brown's long-arranged keynote speech on aid and debt, he was asked? By now Mr Blair had moved from irritation mode to his barely disguised fury setting. He snapped back that the hacks knew very well what the operational reasons were for the timing of his press conference. Well, not really, as it happens.And he repeated what a great man Gordon was and how united they were, before again sneering that he took absolutely no notice of what went in and out of the newspapers, preferring to get on with the job of doing the best for the country and the world. Although in the next breath he declared: "I get increasingly alarmed by what I read in the newspapers" before catching himself on and quickly adding: "In so far as I read them of course." He probably had good reason to be alarmed because the newspapers had been full of stories about the claimed open warfare between the two men.As far as the timing of the prime minister's press conference is concerned, there are two options. The first is that it was a calculated attempt to upstage the chancellor and seize back the initiative on the big issue of the moment. If that is the case it suggests that even the fear of seriously negative newspaper headlines is not enough to stop the squabbling. The second option is that it was an unavoidable coincidence, which would suggest the government has lost its once-famed ability to strictly co-ordinate announcements - through the infamous Downing Street grid - to avert just such allegations.Either way, the effect was the same - to overshadow the big announcements of government policy on a hugely pertinent issue. And there had been previous suggestions that the new year had started with a fresh outbreak of the warfare between the two men. Firstly, the prime minister insisted on Wednesday that he had been intimately involved in the development of the proposals to get G8 countries to freeze debt repayments from the tsunami-hit countries. It was claimed he had been embarrassed by the fact that Gordon Brown appeared to have taken the initiative over the government's response to the disaster while Mr Blair was still on holiday in Egypt.Then, as if to pour fuel on the flames, both men separately spoke about working on tsunami or wider aid and development policy with their cabinet colleagues Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, Aid minister Hilary Benn and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott - without mentioning the other. All this came amid fresh claims that Mr Brown was still seething that he had been excluded from a prominent role in general election planning and had, as a result, started to set out his own platform. The fact that he used an article in the Guardian newspaper to set out what he believed "should" be in the manifesto, has embarked on a mini tour of Britain to set out his aid plans and will next week visit Africa on the same mission - often seen as the prime minister's "turf" - has only added to the impression of rival camps operating entirely independently of each other. The prime minister denied all that as well, repeating his insistence that it was inconceivable the economy and the chancellor would not be at the centre of the election campaign. But the big fear with many on the Labour benches now is that, unless a lid can be put on the speculation over the rivalry, it may even threaten to undermine the election campaign itself.

It was claimed he had been embarrassed by the fact that Gordon Brown appeared to have taken the initiative over the government's response to the disaster while Mr Blair was still on holiday in Egypt.The prime minister denied all that as well, repeating his insistence that it was inconceivable the economy and the chancellor would not be at the centre of the election campaign.And he again heaped praise on Mr Brown saying he was doing a great job, and would continue doing it - although he would not commit to any job for Mr Brown after the election.So why did he arrange his press conference at the last moment so it coincided with Mr Brown's long-arranged keynote speech on aid and debt, he was asked?It dominated the prime minister's monthly news conference, which saw Mr Blair start in full irritation mode as he was forced to bat away question after question about his relationship with his neighbour.All this came amid fresh claims that Mr Brown was still seething that he had been excluded from a prominent role in general election planning and had, as a result, started to set out his own platform.As far as the timing of the prime minister's press conference is concerned, there are two options.The first is that it was a calculated attempt to upstage the chancellor and seize back the initiative on the big issue of the moment.And he repeated what a great man Gordon was and how united they were, before again sneering that he took absolutely no notice of what went in and out of the newspapers, preferring to get on with the job of doing the best for the country and the world.This time the alleged rift is over who should take the credit for the government's global aid and debt initiatives, particularly in the wake of the tsunami disaster - an issue many hoped and believed was above such things.Either way, the effect was the same - to overshadow the big announcements of government policy on a hugely pertinent issue.

'Best person' for top legal jobThe "best person for the job" should be appointed lord chancellor, and not necessarily a lawyer or MP, the courts minister has told MPs.Under reforms, the post of lord chancellor is to be stripped of its judicial functions. "The lord chancellor...no more needs to be a lawyer than the Secretary of Health needs to be a doctor," said courts minister Christopher Leslie. The Constitutional Reform Bill was entering its second reading on Monday. Mr Leslie said: "The prime minister should be able to appoint the best person for the job whether they sit in the House of Lords or the House of Commons." Under the reforms, the Law Lords will also be replaced as the UK's highest legal authority by a Supreme Court and judges will be appointed by an independent panel rather than ministers.In December the Lords rejected a plea by current Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer that the holder of the job should not necessarily be a lawyer or a peer. The peers voted by 229 to 206 to say in law that lord chancellors must also be peers. The debate was carried over from the last Parliamentary session, but with an impending general election time is crucial for the government to get the Bill passed. Mr Leslie said it was irrelevant whether the post was called Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or Lord Chancellor. He said: "What matters most is...whether it is reformed so that the post holder no longer has those conflicting duties. "It is no longer appropriate for a government minister to have such unfettered discretion in the appointment of judges."Shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve criticised the government on its plans to change what he said was an "exceptional institution," providing a "champion of the independence of the judiciary". The government had initially proposed to take this institution and "smash it to pieces," Mr Grieve said. Convention should be "nurtured and celebrated," but the government distrusted and disliked it instead. He warned that unless ministers backed down over the lord chancellor remaining a member of the House of Lords, the government would have "great difficulty" in getting the Bill through Parliament. Former Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg, whose father and grandfather served as lord chancellor, said the Bill was "largely unnecessary, bureaucratic and expensive". But the Tory MP for Sleaford and North Hykeham admitted the lord chancellor's role and office "cannot be frozen in aspic".

Mr Leslie said it was irrelevant whether the post was called Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs or Lord Chancellor.He warned that unless ministers backed down over the lord chancellor remaining a member of the House of Lords, the government would have "great difficulty" in getting the Bill through Parliament.The "best person for the job" should be appointed lord chancellor, and not necessarily a lawyer or MP, the courts minister has told MPs.Former Cabinet minister Douglas Hogg, whose father and grandfather served as lord chancellor, said the Bill was "largely unnecessary, bureaucratic and expensive".In December the Lords rejected a plea by current Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer that the holder of the job should not necessarily be a lawyer or a peer."The lord chancellor...no more needs to be a lawyer than the Secretary of Health needs to be a doctor," said courts minister Christopher Leslie.Under reforms, the post of lord chancellor is to be stripped of its judicial functions.The peers voted by 229 to 206 to say in law that lord chancellors must also be peers.

McConnell in 'drunk' remark rowScotland's first minister has told a group of high school pupils that it is okay to get drunk "once in a while".Jack McConnell was speaking to more than 100 secondary pupils from schools in the Highlands about the problems of binge drinking and drink promotions. He has been criticised by the SNP for encouraging young people to get drunk. But the Scottish Executive has insisted Mr McConnell was speaking about adults and his comments were "a recognition that people will get drunk". The first minister's comments came in a question and answer session at Glenurquhart High School in Inverness, attended by pupils from a number of secondary schools. A Highland councillor who was at the event has also defended Mr McConnell. Margaret Davidson, the independent member for the Loch Ness West, said the first minister was speaking in a very general way and she was sure he was speaking about adults at the time.When one pupil asked Mr McConnell how the executive proposed to tackle under-age drinking, began his response with the quip: "I'm sure there's no under-age drinking in the Highlands." He went on to speak about the evils of binge drinking and railed against irresponsible drinks promotions. He said: "I hope I'm not going to be seen as preaching to anybody here but the really serious problem at the moment is binge drinking and the impact it has on people's health and their ability to control what's happening round about them." Mr McConnell said he regularly saw reports on the effects of binge drinking sprees which ended in assaults or even rapes, and on the health consequences of binge drinking. "The one thing we are going to do something really serious about is binge drinking and irresponsible drinks promotions that can help lead to that," he said. "Far too many pub chains in particular are selling far too much booze far too cheaply and encouraging people to drink it far too quickly. "We are go to clamp down on that and make those promotions illegal in the hope that people can enjoy a drink sensibly over the course of an evening."He added: "By all means get drunk once in a while - but do not get into a situation where people are being encouraged to get completely incapable just to save some money and drink more quickly." SNP Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon said: "This is an incredible gaffe by Jack McConnell. "We all know that under-age drinking is an issue in Scotland but it is quite staggering that any politician, particularly the First Minister, should encourage young people to get drunk. "The first minister should withdraw these remarks immediately." But an executive spokeswoman insisted Mr McConnell had made the remark with adults, not youngsters, in mind. "He was talking in the context of adults binge drinking and irresponsible drinks promotions - which are for the over-18s," she said. "It was just a recognition that people will get drunk, but that binge drinking and drinks promotions that encourage it are not acceptable."

"It was just a recognition that people will get drunk, but that binge drinking and drinks promotions that encourage it are not acceptable."Jack McConnell was speaking to more than 100 secondary pupils from schools in the Highlands about the problems of binge drinking and drink promotions.But the Scottish Executive has insisted Mr McConnell was speaking about adults and his comments were "a recognition that people will get drunk"."He was talking in the context of adults binge drinking and irresponsible drinks promotions - which are for the over-18s," she said."We all know that under-age drinking is an issue in Scotland but it is quite staggering that any politician, particularly the First Minister, should encourage young people to get drunk.Mr McConnell said he regularly saw reports on the effects of binge drinking sprees which ended in assaults or even rapes, and on the health consequences of binge drinking."The one thing we are going to do something really serious about is binge drinking and irresponsible drinks promotions that can help lead to that," he said.Scotland's first minister has told a group of high school pupils that it is okay to get drunk "once in a while".He has been criticised by the SNP for encouraging young people to get drunk.

Blair says mayor should apologiseTony Blair has urged London mayor Ken Livingstone to apologise for his "Nazi" comment to a Jewish reporter.Labour's Mr Livingstone, who says he is "standing by" his remarks, had accused an Evening Standard journalist of being like a "concentration camp guard". Mr Blair told Five's Wright Stuff show: "Let's just apologise and move on." Mr Livingstone has said the remarks may have been offensive but were not racist, and said he would not apologise even if the prime minister asked.Mr Blair, who was instrumental in returning Mr Livingstone to the Labour Party, insisted on Wednesday it was time for the London mayor to say sorry."A lot of us in politics get angry with journalists from time to time, but in the circumstances, and to the journalist because he was a Jewish journalist, yes, he should apologise," he said. "Let's just apologise and move on - that's the sensible thing." Tory leader Michael Howard, asked about Mr Livingstone's remark by reporters, said it was important for politicians to be mindful about the language they use. "It's particularly important that as we get close to the election that politicians talk with civility and courtesy about issues that we all face," he said. "I think it's a matter of sadness that we are not seeing that from the Labour Party. We had what Ken Livingstone said, we had what Alastair Campbell has said and we have what others have said. I think that's a matter of great regret."The row blew up after Mr Livingstone was approached by Evening Standard reporter Oliver Finegold following a party marking the 20th anniversary of former Culture Secretary Chris Smith coming out as Britain's first gay MP. On tape, Mr Livingstone, who once worked as a freelance restaurant critic on the paper, is heard asking Mr Finegold if he is a "German war criminal".Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that." The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?" At his weekly press conference on Tuesday, Mr Livingstone said his comments were not racist and refused to apologise. "If you think they are racist, I think you are wrong," he told reporters. The dispute comes as an inspection team from the International Olympic committee began a four-day tour to assess London's bid for the 2012 Games. An official complaint has been made to local government watchdogs by the British Jews, demanding an investigation by the Standards Board of England. It has the power to suspend or bar Mr Livingstone from public office.

Mr Livingstone has said the remarks may have been offensive but were not racist, and said he would not apologise even if the prime minister asked.At his weekly press conference on Tuesday, Mr Livingstone said his comments were not racist and refused to apologise.Mr Blair, who was instrumental in returning Mr Livingstone to the Labour Party, insisted on Wednesday it was time for the London mayor to say sorry.On tape, Mr Livingstone, who once worked as a freelance restaurant critic on the paper, is heard asking Mr Finegold if he is a "German war criminal".We had what Ken Livingstone said, we had what Alastair Campbell has said and we have what others have said.It has the power to suspend or bar Mr Livingstone from public office.Tony Blair has urged London mayor Ken Livingstone to apologise for his "Nazi" comment to a Jewish reporter.Labour's Mr Livingstone, who says he is "standing by" his remarks, had accused an Evening Standard journalist of being like a "concentration camp guard".Mr Blair told Five's Wright Stuff show: "Let's just apologise and move on."

What really divides the partiesSo what is the gap between Labour and the Tories nowadays?One Starbucks, one Rymans and one small Greek cafe as it happens. Both parties have now completed their moves to new headquarters, with Labour creating its election hub just three doors away from the Tories' new headquarters in Victoria Street, just down the road from the Commons. That should make things a little easier if and when the crack-of-dawn election press conferences kick off. Unlike 2001, there should be no need for colleagues to have taxis gunning their engines outside, or to buy scooters, to get themselves between the tightly-timetabled events.And, to all intents and purposes, we already appear to be in that general election campaign. Certainly the press conference hosted by election co-ordinator Alan Milburn, in the rather compact new conference room - still smelling of new carpet and with the garish New Labour coffee mugs as yet unstained - had all the hallmarks of an election event."Welcome to the unremittingly New Labour media centre," he said. And I'll bet he hadn't checked that one with Gordon Brown. Along with Work and Pensions Secretary Alan Johnson and Minister for Work Jane Kennedy, he then went on to tear into the Tory plans to scrap the New Deal welfare-to-work scheme, which they claimed would lead to an increase of almost 300,000 in unemployment. And they ridiculed the claims made on Monday by Michael Howard that he could save £35 billion of Labour waste and inefficiency to spend on public services while also offering £4 billion of tax cuts. Labour has come up with a figure of £22 billions worth of efficiency savings so, understandably perhaps, believe Mr Howard must be planning cuts to squeeze the extra £13 billion. These figures, based on the two parties' own detailed studies, will be battered to within an inch of their lives during the campaign. Wednesday was just the start.

Certainly the press conference hosted by election co-ordinator Alan Milburn, in the rather compact new conference room - still smelling of new carpet and with the garish New Labour coffee mugs as yet unstained - had all the hallmarks of an election event.Both parties have now completed their moves to new headquarters, with Labour creating its election hub just three doors away from the Tories' new headquarters in Victoria Street, just down the road from the Commons."Welcome to the unremittingly New Labour media centre," he said.So what is the gap between Labour and the Tories nowadays?One Starbucks, one Rymans and one small Greek cafe as it happens.And I'll bet he hadn't checked that one with Gordon Brown.

Labour MPs' fears over squabblingIf there is one thing certain to stiffen the spines of Labour MPs it is the prospect of losing their seats at a general election.And it was largely that fear that led to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown being read the riot act during a meeting of the parliamentary Labour party. The views expressed by both backbenchers and Labour peers over the claimed squabbling between the two men starkly demonstrated the widely-held view within the Labour party that the two most powerful figures in the government are jeopardising the next election. As one hugely-disgruntled backbencher said before the meeting: "It is time they realised it's not just my seat they are threatening but if they go on like this they could put the election in doubt." It is a sentiment that is now running throughout the Labour benches with MPs eager to underline the message to their leaders to stop the squabbling and get on with the job at hand.As Paul Flynn said: "What has deeply upset the party is in this time of all times, when we wanted to come together, we wanted to lead on the global issues, to change politics for the next decade, the whole thing was wrecked by a piece of childishness by the two main people in the party, two people we greatly respect."Stephen Pound echoed the message, saying: "We know that the one thing that could entirely jeopardise what we are trying to achieve, not for the Labour Party but for this country, is the appearance of division. We remember the 1980s". They backed the suggestion that unless the squabbling stopped, the people briefing on behalf of the two men would be "named and shamed". The dressing down appears to have done the trick, with Mr Brown joining his alleged rival Alan Milburn - who the prime minister put in charge of election planning in Mr Brown's stead - and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at an election poster launch. But the effect of all this is to have achieved two things. Firstly, nobody is attempting to suggest any more that the stories of the rift between the chancellor and the prime minister are fictions created by the media and authors. Even Mr Prescott admitted that, had he still been a backbencher, he would have been giving Mr Blair and Mr Brown the same message.Secondly it has also underlined the view that the election campaign has, to all intents and purposes, kicked off. But whether the telling off and the subsequent change in behaviour by the two men will do any good - or can even be sustained through the campaign - remains to be seen.Even as the MPs were expressing their fears it emerged that, while Mr Brown is in Africa for a week, the prime minister is to deliver a keynote speech on election themes for a third term. And he is expected to repeat his recent insistence that the next manifesto will be "New" Labour through and through. Similarly, some were pointing out that the chancellor, during the election poster launch, once again refused to deny the claim that he told the prime minister he could never trust anything he said. None the less, what some believe now is that the effect of the warnings from the backbenchers will actually be to silence the Brown camp, effectively strengthening the prime minister's hand. For example, will those Brownite briefers suggest their man is unhappy at the prime minister's timing or subject matter, as may have been the case in the past? What all seem agreed on, however, is that this sniping simply cannot be allowed to go on through the election campaign. Mind you, we have heard similar pledges before.

The views expressed by both backbenchers and Labour peers over the claimed squabbling between the two men starkly demonstrated the widely-held view within the Labour party that the two most powerful figures in the government are jeopardising the next election.The dressing down appears to have done the trick, with Mr Brown joining his alleged rival Alan Milburn - who the prime minister put in charge of election planning in Mr Brown's stead - and Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott at an election poster launch.Even as the MPs were expressing their fears it emerged that, while Mr Brown is in Africa for a week, the prime minister is to deliver a keynote speech on election themes for a third term.If there is one thing certain to stiffen the spines of Labour MPs it is the prospect of losing their seats at a general election.Similarly, some were pointing out that the chancellor, during the election poster launch, once again refused to deny the claim that he told the prime minister he could never trust anything he said.As one hugely-disgruntled backbencher said before the meeting: "It is time they realised it's not just my seat they are threatening but if they go on like this they could put the election in doubt."As Paul Flynn said: "What has deeply upset the party is in this time of all times, when we wanted to come together, we wanted to lead on the global issues, to change politics for the next decade, the whole thing was wrecked by a piece of childishness by the two main people in the party, two people we greatly respect."Even Mr Prescott admitted that, had he still been a backbencher, he would have been giving Mr Blair and Mr Brown the same message.None the less, what some believe now is that the effect of the warnings from the backbenchers will actually be to silence the Brown camp, effectively strengthening the prime minister's hand.

Parties build up poll war chestsThe Labour Party received more than £5m in donations in the final quarter of 2004, new figures show.This is nearly half of the £11,724,929 received by 16 political parties listed by the Electoral Commission. The Conservatives were in second place with donations totalling £4,610,849, while the Liberal Democrats received just over £1m. The majority of Labour's donations came from affiliated trade unions. There were also large sums from individuals. Lord Drayson, whose company PowderJect won multi-million pound contracts to provide smallpox vaccine to the government after the 11 September terror attacks, gave £500,000 to the party just days before Christmas.This followed an earlier donation of the same amount earlier in 2004. He was made a lord by Tony Blair last year. Other significant donations came from retired millionaire businessman and philanthropist Sir Christopher Ondaatje who gave the party a sum of £500,000, and refrigerator magnate William Haughey OBE who gave £330,000. The totals for the fourth quarter were well up on the same period of 2003, as the parties built up their war chests for the general election campaign. The largest donation to the Conservatives was a bequest from Ruth Beardmore of nearly £400,000. The joint founder of merchant bank Hambro Magan gave £325,417. There were also donations topping £250,000 for the Conservatives from Scottish Business Groups Focus on Scotland and the Institute of International Research, the world's largest independent conference company.Also among the gifts to the Tories were 24 donations totalling £161,840 from Bearwood Corporate Services. This company is controlled by the party's former treasurer Lord Ashcroft which has directed almost £300,000 to specific marginal constituencies over the past two years. The Liberal Democrats' largest donor was the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd, a company which promotes political reform and constitutional change, which gave a sum of £250,000. And fast food giants McDonald's are listed as donating a sum of £10,575. This was a fee the firm paid for a room for an event held with the work and skills foundation during the party's conference. The UK Independence Party, which lost its main donor Paul Sykes amid the row over Robert Kilroy-Silk's bid for the leadership last autumn, took in £63,081. Just £8,170 of this was cash and the remainder came in gifts in kind, such as office space and printing. Registered political parties are required to set out each quarter all donations over £5,000 to their headquarters and over £1,000 to local constituency parties they receive. It is an offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly make a false declaration about party donations.

Registered political parties are required to set out each quarter all donations over £5,000 to their headquarters and over £1,000 to local constituency parties they receive.The Labour Party received more than £5m in donations in the final quarter of 2004, new figures show.Other significant donations came from retired millionaire businessman and philanthropist Sir Christopher Ondaatje who gave the party a sum of £500,000, and refrigerator magnate William Haughey OBE who gave £330,000.The largest donation to the Conservatives was a bequest from Ruth Beardmore of nearly £400,000.The Conservatives were in second place with donations totalling £4,610,849, while the Liberal Democrats received just over £1m.The Liberal Democrats' largest donor was the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust Ltd, a company which promotes political reform and constitutional change, which gave a sum of £250,000.This is nearly half of the £11,724,929 received by 16 political parties listed by the Electoral Commission.There were also donations topping £250,000 for the Conservatives from Scottish Business Groups Focus on Scotland and the Institute of International Research, the world's largest independent conference company.Also among the gifts to the Tories were 24 donations totalling £161,840 from Bearwood Corporate Services.

Strike threat over pension plansMillions of public service workers could strike if ministers scrap their final salary pension scheme and make them work longer, warn union leaders.The Cabinet Office has confirmed it is reviewing the current pension system, prompting unions representing 4.5m workers to threaten united action. They believe the plans include raising the mandatory retirement age for public service workers from 60 to 65. The government says unions will be consulted before any changes are made.It is thought the proposed overhaul, due on Thursday, could mean pensions could be based on a "career average" salary. For each year served, staff currently get one eightieth of their highest salary in the final three years. Ministers will be anxious to avoid mass strike action in the lead-up to the next general election, which is widely expected next May. In a statement on Sunday, the Cabinet Office said it was reviewing the Civil Service Pension Scheme, and hoped to announce proposals soon. "Unions will of course be consulted about any proposed changes. "Public sector pension schemes need to remain affordable and sustainable. People are living longer and pensions are getting more expensive. "To maintain the long-term affordability of our pension scheme, the government announced in its Green Paper on pensions that pension age would rise from 60 to 65." On Monday, Tony Blair's official spokesman declined to say whether the prime minister backed the plans. He said: "What's important is that there's a process going on, it's out for consultation at the moment, let's wait for that process to complete itself."There is already widespread anger over the chancellor's plans to get rid of more than 100,000 civil servants. Now public service unions are united against the plans and the Trades Union Congress is discussing the issue next Monday. Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said changes to pension provisions for workers in the public sector would mean they had to pay in more but would still face a raw deal. "Members working in the NHS or for local government have never had high pay or city bonuses, but they could look forward to a decent pension - now all that is being taken away," he said. "What really riles me is the breathtaking hypocrisy of MPs who recently voted themselves the best pension scheme in Europe, but say they can't afford it for anyone else. "This is a position that Unison cannot accept and will oppose. It will lead to conflict between Unison and the government, if not this year then next."Mr Prentis said workers did not want to go on strike and called for talks between unions and the highest level of government. Mark Serwotka, from the Public and Commercial Services union said there should be a co-ordinated one day strike unless there was a government rethink. The Fire Brigades Union said the government was planning to cut ill health retirement benefits for firefighters and other measures to chip away at pensions. Pensions officer Paul Woolstenholmes said: "The pensions of millions of public sector workers are under threat - apart from MPs and judges who have the most generous pensions arrangements in the country."

Millions of public service workers could strike if ministers scrap their final salary pension scheme and make them work longer, warn union leaders."To maintain the long-term affordability of our pension scheme, the government announced in its Green Paper on pensions that pension age would rise from 60 to 65."Pensions officer Paul Woolstenholmes said: "The pensions of millions of public sector workers are under threat - apart from MPs and judges who have the most generous pensions arrangements in the country."Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said changes to pension provisions for workers in the public sector would mean they had to pay in more but would still face a raw deal.Mark Serwotka, from the Public and Commercial Services union said there should be a co-ordinated one day strike unless there was a government rethink.Mr Prentis said workers did not want to go on strike and called for talks between unions and the highest level of government.Now public service unions are united against the plans and the Trades Union Congress is discussing the issue next Monday.In a statement on Sunday, the Cabinet Office said it was reviewing the Civil Service Pension Scheme, and hoped to announce proposals soon.The government says unions will be consulted before any changes are made."Public sector pension schemes need to remain affordable and sustainable.

Hatfield executives go on trialEngineering firm Balfour Beatty and five railway managers are to go on trial for manslaughter over the Hatfield rail crash in 2000.Four people died when a section of rail broke and a high speed train derailed. Balfour Beatty's railway maintenance arm was in charge of the upkeep of the line at Hatfield, Hertfordshire. Balfour Beatty managers Anthony Walker and Nicholas Jeffries, and Railtrack managers Alistair Cook, Sean Fugill and Keith Lea all face individual charges. All five men, along with four others, are also accused of breaches of health and safety laws. Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance faces a corporate manslaughter charge. It is expected the trial could last as long as a year. The accident, on 17 October 2000, happened when the London to Leeds express came off the tracks at 115 mph, when it was derailed by a cracked section of rail. The accident on the East Coast Main Line sparked major disruption. The overall responsibility for the line was Railtrack's - the company that has now become Network Rail. Those who died in the accident were Steve Arthur, 46, from Pease Pottage, West Sussex; Peter Monkhouse, 50, of Headingley, Leeds; Leslie Gray, 43, of Tuxford, Nottingham; and Robert James Alcorn, 37, of Auckland, New Zealand.

Engineering firm Balfour Beatty and five railway managers are to go on trial for manslaughter over the Hatfield rail crash in 2000.Balfour Beatty Rail Maintenance faces a corporate manslaughter charge.Balfour Beatty's railway maintenance arm was in charge of the upkeep of the line at Hatfield, Hertfordshire.The accident, on 17 October 2000, happened when the London to Leeds express came off the tracks at 115 mph, when it was derailed by a cracked section of rail.The overall responsibility for the line was Railtrack's - the company that has now become Network Rail.

Manchester wins Labour conferenceThe Labour Party will hold its 2006 autumn conference in Manchester and not Blackpool, it has been confirmed.The much trailed decision was ratified by Labour's ruling National Executive Committee in a break with the traditional choice of a seaside venue. It will be the first time since 1917 that the party has chosen Manchester to host the annual event. Blackpool will get the much smaller February spring conference instead in what will be seen as a placatory move.For years the main political parties have rotated between Blackpool, Bournemouth and Brighton. And the news the much larger annual conference is not to gather in Blackpool will be seen as a blow in the coastal resort. In 1998 the party said it would not return to Blackpool but did so in 2002. The following year Bournemouth hosted the event before the party signed a two year deal for Brighton to host the autumn conference.Colin Asplin, Blackpool Hotel Association said: "We have tried very hard to make sure they come back to Blackpool. "Obviously we have failed in that. I just hope Manchester can handle the crowds. "It amazes me that the Labour Party, which is a working class party, doesn't want to come to the main working class resort in the country." The exact cost to Blackpool in terms of lost revenue for hotel accommodation is not yet known but it is thought that block bookings will be taken at the major Manchester hotels after the official announcement.

The Labour Party will hold its 2006 autumn conference in Manchester and not Blackpool, it has been confirmed.For years the main political parties have rotated between Blackpool, Bournemouth and Brighton.In 1998 the party said it would not return to Blackpool but did so in 2002.And the news the much larger annual conference is not to gather in Blackpool will be seen as a blow in the coastal resort.Colin Asplin, Blackpool Hotel Association said: "We have tried very hard to make sure they come back to Blackpool.It will be the first time since 1917 that the party has chosen Manchester to host the annual event.

Kennedy criticises 'unfair' taxesGordon Brown has failed to tackle the "fundamental unfairness" in the tax system in his ninth Budget, Charles Kennedy has said.How was it right that the poorest 20% of society were still paying more as a proportion of their income than the richest 20%, the Lib Dem leader asked. The new £200 council tax rebate for pensioners did nothing to fix the "unfair tax", he added. The government could not go on "patching up" the system, he added. Speaking in the Commons after Mr Brown had delivered what is widely thought to be the last Budget before the general election, Mr Kennedy acknowledged that the UK was one of the most successful economies in the world.But he criticised both the chancellor and the Tories for failing to address the "ticking bomb" of council tax revaluation. He said the recent experience of Wales indicated seven million households in England would pay significantly more after revaluation. The chancellor's announcement that he was to offer a £200 council tax rebate paid by pensioner households was merely a "sticking plaster" to a much bigger problem. The Lib Dem plan for a local income tax would benefit the typical household by more than £450 a year, with half of all pensioners paying no local tax and about three million being better off.On pensions, Mr Kennedy said it was a "scandal" that the system discriminated against women who had missed making National Insurance payments when they were having children. He said a residency criteria would end "at a stroke this fundamental iniquity". Mr Kennedy added his party's priorities of free long-term care for the elderly, abolishing top-up fees and replacing the council tax would be funded by charging 50% income tax to those earning more than £100,000 per annum. He contrasted his approach with Mr Brown's pledge in 2001 not to increase income tax. The chancellor went on to put up National Insurance contributions after the election. "For most individuals, most families, most households, it adds up to exactly the same thing," said Mr Kennedy. "And they wonder why people get cynical about their politicians when they give one impression before an election and do exactly the opposite after that election."

Mr Kennedy added his party's priorities of free long-term care for the elderly, abolishing top-up fees and replacing the council tax would be funded by charging 50% income tax to those earning more than £100,000 per annum.The new £200 council tax rebate for pensioners did nothing to fix the "unfair tax", he added.The Lib Dem plan for a local income tax would benefit the typical household by more than £450 a year, with half of all pensioners paying no local tax and about three million being better off.On pensions, Mr Kennedy said it was a "scandal" that the system discriminated against women who had missed making National Insurance payments when they were having children.Gordon Brown has failed to tackle the "fundamental unfairness" in the tax system in his ninth Budget, Charles Kennedy has said.He contrasted his approach with Mr Brown's pledge in 2001 not to increase income tax.Speaking in the Commons after Mr Brown had delivered what is widely thought to be the last Budget before the general election, Mr Kennedy acknowledged that the UK was one of the most successful economies in the world.

UK pledges £1bn to vaccine effortUK Chancellor Gordon Brown has offered £960m ($1.8bn) over 15 years to an international scheme aiming to boost vaccination and immunisation schemes.In a speech, he called for action to reach the 2000 Millennium Declaration goals of halving global poverty and tackling child mortality rates. Mr Brown has just returned from a tour of African nations. The £1bn commitment is part of a five-point plan on debt relief, trade, aid, education and health.The chancellor was speaking at an event jointly organised by the UK's Department for International Development and the UN Development Programme on Wednesday. Mr Brown welcomed news that the Bill Gates Foundation and Norway are joining up to put an extra £0.53bn ($1bn ) into the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi). Britain, France, Gavi and the Gates Foundation have drawn up proposals to apply the principles of the International Finance Facility (IFF) to the area of immunisation. That could see donors making long-term, legally binding financial commitments which can then be used as collateral for raising extra funds from international capital markets. As well as pledging £960m over 15 years to the immunisation IFF, Britain urged other donors to contribute.If Gavi could increase its funding for immunisation by an extra £4bn ($7.4bn) over 10 years, then an extra five million lives could have been saved by 2015 and five million thereafter, Mr Brown argued. Campaign groups including Friends of the Earth, the World Development Movement, and War on Want said UK government policy on free trade was a major barrier to fighting poverty. War on Want's John Hilary said: "Compassionate rhetoric cannot disguise the reality of the government's neo-liberal policies. "As long as Mr Blair and Mr Brown continue to push free trade and privatisation on developing countries, more and more people will be pushed deeper into poverty, not lifted out of it."

Mr Brown welcomed news that the Bill Gates Foundation and Norway are joining up to put an extra £0.53bn ($1bn ) into the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation (Gavi).UK Chancellor Gordon Brown has offered £960m ($1.8bn) over 15 years to an international scheme aiming to boost vaccination and immunisation schemes.If Gavi could increase its funding for immunisation by an extra £4bn ($7.4bn) over 10 years, then an extra five million lives could have been saved by 2015 and five million thereafter, Mr Brown argued."As long as Mr Blair and Mr Brown continue to push free trade and privatisation on developing countries, more and more people will be pushed deeper into poverty, not lifted out of it."Britain, France, Gavi and the Gates Foundation have drawn up proposals to apply the principles of the International Finance Facility (IFF) to the area of immunisation.Campaign groups including Friends of the Earth, the World Development Movement, and War on Want said UK government policy on free trade was a major barrier to fighting poverty.

Labour's four little wordsLabour has unveiled the four little words that will form the heart of its general election campaign which, for those just returned from the planet Galifray, is "looming".The slogan "Britain forward not back" (no, it's not an instruction from one of those inter-planetary Time Lords) is to become as much a part of our daily lives as the sky - it's always there but we mostly stop noticing. The word "Britain" is cast on a red background - a nod to Old Labour. "Forward" is in italics and cunningly slopes forward and, along with "not back", is set against a mushy pea green background. As one of the journalists assembled at the unveiling declared, it was all very post modern, or something. Great use of colour. Those ad men really do earn their money. And, coincidentally, the ad men who came up with the abandoned flying pigs and so-called "Fagin" posters which caused Tory protests have not been sacked but, as election supremo Alan Milburn declared, "are doing a very good job".Mr Milburn, in the latest in his series of pre-election-campaign campaigning, explained the slogan was the reaction to polling which suggests the public believe Labour and Tony Blair are the future while Michael Howard and the Tories would take the country backwards. "Not many people talk about the years before 1997 as the good old days," he declared. It would be an aggressive campaign because things would inevitably boil down to a choice between Labour and the Tories.Nobody, he claimed, could picture Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy walking up Downing Street the day after polling. They could, however, picture Michael Howard or, of course, Tony Blair doing it. So it was only right that the campaign concentrated on rigorously examining the opposition's policies and past record. And Tony Blair would be in the very front line of that campaign, he said. "Between now and the election the prime minister will be spending more time out of London than in it but in Britain, not overseas," he promised. "He will be leading the domestic debate from the front, listening, taking the flak." So, let's get on with it then.

And Tony Blair would be in the very front line of that campaign, he said.Mr Milburn, in the latest in his series of pre-election-campaign campaigning, explained the slogan was the reaction to polling which suggests the public believe Labour and Tony Blair are the future while Michael Howard and the Tories would take the country backwards.It would be an aggressive campaign because things would inevitably boil down to a choice between Labour and the Tories.The word "Britain" is cast on a red background - a nod to Old Labour.They could, however, picture Michael Howard or, of course, Tony Blair doing it.And, coincidentally, the ad men who came up with the abandoned flying pigs and so-called "Fagin" posters which caused Tory protests have not been sacked but, as election supremo Alan Milburn declared, "are doing a very good job".Labour has unveiled the four little words that will form the heart of its general election campaign which, for those just returned from the planet Galifray, is "looming".The slogan "Britain forward not back" (no, it's not an instruction from one of those inter-planetary Time Lords) is to become as much a part of our daily lives as the sky - it's always there but we mostly stop noticing.

Ministers lose slopping out caseThe Scottish Executive has lost an appeal against an inmate's compensation for being forced to slop out in prison.Armed robber Robert Napier, 25, won £2,450 after he claimed he suffered an outbreak of the skin complaint, eczema, when slopping out at Barlinnie Prison. Napier said that the practice, where prisoners use buckets in their cells as toilets, breached his human rights. On Thursday, the Court of Session threw out a move by the executive to apply a more rigorous standard of proof.The executive faces more than 1,000 similar claims for damages from prisoners and former inmates. More than 310 actions have already been raised in the Court of Session and sheriff courts in Scotland. An executive spokesman said: "We will study this judgement in detail. Much has changed to address the issues raised in the Napier case, for example, slopping out has ended at Barlinnie and work in other prisons is being accelerated. "Today's judgement does not affect the outcome of other cases." Napier, a remand prisoner at the time, raised a legal challenge in 2001 under the European Convention on Human Rights, in which he sought £5,000. He was awarded compensation last April after winning his case.Executive ministers raised an appeal arguing that the standard of proof to be applied in cases alleging a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights through degrading and inhumane treatment should "be beyond reasonable doubt". This is the standard normally applied in criminal trials in Scotland. However, civil litigation is settled on the test of "a balance of probabilities". Judge Lord Cullen, sitting with Lord Osborne and Lord Hamilton, ruled that alleged human rights breaches involving degrading treatment should be dealt with on the normal civil standard. Napier's lawyer Tony Kelly believes the action will soon be followed by others. Mr Kelly said: "There are hundreds of people still undergoing slopping out, overcrowding and poor regime and those people will certainly be heartened by today's judgement." Scottish National Party Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill said that the slopping out case had been "a fiasco from start to finish". He said: "Ministers were fully aware of the state of Scotland's jails. Funds were available but they chose to ignore the problem and after this ruling I suspect we will be faced with even more claims and no doubt more payouts. "A short term executive saving has resulted in a long term public cost."

Executive ministers raised an appeal arguing that the standard of proof to be applied in cases alleging a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights through degrading and inhumane treatment should "be beyond reasonable doubt".An executive spokesman said: "We will study this judgement in detail.The Scottish Executive has lost an appeal against an inmate's compensation for being forced to slop out in prison.Much has changed to address the issues raised in the Napier case, for example, slopping out has ended at Barlinnie and work in other prisons is being accelerated.Napier said that the practice, where prisoners use buckets in their cells as toilets, breached his human rights.On Thursday, the Court of Session threw out a move by the executive to apply a more rigorous standard of proof.Napier, a remand prisoner at the time, raised a legal challenge in 2001 under the European Convention on Human Rights, in which he sought £5,000.The executive faces more than 1,000 similar claims for damages from prisoners and former inmates.Scottish National Party Justice Minister Kenny MacAskill said that the slopping out case had been "a fiasco from start to finish".

Cardinal criticises Iraq war costBillions of pounds spent on conflict in Iraq and in the Middle East should have been used to reduce poverty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has said.The head of the Catholic Church in England and Wales made the comments on BBC Radio 4 and will re-iterate his stance in his Christmas Midnight Mass. The cardinal used a Christmas message to denounce the war in Iraq as a "terrible" waste of money. He and the Archbishop of Canterbury have both spoken out about the war.Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Thought for the Day slot, he criticised the fact that "billions" have been spent on war, instead of being used to bring people "out of dire poverty and malnourishment and disease". The cardinal said 2005 should be the year for campaigning to "make history poverty". He added: "If the governments of the rich countries were as ready to devote to peace the resources they are willing to commit to war, that would be to see with new eyes and speak with a new voice and perhaps then others would listen to us with new ears." The cardinal will touch on this theme again on Friday night when he will tell the congregation of 2,000 at Westminster Cathedral that peace is "worth, always, striving for"."How is it that peace has not arrived?," the cardinal will ask. "How is it that there is war in Iraq, violence in the Holy Land, and the horror of pain and death amongst the poor and deprived who suffer from injustice and thus do not find peace?" "How can one wish a happy Christmas for our fellow Christians in Iraq or in the Holy Land or those who suffer in Africa unless you and I, in whatever way is open to us, say and do what makes for peace?" Both the Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams appealed for the weapons inspectors to be given more time in Iraq before the war started. Dr Williams has since criticised the government over its case for war, saying the failure to find weapons of mass destruction had damaged faith in the political system.On Friday, the Cardinal will ask the congregation to search for peace. "It is possible, it is real, it is worth, always, striving for, because of the promise of Our Saviour," he will say. "I also wish you peace in your homes because peace in your home is the beginning of peace in the homes of the community. " A spokesman said Downing Street had no comment to make. But Prime Minister Tony Blair has said he will put Africa at the top of the agenda when Britain chairs the G8 summit next year.

"How is it that peace has not arrived?," the cardinal will ask.On Friday, the Cardinal will ask the congregation to search for peace.The cardinal used a Christmas message to denounce the war in Iraq as a "terrible" waste of money.Billions of pounds spent on conflict in Iraq and in the Middle East should have been used to reduce poverty, Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor has said.Both the Cardinal and Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams appealed for the weapons inspectors to be given more time in Iraq before the war started.The cardinal will touch on this theme again on Friday night when he will tell the congregation of 2,000 at Westminster Cathedral that peace is "worth, always, striving for".The cardinal said 2005 should be the year for campaigning to "make history poverty"."How can one wish a happy Christmas for our fellow Christians in Iraq or in the Holy Land or those who suffer in Africa unless you and I, in whatever way is open to us, say and do what makes for peace?"

UK heading wrong way, says HowardTony Blair has had the chance to tackle the problems facing Britain and has failed, Michael Howard has said."Britain is heading in the wrong direction", the Conservative leader said in his New Year message. Mr Blair's government was a "bossy, interfering government that takes decisions that should be made by individuals," he added. But Labour's campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp responded: "Britain is working, don't let the Tories wreck it again". Mr Howard also paid tribute to the nation's character for its generous response to the Asian quake disaster. The catastrophe was overshadowing the hopes for the future at this usually positive time of the year, Mr Howard said."We watched the scenes of destruction with a sense of disbelief. The scale, the speed, the ferocity of what happened on Boxing Day is difficult to grasp. "Yet Britain's response has shone a light on our nation's character. The last week has shown that the warm, caring heart of Britain beats as strong as ever." He went on to reflect on the values that "most Britons hold dear". Looking ahead to the coming general election, he pledged to "turn these beliefs into reality" and set out the choices he says are facing Britain. "How much tax do people want to pay? Who will give taxpayers value for money, the clean hospitals and good, disciplined schools they want? "Who can be trusted to get a grip on the disorder on our streets and the chaos in our immigration system?"Mr Blair has failed to tackle these problems, he claimed, saying he has the "wrong solution" to them."The result is big government and higher taxes eroding incentives, undermining enterprise and denying people choice. "Worst of all, it is a government that has wasted people's money and failed to tackle the problems families face today." The Tories, he said, can cut crime and improve public services without asking people to pay more taxes. "We can have progress without losing what makes Britain great - its tolerance, the respect for the rule of law, the ability of everyone to fulfil their potential. "We simply need to change direction. The election will give Britain the chance to change." This is the record Mr Blair will have to defend in the coming months, he said, urging voters to hold him to account.But Labour spokesman Mr Kemp said: "It would be more appropriate for this message to come out on 1 April, not 1 January." "Let us never forget that when Michael Howard was in government Britain suffered mass unemployment, 15% interest rates, record home repossessions, and the introduction of the poll tax. "With Labour Britain is working. Rather than alluding to false promises Michael Howard should be starting 2005 with an apology to the British people for the misery that the government, of which he was a member, inflicted upon the country.

Tony Blair has had the chance to tackle the problems facing Britain and has failed, Michael Howard has said.The election will give Britain the chance to change."Mr Blair has failed to tackle these problems, he claimed, saying he has the "wrong solution" to them."Let us never forget that when Michael Howard was in government Britain suffered mass unemployment, 15% interest rates, record home repossessions, and the introduction of the poll tax."Britain is heading in the wrong direction", the Conservative leader said in his New Year message."With Labour Britain is working.The catastrophe was overshadowing the hopes for the future at this usually positive time of the year, Mr Howard said.This is the record Mr Blair will have to defend in the coming months, he said, urging voters to hold him to account."Worst of all, it is a government that has wasted people's money and failed to tackle the problems families face today."The last week has shown that the warm, caring heart of Britain beats as strong as ever."But Labour spokesman Mr Kemp said: "It would be more appropriate for this message to come out on 1 April, not 1 January."

Tory leader quits legal positionDavid McLetchie has resigned from his post as a partner in a legal firm following criticism over his dual role.The Scottish Conservative leader had insisted that his legal work with Tods Murray did not influence the causes he supports. But on Friday he said: "I have tendered my resignation as a partner with immediate effect." Mr McLetchie had received advice from Holyrood officials about what details he needed to declare. Labour said he had "cleverly" not asked about paid advocacy. A Tory spokesman "totally refuted" any wrongdoing.Mr McLetchie received advice from the clerk to the standards committee after concern over him signing a parliamentary motion questioning expansion plans for Edinburgh Airport. The MSP had been a partner for Tods Murray which has a client opposing the development. Mr McLetchie did not have a complaint made against him, but when concerns were raised he sought guidance from the standards committee to clarify his position. He was advised to exercise judgement to avoid the perception of a conflict and said he had done nothing wrong.Explaining his reason for quitting the post, Mr McLetchie said: "I have been greatly concerned by the recent publicity surrounding my association with Tods Murray. "However, I have no wish to see a similar situation arise again. "To avoid any misconceptions in the future and be mindful of the good name of Tods Murray and the confidentiality to which its clients are entitled, I have brought forward the date of my retirement from the firm which would otherwise have happened later this year. "I am proud to have been a part of Tods Murray for the last 29 years and wish it well in the future."Labour MSP Christine May had said Mr McLetchie was "very clever" to ask the clerk to consider his conduct in respect of section 5 of the code. "He was almost bound to get the answer he wanted from this enquiry since he stands accused of breaching section 6, the section on paid advocacy," she said. Section 5 of the members interest order legally obliges MSPs to declare registrable interests before taking part in related parliamentary proceedings "where the interest would prejudice or give the appearance of prejudicing their ability to participate in a disinterested manner". However, MSPs' Code of Conduct "recognises a wider definition" of parliamentary proceedings, including a non-statutory requirement to make a declaration in relation to written notices, such as motions.But a letter from Holyrood's Chamber Office chief Ken Hughes also made clear that Mr McLetchie did not need to list any of the clients for whom he worked as a solicitor. Commenting on Mr McLetchie's decision to stand down, a Scottish Labour Party spokesman said: "This should mean Mr McLetchie doesn't breach the paid advocacy rules in future. "However it doesn't change the fact that there should be a full investigation into whether he has done this in the past."Scottish National Party Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon accused Mr McLetchie of failing to properly serve his constituents. Ms Sturgeon said: "I think this whole episode has been very damaging for Mr McLetchie and I'm sure he will be reflecting on it." She added that she thought that the Tories were an irrelevant party so she would not "lose any sleep over it". Peter Misselbrook, executive partner of Tods Murray said Mr McLetchie had been considering retirement later in the year. He added: "David has decided that this announcement should be made now and we fully understand and appreciate his reasons for doing so."

Peter Misselbrook, executive partner of Tods Murray said Mr McLetchie had been considering retirement later in the year.Commenting on Mr McLetchie's decision to stand down, a Scottish Labour Party spokesman said: "This should mean Mr McLetchie doesn't breach the paid advocacy rules in future.Explaining his reason for quitting the post, Mr McLetchie said: "I have been greatly concerned by the recent publicity surrounding my association with Tods Murray.Labour MSP Christine May had said Mr McLetchie was "very clever" to ask the clerk to consider his conduct in respect of section 5 of the code.Ms Sturgeon said: "I think this whole episode has been very damaging for Mr McLetchie and I'm sure he will be reflecting on it."The MSP had been a partner for Tods Murray which has a client opposing the development.Scottish National Party Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon accused Mr McLetchie of failing to properly serve his constituents.Mr McLetchie had received advice from Holyrood officials about what details he needed to declare.Mr McLetchie received advice from the clerk to the standards committee after concern over him signing a parliamentary motion questioning expansion plans for Edinburgh Airport.Mr McLetchie did not have a complaint made against him, but when concerns were raised he sought guidance from the standards committee to clarify his position.David McLetchie has resigned from his post as a partner in a legal firm following criticism over his dual role.

UK troops on Ivory Coast standbyDowning Street has confirmed British troops are on standby in case they need to help evacuate several hundred UK citizens from Ivory Coast.The news came as it emerged France had begun evacuating its hostages after days of anti-French demonstrations. Trouble flared after nine French peacekeepers were killed and President Jacques Chirac ordered the destruction of the Ivory Coast's air force. A company of 100-120 UK troops is understood to have been put on standby. They are ready to fly out and secure the route from the embassy to the airport if called upon. Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "There are British nationals in Ivory Coast and as you can imagine we are making the usual contingency plans in case the situation deteriorates further, but that's all I can say at this stage."He added the situation would be monitored carefully in case evacuation became necessary. France has played a lead role in international peacekeeping in Ivory Coast - a former colony - after President Laurent Gbagbo broke an 18-month ceasefire with rebels bombing their positions and killing the nine French soldiers. The decision to destroy the African nation's small air force prompted riots against French and other foreign nationals. The Spanish have already put their forces on standby to evacuate their nationals if necessary.

Downing Street has confirmed British troops are on standby in case they need to help evacuate several hundred UK citizens from Ivory Coast.The Spanish have already put their forces on standby to evacuate their nationals if necessary.Trouble flared after nine French peacekeepers were killed and President Jacques Chirac ordered the destruction of the Ivory Coast's air force.France has played a lead role in international peacekeeping in Ivory Coast - a former colony - after President Laurent Gbagbo broke an 18-month ceasefire with rebels bombing their positions and killing the nine French soldiers.

Terror suspects face house arrestUK citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism could face house arrest as part of a series of new measures outlined by the home secretary.It comes after law lords ruled that the detention of 12 foreign terror suspects without trial breached human rights. Charles Clarke's planned "control orders" mean anyone suspected of being involved in terrorism could be subject to house arrest, curfews or tagging. The Law Society dubbed Mr Clarke's new proposals an "abuse of power". Deals are already being sought to deport some of the foreign detainees who are mainly held in Belmarsh Prison in London under the current laws introduced after the US terror attacks on 11 September 2001. Mr Clarke said efforts would continue to deport them to their countries of origin Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan without them facing torture or death.Under the proposed changes - prompted by the House of Lords ruling - the home secretary could order British citizens or foreign suspects who could not be deported, to face house arrest or other measures such as restrictions on their movements or limits on their use of telephones and the internet.British citizens are being included in the changes after the law lords said the current powers were discriminatory because they could only be used on foreign suspects. Mr Clarke also said intelligence reports showed some British nationals were now playing a more significant role in terror threats. Human rights lawyer Clive Stafford-Smith said the plans were a "further abuse of human rights in Britain".Mr Clarke said prosecutions were the government's first preference and promised the powers would only be used in "serious" cases, with independent scrutiny from judges.He told MPs: "There remains a public emergency threatening the life of the nation." He accepted the law lords' ruling but argued detention powers had helped prevent attacks and deter terrorists. The current detainees would not be freed until the new powers were in place as they were still considered a national security threat, he told MPs.There have been calls for the rules for wire-tap and intercept evidence to be allowed to be used in courts but Mr Clarke refused to back that change.He said intercept evidence was only a small part of the case against the men and some of it could not be used because it could put sources' lives at risk. Most of the terror suspects are being held indefinitely at Belmarsh prison, in London. Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis was worried about extending special powers to cover British citizens. He warned: "Throughout history, internment has generally backfired because of the resentment it creates. "So unless the process is clearly just, the home secretary could find himself confining one known terrorist only to recruit 10 unknown terrorists." He suggested changing the law to let security-cleared judges view evidence gathered by phone-tapping could allow more terror cases to come to court.Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten also backed use of wire-tap evidence. He said the standard of proof for the new powers would have to be "very high indeed" and he asked whether ministers had looked at measures which fitted with human rights laws. Shami Chakrabarti, from human rights group Liberty, joined calls for intercept evidence to be allowed in trials. She said: "Adherence to the rule of law should not be a game of cat and mouse. The government should not swap one human rights 'opt out' for another."

British citizens are being included in the changes after the law lords said the current powers were discriminatory because they could only be used on foreign suspects.He said intercept evidence was only a small part of the case against the men and some of it could not be used because it could put sources' lives at risk.Under the proposed changes - prompted by the House of Lords ruling - the home secretary could order British citizens or foreign suspects who could not be deported, to face house arrest or other measures such as restrictions on their movements or limits on their use of telephones and the internet.He said the standard of proof for the new powers would have to be "very high indeed" and he asked whether ministers had looked at measures which fitted with human rights laws.The Law Society dubbed Mr Clarke's new proposals an "abuse of power".It comes after law lords ruled that the detention of 12 foreign terror suspects without trial breached human rights.UK citizens suspected of involvement in terrorism could face house arrest as part of a series of new measures outlined by the home secretary.There have been calls for the rules for wire-tap and intercept evidence to be allowed to be used in courts but Mr Clarke refused to back that change.Mr Clarke said prosecutions were the government's first preference and promised the powers would only be used in "serious" cases, with independent scrutiny from judges.He suggested changing the law to let security-cleared judges view evidence gathered by phone-tapping could allow more terror cases to come to court.Mr Clarke also said intelligence reports showed some British nationals were now playing a more significant role in terror threats.

Guantanamo four questionedThe four Britons freed from US custody in Guantanamo Bay are expected to be allowed a visit by one relative.Moazzam Begg, Martin Mubanga, Feroz Abbasi and Richard Belmar were held for three years, accused of al-Qaeda links. Mr Begg's father, Azmat, said he had been told he could see his son for 20 minutes and would say he was "a hero". The men are being held at London's Paddington Green police station, where they are expected to be questioned by UK anti-terror officers. But Louise Christian, the lawyer representing Mr Abbasi and Mr Mubanga, said the families would be reunited with the men away from the station. Before being driven by police from Birmingham to London, Azmat Begg said he was concerned for his son Moazzam's mental state and was looking forward to giving him a hug. As Azmat Begg arrived at the London police station, there appeared to be some confusion as to the visiting arrangements. Police have said they have a duty to investigate the men, who were arrested on their return to the UK. But Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens said evidence obtained by MI5 while the four were in Cuba was "absolutely" inadmissible in UK courts. In an interview with the Independent, Sir John said his officers would have to find other evidence before the suspects could be tried in the UK.He told the newspaper: "If an admission is made, it is a totally different ball game... it could be used as evidence. "The options are: if there is enough evidence they will be charged. If not they will be released as soon as possible." The men have been allowed to meet their lawyers. Louise Christian said that after being "tortured and abused" at Guantanamo Bay, the men's arrest was unfair and inappropriate. She told BBC News she remained very concerned about their psychological state. Gareth Peirce, lawyer for Mr Begg, said she was shocked at the condition of the men and appalled that the authorities felt the need to detain them. Washington has claimed all four were "enemy combatants" who trained at camps run by al-Qaeda. The Pentagon says they were freed after the UK government promised they would not be a threat to the national security of the US or any of its allies.The detainees were immediately arrested under Section 41 of the Terrorism Act 2000 when they landed at RAF Northolt, west London, on Tuesday. Massoud Shadjareh, from the Muslim Safety Forum, said: "What sort of homecoming is this? They are innocent people." The Muslim Council of Britain urged that the men should receive counselling and medical help. "We want these men to be returned into the arms of their waiting family," said Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the council.

Police have said they have a duty to investigate the men, who were arrested on their return to the UK.But Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens said evidence obtained by MI5 while the four were in Cuba was "absolutely" inadmissible in UK courts.But Louise Christian, the lawyer representing Mr Abbasi and Mr Mubanga, said the families would be reunited with the men away from the station.Before being driven by police from Birmingham to London, Azmat Begg said he was concerned for his son Moazzam's mental state and was looking forward to giving him a hug.Mr Begg's father, Azmat, said he had been told he could see his son for 20 minutes and would say he was "a hero".Gareth Peirce, lawyer for Mr Begg, said she was shocked at the condition of the men and appalled that the authorities felt the need to detain them.In an interview with the Independent, Sir John said his officers would have to find other evidence before the suspects could be tried in the UK.The men are being held at London's Paddington Green police station, where they are expected to be questioned by UK anti-terror officers."We want these men to be returned into the arms of their waiting family," said Iqbal Sacranie, secretary general of the council.Louise Christian said that after being "tortured and abused" at Guantanamo Bay, the men's arrest was unfair and inappropriate.

Howard denies split over ID cardsMichael Howard has denied his shadow cabinet was split over its decision to back controversial Labour plans to introduce ID cards.The Tory leader said his front bench team had reached a "collective view" after holding a "good discussion", but admitted it was "not an easy issue". He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration. The Lib Dems have pledged to oppose the bill when it is debated next Monday.Tory sources say senior party figures had argued vociferously against the ID card scheme. Among those reported to have serious reservations over the strategy were senior shadow cabinet members David Davis, Oliver Letwin and Tim Yeo. But Mr Howard denied Mr Yeo, his transport and environment spokesman, said the plans "stink". He also said he was confident shadow home secretary Mr Davis would "set out the position very clearly" when he stands up to debate the matter next week. Mr Howard said the police had said ID cards could "help them foil a terror bomb plot in which people could lose their lives". He added: "When the police say that you have to take them seriously".He acknowledged there were "good libertarian arguments" against the cards, but said the shadow Cabinet had weighed up all the "conflicting interests" before reaching its decision. "I don't pretend that it is an easy decision but at the end of the day a decision has to be taken." He also denied he was afraid of looking "soft" on the issue, compared to Labour. The Conservatives announced their support for the government plans on Monday evening.Sources within the party told the BBC Mr Howard had always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. But the Tories insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would be able to deliver them. And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected. "It is important to remember that this bill will take a decade to come into full effect," a spokesman said. Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten has branded the ID scheme a waste of money and "deeply flawed". He said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards."The chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC warned there was a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained." Tory ex-minister Douglas Hogg said he opposed the plans for ID cards branding them a "regressive" step which would intrude into the lives of ordinary citizens without any counterbalancing benefits. He predicted ultimately carrying the cards would become compulsory and that would lead to large numbers of Britain's ethnic minorities being stopped by police.

Michael Howard has denied his shadow cabinet was split over its decision to back controversial Labour plans to introduce ID cards.Mr Howard said the police had said ID cards could "help them foil a terror bomb plot in which people could lose their lives".He said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards."He also said he was confident shadow home secretary Mr Davis would "set out the position very clearly" when he stands up to debate the matter next week.He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration.Tory ex-minister Douglas Hogg said he opposed the plans for ID cards branding them a "regressive" step which would intrude into the lives of ordinary citizens without any counterbalancing benefits.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would be able to deliver them.But Mr Howard denied Mr Yeo, his transport and environment spokesman, said the plans "stink".Sources within the party told the BBC Mr Howard had always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary.If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected.

Child access law shake-up plannedParents who refuse to allow former partners contact with their children could be electronically tagged under plans being considered by ministers.Curfews and community service orders were other options which could be used if court orders to allow parental access were defied, Lord Falconer said. The constitutional affairs secretary outlined some of the plans on Tuesday. He denied fathers' activists had forced the changes, telling the BBC "there is a recognition that something is wrong". Between 15,000 and 20,000 couples go to court to resolve access disputes each year, although in nine out of 10 separations there is no court intervention.Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he hoped voluntary mediation could help solve disputes before they reached court. But he opposed compulsory mediation, saying that it would lead to many people taking part with the wrong attitude. Other plans include:- Parenting plans to give advice on access arrangements, based on real-life examples that have worked in the past - Extending in-court conciliation - more informal hearings before contested court cases - Better access to legal, emotional and practical advice by telephone and internet - Legal aid changes to give incentives for early resolution of disputes.Judges can already jail parents who breach contact orders but that was a "nuclear option" which was rarely used as it was not seen as being in the child's interests, a spokesman said. The aim of the new legislation was to provide a "medium range" of penalties, such as fines, community service orders, compulsory anger management or parenting classes or curfews.Failure to comply with these measures could result in offenders being electronically tagged. On the possibility of tagging uncooperative parents, Lord Falconer said: "Tagging may be going too far, but let's have a debate about that." Full details of the new powers will not be revealed until a bill is published "in the next two weeks," a spokesman said.The government's proposals have met with disapproval from fathers' rights groups. John Ison, from the controversial group Fathers 4 Justice, said: "It is very disappointing. What we have got is a cynical case of recycling existing legislation." Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the new proposals "lacked compulsion"."We would like to see couples develop a plan and then have it as a source of a court order - then you know where you stand, you know what the minimum access is. "Otherwise, you see people make agreements which then fall apart." Mr Parton said he had been told by Children's Minister Margaret Hodge there was not enough time to pass the bill through parliament before the general election, which is likely to take place in May.The Conservatives have called for an equal split between parents on access to be made law. Theresa May, shadow secretary for the family, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the government's plans were "inadequate" and were "papering over the cracks of the current system". She said a Conservative government would bring a "radical reform" of the family courts, as well as enforcing a "legal presumption of co-parenting and compulsory mediation". "We want to make courts the last resort, rather than the first resort," she added. The government says children cannot simply be divided up "like property" when a marriage collapses. The Liberal Democrats have argued for flexibility in deciding access rules, rather than having "rigid targets".

Curfews and community service orders were other options which could be used if court orders to allow parental access were defied, Lord Falconer said."We would like to see couples develop a plan and then have it as a source of a court order - then you know where you stand, you know what the minimum access is.Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he hoped voluntary mediation could help solve disputes before they reached court.Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the new proposals "lacked compulsion".Other plans include: - Parenting plans to give advice on access arrangements, based on real-life examples that have worked in the past - Extending in-court conciliation - more informal hearings before contested court cases - Better access to legal, emotional and practical advice by telephone and internet - Legal aid changes to give incentives for early resolution of disputes.Between 15,000 and 20,000 couples go to court to resolve access disputes each year, although in nine out of 10 separations there is no court intervention.She said a Conservative government would bring a "radical reform" of the family courts, as well as enforcing a "legal presumption of co-parenting and compulsory mediation".Theresa May, shadow secretary for the family, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the government's plans were "inadequate" and were "papering over the cracks of the current system".Parents who refuse to allow former partners contact with their children could be electronically tagged under plans being considered by ministers.Judges can already jail parents who breach contact orders but that was a "nuclear option" which was rarely used as it was not seen as being in the child's interests, a spokesman said.John Ison, from the controversial group Fathers 4 Justice, said: "It is very disappointing.

Brown hits back in Blair rift rowGordon Brown has criticised a union leader who said conflict between himself and Tony Blair was harming the workings of government.Jonathan Baume, of the top civil servants' union, spoke of "competing agendas" between Mr Brown and Mr Blair. But the chancellor said Mr Baume was never at meetings between himself and the prime minister so could not judge. He said the union leader was trying to block civil service reform which threatened his members' jobs. It suited the purpose of Mr Baume's union, the First Division Association, to suggest there were two agendas battling against each other because the union was trying to resist the planned reforms, Mr Brown told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.Under the plans, unveiled in the Gershon report, some 84,000 civil servants jobs will be axed or changed and the savings ploughed back into frontline services. Mr Brown said: "To be honest I don't think you can rely on his [Mr Baume's] judgement on this matter when it comes to the decisions that the government are making. "Mr Blair and I are making exactly the same decisions on civil service reforms. We are determined to go on with the Gershon reforms." He also said that as Mr Baume was never present at meetings between himself and the prime minister, he was not in a position to judge. On Wednesday, ahead of the Chancellor's pre-Budget report, Mr Baume told BBC News there were sometimes "conflicting and competing agendas for government" between Number 10 and the Treasury.What the chancellor wanted was "not by any means what Alan Milburn and the prime minister want to see", Mr Baume said. "Government departments get their money from the Treasury on the basis of public service agreements they sign up to, but at the same time the prime minister also has an agenda and that's not necessarily the same as the Treasury's and the prime minister is of course a very powerful figure in any government. "He also sends instructions and messages and directions to departments about how he would like each secretary of state and each department to implement a policy agenda. "The problem is that on many occasions these two don't add up and individual cabinet ministers as well as departments have to make sense of this battle." Number 10 said ministers were interested in governing and not a "soap opera" about Mr Blair and Mr Brown. Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "The battle Royal that the top civil servants are now reporting on between the chancellor and Tony Blair is preventing them both from getting on with the business of getting taxpayers value for money."

But the chancellor said Mr Baume was never at meetings between himself and the prime minister so could not judge.He also said that as Mr Baume was never present at meetings between himself and the prime minister, he was not in a position to judge.Number 10 said ministers were interested in governing and not a "soap opera" about Mr Blair and Mr Brown.Jonathan Baume, of the top civil servants' union, spoke of "competing agendas" between Mr Brown and Mr Blair.What the chancellor wanted was "not by any means what Alan Milburn and the prime minister want to see", Mr Baume said.Mr Brown said: "To be honest I don't think you can rely on his [Mr Baume's] judgement on this matter when it comes to the decisions that the government are making."Mr Blair and I are making exactly the same decisions on civil service reforms.

February poll claim 'speculation'Reports that Tony Blair is planning a snap general election for February 2005 have been described as "idle speculation" by Downing Street.A spokesman said he had "no idea" where the reports in the Sunday Times and Sunday Telegraph had come from. The papers suggest ministers believe the government could benefit from a "Baghdad bounce" following successful Iraq elections in January. A British general election was last held in February in 1974. In that election, Edward Heath lost and failed to build a coalition with the Liberals. Harold Wilson took over and increased his majority later in the year in a second electionThe latest speculation suggests the prime minister favours a February poll in order to exploit his current opinion poll lead over Conservative leader Michael Howard. But that strategy could prompt criticism he was seeking to "cut and run" after less then four years of a parliamentary term. The papers report that Alan Milburn, Labour's head of elections strategy, has played a key role in the plan for a February election, which would include a New Year advertising blitz. New Labour's campaign, both newspapers said, would be centred around the slogan "Britain is Working". A Labour Party spokesman said the election date was ultimately a matter for Mr Blair, but he was unaware of anything to suggest it would be in February. Most commentators have been expecting an election on 5 May. The last election was in June 2001.

A British general election was last held in February in 1974.The last election was in June 2001.A Labour Party spokesman said the election date was ultimately a matter for Mr Blair, but he was unaware of anything to suggest it would be in February.The papers report that Alan Milburn, Labour's head of elections strategy, has played a key role in the plan for a February election, which would include a New Year advertising blitz.Most commentators have been expecting an election on 5 May.

Blair 'damaged' by Blunkett rowA majority of voters (68%) believe the prime minister has been damaged by the row over David Blunkett's involvement in a visa application, a poll suggests.But nearly half those surveyed said Mr Blunkett should return to Cabinet if Labour won the next election. Some 63% of respondents in the Sunday Times poll thought his former lover - Kimberly Quinn - acted vindictively and 61% that he had been right to resign. YouGov polled a weighted sample of 1,981 voters online on 16-18 December. Mr Blunkett resigned as Home Secretary on Wednesday after an inquiry uncovered an e-mail showing a visa application by Mrs Quinn's former nanny had been speeded up. Sir Alan Budd's inquiry also found Mr Blunkett's account of events had been wrong. Almost a quarter (21%) of those polled for the Sunday Times said he should return to the Cabinet straight after the election. One in four said he should be back in the Government's top ranks within a year or two while 39% opposed a comeback.Three-quarters said Mr Blunkett was right to go to court for the right to see Mrs Quinn's son - whom he says he fathered - and just 14% voiced sympathy for Mrs Quinn. A total of 53% of those polled said they had sympathy for Mr Blunkett, with 40% saying they did not. Forty-three per cent thought Mr Blunkett had done a good job as home secretary and 17% disagreed. Meantime, 32% said Mr Blair was a good prime minister and 38% disagreed. A majority, 52%, said Chancellor Gordon Brown had done a good job and just 16% disagreed.A second poll for the Independent on Sunday found that support for all political parties remained largely unchanged after the Blunkett controversy. Labour lead the Conservatives by 39% to 34% with the Liberal Democrats on 19%. CommunicateResearch interviewed 401 people before David Blunkett's resignation and 601 afterwards. Some 82% said Mr Blunkett had set a good example by wanting to take responsibility for the child he says is his, but 42% backed his legal action compared to 45% who thought it was unbecoming. Thirty per cent said the affair showed Mr Blunkett could not be trusted as a minister while 63%, disagreed.

A total of 53% of those polled said they had sympathy for Mr Blunkett, with 40% saying they did not.But nearly half those surveyed said Mr Blunkett should return to Cabinet if Labour won the next election.Meantime, 32% said Mr Blair was a good prime minister and 38% disagreed.Thirty per cent said the affair showed Mr Blunkett could not be trusted as a minister while 63%, disagreed.Forty-three per cent thought Mr Blunkett had done a good job as home secretary and 17% disagreed.Some 82% said Mr Blunkett had set a good example by wanting to take responsibility for the child he says is his, but 42% backed his legal action compared to 45% who thought it was unbecoming.Three-quarters said Mr Blunkett was right to go to court for the right to see Mrs Quinn's son - whom he says he fathered - and just 14% voiced sympathy for Mrs Quinn.Almost a quarter (21%) of those polled for the Sunday Times said he should return to the Cabinet straight after the election.

Voters 'don't trust politicians'Eight out of 10 voters do not trust politicians to tell the truth, a new poll conducted for the BBC suggests.And 87% of the 1,000 adults quizzed by ICM for BBC News 24 said politicians did not deliver what they promised. The poll comes after Foreign Secretary Jack Straw predicted trust would be "the key choice" at the next election. Both the Tories and the Lib Dems are keen to emphasise a perceived lack of trust in Tony Blair, following his claims over Iraqi weapons.But according to the BBC poll, 61% said the issue of trust made no difference to whether or not they would vote at the next election, widely expected on 5 May. The poll also looked at what lay behind the lack of trust in politicians. Some 87% said politicians did not keep the promises they made before elections, while 92% said they never gave "a straight answer". Just under three-quarters of respondents (73%) said politicians had shown themselves to be dishonest too often.Mr Straw told activists in Blackburn on Thursday that voters would have to decide at the next election which party "best deserves" their "future trust". "That in the end is the key choice at the next election."He acknowledged that the public had lost faith in Labour, but suggested it could persuade people to "reinvest their trust with us" if the party could overcome Tory attempts to spread cynicism in politics. The Conservatives are keen to highlight the trust issue. During his response to Gordon Brown's Budget statement on Tuesday, Michael Howard compared the chancellor's figures to the prime minister's claims about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.The Lib Dems are also keen to highlight the trust issue, with Charles Kennedy has claiming voters had a "fundamental lack of trust in the prime minister". And the Green Party unveiled a billboard opposite the Palace of Westminster accusing the government of lying over the Iraq war.Former education secretary Estelle Morris told BBC News 24 that there was a "real problem of trust" between the public and the politicians. She said she did not feel her own colleagues could be trusted, but suggested the "three-cornered relationship" between the press, politicians and the public had a hand in the issue. The public was often turned off by sitting on the sidelines in "the battle of words" between the politician and the journalist, she added. Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said the Iraq war had hit trust in politicians hard. "Issues of war and peace, life and death do have a very damaging effect on the credibility of politicians". Martin Bell, who won the Tatton seat from Tory Neil Hamilton on anti-corruption platform, said politicians often failed to see themselves as others did. "We need public figures we trust to tell the truth and who can see themselves as others see them."

But according to the BBC poll, 61% said the issue of trust made no difference to whether or not they would vote at the next election, widely expected on 5 May.Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell said the Iraq war had hit trust in politicians hard.The Lib Dems are also keen to highlight the trust issue, with Charles Kennedy has claiming voters had a "fundamental lack of trust in the prime minister".Eight out of 10 voters do not trust politicians to tell the truth, a new poll conducted for the BBC suggests.The poll comes after Foreign Secretary Jack Straw predicted trust would be "the key choice" at the next election.The Conservatives are keen to highlight the trust issue.Former education secretary Estelle Morris told BBC News 24 that there was a "real problem of trust" between the public and the politicians.The poll also looked at what lay behind the lack of trust in politicians.Mr Straw told activists in Blackburn on Thursday that voters would have to decide at the next election which party "best deserves" their "future trust".

Boothroyd calls for Lords speakerBetty Boothroyd has said the House of Lords needs its own Speaker and that peers should lead the way on reforming the upper chamber.Baroness Boothroyd, who was the first woman to be Commons Speaker, said she believed Tony Blair initiated reforms without a clear outcome in mind. "Now we have to take care of it ourselves and make the best of it," she told the BBC's Breakfast with Frost. In 1999 Labour removed all but 92 of the Lords' 750 hereditary peers. That was billed as the first stage of reform of the institution. The lord chancellor hinted further reforms could be unveiled in the next Labour manifesto."I think we need to look very carefully at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons," Lord Falconer told BBC1's Breakfast With Frost. "How it interacts with the Commons is a very, very important issue. "We need to address the issue in the manifesto, but you will have to wait for when the manifesto comes." The lord chancellor currently has the role of House of Lords speaker. He is also head of the judiciary and a member of the Cabinet as constitutional affairs secretary.Lady Boothroyd said she believed it was unacceptable for the lord chancellor to have the role of Speaker. "I would really like to see a Speaker of the House of Lords," she said. "I don't go for the idea of somebody - a lord chancellor - who is head of the judiciary, a senior Cabinet minister and Speaker of the Lords. "I want somebody there who is going to look after that House and do a job there.

The lord chancellor currently has the role of House of Lords speaker."I don't go for the idea of somebody - a lord chancellor - who is head of the judiciary, a senior Cabinet minister and Speaker of the Lords.Lady Boothroyd said she believed it was unacceptable for the lord chancellor to have the role of Speaker."I think we need to look very carefully at the relationship between the Lords and the Commons," Lord Falconer told BBC1's Breakfast With Frost.Betty Boothroyd has said the House of Lords needs its own Speaker and that peers should lead the way on reforming the upper chamber."I would really like to see a Speaker of the House of Lords," she said.

Minimum wage increased to £5.05The minimum wage will rise in October, benefiting more than 1m people, the government has announced.Adults must be paid at least £5.05 an hour, up from £4.85, while 18 to 21 year olds will be paid £4.25. The recommendations came from the Low Pay Commission which said the number of jobs had continued to grow since the minimum wage was introduced in 1999. Businesses wanted it frozen, warning more rises could damage competitiveness but the unions want a £6 rate.A further increase in the adult rate to £5.35 an hour is provisionally scheduled for October 2006. According to the commission, many businesses had found the last two significant increases in the minimum wage "challenging". "We have therefore recommended only a slight increase above average earnings, and concentrated it in the second year to allow business more time to absorb the impact," said chairman Adair Turner. The government says most of those on the minimum wage are women - with many working in cleaning, catering, shops and hairdressing.Unveiling the latest increase, Mr Blair said he wanted the minimum wage to become a "symbol of decency and fairness". "For too long, poverty pay capped the aspiration and prosperity of far too many hard-working families," he said. "Too often, people were told to make a choice between the indignity of unemployment or the humiliation of poverty pay." Chancellor Gordon Brown and Transport Secretary Alistair Darling promoted the news in Edinburgh, Wales Secretary Peter Hain and Welsh First Minister Rhodri Morgan in Cardiff and Northern Ireland Minister John Spellar in Belfast. The government has not accepted the commission's recommendation that 21-year-olds should be paid at the adult rate, but says it will look again at the rate later on. Mr Brown said: "We want to do nothing that can damage the employment opportunities for young people, particularly young people entering the labour market for the first time." The government has said it will look at tougher action against the small number of employers who consistently refuse to pay the minimum wage.The national minimum wage is currently set at £4.85 per hour for those aged 22 and above, and at £4.10 for those aged 18 to 21. A £3 per hour minimum wage was introduced last October for 16 to 17-year-olds, but apprentices are exempt. The Trade Unions Congress welcomed the increase, but has called for a £6 minimum wage by next year. But the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) called for a "pause year" to assess the impact of the above inflation rise in the minimum wage in October. And David Frost, director of the British Chambers of Commerce, said: "The level of increase each year has increased by rates far outstripping the rates of inflation. "What employers are saying to us now is that it's at a level where it's starting to bite into the competitiveness of companies right across the country."The Liberal Democrats' economics spokesman Vincent Cable said he supported the move to raise the minimum wage. "It's not just good for the workers themselves but it lifts them out of benefits and therefore is good for the Exchequer too," he said. Conservative leader Michael Howard said he accepted the principle of the minimum wage and would not "seek to disturb" the increase. Speaking on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, Mr Howard hinted the Tories might go into the general election with a promise to cancel income tax for the lowest-paid workers. "There are people on very low salaries, very low incomes indeed who really shouldn't be paying income tax," he said.It would be better to decrease taxes on earnings below £12,000 a year, with say no tax on below £6,000. The losses in tax can be recouped by having a 50pc tax band for people making over £100,000. Our minimum wage is going to be effectively almost twice the US minimum wage, yet our economy per person is only 2/3rds of the US! Perhaps, we have to really starting questioning why some products cost 50-60% more here than they do in the US. This combined with the tax decreases would make the pounds the low-paid people do make go much further.It's still not good enough! I got a part time Job at 16 when I was doing my A-levels in an attempt to get a little money saved for Uni. This was only 2 years ago and I was getting paid £2.75 an hour, and working as hard as any of the older staff, maybe it's about time 16 - 21 year olds got a fair wage!We must remember that the minimum wage is only part of the picture and must not rise to a level that makes employing people unattractive and encourages businesses to send work and therefore jobs abroad. Still government and local councils employ staff via their contractors that pay at the minimum wage or very close to it. An easy way for the government to do as it preaches would be to insist on floor pay levels for all government workers and take tens of thousand of civil servants out of the social security system all together.Any increase is certainly welcome news. However for all those whining about the pressures of an increase in the minimum wage I would simply ask them: "Would you be happy to work for less than £5.05 an hour?". Thought not ... so then, don't expect others to either.I can't believe that so many of these comments are against the minimum wage! Also I personally take great offence at the insinuation that people earning minimum wage were lazy at school if everyone went to university then who would serve you in the supermarkets and clean up after you? It's about time that these hardworking people are rewarded with only what they deserve and have earned fair pay and a bit of respect wouldn't go a miss either. br />This is good news. The minimum wage has put a sense of equality back into a worker's relationship with their employer. Wages are supposed to be a fair reflection of an employee's efforts. For too long wages were a point of exploitation - what could an employer get away with. In very simplistic terms this put a pressure to keep low-paid wages low. With the minimum wage this downward pressure is at least partly removed.It is also interesting to read the comments from so called business leaders. They are the first to defend the rights and privileges of boards to award fat-cat salaries, bonuses and pension rights to the select few but they are the first to attack policies that are put in place to merely defend the rights of those that really make those fat cats purr!I feel there are both negatives and positives to the increase, on one hand some businesses will struggle to stay afloat but on the other hand in today world many young people can't afford to move out as property costs too much and only by earning more will they be able to get on in life. Its true many may get complacent but the minimum wage could be looked at as more of a stepping stone rather than a hand out.Here come the usual whines about how difficult it will be for businesses! We all remember Michael Howard's protestations that the minimum wage would cost a million jobs when it was introduced - funny how he's gone quiet on that one! Jobs have continued to increase since this humane legislation was brought in. I think if any job is worth doing then it's worth being paid a fair wage for, and £5.05 is hardly a fortune. If your business cannot pay its workers a decent wage then maybe it's not being run properly and if it folds, a better-run company will take over its duties and employ more people, so everybody wins except incompetent business owners!Great keep at it Tony, I remember the despair of the 80s and the low wages employers got away with. At last we can make a difference to people and reward them for working. We can't afford not to pay a decent wage. It's not a jobs at any price economy, goodbye sweatshops hello decency.The increase in minimum wage is a good thing. Living in the southwest where house prices and rent have increased hugely (like the rest of the country) over the past 5 years has made living for you average 18-21 years old very difficult. In the south west the increase in living costs have not been matched by an increase in pay, for example a job I did in Plymouth was underpaid to an equivalent worker in Exeter by 75p an hour. Hopefully the increase in the minimum wage will bring in to balance pay on a regional and national level, and in turn allow people like myself who do work hard, but might never earn a 6 figure salary the chance to branch out on our own.I work at a large Hospital where the contractors providing all ancillary services - domestic, catering & portering etc - pay the minimum wage of £4.85 as the basic rate. Someone has to do these unglamorous jobs and earn enough to live decently. How dare people suggest we are lazy or complacent for accepting these jobs and these wages? Who do they think will be carrying out these public service jobs if contractors are allowed to pay as little as their consciences allow?This is definitely the right step in the right direction. It shows that this government cares for the low income earners as well. This is a million votes more. Good strategy isn't it?Although I would not deny people the minimum wage increase, its timing stinks. I am quite prepared for a raft of 'bribes' to come from the government before the election and a raft of taxes afterwards, they are playing us for the fools they think we are.This is extremely bad news for any business - whether they are small and medium enterprises or even large companies. By increasing overheads, for business, there will be an almost certain rise in costs to the consumer who while they openly welcome the idea of an increase in the minimum wage are the same people who still want to buy that shirt, or that pair of trainers for next to nothing. The extra cost this increase will bring, will only be reflected in the price of the goods we buy, which, in turn will only serve to discourage companies from setting-up business in the UK, or encourage those companies already based here to look elsewhere. The jubilation felt by "low-paid" workers here will soon give way to misery as they lose their jobs.This will only lead to a reduction in jobs. Why have many of the call centre jobs gone to India. Blair say's the economy is "strong and stable economy" however consumer debt and the country's debt is at its highest and now they heap this onto businesses, that will have no choice but to cut the workforce.The timing cannot be coincidental. This is blatant electioneering and should be exposed as such.Andrew in Derby complains that raising the minimum wage is 'blatant electioneering'. I don't mind if it is. In our degraded democracy, elections are the one time when elites really have to worry about doing something concrete for the majority. My only complaint is the paltry figures being discussed. If my maths is right, a 35 hour week at £5.05 gives you an annual income just over £9,000 and raising it to £6 leaves it under £11,000. The unions should be putting the Government under pressure for much more. Businesses complaining might like to take a look at corporate pay, shareholder payouts and profits before wondering if paying a living wage is really a controlling factor in the viability of their firm.I am all for lifting the minimum wage of workers to a reasonable level, but we have to accept that with this will come competition from overseas workers. Also small businesses will have to be able to afford this manpower cost. We are already seeing a sweeping change in IT work being lost to India where people are paid much less. It is difficult for me to understand that only five years ago cheap labour abroad was classified as 'sweat shop', but now we are told it is global competition. With our manufacturing industry in serious decline the country cannot be entirely service industries without something tangible to serve. There has to be something at the top of the food chain and that is manufacturing. The whole picture needs to be looked at.This is great news, but that might be because I work for minimum wage. Seems a good idea and will hopefully be an incentive to those who live to claim to actually get a job. When you can "earn" more from claiming than you can from work, there is no incentive. Perhaps a step in the right direction.If the TUC get their way a very large number of SMEs will have to close - this will put more people out of work. How then will the government fudge the unemployment figures! The government know it is not big business that keeps the economy going but the SMEs but we always get overlooked, they will only take notice if these large corporations close and move to other countries, after all they are predominantly owned by foreign companies. We are a specialist company but with these increases have already had an effect on us and we have lost work another one will close us.While I'm delighted for those on low pay that this increase is being put forward, I am extremely concerned at the implications for small businesses. As an employee for a small nursery, I know this increase will cause great hardship for my employer, who has been unable to increase salaries for higher paid employees because of last October's increase for the lower paid employees - who were originally being paid slightly above the minimum but are now on the minimum. This latest increase of 20p an hour will cause even more financial hardship. If the rate rises to £6 then I can foresee many small businesses having to pay off employees.The increase in minimum wage will have a serious effect on my business. Although we pay above the minimum level we will have to increase our pay rates to maintain the differential. The raise is well above inflation and without significant increases in sales, it will mean that I will not be taking on a new member of staff as planned and I will be looking to reduce the total hours worked by the other members of staff, overtime being the first to go.I currently employ 42 staff whose wages mirror the national minimum wage. Increases above inflation are fine but all of my business is conducted with local authorities who will not accept above inflation rises in my service delivery. 80% of my costs are labour. The other aspect that is always hidden is that the thresholds for tax credits do not move in line with these increases so that all that happens is that employees tax credit support is reduced by the amount of the increase, thereby saving the government money but increasing the financial burden on small to medium businessesIt is very good that the government has decided to increase the minimum wage - this should hopefully motivate people to undertake the "lower status" jobs.I know about this great idea - don't bother getting qualifications, laze about at school, no need to do anything other than attend so your parents don't get fined because remember, when you do eventually start working, doesn't matter how lazy you are, you'll be guaranteed a decent wage. The ones who suffer are the employers.I hope that if industry and business have to pay this new rate that Mr Blair and Mr Brown will increase tax allowances and raise national insurance thresholds so that the treasury won't take some of this increase off the people they say they are helping, or is this just another form of stealth tax on business through the back door?I don't believe in the minimum wage at all! I think jobs should create their own wage value and that if people want higher wages they should earn them. Now, before everyone thinks that I am some "rich-kid", I can assure you I am not. I came from a very much working class background and started work 20 years ago on a Youth Opportunity Program earning £25 per week. I worked hard, went to college part time, got my A-levels and degree & bettered myself. I now earn a 6 figure salary. I did that through hard work and getting off my backside. A minimum wage just makes people complacent.To Ashley, of Swindon: when you earned £25 per week, it was worth something. These days that £25 would need to be near to £60 to have the equivalent buying power. I might add, that thanks to successive governments holding down the tax allowance threshold below inflation, people earning the minimum wage are paying taxes that they never would have done 10 years ago at equivalent wages. "In my day" type arguments are a view that belong in the 'your day' - 20 years ago!As a graduate working for minimum wage, I welcome any increase of pay I can get. I disagree with Ashley, Swindon saying I have to work harder to get more pay. I have my GCSE's A-Levels and A degree and have chosen to work for a small business that can't afford the wages I should be getting, I should be on at least 3x what I'm getting but they can't afford it. We all work hard but the money is just not there. But on the plus side I love my job and wouldn't change it just to get more pay.As an employer of staff in several shops the last rise in the minimum wage cost my company an additional £5000 per year. These next rises will cost me more. I have to get the money from somewhere so pass it on to customers. So no one really wins in the end.In answer to Emma from Sleaford regarding no one really wins in the end... on the contrary Mr Blair wins - he wins because he obviously has announced this to be a vote winner and his treasury wins because as an employer you will know that the amount of tax and national insurance that the government will receive from all the minimum wage increases will rise and of course not only will be paying out higher wages but as an employer higher Employer NI Contributions as well. If the minimum wage increases again and if it hits anywhere near the £6.00 mark there will be 12 more people on the employment line and one more small business going bankrupt - namely mine. Think of us employers as well Mr Blair, we are not all big corporations earning millions.All workers should be entitled to a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. How many people on the minimum wage have any hope of obtaining a mortgage or saving towards retirement?It is good news for many Asians living in UK. Students who do odd jobs can increase their income and can help there family in their home country. I thank Mr. Blair and his government for increase in the national minimum wage.

The increase in minimum wage is a good thing.As a graduate working for minimum wage, I welcome any increase of pay I can get.The increase in minimum wage will have a serious effect on my business.A minimum wage just makes people complacent.Although I would not deny people the minimum wage increase, its timing stinks.I thank Mr. Blair and his government for increase in the national minimum wage.The minimum wage will rise in October, benefiting more than 1m people, the government has announced.I don't believe in the minimum wage at all!This is great news, but that might be because I work for minimum wage.Hopefully the increase in the minimum wage will bring in to balance pay on a regional and national level, and in turn allow people like myself who do work hard, but might never earn a 6 figure salary the chance to branch out on our own.The other aspect that is always hidden is that the thresholds for tax credits do not move in line with these increases so that all that happens is that employees tax credit support is reduced by the amount of the increase, thereby saving the government money but increasing the financial burden on small to medium businesses It is very good that the government has decided to increase the minimum wage - this should hopefully motivate people to undertake the "lower status" jobs.I think jobs should create their own wage value and that if people want higher wages they should earn them.The Trade Unions Congress welcomed the increase, but has called for a £6 minimum wage by next year.The government has said it will look at tougher action against the small number of employers who consistently refuse to pay the minimum wage.If the minimum wage increases again and if it hits anywhere near the £6.00 mark there will be 12 more people on the employment line and one more small business going bankrupt - namely mine.I currently employ 42 staff whose wages mirror the national minimum wage.According to the commission, many businesses had found the last two significant increases in the minimum wage "challenging".We must remember that the minimum wage is only part of the picture and must not rise to a level that makes employing people unattractive and encourages businesses to send work and therefore jobs abroad.However for all those whining about the pressures of an increase in the minimum wage I would simply ask them: "Would you be happy to work for less than £5.05 an hour?".I can't believe that so many of these comments are against the minimum wage!As an employer of staff in several shops the last rise in the minimum wage cost my company an additional £5000 per year.Our minimum wage is going to be effectively almost twice the US minimum wage, yet our economy per person is only 2/3rds of the US!By increasing overheads, for business, there will be an almost certain rise in costs to the consumer who while they openly welcome the idea of an increase in the minimum wage are the same people who still want to buy that shirt, or that pair of trainers for next to nothing.The recommendations came from the Low Pay Commission which said the number of jobs had continued to grow since the minimum wage was introduced in 1999.Still government and local councils employ staff via their contractors that pay at the minimum wage or very close to it.I might add, that thanks to successive governments holding down the tax allowance threshold below inflation, people earning the minimum wage are paying taxes that they never would have done 10 years ago at equivalent wages.We all remember Michael Howard's protestations that the minimum wage would cost a million jobs when it was introduced - funny how he's gone quiet on that one!In answer to Emma from Sleaford regarding no one really wins in the end... on the contrary Mr Blair wins - he wins because he obviously has announced this to be a vote winner and his treasury wins because as an employer you will know that the amount of tax and national insurance that the government will receive from all the minimum wage increases will rise and of course not only will be paying out higher wages but as an employer higher Employer NI Contributions as well.Unveiling the latest increase, Mr Blair said he wanted the minimum wage to become a "symbol of decency and fairness".Conservative leader Michael Howard said he accepted the principle of the minimum wage and would not "seek to disturb" the increase.How many people on the minimum wage have any hope of obtaining a mortgage or saving towards retirement?Although we pay above the minimum level we will have to increase our pay rates to maintain the differential.The government says most of those on the minimum wage are women - with many working in cleaning, catering, shops and hairdressing.A £3 per hour minimum wage was introduced last October for 16 to 17-year-olds, but apprentices are exempt.I work at a large Hospital where the contractors providing all ancillary services - domestic, catering & portering etc - pay the minimum wage of £4.85 as the basic rate.Andrew in Derby complains that raising the minimum wage is 'blatant electioneering'.The minimum wage has put a sense of equality back into a worker's relationship with their employer.With the minimum wage this downward pressure is at least partly removed.We can't afford not to pay a decent wage.As an employee for a small nursery, I know this increase will cause great hardship for my employer, who has been unable to increase salaries for higher paid employees because of last October's increase for the lower paid employees - who were originally being paid slightly above the minimum but are now on the minimum.But the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) called for a "pause year" to assess the impact of the above inflation rise in the minimum wage in October.Its true many may get complacent but the minimum wage could be looked at as more of a stepping stone rather than a hand out.I hope that if industry and business have to pay this new rate that Mr Blair and Mr Brown will increase tax allowances and raise national insurance thresholds so that the treasury won't take some of this increase off the people they say they are helping, or is this just another form of stealth tax on business through the back door?This was only 2 years ago and I was getting paid £2.75 an hour, and working as hard as any of the older staff, maybe it's about time 16 - 21 year olds got a fair wage!Also I personally take great offence at the insinuation that people earning minimum wage were lazy at school if everyone went to university then who would serve you in the supermarkets and clean up after you?I am all for lifting the minimum wage of workers to a reasonable level, but we have to accept that with this will come competition from overseas workers.In the south west the increase in living costs have not been matched by an increase in pay, for example a job I did in Plymouth was underpaid to an equivalent worker in Exeter by 75p an hour.The national minimum wage is currently set at £4.85 per hour for those aged 22 and above, and at £4.10 for those aged 18 to 21.If your business cannot pay its workers a decent wage then maybe it's not being run properly and if it folds, a better-run company will take over its duties and employ more people, so everybody wins except incompetent business owners!The Liberal Democrats' economics spokesman Vincent Cable said he supported the move to raise the minimum wage.I think if any job is worth doing then it's worth being paid a fair wage for, and £5.05 is hardly a fortune.I feel there are both negatives and positives to the increase, on one hand some businesses will struggle to stay afloat but on the other hand in today world many young people can't afford to move out as property costs too much and only by earning more will they be able to get on in life.If the rate rises to £6 then I can foresee many small businesses having to pay off employees.For too long wages were a point of exploitation - what could an employer get away with.I have my GCSE's A-Levels and A degree and have chosen to work for a small business that can't afford the wages I should be getting, I should be on at least 3x what I'm getting but they can't afford it.In very simplistic terms this put a pressure to keep low-paid wages low.Great keep at it Tony, I remember the despair of the 80s and the low wages employers got away with.Businesses complaining might like to take a look at corporate pay, shareholder payouts and profits before wondering if paying a living wage is really a controlling factor in the viability of their firm.While I'm delighted for those on low pay that this increase is being put forward, I am extremely concerned at the implications for small businesses.We are a specialist company but with these increases have already had an effect on us and we have lost work another one will close us.

Tsunami debt deal to be announcedChancellor Gordon Brown has said he hopes to announce a deal to suspend debt interest repayments by tsunami-hit nations later on Friday.The agreement by the G8 group of wealthy nations would save affected countries £3bn pounds a year, he said. The deal is thought to have been hammered out on Thursday night after Japan, one of the biggest creditor nations, finally signed up to it. Mr Brown first proposed the idea earlier this week.G8 ministers are also believed to have agreed to instruct the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to complete a country by country analysis of the reconstruction problems faced by all states hit by the disaster. Mr Brown has been locked in talks with finance ministers of the G8, which Britain now chairs. Germany also proposed a freeze and Canada has begun its own moratorium. The expected deal comes as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the number of Britons dead or missing in the disaster have reached 440.

Mr Brown has been locked in talks with finance ministers of the G8, which Britain now chairs.Chancellor Gordon Brown has said he hopes to announce a deal to suspend debt interest repayments by tsunami-hit nations later on Friday.The agreement by the G8 group of wealthy nations would save affected countries £3bn pounds a year, he said.Mr Brown first proposed the idea earlier this week.

Labour's election love-inPeace and love have been in short supply in the Labour party in recent days.If press reports are to be believed, Alan Milburn and Gordon Brown have been at each other's throats over the contents of Labour's next election manifesto. But the pair were all smiles on Tuesday morning, as they joined John Prescott to unveil Labour's latest poster campaign. The event - at Old Billingsgate Fish Market on the banks of the Thames - was a carefully choreographed show of unity. And the surest sign yet that we are heading for a general election in the next few months. It was also one of the most bizarre photo opportunities of recent years.The first inkling something slightly odd was afoot was when - in place of the soft rock music normally chosen for such occasions - Labour's speakers crackled to life with the sound of Booker T and the MGs. Then a VW camper van trundled into view, decked out in that most mind-bending of psychedelic messages - "lowest mortgage rate for 40 years". As the side-door slid open, it looked for one glorious moment as if the Cabinet had decided to bury their differences and go on the road together, Scooby Doo-style. But, sadly, it wasn't the Cabinet who had raided the dressing-up box - just six rather ill-at-ease looking Labour students. Two were dressed as Regency dandies - to unveil a poster trumpeting "the longest period of economic growth for 200 years". Another pair of students were in a Beatle wig and Sgt Pepper jacket to highlight the "lowest interest rates since the 1960s".The remaining two were dressed in a vague approximation of disco chic to demonstrate the "lowest unemployment since the seventies".The politicians - led out by John Prescott - were soberly-suited as always. The event may have been designed to highlight Labour's economic success under Mr Brown, but there was little doubt who was in charge. The chancellor walked side-by-side with Mr Milburn, pointedly exchanging chit chat, as they approached the microphone. But it was Mr Milburn who took centre stage, speaking of the "positive campaign" the party hoped to stage in the "coming weeks and months".The mobile poster vans would "let people know Britain is working again". Mr Brown repeated the familiar mantras displayed on the posters and spoke of Labour's "shared purpose" and "united dedication". It was left to Mr Prescott to pay glowing tribute to the chancellor's record and, in a final flourish, to produce his famous pledge card, from 1997, claiming Labour has met all of its promises. The event was carefully stage-managed to underline Cabinet unity. And, more specifically, to demonstrate the "central role" Mr Brown will play in the election campaign, despite being sidelined as campaign chief in favour of Mr Milburn.But keen students of body language will have had a field day. There was much forced smiling for the cameras, but only Mr Prescott, who revels in such occasions, seemed to be truly enjoying himself. Mr Milburn made a point of turning to face the chancellor, as he spoke, nodding thoughtfully. But it was the former health secretary's final gesture, placing an arm on Mr Brown's back as they walked away from the microphones, which was perhaps the most telling. Thanks for dropping by Gordon, he might have been saying.

The event may have been designed to highlight Labour's economic success under Mr Brown, but there was little doubt who was in charge.But it was Mr Milburn who took centre stage, speaking of the "positive campaign" the party hoped to stage in the "coming weeks and months".And, more specifically, to demonstrate the "central role" Mr Brown will play in the election campaign, despite being sidelined as campaign chief in favour of Mr Milburn.But it was the former health secretary's final gesture, placing an arm on Mr Brown's back as they walked away from the microphones, which was perhaps the most telling.There was much forced smiling for the cameras, but only Mr Prescott, who revels in such occasions, seemed to be truly enjoying himself.The event was carefully stage-managed to underline Cabinet unity.It was left to Mr Prescott to pay glowing tribute to the chancellor's record and, in a final flourish, to produce his famous pledge card, from 1997, claiming Labour has met all of its promises.It was also one of the most bizarre photo opportunities of recent years.Mr Brown repeated the familiar mantras displayed on the posters and spoke of Labour's "shared purpose" and "united dedication".But the pair were all smiles on Tuesday morning, as they joined John Prescott to unveil Labour's latest poster campaign.If press reports are to be believed, Alan Milburn and Gordon Brown have been at each other's throats over the contents of Labour's next election manifesto.

Howard unveils Tory asylum plansTory plans to cut immigration to the UK are not racist and will make the asylum system fairer for genuine refugees, Michael Howard has said.As his party set out detailed asylum reform plans, Mr Howard said they would help smash people smuggling gangs. There would be an annual limit on asylum and all claims would be processed overseas. Some charities say the plans would put refugees' lives at risk if they were turned away once quotas were filled.Tony Blair said Labour would set out workable plans for tackling immigration abuse in the next few weeks and attacked the Tory plans. "By cutting the number of front-line immigration staff at our borders, they will actually make the problem worse," said Mr Blair. Liberal Democrat chairman Matthew Taylor said there needed to be a quick, fair and firm asylum system. But he said it was "absolutely disgusting" to propose a system which could turn away genuine refugees. The Conservatives say there is little risk of this happening as demand for asylum will be considered when quotas are set.In a speech in London on Monday, Mr Howard said: "It's not racist, as some people to claim, to talk about controlling immigration far from it." He said that coming from an immigrant family himself he recognised that "firm but fair" immigration controls were essential for good community relations. - Withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations Convention on refugees, which obliges countries to accept people being persecuted on the basis of need, not numbers - Introduce laws to allow the immediate removal of asylum seekers whose claims were clearly unfounded because they came from safe countries or had destroyed documents - Detain asylum seekers without documents so people whose identity was not known were not able to move freely around the UK - a worry for "national security" - Stop considering asylum applications inside the UK and instead take people from United Nations refugee agency camps. Anyone applying for asylum would be taken to new centres close to their countries of origin. The Tories also want quotas for those seeking work permits through an Australian-style points system and those wanting to join families in the UK.Mr Howard said nearly 160,000 people were settling in the UK every year - the size of a city like Peterborough. The plans would help achieve a "substantial reduction" in immigration, he said, although he could not predict a figure. He said that only two out of 10 asylum seekers had their claims accepted under the current "unfair and inhumane" system."We need to break the link between arriving in Britain and claiming asylum," Mr Howard said. "By breaking that link we can smash the criminal gangs at the heart of the trade in people smuggling."But the UN refugees agency is worried the policy sends the wrong message to poorer countries which receive the bulk of refugees. And a spokesman for European Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini said the plans would contravene EU asylum policy, which meant the UK could not simply refuse to hear an asylum case. Refugee Council Chief Executive Maeve Sherlock called the plans "dangerous, ill thought-out and hugely irresponsible". Lives could be put at risk if refugees were turned away once the quotas were filled, she warned. Commission for Racial Equality chairman Trevor Phillips said asylum applications were down 40% and economic migration down about 10%.He did not think Mr Howard intended to centre the debate about race. But he warned that some campaigners could use his words to hint the policy was about keeping out people of a different colour or culture. Mr Howard called that suggestion "disgraceful".

As his party set out detailed asylum reform plans, Mr Howard said they would help smash people smuggling gangs.Tory plans to cut immigration to the UK are not racist and will make the asylum system fairer for genuine refugees, Michael Howard has said."We need to break the link between arriving in Britain and claiming asylum," Mr Howard said.And a spokesman for European Justice and Home Affairs Commissioner Franco Frattini said the plans would contravene EU asylum policy, which meant the UK could not simply refuse to hear an asylum case.In a speech in London on Monday, Mr Howard said: "It's not racist, as some people to claim, to talk about controlling immigration far from it."The plans would help achieve a "substantial reduction" in immigration, he said, although he could not predict a figure.Mr Howard said nearly 160,000 people were settling in the UK every year - the size of a city like Peterborough.He said that only two out of 10 asylum seekers had their claims accepted under the current "unfair and inhumane" system.Liberal Democrat chairman Matthew Taylor said there needed to be a quick, fair and firm asylum system.But he said it was "absolutely disgusting" to propose a system which could turn away genuine refugees.- Withdrawing from the 1951 United Nations Convention on refugees, which obliges countries to accept people being persecuted on the basis of need, not numbers - Introduce laws to allow the immediate removal of asylum seekers whose claims were clearly unfounded because they came from safe countries or had destroyed documents - Detain asylum seekers without documents so people whose identity was not known were not able to move freely around the UK - a worry for "national security" - Stop considering asylum applications inside the UK and instead take people from United Nations refugee agency camps.

Parties' plans for council taxAnger at council tax rises spilled over into mass protests in 2003, when the average English bill rose 12.9%.Pensioners' protests spread - some marched, others simply refused to pay the increase. Some, such as 83-year-old Elizabeth Winkfield, said they would rather go to jail. The Audit Commission found the whole local government finance system was "fundamentally flawed" and all three of the main parties have said the system has to change.Labour says it wants to retain the property-based tax but reform it to make it fairer and says there is scope for councils to become more efficient. They say they are already helping pensioners with council tax bills, with a £100 lump sum for the over-70s and last year the government capped some local councils' budgets to keep demands down. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott has said the current system is not sustainable in the long term and said there would be "radical reform". The party says this year's increases will be the lowest in a decade. A report last year looked at increasing the number of council tax bands and other forms of local taxation, such as reformed business rates, although no decisions have been made. An independent inquiry into its findings, the Lyons review, is due to report back at the end of 2005.The Tories have promised a reduction on bills for pensioners, who they say have been hardest hit by year-on-year increases in council tax. They say they can save £4bn on "government waste", of which £1.3bn could be used to cut pensioners' bills by an average of £340. It would not be means tested, say the Tories, because that would create more bureaucracy and could discourage people from saving for their retirement. Instead households where council tax payers are over 65 would get a rebate covering half their bill, up to a maximum of £500. The Tories also say they are suspicious about any proposals to revalue homes - currently graded according to their value in 1991 - because they believe seven million of homes could move up a band.The Liberal Democrats want to do away with the council tax altogether and switch to a local income tax of the kind seen in the USA, Norway and Switzerland. The rate would be set locally, but administered by the Inland Revenue which they say would save at least £300m. They say the council tax is the most unpopular and most unfair tax in Britain, because it puts a "ceiling" on what the richest pay. The party says it would aim for a £5,000 tax-free personal allowance, or a £7,000 allowance for the over-65s. After that income would be taxed up to £100,000. The Lib Dems say their plan is fairer, more efficient, has already been tested abroad and offers more accountability.

The Tories have promised a reduction on bills for pensioners, who they say have been hardest hit by year-on-year increases in council tax.Labour says it wants to retain the property-based tax but reform it to make it fairer and says there is scope for councils to become more efficient.They say the council tax is the most unpopular and most unfair tax in Britain, because it puts a "ceiling" on what the richest pay.It would not be means tested, say the Tories, because that would create more bureaucracy and could discourage people from saving for their retirement.They say they are already helping pensioners with council tax bills, with a £100 lump sum for the over-70s and last year the government capped some local councils' budgets to keep demands down.The rate would be set locally, but administered by the Inland Revenue which they say would save at least £300m.Instead households where council tax payers are over 65 would get a rebate covering half their bill, up to a maximum of £500.The party says it would aim for a £5,000 tax-free personal allowance, or a £7,000 allowance for the over-65s.The Liberal Democrats want to do away with the council tax altogether and switch to a local income tax of the kind seen in the USA, Norway and Switzerland.

E-University 'disgraceful waste'A failed government scheme to offer UK university courses online has been branded a "disgraceful waste" by MPs.The e-University was scrapped last year, having attracted only 900 students at a cost of £50m. Chief executive John Beaumont was paid a bonus of £44,914, despite a failure to bring in private sector backers. The Commons education select committee called this "morally indefensible" but the government said the e-University project had "improved understanding".A Department for Education and Skills spokeswoman said the venture had been "ambitious and ground-breaking, but take-up had not been "sufficient to continue with the project". She added: "UK e-Universities was not the only organisation to have lost out on private sector investment in the collapse of the dotcom boom." The select committee found that those responsible for founding the e-University in 2000 had been caught up in the "general atmosphere of enthusiasm" surrounding the internet. Initial business plans forecast a quarter of a million students joining within a decade, bringing in at least £110m in profit.But virtually no market research was carried out and just £4.2m was spent on worldwide sales and marketing of courses. Some £14m went on developing the technology to make the e-University work. This was used by just 200 students, the rest preferring to work through existing university websites. With no significant private investors and no direct accountability to a government minister, the e-University had had "too much freedom to spend public money as it wished", the report found. Committee chairman Barry Sheerman said: "UK e-University was a terrible waste of public money. "The senior executives failed to interest any private investors and showed an extraordinary over-confidence in their ability to attract students to the scheme." The report warns that the government should not be scared off investment in innovative but potentially risky schemes by the failure of the e-University, but "should learn the lessons from this disaster".

Committee chairman Barry Sheerman said: "UK e-University was a terrible waste of public money.The e-University was scrapped last year, having attracted only 900 students at a cost of £50m.The Commons education select committee called this "morally indefensible" but the government said the e-University project had "improved understanding".With no significant private investors and no direct accountability to a government minister, the e-University had had "too much freedom to spend public money as it wished", the report found.The report warns that the government should not be scared off investment in innovative but potentially risky schemes by the failure of the e-University, but "should learn the lessons from this disaster".She added: "UK e-Universities was not the only organisation to have lost out on private sector investment in the collapse of the dotcom boom."

Security papers 'found in street'An inquiry is under way after files containing security details about the Pakistani president's visit to London were found by a member of the public.The files are believed to contain detailed security arrangements for Gen Pervez Musharraf's visit this week, including police codes. Scotland Yard said the policing operation had been reviewed. A spokesman said President Musharraf's safety had not been compromised, as the papers had been handed in promptly. "We cannot discuss who was responsible for the documents, only that they contained the policing arrangements for the official visit," said the spokesman.The papers are believed to have been found by a member of the public in a street in Mayfair and given to the Mirror newspaper. The police spokesman said the newspaper handed the report over on Monday. The force's Directorate of Professional Standards is investigating the circumstances surrounding the loss of the documents, he said. Gen Musharraf held talks with Tony Blair on Monday. He arrived in Britain on Sunday night after flying from the United States, where he met President George W Bush. He is due to visit the Pakistani community in Manchester on Tuesday afternoon.

The police spokesman said the newspaper handed the report over on Monday."We cannot discuss who was responsible for the documents, only that they contained the policing arrangements for the official visit," said the spokesman.A spokesman said President Musharraf's safety had not been compromised, as the papers had been handed in promptly.The files are believed to contain detailed security arrangements for Gen Pervez Musharraf's visit this week, including police codes.An inquiry is under way after files containing security details about the Pakistani president's visit to London were found by a member of the public.

Goldsmith: 'I was not leant on'The attorney general has again denied being "leant on" by Downing Street to make the legal case for invading Iraq.Claims a written answer on the legality of the war was drafted by Downing Street were "wholly unfounded," he insisted during stormy Lords exchanges. Lord Goldsmith said the answer represented his "genuinely held independent view" the war was legal. The text was released on the eve of a crucial Commons vote in which MPs backed the invasion of Iraq. Many Labour MPs have since indicated that the attorney general's answer played a pivotal role in their willingness to back the conflict. The government has resisted calls to publish the full advice, saying such papers are always kept confidential. In the House of Lords, the attorney general faced a call by former Tory lord chancellor Lord Mackay to now publish the "full text" of the advice - the suggestion was rejected. Another peer meanwhile, Lord Skidelsky, said not to publish the full legal opinion would "strengthen the suspicion that the the original text was doctored for public consumption, in exactly the same way as the notorious intelligence dossier on weapons of mass destruction".Last week Lord Goldsmith said in a statement: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer." He said the answer had been prepared in his office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials, a QC, Christopher Greenwood and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. "No other minister or official was involved in any way." "As I have always made clear, I set out in the answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing (UN) Security Council resolutions," he said. "The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government." Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said Lord Goldsmith's admission that his parliamentary answer was not a summary of his legal opinion suggested Parliament may have been misled. "The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said. "What is clear from his statement today is that he does not believe that it was a full, accurate summary of his formal opinion."Tony Blair has dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion. "That's what he [Lord Goldsmith] said and that's what I say. He has dealt with this time and time and time again," Mr Blair told his monthly news conference in Downing Street. He refused to answer further questions on the issue. On the question of whether such papers have always been kept confidential, Tory MP Michael Mates, who is a member of the Commons intelligence and security committee and was part of the Butler inquiry, told the BBC: "That, as a general rule, is right, but it's not an absolute rule." He said there had been other occasions when advice had been published, most recently regarding Prince Charles's marriage plans. The government could not pick and choose when to use the convention, he said. Mr Mates added: "This may be one of those special occasions... when it would be in the public interest to see the advice which the attorney general gave to the prime minister." A book published by Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers says Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair on 7 March 2003 that the Iraq war could be illegal without a second UN resolution sanctioning military action. A short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action - did not suggest this.

Lord Goldsmith said the answer represented his "genuinely held independent view" the war was legal.Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said Lord Goldsmith's admission that his parliamentary answer was not a summary of his legal opinion suggested Parliament may have been misled."The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said.Last week Lord Goldsmith said in a statement: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer."In the House of Lords, the attorney general faced a call by former Tory lord chancellor Lord Mackay to now publish the "full text" of the advice - the suggestion was rejected.Tony Blair has dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion."The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government.""As I have always made clear, I set out in the answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing (UN) Security Council resolutions," he said.Another peer meanwhile, Lord Skidelsky, said not to publish the full legal opinion would "strengthen the suspicion that the the original text was doctored for public consumption, in exactly the same way as the notorious intelligence dossier on weapons of mass destruction".A short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action - did not suggest this.He said the answer had been prepared in his office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials, a QC, Christopher Greenwood and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

Election 'could be terror target'Terrorists might try to target the UK in the run-up to the election, London's most senior police officer has said.Sir Ian Blair said terror groups would remember the effect of the Madrid bomb on Spain's general election last year. Other potential targets were the royal wedding and the UK's presidency of the European Union and G8, he said. He refused to say if there was specific information about the risk of a pre-poll attack. No 10 was similarly cautious but said the threat was real.The comments come after Tony Blair defended his controversial anti-terror proposals, warning that it would be wrong to wait for an attack before acting. Sir Ian told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority it would be "unwise" to speculate about whether there was specific information about risks of a pre-election attack. But he said: "Terrorists have long memories. They understand what happened in Madrid and know what the impact of that was on the Spanish electorate."This year we are responsible for the EU presidency, presidency of the G8, a royal wedding and a general election. "There are obvious and enormous targets which we have to deal with." Sir Ian said the debate over anti-terror plans was one for politicians, not the police, who would enforce any new powers.Home Secretary Charles Clarke has also warned that a Madrid-style pre-election bombing could happen in the UK too. Asked about Sir Ian's comments, the prime minister's official spokesman said: "We believe the threat is real." The spokesman declined to comment on whether the security services had received specific intelligence relating to a possible attack during the election campaign. He said No 10 did not disclose any security advice they received. Earlier, writing in the Daily Telegraph, the prime minister conceded that plans to detain suspects under house arrest without trial were "difficult issues for any government". The Commons has approved the measures despite considerable opposition, with the government's majority more than halved as 32 Labour rebels joined Tory and Lib Dem opposition. But Mr Blair insisted: "There is no greater civil liberty than to live free from terrorist attack."Tory leader Michael Howard has accused Mr Blair of steamrolling the house arrest plans and of "using national security for political point scoring". Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy says that the plan is a further example of Labour's "authoritarian" response to crises. The Prevention of Terrorism Bill proposes "control orders", which as well as house arrest could impose curfews, tagging or bans on telephone and internet use. They would replace current powers to detain foreign terror suspects without trial, which the law lords have ruled against. But critics are concerned that it would be the home secretary and not judges who decided to impose control orders. The plans face further Commons scrutiny on Monday before passing to the Lords.

Sir Ian said the debate over anti-terror plans was one for politicians, not the police, who would enforce any new powers.Sir Ian Blair said terror groups would remember the effect of the Madrid bomb on Spain's general election last year.Sir Ian told a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority it would be "unwise" to speculate about whether there was specific information about risks of a pre-election attack.Terrorists might try to target the UK in the run-up to the election, London's most senior police officer has said.No 10 was similarly cautious but said the threat was real.Other potential targets were the royal wedding and the UK's presidency of the European Union and G8, he said.Tory leader Michael Howard has accused Mr Blair of steamrolling the house arrest plans and of "using national security for political point scoring".He refused to say if there was specific information about the risk of a pre-poll attack.He said No 10 did not disclose any security advice they received.Asked about Sir Ian's comments, the prime minister's official spokesman said: "We believe the threat is real."

No election TV debate, says BlairTony Blair has said he will not take part in a TV debate with his political rivals ahead of the next election."We answer this every election campaign and, for the reasons I have given before, the answer is no," he said at his monthly news conference. In October Tory leader Michael Howard said Mr Blair would be running scared if he refused calls to go head-to-head. In recent years the leader of the opposition has always called for a debate, although it has never happened. Before the 2001 election, plans for a debate between Mr Blair, William Hague and Charles Kennedy collapsed. In 1997 a debate between Mr Blair and John Major was also cancelled when a format could not be agreed. Televised debates have become the high point of the US presidential election campaigns.

Tony Blair has said he will not take part in a TV debate with his political rivals ahead of the next election.Before the 2001 election, plans for a debate between Mr Blair, William Hague and Charles Kennedy collapsed.In 1997 a debate between Mr Blair and John Major was also cancelled when a format could not be agreed.

UK firms 'embracing e-commerce'UK firms are embracing internet trading opportunities as never before, e-commerce minister Mike O'Brien says.A government-commissioned study ranked the UK third in its world index of use of information and communication technology (ICT). The report suggests 69% of UK firms are now using broadband and that 30% of micro businesses are trading online. Mr O'Brien said UK businesses were sprinting forward in ICT use, but that there were more challenges ahead. The report, carried out independently by consultants Booz Allen Hamilton and HI Europe, placed the UK third behind Sweden and Ireland for business use of ICT.It showed British business brought greater maturity to their ICT use, by using broadband in increased numbers, bringing ICT into their business plans and using new technologies such as voice activated programmes and desktop video conferences. Mr O'Brien said: "The increase in the proportion of business connected by broadband shows that UK companies are embracing the opportunities that ICT can bring. "It is particularly encouraging to see that small businesses are beginning to narrow the digital divide that appeared to have opened up in recent years." The government would play its part in "cultivating an environment where information and communication technologies can flourish", Mr O'Brien said. The "clear message" the report sends is that effective use of ICT can bring real improvements in business performance for all business."However, we are not at the finishing line yet and many challenges remain if the UK is to reach its aim of becoming a world-leading e-economy," he added. The International Benchmarking Study was based on 8,000 telephone interviews with businesses, of which more than 2,700 were UK businesses. It is the eighth in a series of examining the adoption and deployment of ICT in the world's most industrialised nations.

Mr O'Brien said UK businesses were sprinting forward in ICT use, but that there were more challenges ahead.Mr O'Brien said: "The increase in the proportion of business connected by broadband shows that UK companies are embracing the opportunities that ICT can bring.A government-commissioned study ranked the UK third in its world index of use of information and communication technology (ICT).The report suggests 69% of UK firms are now using broadband and that 30% of micro businesses are trading online.The report, carried out independently by consultants Booz Allen Hamilton and HI Europe, placed the UK third behind Sweden and Ireland for business use of ICT.The "clear message" the report sends is that effective use of ICT can bring real improvements in business performance for all business.

'Last chance' warning for votersPeople in England, Scotland and Wales must have registered by 1700 GMT to be able to vote in the general election if it is held, as expected, on 5 May.Those who filled in forms last autumn should already be on the register - but those who have moved house or were on holiday may have been left off. There will also be elections for local councils and mayors in parts of England on 5 May. The deadline for voters to register in Northern Ireland expired on Thursday.Completed registration forms can be handed into local authorities throughout the day on Friday, and some will accept them by fax. As well as for English county councils, polls for unitary authorities at Bristol, Isle of Wight and Stockton-on-Tees and mayors at Doncaster, Hartlepool, North Tyneside and Stoke-on-Trent are also scheduled for 5 May. Last week Preston City Council reported that more than 14,000 of its voters were not registered. Its electoral roll fell by 17.5% in a year - the biggest dip in the UK. An Electoral Commission spokeswoman said: "Political decisions are made on your behalf every day but only by using your right to vote at an election can you really have a say on the issues you care about. "If you want your voice to be heard on 5 May you will need to have registered by Friday 11 March." Council tax payers are not eligible to vote without registration, officials have stressed.

There will also be elections for local councils and mayors in parts of England on 5 May.People in England, Scotland and Wales must have registered by 1700 GMT to be able to vote in the general election if it is held, as expected, on 5 May.Last week Preston City Council reported that more than 14,000 of its voters were not registered."If you want your voice to be heard on 5 May you will need to have registered by Friday 11 March."Those who filled in forms last autumn should already be on the register - but those who have moved house or were on holiday may have been left off.

Teens 'know little' of politicsTeenagers questioned for a survey have shown little interest in politics - and have little knowledge.Only a quarter of 14-16 year olds knew that Labour was the government, the Tories were the official Opposition and the Lib Dems were the third party. Almost all could identify Tony Blair, but only one in six knew who Michael Howard was, and just one in 10 recognised Charles Kennedy. The ICM survey interviewed 110 pupils for education watchdog Ofsted. Nearly half those pupils polled said it was not important for them to know more about what the political parties stand for. And 4% of those questioned thought the Conservatives were in power - while 2% of them believed the Lib Dems were. The survey also looked at issues of nationality. It found the Union flag and fish and chips topped the list of symbols and foods associated with being British. Many of the pupils also looked on themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh, rather than British; while the notion of being European hardly occurred to anyone.

The survey also looked at issues of nationality.Many of the pupils also looked on themselves as English, Scottish or Welsh, rather than British; while the notion of being European hardly occurred to anyone.Only a quarter of 14-16 year olds knew that Labour was the government, the Tories were the official Opposition and the Lib Dems were the third party.The ICM survey interviewed 110 pupils for education watchdog Ofsted.

Blair 'pressing US on climate'Tony Blair is pressing the US to cut greenhouse gases despite its unwillingness to sign the Kyoto Protocol, Downing Street has indicated.Officials have confirmed climate change was discussed when influential senator John McCain recently visited Mr Blair. Climate change was an issue the prime minister "wanted to progress" during the UK's presidency of the G8 and EU in 2005, said a spokesman. But he played down reports Mr Blair was considering a new US-friendly treaty.According to the Times, the UK leader wants to end US isolation with a "Kyoto-lite" agreement on the scale and nature of the threat from climate change. He is said to have discussed the idea with Mr McCain during his time at Number 10. The prime minister is said to believe the United States' refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol on emissions is undermining other countries' resolve to cut carbon dioxide production. So far the US has refused to sign up to the Kyoto treaty - which aims to cut emissions - branding it politically motivated and not based on science. President Bush's advisers have repeatedly denied global warming is taking place.Europe, which disputes the claim, has also signalled it wants to press ahead with talks about longer term climate change action in a way which involves both the United States and developing countries. Mr Blair's reported treaty would also establish an international programme to develop technology needed for renewable energy and the reduction of carbon emissions, says the Times. But there is still apparently "little prospect" of America agreeing to cut emissions, which could further provoke environmental campaigners already angry at the lack of progress. Mr Blair was left blushing on Wednesday when it emerged his manifesto target of a 20% cut to the 1990 greenhouse gas level by 2010 was set to be missed.

Officials have confirmed climate change was discussed when influential senator John McCain recently visited Mr Blair.Mr Blair was left blushing on Wednesday when it emerged his manifesto target of a 20% cut to the 1990 greenhouse gas level by 2010 was set to be missed.Tony Blair is pressing the US to cut greenhouse gases despite its unwillingness to sign the Kyoto Protocol, Downing Street has indicated.But he played down reports Mr Blair was considering a new US-friendly treaty.The prime minister is said to believe the United States' refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol on emissions is undermining other countries' resolve to cut carbon dioxide production.Climate change was an issue the prime minister "wanted to progress" during the UK's presidency of the G8 and EU in 2005, said a spokesman.

Blair to face MPs amid feud talkTony Blair faces his first prime minister's questions of 2005 after a week of renewed speculation about his relationship with Gordon Brown.Meanwhile, the chancellor is leaving Britain on a high-profile tour of Africa to highlight poverty issues. But before doing so, he insisted he still trusted Mr Blair, despite claims to the contrary in a new book. Labour MPs have warned against disunity and Tory leader Michael Howard may well take up the theme in the Commons. The Tories have already accused the prime minister and his chancellor of behaving like "schoolboys squabbling in a playground".Michael Howard is likely to want to capitalise further on the spat when he goes head-to-head with the prime minister in the Commons. At a campaign poster launch on Tuesday, Mr Brown was joined by Alan Milburn, who Mr Blair controversially put in charge of election planning in place of the chancellor.Later this week the prime minister is due to set out the themes of his party's next election manifesto, which for the past two polls have been drawn up by the chancellor. Mr Brown, meanwhile, is visiting Tanzania, Mozambique and Kenya to highlight the plight of many Africans hit by Aids, war and famine - issues which Mr Blair has also spoken out on. The prime minister and chancellor faced backbench discontent at Monday's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party over claims made in journalist Robert Peston's new book. Mr Blair told MPs and peers: "I know from everyone here, in Cabinet and government, nothing is going to get in the way of a unified Labour Party with a unified position and winning the third term people desperately need." Labour's Paul Flynn said the pair had had a "scorching" from MPs.On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Prescott told BBC News: "They told us very clearly, it was the troops telling the leaders: get in line." The new book claims Mr Prescott hosted a dinner in November 2003 where the prime minister told Mr Brown he would stand down before the next election because he had lost trust over the Iraq war. Mr Blair then changed his mind in June 2004, after Cabinet allies intervened and amid suspicion the chancellor was manoeuvring against him, writes Mr Peston. In Mr Peston's book Mr Brown is alleged to have told the prime minister: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe."

The new book claims Mr Prescott hosted a dinner in November 2003 where the prime minister told Mr Brown he would stand down before the next election because he had lost trust over the Iraq war.In Mr Peston's book Mr Brown is alleged to have told the prime minister: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe."At a campaign poster launch on Tuesday, Mr Brown was joined by Alan Milburn, who Mr Blair controversially put in charge of election planning in place of the chancellor.Mr Blair then changed his mind in June 2004, after Cabinet allies intervened and amid suspicion the chancellor was manoeuvring against him, writes Mr Peston.On Tuesday, Deputy Prime Minister Mr Prescott told BBC News: "They told us very clearly, it was the troops telling the leaders: get in line."The prime minister and chancellor faced backbench discontent at Monday's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party over claims made in journalist Robert Peston's new book.Mr Brown, meanwhile, is visiting Tanzania, Mozambique and Kenya to highlight the plight of many Africans hit by Aids, war and famine - issues which Mr Blair has also spoken out on.

Galloway targets 'New Labour' MPGeorge Galloway is to stand against pro-Iraq war Labour MP Oona King at the next general election.Mr Galloway, who on Thursday won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph said he would contest Bethnal Green, in London, for Respect. The Glasgow Kelvin MP, who was expelled from Labour over his anti Iraq war stance, accused Ms King of being a "New Labour stooge". Ms King said she was "delighted" at the chance to take on Mr Galloway.Mr Galloway's current constituency is set to disappear under planned boundary changes in Scotland.The 50-year-old MP launched Respect, the Unity Coalition, in January along with 1,000 anti-war activists, and the Muslim Association of Britain. The party's declared aims are an end to the occupation of Iraq, the repeal of anti-union laws and the end of privatisation. Speaking from a cafe in Brick Lane, east London, Mr Galloway said he had accepted the party's invitation to stand with "great honour and pride".He added: "Here in this constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow there is a New Labour stooge MP. "A stooge who will sing any song, make any speech, do any dance, do anything she is told to by Tony Blair - irrespective of how her constituents are adversely affected or how strongly they feel to the contrary." Ms King has represented the constituency since 1997. She said: "I'm delighted I've been given the chance to finish him (Mr Galloway) off, and believe me I will. "I know many people around the country will be grateful, not least his constituents in Scotland who he has shamelessly abandoned." In June's European Parliament elections, Respect failed to gain enough votes for an MEP but did come first in Tower Hamlets borough, most of which is covered by the Commons constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow.A month later it gained a council seat in a by-election in St Dunstan's and Stepney Green ward, Tower Hamlets. Mr Galloway said that in next year's expected general election and local elections a year later, the party would "turn the East End of London into a fortress". Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats have chosen prospective parliamentary candidates for Bethnal Green and Bow from the Bangladeshi population, which makes up almost half the electorate. The Telegraph was sued for libel by Mr Galloway after the newspaper claimed he received money from Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The newspaper said it was in the public interest to publish the claims, based on documents found in Baghdad. Mr Justice Eady said he was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation".

Ms King said she was "delighted" at the chance to take on Mr Galloway.Mr Galloway, who on Thursday won £150,000 in libel damages from the Daily Telegraph said he would contest Bethnal Green, in London, for Respect.Mr Justice Eady said he was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation".He added: "Here in this constituency of Bethnal Green and Bow there is a New Labour stooge MP.Mr Galloway said that in next year's expected general election and local elections a year later, the party would "turn the East End of London into a fortress".She said: "I'm delighted I've been given the chance to finish him (Mr Galloway) off, and believe me I will.The Glasgow Kelvin MP, who was expelled from Labour over his anti Iraq war stance, accused Ms King of being a "New Labour stooge".George Galloway is to stand against pro-Iraq war Labour MP Oona King at the next general election.

Clarke to unveil immigration planNew controls on economic migrants and tighter border patrols will be part of government plans unveiled on Monday.Home Secretary Charles Clarke wants to introduce a points system for economic migrants and increase deportations of failed asylum seekers. Tony Blair has said people are right to be concerned about abuses of the system but there is no "magic bullet". The Tories say Labour is acting too late while the Lib Dems say the plans may not produce an efficient system.The government's new five-year plan is designed to show how Labour would reform immigration and asylum controls if it wins the election, expected to be held in May. Ministers deny they have been spurred into action by Tory campaigning or because the prime minister is worried too little has been done.Instead, they say the plans are part of an "evolving" process aimed at winning public confidence. Mr Clarke is expected to announce an end to the automatic right to settle for immigrants' families, and the introduction of fingerprinting for all visa applicants. The prime minister on Sunday said immigration would be "toughened up" to ensure only those immigrants with skills the UK really needs will be granted work permits. But he rejected the Tories' call for a quota on economic migrants, saying no "arbitrary figure" could reflect the UK's needs.Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Westminster Hour: "We should cut the number or increase it depending on the country's needs... "The public are worried about this, they are worried rightly, because there are abuses of the immigration and asylum system." But he defended the UK's current regime, saying all systems around the world were subject to abuse. Tory proposals to cap the number of asylum seekers and process all claims abroad would not work, argued Mr Blair.He said: "We will not be... pretending there is some simple easy way of processing Britain's asylum seekers in some other country, because no such other country exists." Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis said the government had failed to remove 250,000 failed asylum seekers from the UK and limits on economic migrants had been a "shambles". "What we are seeing today is a rather panicky response from the government after eight years of failure," he said. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said Labour was right to reject the Tories' idea of quotas on asylum. But he said it was yet to be seen if Mr Clarke could deliver "a fair and efficient asylum system".

But he said it was yet to be seen if Mr Clarke could deliver "a fair and efficient asylum system".Conservative shadow home secretary David Davis said the government had failed to remove 250,000 failed asylum seekers from the UK and limits on economic migrants had been a "shambles".Home Secretary Charles Clarke wants to introduce a points system for economic migrants and increase deportations of failed asylum seekers.Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Westminster Hour: "We should cut the number or increase it depending on the country's needs... "The public are worried about this, they are worried rightly, because there are abuses of the immigration and asylum system."Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said Labour was right to reject the Tories' idea of quotas on asylum.Tony Blair has said people are right to be concerned about abuses of the system but there is no "magic bullet".Tory proposals to cap the number of asylum seekers and process all claims abroad would not work, argued Mr Blair.The government's new five-year plan is designed to show how Labour would reform immigration and asylum controls if it wins the election, expected to be held in May.

Will Tory tax cuts lift spirits?Michael Howard has finally revealed the full scale of his planned Tory tax cuts.Should he win the next general election, he has earmarked £4 billion that will be used to reduce taxes - although he still will not say which or how. This was the pre-election message many in his party have been pressing for and voters, he believes, will warm to. At its simplest, it is saying: "Vote Tory and you can have it both ways". Not only would his government stick to Labour spending plans on core public services, including health and education, it would increase spending on defence, police and pensions. And even after that was done, it would still have enough left over for a tax cut equivalent to about a penny off the basic rate of income tax.All the money would come from its £35 billion efficiency savings which would see the axe taken to bureaucracy, waste and the civil service. Of that, £23 billion would go on spending plans, with £8 billion to fill the black hole left, they claim, by Gordon Brown, and the rest going in tax cuts.Neither Mr Howard nor Mr Letwin would say exactly how they would use that cash, although a cut in the basic rate seems unlikely. Ideas already floated include raising tax thresholds and abolishing or reducing inheritance tax, although some in the Tory party are urging Mr Howard to announce something more eye-catching before the election. As the Tory leader declared, the aim of the exercise is to open up a real economic policy divide between Labour and the Tories. "At this election, people will have a clear choice between Mr Blair who will waste more and tax more and the Conservative party which will give value for money and tax less," he said.It is a move back towards an almost traditional Tory message which previously suggested Labour was the party of tax rises and the Conservatives the party of tax cuts.The extension of that, however, was that Labour was also seen as the party of big spending on the public services while the Tories were the cutters. And that is where one of the problems lies for Mr Howard - can he persuade sceptical voters that they really can have it both ways with bigger spending on public services AND lower taxes? He insists he will not promise anything before the election that he cannot deliver if put into Downing Street. Labour, needless to say, claim his planned £35bn efficiency savings simply don't add up and that those sorts of figures are fantasy.One of New Labour's greatest successes before the historic 1997 election was to persuade voters, business and the City that it could be trusted to run the economy. So far that has not faced any real challenge, but independent analysts now claim a third New Labour government would be forced to either increase taxation or taxes to plug a black hole it has at the centre of its finances. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats are committed to increasing taxes for the most well off to finance their spending proposals launched earlier in the day. So, Mr Howard hopes his message will start to hit home during this unofficial election campaign and that his poll ratings might finally lift off the floor. And, while other issues like the Iraq war and trust will play a major part in that campaign, it is likely - and the prime minister probably hopes - that the economy will be the deciding factor.

It is a move back towards an almost traditional Tory message which previously suggested Labour was the party of tax rises and the Conservatives the party of tax cuts.Ideas already floated include raising tax thresholds and abolishing or reducing inheritance tax, although some in the Tory party are urging Mr Howard to announce something more eye-catching before the election.And even after that was done, it would still have enough left over for a tax cut equivalent to about a penny off the basic rate of income tax."At this election, people will have a clear choice between Mr Blair who will waste more and tax more and the Conservative party which will give value for money and tax less," he said.Michael Howard has finally revealed the full scale of his planned Tory tax cuts.Of that, £23 billion would go on spending plans, with £8 billion to fill the black hole left, they claim, by Gordon Brown, and the rest going in tax cuts.Should he win the next general election, he has earmarked £4 billion that will be used to reduce taxes - although he still will not say which or how.The extension of that, however, was that Labour was also seen as the party of big spending on the public services while the Tories were the cutters.So far that has not faced any real challenge, but independent analysts now claim a third New Labour government would be forced to either increase taxation or taxes to plug a black hole it has at the centre of its finances.

New 'yob' targets to be unveiledFifty new areas getting special help to fight anti-social behaviour in England and Wales will be named on Thursday.Ten areas have already had access to special prosecutors and local experts and the government is now expanding the crackdown to more towns and cities. Details of how many anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) were used in the last year are also being published. Labour sees nuisance behaviour as a key election issue but critics claim the record is at best patchy. A year ago, ministers launched their anti-social behaviour plan and Thursday's figures offer a progress check. They will say that in the past year more than 2,600 anti-social behaviour orders were issued by the courts - more than double the total used in the previous four years.Police have also closed 150 crack houses and issued more than 400 dispersal orders, breaking up groups of youths in public places. The 50 new pilot areas to get special attention will also receive extra government funding. Exeter and Cardiff are among cities who have voiced interest in being involved.Prime Minister Tony Blair is also expected to announce new measures to strengthen the use of Asbos and fixed penalty notices. There are still concerns that some areas of the country are not using the powers properly.He is expected to say that the new figures were heartening but he would not rest until similar action was taken in all areas of the country where it was needed. "We have not defeated this problem by any means, but shown together what can be done," he will say. Mr Blair this week defended the shake-up of the licensing laws, saying it was right to focus on troublemakers rather than treating everybody as a potential drunken nuisance.Ministers also boast of record police numbers and are speeding up plans to put in place 25,000 community support officers (CSOs). But researchers from Leeds University warned that CSOs could undermine traditional bonds between police officers and communities. More work needed to be done on clarifying the role of different agencies and how they linked together before CSOs, they argued in a the study. Critics of the government say it has announced more than 20 initiatives to tackle nuisance behaviour when the real focus should be on good policing. Home Office Minister Hazel Blears also revealed this week that "about a third" of Asbos were breached - with some people jailed and others not.

Details of how many anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos) were used in the last year are also being published.The 50 new pilot areas to get special attention will also receive extra government funding.Fifty new areas getting special help to fight anti-social behaviour in England and Wales will be named on Thursday.They will say that in the past year more than 2,600 anti-social behaviour orders were issued by the courts - more than double the total used in the previous four years.He is expected to say that the new figures were heartening but he would not rest until similar action was taken in all areas of the country where it was needed.A year ago, ministers launched their anti-social behaviour plan and Thursday's figures offer a progress check.Critics of the government say it has announced more than 20 initiatives to tackle nuisance behaviour when the real focus should be on good policing.Ministers also boast of record police numbers and are speeding up plans to put in place 25,000 community support officers (CSOs).

Labour in constituency race rowLabour's choice of a white candidate for one of the UK's most multi-racial seats proves the need for all-black short lists, says a race group.Local councillor Lyn Brown was selected for West Ham, east London, in a contest between two white and five ethnic minority women. An Operation Black Vote spokesman said they now wanted to meet Labour party chairman Ian McCartney for discussions. Mr McCartney recently announced party consultation on all-black shortlists. However, Labour has so far unable been unable to comment on the implications of the West Ham result.Ashok Vishwanathan of Operation Black Vote, which aims to increase ethnic minorities' participation in the political process and their representation, said the result again showed all-women shortlists were not effective in getting minority women selected. "I think all-black shortlists are the only way to cut to the chase and address the lack of minority candidates," Mr Vishwanathan said.Last month the chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) also called for ethnic minority shortlists in certain circumstances. A CRE spokesman said the organisation had nothing to add on the shortlist issue specifically but would be working with all the political parties to address the under-representation of ethnic minorities in Parliament. "We will be raising it with each of the party leaders on a formal basis and helping them find the most appropriate way forward," the spokesman said. Ethnic minorities make up 8% of the United Kingdom population but only 2% of MPs - 13 out of 659 - are from a visible minority group. Twelve of them represent Labour, and one is a Liberal Democrat. If ethnic minorities were represented in the House of Commons in proportion to their numbers in the population, there would be 42 ethnic minority MPs.

A CRE spokesman said the organisation had nothing to add on the shortlist issue specifically but would be working with all the political parties to address the under-representation of ethnic minorities in Parliament.If ethnic minorities were represented in the House of Commons in proportion to their numbers in the population, there would be 42 ethnic minority MPs.Ethnic minorities make up 8% of the United Kingdom population but only 2% of MPs - 13 out of 659 - are from a visible minority group."I think all-black shortlists are the only way to cut to the chase and address the lack of minority candidates," Mr Vishwanathan said.Ashok Vishwanathan of Operation Black Vote, which aims to increase ethnic minorities' participation in the political process and their representation, said the result again showed all-women shortlists were not effective in getting minority women selected.An Operation Black Vote spokesman said they now wanted to meet Labour party chairman Ian McCartney for discussions.

Milburn defends poster campaignLabour's election chief Alan Milburn has defended his party's campaign posters amid Tory claims the ads were nothing short of "sly anti-Semitism".Mr Milburn said he appreciated people's concerns, but insisted that "what they were was anti-Tory" and "not in any way, shape or form anti-Semitic". He was responding to Tory spokesman Julian Lewis who said the ads were part of a wider trend of smearing the party. Labour has withdrawn two controversial posters and launched four new designs.A row was sparked after the party published posters appearing to depict Michael Howard, who is Jewish, as Fagin, and as a flying pig, amid claims they were anti-Semitic. The posters were labelled a "big misjudgement" by the Conservatives who said Labour's "first shot in the election has badly backfired".The posters were among a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who were asked to vote on their favourite. Labour has taken them off its website, saying members preferred other posters. The party's four new designs, launched on Tuesday, steer clear of the Fagin or flying pig images, but make clear that Labour is sticking to its strategy of targeting the Tory leader personally, with reminders of his record in office.The posters were among a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who have been asked to choose which one should be used ahead of the election. In the Commons, Tory spokesman Mr Lewis suggested the posters were part of a wider trend and reminded MPs that Labour chairman Ian McCartney last year described shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin as a "21st Century Fagin"."Given the outrage that that smear caused then, how could you have thought anything other than the fact that what you were doing in reviving it in your poster advertisements was nothing more and nothing less than a calculated campaign of sly anti-Semitism?" Mr Milburn replied that they were not anti-Semitic. "What they were was anti-Tory and I make no apologies at all for making clear to the British public exactly what the Conservative plans would mean," he said. "I fully understand and indeed respect the views of those who have concerns about any poster designs that have appeared on the Labour Party website." The Fagin and pigs might fly posters were taken off Labour's website on Monday after supporters voted for their favourite poster featuring Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin holding a blackboard reading 2+2=5. A Labour spokesman later said their removal from the party's website was not affected by the row.

A Labour spokesman later said their removal from the party's website was not affected by the row.Labour's election chief Alan Milburn has defended his party's campaign posters amid Tory claims the ads were nothing short of "sly anti-Semitism".The Fagin and pigs might fly posters were taken off Labour's website on Monday after supporters voted for their favourite poster featuring Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin holding a blackboard reading 2+2=5.The posters were among a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who were asked to vote on their favourite.Labour has withdrawn two controversial posters and launched four new designs.The posters were among a series of ideas shown to Labour members, who have been asked to choose which one should be used ahead of the election.In the Commons, Tory spokesman Mr Lewis suggested the posters were part of a wider trend and reminded MPs that Labour chairman Ian McCartney last year described shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin as a "21st Century Fagin".

'Hitler' row over Welsh arts cashAn artist critical of Welsh arts funding being brought under assembly government control has denied comparing the idea with dictatorships in Russia and Germany.Shani Rhys James is worried that the Arts Council of Wales may be taken over by the Welsh Assembly Government. Culture Minister Alun Pugh said it would be "crass and ignorant" to liken a quango review to Hitler's Germany. But Ms James emphasised she had actually said artists needed freedom. The future of the Arts Council of Wales has been in question since it was announced that most Welsh quangos would eventually be abolished.It was announced last July that three Welsh quangos, education and training body Elwa, the Wales Tourist Board and the Welsh Development Agency, would be brought under assembly government control. The Arts Council of Wales may be among the next to come under the assembly government's umbrella. But Ms James, who won the £30,000 Jerwood painting prize in 2003, said arts funding should be separate from government. Ms James told BBC Radio Wales: "It's quite dangerous when you involve politicians because it's not like the health service and it's not like the railways. "Free expression is absolutely vital in a democratic society. You need distance, you do not need government interference because it could be taken the wrong way."But she said reports that she had likened the assembly government to totalitarian regimes were inaccurate.She told Good Morning Wales: "Just to put the record straight, that business in the paper where it said I likened the government to Bolshevik Russia or Hitler's Germany, the actual quote I gave was: 'It is vital to a civilised society that we allow artists to express themselves without government control'. "As we know from past European history, i.e. Russia and Germany in the early 20th Century, artists will go underground or leave the country or rather than compromise their expression'. "Artists need a free voice to express themselves - they reflect a truth through their own art forms.'" She said the assembly government was not best placed to run the arts in Wales.She added: "It would be a momentous change and devastating to the arts. It would set the arts scene back 60 years, because I really don't think the government has the expertise. "If you have the National Assembly taking control, I fear you are going to be going back to the dragons and leeks and the choirs."Wales has moved on. It is international now. It is not set back in How Green Was My Valley?" Responding to Ms James' criticisms, Mr Pugh said: "The structure of unelected quangos is under review and we have made it clear that further announcements are due shortly. "Comparing the Welsh Assembly Government to Hitler's Germany is a crass and ignorant response to a real issue about democratic accountability." Ms James, whose father was Welsh, was born in Melbourne where her parents worked in the theatre. She moved to Powys nearly 20 years ago where she works from her studio near Llangadfan. She has won a number of arts prizes including the Wales Open in 1989 and the Mostyn Open in 1991.

She said the assembly government was not best placed to run the arts in Wales.Shani Rhys James is worried that the Arts Council of Wales may be taken over by the Welsh Assembly Government.An artist critical of Welsh arts funding being brought under assembly government control has denied comparing the idea with dictatorships in Russia and Germany.She told Good Morning Wales: "Just to put the record straight, that business in the paper where it said I likened the government to Bolshevik Russia or Hitler's Germany, the actual quote I gave was: 'It is vital to a civilised society that we allow artists to express themselves without government control'.But Ms James, who won the £30,000 Jerwood painting prize in 2003, said arts funding should be separate from government.It was announced last July that three Welsh quangos, education and training body Elwa, the Wales Tourist Board and the Welsh Development Agency, would be brought under assembly government control.The future of the Arts Council of Wales has been in question since it was announced that most Welsh quangos would eventually be abolished.It would set the arts scene back 60 years, because I really don't think the government has the expertise."Comparing the Welsh Assembly Government to Hitler's Germany is a crass and ignorant response to a real issue about democratic accountability.""Wales has moved on.But she said reports that she had likened the assembly government to totalitarian regimes were inaccurate.The Arts Council of Wales may be among the next to come under the assembly government's umbrella.

Child access laws shake-upParents who refuse to allow former partners contact with their children could be electronically tagged under plans being considered by ministers. Curfews and community service orders were other options which could be used if court orders to allow parental access were defied, Lord Falconer said. The constitutional affairs secretary outlined some of the plans on Tuesday. He denied fathers' activists had forced the changes, telling the BBC "there is a recognition that something is wrong". Between 15,000 and 20,000 couples go to court to resolve access disputes each year, although in nine out of 10 separations there is no court intervention.Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he hoped voluntary mediation could help solve disputes before they reached court. But he opposed compulsory mediation, saying that it would lead to many people taking part with the wrong attitude. Other plans include: - Parenting plans to give advice on access arrangements, based on real-life examples that have worked in the past - Extending in-court conciliation - more informal hearings before contested court cases - Better access to legal, emotional and practical advice by telephone and internet - Legal aid changes to give incentives for early resolution of disputes. Judges can already jail parents who breach contact orders but that was a "nuclear option" which was rarely used as it was not seen as being in the child's interests, a spokesman said. The aim of the new legislation was to provide a "medium range" of penalties, such as fines, community service orders, compulsory anger management or parenting classes or curfews.Failure to comply with these measures could result in offenders being electronically tagged. On the possibility of tagging uncooperative parents, Lord Falconer said: "Tagging may be going too far, but let's have a debate about that." Full details of the new powers will not be revealed until a bill is published "in the next two weeks," a spokesman said.The government's proposals have met with disapproval from fathers' rights groups. John Ison, from the controversial group Fathers 4 Justice, said: "It is very disappointing. What we have got is a cynical case of recycling existing legislation." Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the new proposals "lacked compulsion"."We would like to see couples develop a plan and then have it as a source of a court order - then you know where you stand, you know what the minimum access is. "Otherwise, you see people make agreements which then fall apart." Mr Parton said he had been told by Children's Minister Margaret Hodge there was not enough time to pass the bill through parliament before the general election, which is likely to take place in May.The Conservatives have called for an equal split between parents on access to be made law. Theresa May, shadow secretary for the family, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the government's plans were "inadequate" and were "papering over the cracks of the current system". She said a Conservative government would bring a "radical reform" of the family courts, as well as enforcing a "legal presumption of co-parenting and compulsory mediation". "We want to make courts the last resort, rather than the first resort," she added. The government says children cannot simply be divided up "like property" when a marriage collapses. The Liberal Democrats have argued for flexibility in deciding access rules, rather than having "rigid targets".

Curfews and community service orders were other options which could be used if court orders to allow parental access were defied, Lord Falconer said."We would like to see couples develop a plan and then have it as a source of a court order - then you know where you stand, you know what the minimum access is.Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he hoped voluntary mediation could help solve disputes before they reached court.Jim Parton, from Families Need Fathers, said the new proposals "lacked compulsion".Other plans include: - Parenting plans to give advice on access arrangements, based on real-life examples that have worked in the past - Extending in-court conciliation - more informal hearings before contested court cases - Better access to legal, emotional and practical advice by telephone and internet - Legal aid changes to give incentives for early resolution of disputes.Between 15,000 and 20,000 couples go to court to resolve access disputes each year, although in nine out of 10 separations there is no court intervention.She said a Conservative government would bring a "radical reform" of the family courts, as well as enforcing a "legal presumption of co-parenting and compulsory mediation".Theresa May, shadow secretary for the family, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the government's plans were "inadequate" and were "papering over the cracks of the current system".Parents who refuse to allow former partners contact with their children could be electronically tagged under plans being considered by ministers.Judges can already jail parents who breach contact orders but that was a "nuclear option" which was rarely used as it was not seen as being in the child's interests, a spokesman said.John Ison, from the controversial group Fathers 4 Justice, said: "It is very disappointing.

Blair hails Turkey-EU talks dealTony Blair has hailed a deal bringing Turkey a step closer to EU membership as important for the world's future "peace and prosperity".Mr Blair has been a leading advocate of Turkish membership despite controversy surrounding the idea. Leaving a Brussels summit Mr Blair said "the fact Turkey is a Muslim country does not mean it should be barred". The deal to open formal talks with Ankara came despite an EU demand for Turkey to recognise Cyprus. It was agreed the issue can be tackled at a later date but Turkish premier Recep Erdogan had to accept negotiations did not guarantee his country full EU membership.If it joins, Turkey may have to accept restrictions to limit migration by its citizens. Mr Blair said having Turkey in the EU was of "importance to the future peace and prosperity of my country, Britain, and the wider world"."We are stating a fundamental principle that the fact Turkey is a Muslim country does not mean it should be barred from Europe. "On the contrary, if it fulfils the same principles of human rights, then Muslim and Christian can work together." Under the agreement, Turkey must issue a written statement promising to sign an accord effectively recognising the Greek Cypriot government, but gives Turkey more time to sell the idea to its people.The internationally recognised southern part of Cyprus is an EU member, but Turkey, which occupies northern Cyprus, had previously insisted it would not bow to demands to recognise the country, calling the issue a "red line". It could take up to 15 years before Turkey is able to join, and entry cannot be guaranteed. The EU has also announced that it will start accession talks with Croatia in April 2005. However, talks will begin only if the country co-operates fully with the UN war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.

Mr Blair said having Turkey in the EU was of "importance to the future peace and prosperity of my country, Britain, and the wider world".Leaving a Brussels summit Mr Blair said "the fact Turkey is a Muslim country does not mean it should be barred"."We are stating a fundamental principle that the fact Turkey is a Muslim country does not mean it should be barred from Europe.Tony Blair has hailed a deal bringing Turkey a step closer to EU membership as important for the world's future "peace and prosperity".The deal to open formal talks with Ankara came despite an EU demand for Turkey to recognise Cyprus.The internationally recognised southern part of Cyprus is an EU member, but Turkey, which occupies northern Cyprus, had previously insisted it would not bow to demands to recognise the country, calling the issue a "red line".

Hewitt decries 'career sexism'Plans to extend paid maternity leave beyond six months should be prominent in Labour's election manifesto, the Trade and Industry Secretary has said.Patricia Hewitt said the cost of the proposals was being evaluated, but it was an "increasingly high priority" and a "shared goal across government". Ms Hewitt was speaking at a gender and productivity seminar organised by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC). Mothers can currently take up to six months' paid leave - and six unpaid. Ms Hewitt told the seminar: "Clearly, one of the things we need to do in the future is to extend the period of payment for maternity leave beyond the first six months into the second six months. "We are looking at how quickly we can do that, because obviously there are cost implications because the taxpayer reimburses the employers for the cost of that."Ms Hewitt also announced a new drive to help women who want to work in male dominated sectors, saying sexism at work was still preventing women reaching their full potential. Plans include funding for universities to help female science and engineering graduates find jobs and "taster courses" for men and women in non-traditional jobs. Women in full-time work earn 19% less than men, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).The minister told delegates that getting rid of "career sexism" was vital to closing the gender pay gap."Career sexism limits opportunities for women of all ages and prevents them from achieving their full potential. "It is simply wrong to assume someone cannot do a job on the grounds of their sex," she said. Earlier, she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are talking about here is the fact that about six out of 20 women work in jobs that are low-paid and typically dominated by women, so we have got very segregated employment. "Unfortunately, in some cases, this reflects very old-fashioned and stereotypical ideas about the appropriate jobs for women, or indeed for men. "Career sexism is about saying that engineering, for instance, where only 10% of employees are women, is really a male-dominated industry. Construction is even worse. "But it is also about saying childcare jobs are really there for women and not suitable for men. Career sexism goes both ways."She added that while progress had been made, there was still a gap in pay figures. "The average woman working full-time is being paid about 80p for every pound a man is earning. For women working part-time it is 60p." The Department for Trade and Industry will also provide funding to help a new pay experts panel run by the TUC.It has been set up to advise hundreds of companies on equal wage policies. Research conducted by the EOC last year revealed that many Britons believe the pay gap between men and women is the result of "natural differences" between the sexes. Women hold less than 10% of the top positions in FTSE 100 companies, the police, the judiciary and trade unions, according to their figures. And retired women have just over half the income of their male counterparts on average.

Ms Hewitt also announced a new drive to help women who want to work in male dominated sectors, saying sexism at work was still preventing women reaching their full potential."But it is also about saying childcare jobs are really there for women and not suitable for men.Earlier, she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "What we are talking about here is the fact that about six out of 20 women work in jobs that are low-paid and typically dominated by women, so we have got very segregated employment.Women in full-time work earn 19% less than men, according to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC).The minister told delegates that getting rid of "career sexism" was vital to closing the gender pay gap."Career sexism limits opportunities for women of all ages and prevents them from achieving their full potential."Career sexism is about saying that engineering, for instance, where only 10% of employees are women, is really a male-dominated industry.Plans include funding for universities to help female science and engineering graduates find jobs and "taster courses" for men and women in non-traditional jobs.Plans to extend paid maternity leave beyond six months should be prominent in Labour's election manifesto, the Trade and Industry Secretary has said."The average woman working full-time is being paid about 80p for every pound a man is earning.For women working part-time it is 60p."

Hague 'given up' his PM ambitionFormer Conservative leader William Hague says he will not stand for the leadership again, having given up his ambition to be prime minister.Mr Hague, 43, told the Daily Telegraph he would now find a life dominated by politics too "boring" and unfulfilling. Mr Hague, who stepped down after his party's 2001 election defeat, does not rule out a return to the front bench. He also told the paper he hopes to remain MP for Richmond, North Yorks, and start a family with wife Ffion. Mr Hague, who recently had published the biography of William Pitt the Younger, also said he wanted to continue writing books and speech-writing.He told the newspaper: "I don't know whether I will ever go back on to the front, but don't rush me." Asked if he would stand for the leadership again, Mr Hague replied: "No. Definitely not." His determination to stay away from a central role will disappoint some senior Conservative members, who say the party needs him. Tim Collins, the shadow education secretary, said last week it would be a "huge boost" to the party if Mr Hague returned to the front bench. Mr Hague became an MP at 27 and Leader of the Opposition at 36. He said: "I feel fortunate that, by the age of 40, I had crammed in an entire political career. "I had been in the Cabinet and been leader of the party, so now I can branch out into other things...it is a very liberating feeling." Mr Hague added that he may have misjudged his own ambition to be prime minister. "Maybe I wasn't as driven by politics as I thought I was," he said.

Mr Hague became an MP at 27 and Leader of the Opposition at 36.Tim Collins, the shadow education secretary, said last week it would be a "huge boost" to the party if Mr Hague returned to the front bench.Asked if he would stand for the leadership again, Mr Hague replied: "No.Mr Hague, 43, told the Daily Telegraph he would now find a life dominated by politics too "boring" and unfulfilling.Mr Hague added that he may have misjudged his own ambition to be prime minister.Former Conservative leader William Hague says he will not stand for the leadership again, having given up his ambition to be prime minister.

Nuclear strike 'key terror risk'The UK and US must realise they cannot prevent all terror attacks and should focus on making sure they are not nuclear strikes, says a top academic.Amitai Etzioni, a key influence on New Labour thinking, says the US emphasis on an "Axis of Evil" is misplaced. The priority should instead be on "failing states", including Russia and Pakistan, who cannot properly control their nuclear material, he argues. His report demands a major overhaul of world rules on nuclear technology.Professor Etzioni was a senior adviser to President Carter's White House and is the guru behind communitarian ideas which influenced the development of Blairite Third Way politics. In a report for the Foreign Policy Centre think tank, he says a nuclear terrorist attack is the main danger faced by many nations."Attempts to defend against it by hardening domestic targets cannot work, nor can one rely on pre-emption by taking the war to the terrorists before they attack," he says. That means there is an urgent need to curb terrorists' access to nuclear arms and the materials used to make them. "We must recognise that we will be unable to stop all attacks and thus ensure terrorists will not be able to strike with weapons of mass destruction," Prof Etzioni continues.He suggests so-called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea are less of a problem than "failed and failing states", which are more likely to be a source of nuclear materials. He names Russia as the "failing state" of gravest concern as it has an estimated 90% of all fissile material outside America. And he is also worried about Pakistan after one of its top nuclear scientists, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted leaking nuclear secrets. Prof Etzioni criticises the US for overlooking those reports, suggesting it was done in return for Pakistani help in hunting Osama Bin Laden. "This is like letting a serial killer go because he promised to catch some jay-walkers," he says. - Upgrading security at nuclear arms stores as a temporary measure - Creating a new Global Safety Authority to tackle nuclear terrorism, using the intelligence links established in the wake of 11 September - backed by the United Nations' authority - Encouraging, pressuring and using "all available means" to persuade countries to switch their highly-enriched uranium for less dangerous less-enriched uranium - When possible, taking fissile material away from failing states to safe havens where it can be blended down or converted - Compelling "failing and rogue states", and eventually all states, to destroy their nuclear bombs.

The priority should instead be on "failing states", including Russia and Pakistan, who cannot properly control their nuclear material, he argues.- Upgrading security at nuclear arms stores as a temporary measure - Creating a new Global Safety Authority to tackle nuclear terrorism, using the intelligence links established in the wake of 11 September - backed by the United Nations' authority - Encouraging, pressuring and using "all available means" to persuade countries to switch their highly-enriched uranium for less dangerous less-enriched uranium - When possible, taking fissile material away from failing states to safe havens where it can be blended down or converted - Compelling "failing and rogue states", and eventually all states, to destroy their nuclear bombs.The UK and US must realise they cannot prevent all terror attacks and should focus on making sure they are not nuclear strikes, says a top academic.In a report for the Foreign Policy Centre think tank, he says a nuclear terrorist attack is the main danger faced by many nations.And he is also worried about Pakistan after one of its top nuclear scientists, Abdul Qadeer Khan, admitted leaking nuclear secrets.He suggests so-called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea are less of a problem than "failed and failing states", which are more likely to be a source of nuclear materials.

Brown outlines third term visionGordon Brown has outlined what he thinks should be the key themes of New Labour's next general election bid.He said ensuring every child in Britain had the best start in life could be a legacy to match the NHS's creation. The chancellor has previously planned the party's election strategy but this time the role will be filled by Alan Milburn - a key ally of Tony Blair. The premier insisted Mr Brown will have a key role in Labour's campaign, and praised his handling of the economy.Writing in the Guardian newspaper, Mr Brown outlined his view of the direction New Labour should be taking. "As our manifesto and our programme for the coming decade should make clear, Labour's ambition is not simply tackling idleness but delivering full employment; not just attacking ignorance, disease and squalor but promoting lifelong education, good health and sustainable communities." BBC political editor Andrew Marr said that Mr Brown's article was "a warning shot" to Mr Blair not to try and cut him out of the manifesto writing process. "It was, as always, coded and careful... but entirely deliberate," was Mr Marr's assessment. The prime minister was asked about Mr Brown's article and about his election role when he appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Mr Blair said a decision had yet to be taken over how the election would be run but the chancellor's role would be "central". Mr Blair argued that under New Labour the country had changed for the better and that was "in part" because of Mr Brown's management of the economy. And he pledged childcare would be a "centrepiece" of Labour's manifesto. He also predicted the next general election will be a "tough, tough fight" for New Labour. But the prime minister insisted he did not know what date the poll would take place despite speculation about 5 May. Mr Blair said he was taking "nothing for granted" ahead of the vote - warning that the Tory strategy was to win power via the back door by hinting they were aiming to cut Labour's majority instead of hoping for an outright win.

BBC political editor Andrew Marr said that Mr Brown's article was "a warning shot" to Mr Blair not to try and cut him out of the manifesto writing process.Mr Blair argued that under New Labour the country had changed for the better and that was "in part" because of Mr Brown's management of the economy.Mr Blair said a decision had yet to be taken over how the election would be run but the chancellor's role would be "central".The prime minister was asked about Mr Brown's article and about his election role when he appeared on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.The premier insisted Mr Brown will have a key role in Labour's campaign, and praised his handling of the economy.Mr Blair said he was taking "nothing for granted" ahead of the vote - warning that the Tory strategy was to win power via the back door by hinting they were aiming to cut Labour's majority instead of hoping for an outright win.

Lord Scarman, 93, dies peacefullyDistinguished lawyer Lord Scarman, who conducted the inquiry into the 1981 Brixton riots, has died aged 93.The peer enjoyed a celebrated judicial career, serving as Law Commission chairman in its first seven years. He also chaired the 1969 tribunal set up to investigate civil disturbances in Northern Ireland. Paying tribute, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said Lord Scarman was one of the "great advocates of our generation"."His legacy from his decisions in the Lords and the Court of Appeal is substantial. "His work in the wake of the Brixton riots and his commitment to the vulnerable and dispossessed was second to none."A great judge, a great lawyer and a great man." Lord Scarman's nephew George Ritchie said the peer, who passed away peacefully on Wednesday, would be "sadly missed".The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who is the most senior judge in England and Wales, said it was Lord Scarman's "pioneering work" which paved the way for the Human Rights Act 1998. "He was a lawyer and a judge who had a remarkable insight into human nature, and an exceptional sensitivity to the needs of a healthy society," he said. "He was, personally, totally charming and he will be remembered with great affection and admiration by all who came into contact with him."Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the president of the Family Justice Division, said Lord Scarman was a "good and humane judge" and one of the greatest figures of the late 20th century. Lord Scarman will be remembered for the public inquiry he led into a string of race riots which began in Brixton when racial tensions rose after a police crackdown on street robbery. During the following three days of disturbances that spread to the Midlands, Merseyside, Bristol and Leeds, nearly 400 people were injured and buildings and vehicles were set alight.The inquiry famously settled on the so-called "rotten apples" theory, which argued that only a few police officers were racist, saying most were not. It spawned new law enforcement practices and led to the creation of the Police Complaints Authority. Trevor Phillips, chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, praised Lord Scarman's "ability to listen". He said: "When Lord Scarman toured the streets of Brixton his presence was electrifying. "A community which had been systematically ignored by everyone else was suddenly embraced by the epitome of the English establishment. "His great quality was the ability to listen to young people of all backgrounds, many of whose language he could barely understand, genuinely to hear what they had to say and to talk to them as human beings. "He never lost the special combination of wisdom, humanity and the spark of radicalism that marked his watershed report into the Brixton riots."

Paying tribute, the Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer said Lord Scarman was one of the "great advocates of our generation".He said: "When Lord Scarman toured the streets of Brixton his presence was electrifying.The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, who is the most senior judge in England and Wales, said it was Lord Scarman's "pioneering work" which paved the way for the Human Rights Act 1998.Lord Scarman will be remembered for the public inquiry he led into a string of race riots which began in Brixton when racial tensions rose after a police crackdown on street robbery.Distinguished lawyer Lord Scarman, who conducted the inquiry into the 1981 Brixton riots, has died aged 93.Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, the president of the Family Justice Division, said Lord Scarman was a "good and humane judge" and one of the greatest figures of the late 20th century."He was a lawyer and a judge who had a remarkable insight into human nature, and an exceptional sensitivity to the needs of a healthy society," he said.Trevor Phillips, chair of the Commission for Racial Equality, praised Lord Scarman's "ability to listen".Lord Scarman's nephew George Ritchie said the peer, who passed away peacefully on Wednesday, would be "sadly missed".

Bid to cut court witness stressNew targets to reduce the stress to victims and witnesses giving evidence in courts in England and Wales have been announced by the lord chancellor.Lord Falconer wants all crown courts and 90% of magistrates' courts to have facilities to keep witnesses separate from defendants within four years. More video links will also be made available so that witnesses do not have to enter courtrooms. It is part of a five-year plan to help build confidence in the justice system.Ministers say the strategy is aimed at re-balancing the court system towards victims, and increasing the number of offenders brought to justice. Launching the Department for Constitutional Affairs' plan, Lord Falconer said: "One of the top priorities will be a better deal for victims. "The needs and safety of victims will be at the heart of the way trials are managed."Courts, judges, magistrates, prosecutors, police and victim support - all working together to ensure the rights of victims are put first, without compromising the rights of the defendant." He went on: "Giving evidence is a nerve-wracking experience, especially when you're a victim. "Yet with a will and with support it can be done." Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was impossible for some elderly people to go to court to give evidence. Other witnesses could be intimidated by sitting alongside defendants outside courts. "You are never going to get rid of some element of the trauma of giving evidence," he said. "But you can make people believe that the courts understand the problem, it's not some kind of alien place where they go where they are not thinking about them."The plan comes as the lord chancellor also considers allowing cameras into courts for the first time since 1925, as long as they were used for cases that did not involve witnesses. Another feature of the strategy is constitutional reform, with a government bill to set up a supreme court and a judicial appointments commission returning to the House of Lords on Tuesday. Ministers had proposed getting rid of the title of lord chancellor, but the Lords have over-ruled this. Lord Falconer said it was right for the highest court to be completely distinct from Parliament. The person in charge of the court system should not also be speaker of the House of Lords, he said, and should be the best person chosen from either House of Parliament. What they did, not what they were called, was the critical issue, he added.

New targets to reduce the stress to victims and witnesses giving evidence in courts in England and Wales have been announced by the lord chancellor.Lord Falconer said it was right for the highest court to be completely distinct from Parliament.Lord Falconer wants all crown courts and 90% of magistrates' courts to have facilities to keep witnesses separate from defendants within four years.Lord Falconer told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was impossible for some elderly people to go to court to give evidence.The plan comes as the lord chancellor also considers allowing cameras into courts for the first time since 1925, as long as they were used for cases that did not involve witnesses.The person in charge of the court system should not also be speaker of the House of Lords, he said, and should be the best person chosen from either House of Parliament."Courts, judges, magistrates, prosecutors, police and victim support - all working together to ensure the rights of victims are put first, without compromising the rights of the defendant."Launching the Department for Constitutional Affairs' plan, Lord Falconer said: "One of the top priorities will be a better deal for victims.

MPs issued with Blackberry threatMPs will be thrown out of the Commons if they use Blackberries in the chamber Speaker Michael Martin has ruled.The £200 handheld computers can be used as a phone, pager or to send e-mails. The devices gained new prominence this week after Alastair Campbell used his to accidentally send an expletive-laden message to a Newsnight journalist. Mr Martin revealed some MPs had been using their Blackberries during debates and he also cautioned members against using hidden earpieces.The use of electronic devices in the Commons chamber has long been frowned on. The sound of a mobile phone or a pager can result in a strong rebuke from either the Speaker or his deputies. The Speaker chairs debates in the Commons and is charged with ensuring order in the chamber and enforcing rules and conventions of the House. He or she is always an MP chosen by colleagues who, once nominated, gives up all party political allegiances.

MPs will be thrown out of the Commons if they use Blackberries in the chamber Speaker Michael Martin has ruled.The use of electronic devices in the Commons chamber has long been frowned on.The Speaker chairs debates in the Commons and is charged with ensuring order in the chamber and enforcing rules and conventions of the House.The £200 handheld computers can be used as a phone, pager or to send e-mails.

'No more concessions' on terrorCharles Clarke says he has "no desire" to offer more concessions on his controversial anti-terror plans to get them on to the statute book.MPs voted in favour of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill after Mr Clarke agreed to key changes - but Labour's majority was reduced to 14. The Bill now faces opposition from peers angry at house arrest proposals. Lord Strathclyde, Tory leader in the Lords, said ministers should expect it to be "substantially re-written".The Bill proposes "control orders", which as well as house arrest could impose curfews, tagging or bans on telephone and internet use. They would replace current powers to detain foreign terror suspects without trial, which the law lords have ruled against.On Monday, MPs voted 272-219 in favour of the Bill after key concessions from Mr Clarke. The government earlier saw its 161-strong majority cut to just 14 as a cross-party amendment was narrowly rejected by the Commons despite the support of 62 Labour rebels. Mr Clarke won over critics by announcing he would introduce an amendment in the Lords to ensure the most controversial control order, amounting to house arrest, would be imposed by judges and not politicians. Lord Strathclyde warned ministers that they should "prepare themselves for substantial rewriting of various aspects of the Bill". "They should consider far more seriously the use of intercept evidence in any trial and I think they should drop the most objectionable proposals, which are for house arrest."But Mr Clarke told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he believed the changes he had made to the Bill to win over critics in the Commons should be sufficient to satisfy colleagues in the Lords. "No Bill goes through Parliament without detailed consideration being made, but I believe that what I announced yesterday will be sufficient to secure the agreement of the House of Lords," he said."I have no desire to make further so-called concessions on the Bill." Mr Clarke's proposed amendment will be debated by the Lords on Tuesday without having been considered by MPs. The debate is unlikely to result in a vote. Speaking after the Commons debate, shadow home secretary David Davies said the bill had been "clearly very badly drawn-up" and that the government was trying to rush it through too quickly. He said it would be possible to "rescue" the government and make the law "tolerable" by amending it in the Lords. "The scope for miscarriages of justice is enormous," he told BBC News.Mark Oaten, for the Liberal Democrats, said Monday night's vote showed the government had "lost the confidence of all sides of the House". He said: "They need to rethink the bill, and extend the power of a judge to decide on all control orders, build safeguards on evidence and create charges against suspects. "Unless there is a major movement, this bill is doomed to fail."BBC News political editor Andrew Marr said: "I think that this is a bill in deep trouble. It's been unravelling in the House of Commons - it may unravel further." The government wants the new bill to pass into law by 14 March, when the current powers expire.

On Monday, MPs voted 272-219 in favour of the Bill after key concessions from Mr Clarke.But Mr Clarke told BBC Radio 4's Today programme he believed the changes he had made to the Bill to win over critics in the Commons should be sufficient to satisfy colleagues in the Lords."No Bill goes through Parliament without detailed consideration being made, but I believe that what I announced yesterday will be sufficient to secure the agreement of the House of Lords," he said.The Bill now faces opposition from peers angry at house arrest proposals.MPs voted in favour of the Prevention of Terrorism Bill after Mr Clarke agreed to key changes - but Labour's majority was reduced to 14.Speaking after the Commons debate, shadow home secretary David Davies said the bill had been "clearly very badly drawn-up" and that the government was trying to rush it through too quickly."I have no desire to make further so-called concessions on the Bill."Mr Clarke won over critics by announcing he would introduce an amendment in the Lords to ensure the most controversial control order, amounting to house arrest, would be imposed by judges and not politicians.BBC News political editor Andrew Marr said: "I think that this is a bill in deep trouble.The government wants the new bill to pass into law by 14 March, when the current powers expire.

Sayeed to stand down as Tory MPTory MP Jonathan Sayeed is to stand down on the grounds of ill health.The decision comes after Mr Sayeed survived an attempt to de-select him in a row over allegations he had profited from private tours of Parliament. The Mid-Bedfordshire MP had denied a claim that he was paid for guiding visitors around the Palace of Westminster. Conservative leader Michael Howard has now accepted the MP's resignation, it has been announced.Mr Sayeed was suspended from Parliament for two weeks last month after the Commons standards and privileges committee said his conduct had fallen "well below the standards expected". The Conservative Party had already been withdrawn the whip for a month. But his constituency association voted against a move to deselect him, with Mr Sayeed winning 173 of the 299 votes. After the vote, Mr Sayeed said only a fifth of association members had voted against him and he intended to get on with winning the election. But the vote prompted constituency association president Sir Stanley Odell to resign in protest. The Standards and Privileges Committee inquiry was launched after the Sunday Times alleged English Manner Limited charged clients for access to Westminster through Mr Sayeed. Mr Sayeed had denied the claims, saying the suspension was "unjust and wrong" but he made an "unreserved" apology to MPs in the Commons chamber. He insisted that the committee's report had contained a "few errors of fact". Mr Sayeed has been MP for Mid-Bedfordshire since 1997. He represented Bristol East from 1983 to 1992.

Mr Sayeed has been MP for Mid-Bedfordshire since 1997.But his constituency association voted against a move to deselect him, with Mr Sayeed winning 173 of the 299 votes.After the vote, Mr Sayeed said only a fifth of association members had voted against him and he intended to get on with winning the election.Mr Sayeed had denied the claims, saying the suspension was "unjust and wrong" but he made an "unreserved" apology to MPs in the Commons chamber.Mr Sayeed was suspended from Parliament for two weeks last month after the Commons standards and privileges committee said his conduct had fallen "well below the standards expected".The Standards and Privileges Committee inquiry was launched after the Sunday Times alleged English Manner Limited charged clients for access to Westminster through Mr Sayeed.

UK plan to deport terror suspectsDeals are being sought to allow the UK to deport terror suspects to their home countries without risk of them being tortured or sentenced to death.Home Secretary Charles Clarke told the Times he hoped agreement with several countries could be reached. The move follows a Law Lords judgement that the detention of 12 men at Belmarsh prison, London, and Woodhill, Milton Keynes, was unlawful. The 12 affected by the ruling are from Algeria, Tunisia, Egypt and Jordan. The government was told that using anti-terror legislation brought in after 11 September to hold the men indefinitely without charge broke human rights laws.Mr Clarke told The Times: "I think we should be prosecuting much more energetically our ability to deport the individuals concerned to the countries from which they come." He said it was a route that was being pursued in collaboration with Foreign Secretary Jack Straw "in a very positive way". Mr Clarke said that he was seeking "memorandums of understanding" between overseas governments and Britain to ensure suspects would not be subjected to the death penalty on their return. However, he added: "I do not think the solution to the Law Lords' judgement for this government is in deportations, but they will help. "There are other strands that we have to do." But the Liberal Democrat's shadow home secretary, Mark Oaten, accused Mr Clarke of avoiding the main issue with the Belmarsh detainees."The critical issue that the home secretary is dodging at this stage is to deal with the very principle, to deal with how we tackle this problem in the future," he told BBC News. "And I do want him to grasp those issues and that means looking at how we can actually secure convictions in this country allowing, for example, intercept communications, telephone tapping to be included," Mr Oaten said. "Deportation may tackle this initial problem but I want to see a wider debate urgently about how we can actually get trials and convictions in this country." "Unless we get that, the Liberal Democrats will vote against this measure when it comes for renewal in March."The BBC's home affairs correspondent, Daniel Sandford, said it appeared Mr Clarke was putting more emphasis on the possibility of deportation than his predecessor, David Blunkett. But he said reaching an understanding with some of the detainees' home countries could be difficult. "Some of these people are accused of very, very serious crimes in their home countries so it's not an easy agreement to get and I think for some of these suspects it won't be the solution." Daniel Sandford said ministers may try to put forward other solutions - such as allowing more secret evidence to be put into normal criminal trials or developing a more secret trials process - in the next few weeks. "The government may try and deport some of them and then those that are left see if they can work out some way of putting them on trial," he said.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke told the Times he hoped agreement with several countries could be reached.But he said reaching an understanding with some of the detainees' home countries could be difficult.The BBC's home affairs correspondent, Daniel Sandford, said it appeared Mr Clarke was putting more emphasis on the possibility of deportation than his predecessor, David Blunkett.But the Liberal Democrat's shadow home secretary, Mark Oaten, accused Mr Clarke of avoiding the main issue with the Belmarsh detainees."Some of these people are accused of very, very serious crimes in their home countries so it's not an easy agreement to get and I think for some of these suspects it won't be the solution."Mr Clarke said that he was seeking "memorandums of understanding" between overseas governments and Britain to ensure suspects would not be subjected to the death penalty on their return.Mr Clarke told The Times: "I think we should be prosecuting much more energetically our ability to deport the individuals concerned to the countries from which they come.""The government may try and deport some of them and then those that are left see if they can work out some way of putting them on trial," he said.

Blair backs 'pre-election budget'Tony Blair has backed Chancellor Gordon Brown's pre-Budget report amid opposition claims he was too bullish about the state of the UK economy.In a speech in Edinburgh, the prime minister said Thursday's report reinforced stability and opportunity. And that would be central to Labour's next election campaign, planning for which was already well advanced. Mr Brown earlier denied his economic forecasts were too optimistic - but refused to rule out future tax rises.He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "No politician should make the mistake that John Major and his colleagues made in 1992 of saying no matter what the circumstances are, they can make all sorts of guarantees on every individual thing."That is not what politicians should do, it would not be responsible to do." Mr Brown insisted his spending plans were "affordable" and he could afford to be optimistic because Britain was now a stable, low-inflation economy and house prices were now stabilising. Mr Blair praised his chancellor for his role in creating economic stability, which he said was the "cornerstone" of Labour's programme.In a speech at Edinburgh's Napier University, he said Labour would publish over the next few months "a rich agenda for future policy in any possible third term"."In every area of work there is a detailed plan for the future, much clearer than those in 1997 or 2001. All of it fits together around common themes of opportunity, security and stability for all," Mr Blair said. In his pre-Budget report, Mr Brown surprised some City experts by forecasting UK growth at between 3% and 3.5% for next year. Many believe the figure is more likely to be under 3% - and fear tax rises or spending cuts, saying tax receipts have been overestimated. Carl Emmerson, from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told BBC News: "He thinks everything will come out in the wash and it will, in fact, be OK. We're not so sure." David Page, of Investec Securities, said: "His forecast that he will meet the golden rule with a margin of £8bn is way too optimistic. "It's going to take a significant turnaround in the economy to meet these targets."Conservative Shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "I can't find a single economic forecaster from the IMF to the Institute of Fiscal Studies who believes anything other than the chancellor has got a black hole in his finances. "In order to deal with that he will have to raise taxes after the next general election." Mr Letwin accused the chancellor of using "fancy statistics" to hide public service failures. Vincent Cable, for the Liberal Democrats, called on Mr Brown to open up the government's books to the National Audit Office, to see if he had met his "golden rule". "It is very clear that there are some serious loose ends in government public spending," Mr Cable told MPs.

Mr Blair praised his chancellor for his role in creating economic stability, which he said was the "cornerstone" of Labour's programme.Mr Brown earlier denied his economic forecasts were too optimistic - but refused to rule out future tax rises.Mr Brown insisted his spending plans were "affordable" and he could afford to be optimistic because Britain was now a stable, low-inflation economy and house prices were now stabilising.All of it fits together around common themes of opportunity, security and stability for all," Mr Blair said.In his pre-Budget report, Mr Brown surprised some City experts by forecasting UK growth at between 3% and 3.5% for next year.In a speech at Edinburgh's Napier University, he said Labour would publish over the next few months "a rich agenda for future policy in any possible third term"."It is very clear that there are some serious loose ends in government public spending," Mr Cable told MPs.Tony Blair has backed Chancellor Gordon Brown's pre-Budget report amid opposition claims he was too bullish about the state of the UK economy.Conservative Shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "I can't find a single economic forecaster from the IMF to the Institute of Fiscal Studies who believes anything other than the chancellor has got a black hole in his finances.

New rules tackle 'sham weddings'New rules on marriage for foreign nationals living in the UK are coming into force.From Tuesday, most non-EU citizens will need Home Office approval to marry. The Home Office says the new rules are aimed at reducing the number of sham marriages, of which there are estimated to be up to 15,000 a year. But immigrants' group the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants (JCWI) says the rules breach human rights law and it may mount a legal challenge. When the changes were unveiled last year, immigration minister Des Browne said: "Our aim is to avoid unnecessary disruption of genuine marriages, while providing firm controls to prevent abuse." Under the previous regulations anybody wishing to get married in the UK only had to produce evidence they had been resident in the country for a week and give 15 days notice of the wedding at the local register office.But from Tuesday all non-EU nationals, apart from citizens of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland or Norway, intending to wed in the UK must either obtain a visa allowing them to get married before they enter the country or apply for a Home Office 'certificate of marriage approval'. To get a certificate, costing £135, applicants will have to send proof that they have a legal right to be in the UK. Those without a settled status, such as asylum seekers awaiting a decision on their application, will have no right to marry in the UK.Once they have the necessary documentation, those subject to immigration controls wishing to get married in England or Wales must register their intention to marry at one of 76 specially-designated register offices. They can, however, marry at the register office or church of their choice. Rhian Beynon of the JCWI said the new rules were "not proportionate" and "discriminatory"."These rules means in some cases the Home Secretary is going to be a marriage registrar of last resort. "We're currently taking a legal opinion on this. We'll be looking for people whose right to marry is breached and we'll be looking at taking a case on this to the Human Rights Court," Ms Beynon said. The new rules have also been called into question by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. In a report published last July the cross-party committee stated there was a "significant risk" the new procedures were incompatible with the right to marry because they introduced restrictions which were "disproportionate". The committee believed the new laws might be incompatible with the Human Rights Act on the grounds of religion, belief and nationality, the report added.Over the last year immigration service operations against marriages of convenience have been stepped up resulting in a growing number of convictions. In January 25 people who took part in a sham marriage network based in Leicester were jailed for a total of 35 years. And last November Samuel Amoah, a Belgian national who set up two sham weddings for couples who wanted to remain in the UK, was jailed for three years. Several other cases are currently going through the courts. The role of registrars who under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 were obliged to report suspected sham marriages to the Home Office, has been key in many prosecutions. Registrars' spokesman, Mark Rimmer, said they welcomed the new marriage regulations and believed they would be an significant deterrent. "They will effectively remove most of the blatant cases. Certainly those who are illegals in this country, of which we had quite a few, will no longer be getting married," Mr Rimmer said. Mr Rimmer, the service director for registrations of marriages at Brent Council in north-west London, said he did not consider the new law to be an infringement of civil liberties. "It may be seen to be far more draconian than it has been but certainly it's still not as difficult to marry in the UK than it is to marry, for example, in Holland, Germany or France. "I think it's a proportionate response by government to what was a very large problem," Mr Rimmer said.

New rules on marriage for foreign nationals living in the UK are coming into force.The Home Office says the new rules are aimed at reducing the number of sham marriages, of which there are estimated to be up to 15,000 a year."These rules means in some cases the Home Secretary is going to be a marriage registrar of last resort.Rhian Beynon of the JCWI said the new rules were "not proportionate" and "discriminatory".But from Tuesday all non-EU nationals, apart from citizens of Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Iceland or Norway, intending to wed in the UK must either obtain a visa allowing them to get married before they enter the country or apply for a Home Office 'certificate of marriage approval'.Mr Rimmer, the service director for registrations of marriages at Brent Council in north-west London, said he did not consider the new law to be an infringement of civil liberties.Registrars' spokesman, Mark Rimmer, said they welcomed the new marriage regulations and believed they would be an significant deterrent.In a report published last July the cross-party committee stated there was a "significant risk" the new procedures were incompatible with the right to marry because they introduced restrictions which were "disproportionate".The role of registrars who under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 were obliged to report suspected sham marriages to the Home Office, has been key in many prosecutions.We'll be looking for people whose right to marry is breached and we'll be looking at taking a case on this to the Human Rights Court," Ms Beynon said.From Tuesday, most non-EU citizens will need Home Office approval to marry.The new rules have also been called into question by the parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

EU referendum question unveiledThe question to be asked in the referendum on the EU Constitution has been unveiled by the government.It will be: "Should the United Kingdom approve the treaty establishing a constitution for the European Union?" The constitution will be incorporated into UK law if there is a yes vote in the referendum, expected in 2006. Critics say the constitution is a further step towards a federal Europe, but advocates say it ensures effective operation of the enlarged 25-state EU. "If we reject this treaty, Britain will be isolated and weak in Europe," said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who along with the rest of the Cabinet, will back a "yes" vote.Patriots by definition wanted the UK to be prosperous at home and strong and influential abroad, Mr Straw said. "Our role as a leading member of the EU is a crucial part of securing that."Conservative shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said the referendum question "seems straightforward". But he accused the government of trying to confuse the issue by putting the EU referendum question in the same bill as the ratification of the constitution, when they should be treated as "two separate issues". Despite this "underhand trick," the referendum bill stood "no chance of becoming law before the election," he added. "This is Tony Blair's cheap gesture to the pro-constitution lobby while he runs scared of a debate on Europe he knows he cannot win." Neil O'Brien, director of anti-constitution group Vote No, said: "The reality is that the government doesn't want to discuss the EU constitution ahead of the election because they know it is extremely unpopular with voters and with business."The UK Independence Party said: "If the government believes that a No vote would mean that we should leave the European Union, they should just ask us if we want to leave the EU. Then we can be out of it and better off much sooner."Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who backs the constitution, said he expected the referendum would come in the first half of next year. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The sooner we get on with this, the better." He said the question sounded "very neutral" and "balanced," adding it would enable the argument "to be enjoined fairly and squarely on both sides". Green MEP Caroline Lucas welcomed Tony Blair's "courage in keeping his word" on holding a referendum. But she added: "This treaty is a flawed document that will make the EU less accountable, less sustainable, and less just."Mr Blair signed the constitution at a ceremony in Rome in November, but had already made it clear the issue would be put to voters in a referendum. That promise came after sustained pressure from opposition parties. Jack Straw, who argues the constitution reflected a "British vision for Europe" and gives "national governments a stronger grip", has said the referendum could be held in spring 2006. But in an interview with the Financial Times, Mr Blair refused to be pinned down to that date, saying Britain would hold a poll "some time in 2006 but when, I don't know". The paper said the prime minister "claimed ignorance" of when other countries were planning to hold their referendums.

The question to be asked in the referendum on the EU Constitution has been unveiled by the government.The constitution will be incorporated into UK law if there is a yes vote in the referendum, expected in 2006.Jack Straw, who argues the constitution reflected a "British vision for Europe" and gives "national governments a stronger grip", has said the referendum could be held in spring 2006.But he accused the government of trying to confuse the issue by putting the EU referendum question in the same bill as the ratification of the constitution, when they should be treated as "two separate issues".Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy, who backs the constitution, said he expected the referendum would come in the first half of next year.Neil O'Brien, director of anti-constitution group Vote No, said: "The reality is that the government doesn't want to discuss the EU constitution ahead of the election because they know it is extremely unpopular with voters and with business."The UK Independence Party said: "If the government believes that a No vote would mean that we should leave the European Union, they should just ask us if we want to leave the EU.Mr Blair signed the constitution at a ceremony in Rome in November, but had already made it clear the issue would be put to voters in a referendum.Conservative shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said the referendum question "seems straightforward"."If we reject this treaty, Britain will be isolated and weak in Europe," said Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who along with the rest of the Cabinet, will back a "yes" vote.

Labour accused of 'EU propaganda'A "taxpayer subsidised propaganda exercise" on the EU is being used to lull the British public into a false sense of security, say the Tories.Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram told MPs a new White Paper was part of trying to soften up opinion ahead of the referendum on the EU constitution. His claims were denied by Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who accused the Tories of "running scared" of debate. EU cooperation would help get better UK immigration controls, he argued.Mr Straw used Thursday's Commons debate to launch the new White Paper on the prospects for the EU in 2005. Security, stability and prosperity would be the key themes when the UK took over the chairmanship of the EU in July, said Mr Straw. Africa and climate change would also feature highly. He said the UK was trying to ensure future EU budgets were limited to 1% of Europe's economic output and were spent "where it adds most value". Mr Straw promised to continue to ensure the UK's budget rebate, secured in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher, was "fully justified". "We, like all other countries, have a veto on any changes proposed in this area," he said.Mr Ancram condemned the document, which the Foreign Office says has cost about £2,500 to design, print and deliver. "Isn't the reason that the government is now involved in a taxpayer subsidised propaganda exercise to try to sell the new EU to the country in advance of the forthcoming referendum and general election?," he asked. The Tory spokesman also criticised the government for claiming the EU constitution would make Europe easier to understand. "The government, last week, had to publish a commentary of 500 pages to try and explain this 'easy and simple' constitution to the British people," he said. "Who are they trying to kid?" The proposed question for the constitution referendum is: "Should the United Kingdom approve the Treaty establishing a Constitution for the European Union?" The Electoral Commission on Thursday said it was satisfied the question was easy to understand. The government has suggested the referendum on the constitution could take place in spring 2006, with the Tories set to campaign for a "no" vote.Mr Ancram said ministers were prolonging uncertainty by putting the vote off until the latest date possible. The foreign secretary hit back by saying Tory attitudes to Europe had helped keep the party out of power for more than a decade. Mr Straw argued cooperation with European partners could bring a "level playing field" on immigration and asylum controls. "You are setting your face against all of these things," he added. For the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell said the UK should not ignore the need to reform the EU Common Agricultural Policy. Change was particularly important for developing countries wanting access to markets, he argued. Sir Menzies was among those worried about plans, backed by the UK, to lift the arms embargo imposed on China after the Tiananmen Square massacre. Mr Straw said no decisions had been taken - Chinese human rights had improved but not by enough.

Security, stability and prosperity would be the key themes when the UK took over the chairmanship of the EU in July, said Mr Straw.Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram told MPs a new White Paper was part of trying to soften up opinion ahead of the referendum on the EU constitution.He said the UK was trying to ensure future EU budgets were limited to 1% of Europe's economic output and were spent "where it adds most value".Mr Straw used Thursday's Commons debate to launch the new White Paper on the prospects for the EU in 2005.The Tory spokesman also criticised the government for claiming the EU constitution would make Europe easier to understand.EU cooperation would help get better UK immigration controls, he argued.The Electoral Commission on Thursday said it was satisfied the question was easy to understand.Mr Straw said no decisions had been taken - Chinese human rights had improved but not by enough.For the Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell said the UK should not ignore the need to reform the EU Common Agricultural Policy.Mr Straw promised to continue to ensure the UK's budget rebate, secured in 1984 by Margaret Thatcher, was "fully justified".Mr Straw argued cooperation with European partners could bring a "level playing field" on immigration and asylum controls.

Councils prepare to set tax risesCouncil tax in Scotland is set to rise by an average of about 4% in the coming year, BBC Scotland has learned.Authorities will decide final figures on Thursday when projected increases will be more than twice the rate of inflation, which is currently 1.6%. The finance minister has urged councils to limit increases but they have warned that they will struggle to maintain services unless funding is increased. They say much additional government money is for new initiatives. Scottish Finance Minister, Tom McCabe MSP, said: "Last week in parliament I announced an additional £419m for core expenditure to local government in Scotland. "That's a 5.5% increase and sits against an inflation rate of 1.6%, so I think we have quite rightly said to councils this year that we would at the very least ask them to exercise restraint." Mr McCabe is also looking for local authorities to become more efficient and save money in coming years. He told BBC Radio Scotland's Sunday Live programme: "Here in Scotland we have 32 councils who all have their own individual collection systems for council tax, they have their own payroll systems and their own human resource systems."We think there has to be opportunities there for rationalisation and using the money saved to reinvest in frontline services." The councils' umbrella organisation Cosla, which provided BBC Scotland with the indicative figures for next year, warned that councils would face a continuous struggle to maintain services. Mr McCabe has promised them about £8.1bn next year. "However, most of the increase is targeted to new initiatives and councils will experience difficulties in maintaining core services," a Cosla spokesman said. Cosla says that it is willing to work with the executive on finding efficiency savings but that these will not be enough to maintain services. They say the funding plans for the next three years will see councils lose more of the share of public spending. The Conservatives accuse the Scottish Executive of using the council tax to raise funds because it is too afraid to raise income tax.The Tory finance spokesman, Brian Monteith MSP, said: "Its a form of disguise... yet again we see that council tax is being used as a way of passing on costs. "Scared of actually using its three pence income tax that it could put up, what we've seen over the years is more and more burdens being put onto local authorities and the council tax payer having to pick up the bill." There are also warnings that unless funding to councils is increased in the next few years then services may have to be reduced. Linda Knox, Director of the Scottish Local Authority Management Centre at Strathclyde University, said: "With this current settlement the increase is slowing. At the same time, the burdens on councils are greater than they were. "The settlement figures don't include pay increases and the executive is also requiring a substantial figure - in the area of £325m - in efficiency savings across the settlement period." Education will be protected from any cuts but Linda Knox says this will mean other services will suffer. She said: "In practice, that will mean a 4-5% cut for other services. On the face of it the settlement looks like an increase of about 9.7% but by the time you take into account other factors its probably only about 1% in real terms."

The councils' umbrella organisation Cosla, which provided BBC Scotland with the indicative figures for next year, warned that councils would face a continuous struggle to maintain services.The finance minister has urged councils to limit increases but they have warned that they will struggle to maintain services unless funding is increased."However, most of the increase is targeted to new initiatives and councils will experience difficulties in maintaining core services," a Cosla spokesman said.Council tax in Scotland is set to rise by an average of about 4% in the coming year, BBC Scotland has learned.There are also warnings that unless funding to councils is increased in the next few years then services may have to be reduced."That's a 5.5% increase and sits against an inflation rate of 1.6%, so I think we have quite rightly said to councils this year that we would at the very least ask them to exercise restraint."They say the funding plans for the next three years will see councils lose more of the share of public spending."Scared of actually using its three pence income tax that it could put up, what we've seen over the years is more and more burdens being put onto local authorities and the council tax payer having to pick up the bill."He told BBC Radio Scotland's Sunday Live programme: "Here in Scotland we have 32 councils who all have their own individual collection systems for council tax, they have their own payroll systems and their own human resource systems.The Tory finance spokesman, Brian Monteith MSP, said: "Its a form of disguise... yet again we see that council tax is being used as a way of passing on costs.

Iraq advice claim sparks new rowThe Tories say ministers must respond in Parliament to claims that the legal advice used to justify the Iraq war was drawn up at Number 10.Downing Street has denied the claims, made in a new book about the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice. Lord Goldsmith also denied them, saying he was not "leaned on" in any way. But the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General.The government has consistently refused to publish Lord Goldsmith's advice on the legality of the war - saying such papers have always been kept confidential.But a short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position was presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action. It said it was "plain" Iraq continued to be in material breach of UN resolution 1441. In his new book, Lawless World, Philippe Sands, a QC and international law professor, suggests the parliamentary answer was written in Downing Street. According to Mr Sands, Lord Goldsmith had warned Tony Blair in a document on 7 March 2003 that the use of force against Iraq could be illegal and that it would have been safer to seek a second UN resolution sanctioning military action.Mr Sands told Newsnight the government had prepared a legal team to be able to defend its case, in case legal action was taken against the UK over the war. On 10 March, military chiefs reportedly asked for an unequivocal statement about the legality of the war to make sure troops could be defended in a court of law. The book, being serialised in the Guardian newspaper, says on 13 March Lord Goldsmith met then Home Office Minister Lord Falconer and Downing Street adviser Baroness Morgan. "After that Downing Street proceeded to set out his [Lord Goldsmith's] view in a parliamentary answer which was then published on 17 March," said Mr Sands.Tory leader Michael Howard reiterated calls for the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General, warning: "This issue will not go away." "These revelations throw an intensive spotlight on to the cavalier way in which this government operates - even on an issue as important as peace and war. "The government needs to act to restore public confidence and trust." Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell repeated his party's calls for Lord Goldsmith's first piece of legal advice to be made public. "The public interest, which the government claims justifies non-publication of the whole of the advice, can only be served now by the fullest disclosure."In a statement to Newsnight, Lord Goldsmith said: "In my parliamentary answer on March 17 2003, I explained my genuinely held independent view, that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions. "It was certainly not a view that I expressed as a result of being leaned on in any way, nor as I have already made clear, was it written by or at Number 10." The prime minister's official spokesman also rejected the claims, saying: "The attorney general made it clear the words and the judgement were his." But ex-foreign secretary Robin Cook says all the advice should now be published. He said the claims suggested Parliament had only received a précis of Lord Goldsmith's second opinion - and that it was actually drafted in No 10. This would be wrong even if Lord Goldsmith had signed the statement, Mr Cook said, because the attorney general's advice should be an "independent legal opinion", not subject to "political negotiation of this kind".

"After that Downing Street proceeded to set out his [Lord Goldsmith's] view in a parliamentary answer which was then published on 17 March," said Mr Sands.Downing Street has denied the claims, made in a new book about the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice.But a short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position was presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action.In a statement to Newsnight, Lord Goldsmith said: "In my parliamentary answer on March 17 2003, I explained my genuinely held independent view, that military action was lawful under the existing Security Council resolutions.This would be wrong even if Lord Goldsmith had signed the statement, Mr Cook said, because the attorney general's advice should be an "independent legal opinion", not subject to "political negotiation of this kind".Lord Goldsmith also denied them, saying he was not "leaned on" in any way.The government has consistently refused to publish Lord Goldsmith's advice on the legality of the war - saying such papers have always been kept confidential.The Tories say ministers must respond in Parliament to claims that the legal advice used to justify the Iraq war was drawn up at Number 10.Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell repeated his party's calls for Lord Goldsmith's first piece of legal advice to be made public.But the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General.

CSA chief who 'quit' still in jobThe head of the "failing" Child Support Agency widely reported to have resigned three months ago is still at the helm of the troubled organisation.Doug Smith's departure was announced by Work Secretary Alan Johnson on 17 November as MPs grilled him over the agency's poor performance. His "resignation" was referred to by both Tory and Lib Dem leaders during that day's prime ministers questions. Officials now say he did not resign but will move on under civil service rules.Mr Smith's departure was reported widely at the time as his shouldering the blame for the failings of the Child Support Agency. In January the MPs who make up the Commons Work and Pensions Committee published a highly critical report into the "failing" agency noting the chief executive "has now left" and hoping "the new leadership will bring a fresh approach to what is a failing organisation".On that day's Today programme Mr Johnson was asked why Mr Smith had been allowed to resign rather than be sacked. He replied: "The chief executive decided it was time to move on, there is a new chief executive coming in." It now emerges that the widespread belief Mr Smith, made Commander of the Order of the Bath in the New Year honours, had left, was wrong. A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman confirmed Mr Smith was still in post and that he would continue in the job until a replacement was found. "No date was ever given for Doug Smith's departure," she said adding that the post had been advertised.Tory work and pensions spokesman David Willetts said families affected by CSA failings would wonder why Mr Smith was still in his job three months after his departure was announced. The CSA has been surrounded by controversy since its introduction in 1993 to assess and enforce child support payments by absent parents.The work and pensions committee launched their inquiry into the CSA's performance after it became clear that, despite the introduction of a simpler system of calculating maintenance payments for new cases in 2003, a backlog of claims was still building up. It is currently chasing outstanding payments of more than £720m, while a further £947m has been designated as "unrecoverable". The MPs found American IT giant EDS' £456m system was "nowhere near being fully functional and the number of dissatisfied, disenchanted and angry customers continues to escalate".In November, when he surprised MPs and the watching media by announcing Mr Smith's departure, Mr Johnson said: "I should tell you that Doug has decided that now is the time to stand aside and to allow a new chief executive to tackle the challenges ahead. "Doug has exceeded the four years that senior civil servants are now expected to remain in a particular post. "So Doug believes that we have reached the natural breakpoint at which he can hand over the reins." Lib Dem Sir Archy Kirkwood, who chairs the Commons work and pensions committee, said that when Mr Johnson had announced Mr Smith was going he got the "clear impression" the CSA chief was retiring though it had since emerged that was not the case, and he may be seeking new employment opportunities.He added his committee was "duty bound" to allow the work and pensions secretary to get new management into place in the CSA and it would be "premature" to say anything further on the issue at the moment. But committee member and Tory MP Nigel Waterson said he was "amazed" Mr Smith was still in his job. "When Mr Smith and the secretary of state came to give evidence, we were led to believe he was going shortly," he said. "Even if he was working out three months notice, he should have been clearing his desk by now." Asked on Thursday about Mr Smith's position Mr Johnson told BBC Radio 4's World at One he thought it was a "non-story". He added that he had been absolutely open when he announced Mr Smith's departure to the select committee and how people chose to interpret it was a "different thing". "The major issue is have we got a new chief executive coming into this very important agency as quickly as possible and have we gone through the right selection process to make sure we've got the right people," he added.

Lib Dem Sir Archy Kirkwood, who chairs the Commons work and pensions committee, said that when Mr Johnson had announced Mr Smith was going he got the "clear impression" the CSA chief was retiring though it had since emerged that was not the case, and he may be seeking new employment opportunities.Tory work and pensions spokesman David Willetts said families affected by CSA failings would wonder why Mr Smith was still in his job three months after his departure was announced.But committee member and Tory MP Nigel Waterson said he was "amazed" Mr Smith was still in his job.A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman confirmed Mr Smith was still in post and that he would continue in the job until a replacement was found.Mr Smith's departure was reported widely at the time as his shouldering the blame for the failings of the Child Support Agency.In November, when he surprised MPs and the watching media by announcing Mr Smith's departure, Mr Johnson said: "I should tell you that Doug has decided that now is the time to stand aside and to allow a new chief executive to tackle the challenges ahead.On that day's Today programme Mr Johnson was asked why Mr Smith had been allowed to resign rather than be sacked.Doug Smith's departure was announced by Work Secretary Alan Johnson on 17 November as MPs grilled him over the agency's poor performance.He added that he had been absolutely open when he announced Mr Smith's departure to the select committee and how people chose to interpret it was a "different thing"."No date was ever given for Doug Smith's departure," she said adding that the post had been advertised.Asked on Thursday about Mr Smith's position Mr Johnson told BBC Radio 4's World at One he thought it was a "non-story".

Defiant hunts put ban to the testThousands of hunt supporters have been out on the first day of hunting in England and Wales after the ban on hunting with dogs came into force.The Countryside Alliance called on hunt supporters to meet as normal, but vowed to stay within the law. Although hunting with dogs is now a criminal offence, exercising hounds, chasing a scent trail and flushing out foxes to be shot are still legal. One anti-hunt protester was taken to hospital after a violent clash in Kent.The man suffered facial injuries after an incident involving a group of men at the end of the East Kent Hunt, near Ashford. In Wiltshire, police arrested four men under the new law suspected of hunting with dogs. The group, from South Wales and Ireland, have been released on bail but police say they may face prosecution under new poaching laws.It is believed more than 270 hunts went out on Saturday, just one day after the ban came in.They were greeted by big crowds in many areas of the country, with actor Jeremy Irons and former minister Kate Hoey among the supporters. Anti-hunt groups - such as the League Against Cruel Sports - deployed 100 monitors at hunts to check for illegal activity.Mike Hobday, from the league, said video evidence of the law being broken was to be passed onto police. "Our evidence suggests that most hunts did operate within the law, many meeting and promptly going home and others peacefully exercising their hounds or drag hunting. "However, we have received reports of what we believe is clearly illegal activity by a number of hunts across Britain." BBC correspondent Simon Hall at Postbridge on Dartmoor in the West Country said 2,000 people had turned out to welcome the hunt.And the BBC's Sarah Mukherjee, with the Beaufort Hunt in Badminton, Gloucestershire said several hundred people had gathered on foot to see the hunt, with 150 on horseback. Tom Heap, BBC rural affairs correspondent, said it appeared that hunstman had, for now, been sticking to the new rules. And while there was big turnout in support of the hunts on Saturday, he said it remains to be seen if the level of backing can be maintained.Before riding out with the hunt, former minister Kate Hoey told crowds: "We will prevail and this law will have to be overturned." Judith Moritz, in Melton Mowbray, said anti-hunt activists were out to monitor the four hunts operating in that part of Leicestershire, but were outnumbered by large crowds of followers. The Countryside Alliance said the meets would show the new law was "impossibly difficult to determine" and open to different interpretations.Chief executive Simon Hart said: "There has been hunting in England for 700 years. This [ban] may take two or three years, perhaps two or three months, to unpick. "It will be nothing more than a temporary break in normal service, as broadcasters say." Conservative family spokeswoman Theresa May said if the party was in government again it would make sure the law was repealed. Suffolk Chief Constable Alastair McWhirter, the Association of Chief Police Officers' spokesman on rural policing, told the BBC the law would be enforced, although the police would not break up hunts. The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has so far not issued any instructions to police on how they should deal with any hunters who do violate the law. He said he would consult the director of public prosecutions and the police "in the near future" to decide what measures to take on hunting prosecutions.

Thousands of hunt supporters have been out on the first day of hunting in England and Wales after the ban on hunting with dogs came into force.Mike Hobday, from the league, said video evidence of the law being broken was to be passed onto police.The Countryside Alliance said the meets would show the new law was "impossibly difficult to determine" and open to different interpretations.And while there was big turnout in support of the hunts on Saturday, he said it remains to be seen if the level of backing can be maintained.The Countryside Alliance called on hunt supporters to meet as normal, but vowed to stay within the law.And the BBC's Sarah Mukherjee, with the Beaufort Hunt in Badminton, Gloucestershire said several hundred people had gathered on foot to see the hunt, with 150 on horseback.In Wiltshire, police arrested four men under the new law suspected of hunting with dogs.Before riding out with the hunt, former minister Kate Hoey told crowds: "We will prevail and this law will have to be overturned."Conservative family spokeswoman Theresa May said if the party was in government again it would make sure the law was repealed."Our evidence suggests that most hunts did operate within the law, many meeting and promptly going home and others peacefully exercising their hounds or drag hunting.BBC correspondent Simon Hall at Postbridge on Dartmoor in the West Country said 2,000 people had turned out to welcome the hunt.

Howard pitches for UK ethnic voteMichael Howard is to make a pitch for Britain's ethnic vote urging people who feel "taken for granted" by Tony Blair to vote Conservative.He will say Conservatives "share the same values" as the UK's minorities. And that he wants to build a "better Britain" where everyone, whatever the colour of their skin or religion, can "make the most of their talents". But the Tory leader will argue against positive discrimination saying it is "outdated and unjust"."It sets family against family and it leads ethnic communities to doubt their own abilities," he will argue. Mr Howard - himself the son of immigrants - will acknowledge that racial discrimination still exists in the UK. "People from ethnic communities, for example, still earn less than their white counterparts," he will say before arguing the answer to helping everyone to get on was "free enterprise, free trade, free speech". The Tory leader will also call for religious tolerance arguing that Hindus and Sikhs as well as Muslims got "caught in the downdraft of Islamaphobia which was one of the terrible side effects of 9/11".Mr Howard will make his speech during a visit to support Tory Parliamentary hopefuls Robert Light and Sayeeda Warsi - "the first British Muslim woman" selected to run for MP as a Conservative candidate. He will attack Labour's record in government over issues such as tax and he will set out Tory plans for an immigration quota to be set by MPs. Mr Howard will also attack the Lib Dems for wanting to abolish faith schools, introduce compulsory sex education from the age of seven, and "give contraceptives out in schools from the age of 11". "So I say to all those people from ethnic minorities who feel Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats take their votes for granted - come join us," he will say. Lib Dem president Simon Hughes branded Mr Howard "arrogant and wrong" for claiming the Tories were the "natural party" for Britain's ethnic minorities. "Given the Tories' considerably reduced support in urban areas, where many black and Asian Britons live, during their time in power, the evidence simply does not support his claims that the Conservatives are the party for these communities," he said.

"So I say to all those people from ethnic minorities who feel Mr Blair and the Liberal Democrats take their votes for granted - come join us," he will say.Michael Howard is to make a pitch for Britain's ethnic vote urging people who feel "taken for granted" by Tony Blair to vote Conservative.Lib Dem president Simon Hughes branded Mr Howard "arrogant and wrong" for claiming the Tories were the "natural party" for Britain's ethnic minorities.Mr Howard will make his speech during a visit to support Tory Parliamentary hopefuls Robert Light and Sayeeda Warsi - "the first British Muslim woman" selected to run for MP as a Conservative candidate."People from ethnic communities, for example, still earn less than their white counterparts," he will say before arguing the answer to helping everyone to get on was "free enterprise, free trade, free speech".Mr Howard - himself the son of immigrants - will acknowledge that racial discrimination still exists in the UK.

Howard rebuts asylum criticismsTory leader Michael Howard has gone on the offensive in response to people questioning how a son of immigrants can propose asylum quotas.Mr Howard, whose parents fled the Nazi threat to come to the UK, says the claim would mean no-one from an immigrant family could become premier. His comments come in a BBC documentary called 'No More Mr Nasty'. TV presenter Anne Robinson said as home secretary he gave the impression he would "like to kick your cat". Ms Robinson, a friend of the Tory leader, also revealed that as a Cambridge student Mr Howard was "much loved by women and he was a courteous and kind and rather dashing lover" - although she denied having personal experience. "I wasn't at Cambridge - and it's not personal experience - but I know people who were."Documentary maker Michael Cockerell was given behind-the-scenes access to Mr Howard for his film portrait. The Tory leader was asked about to respond to people who said that if there had there been a quota on immigration and asylum in the 1930s, his parents might not have been allowed into the country.He replies: "What is the inference of that? "That if you reach the view that you need to control immigration in the interests of the country you're not allowed to put a view forward if you happen to be descended from immigrants? "That seems to me an absolutely extraordinary proposition? It would certainly mean no one from immigrant parents could be prime minister."Ms Robinson, who presents The Weakest Link tells Cockerell that she despaired at his hardline image when he was home secretary in John Major's government. "I used to have to sit on my hands because he'd get on television and give a passable impression of someone who'd like to kick your cat or would put your baby in prison if he cried. I mean it was very, very Draconian." The film shows Mr Howard laughing at Rory Bremner's impression of him as Dracula, which he calls "good fun", apart from the serious falsehood of a comment suggesting he wants fewer black people in the UK. The film shows the private side of the Tory leader watching television at home or playing table tennis with his wife, ex-model Sandra. Asked if she enjoys a game of ping pong she confesses: "Yeah, it would be more enjoyable if I could win occasionally too, but otherwise it's quite fun."Former Downing Street communications chief Alastair Campbell, now working on Labour's election campaign, says a "touchy-feely" image does not fit Mr Howard. He says Tony Blair was not worried by his opponents' early performance in their Commons clashes because Mr Howard lacked a "big strategy", including on issues like Iraq. The Tory leader brands such criticisms as "absolutely rubbish", arguing that he has been consistent on his support for the war but critical of Mr Blair's failure to tell the truth on intelligence. Former Tory chancellor Ken Clarke says Mr Howard has a bigger problem changing perceptions of the Tory party than his personal image. Mr Clarke says the party is improving and it is "conceivable" it could win the next election. But he adds: "It has got to change itself a bit and broaden its appeal."- Michael Howard: No More Mr Nasty is being shown on BBC2 on Saturday 12 February at 2005 GMT.

Former Tory chancellor Ken Clarke says Mr Howard has a bigger problem changing perceptions of the Tory party than his personal image.Ms Robinson, a friend of the Tory leader, also revealed that as a Cambridge student Mr Howard was "much loved by women and he was a courteous and kind and rather dashing lover" - although she denied having personal experience.Mr Howard, whose parents fled the Nazi threat to come to the UK, says the claim would mean no-one from an immigrant family could become premier.Documentary maker Michael Cockerell was given behind-the-scenes access to Mr Howard for his film portrait.The Tory leader was asked about to respond to people who said that if there had there been a quota on immigration and asylum in the 1930s, his parents might not have been allowed into the country.Tory leader Michael Howard has gone on the offensive in response to people questioning how a son of immigrants can propose asylum quotas.- Michael Howard: No More Mr Nasty is being shown on BBC2 on Saturday 12 February at 2005 GMT.The Tory leader brands such criticisms as "absolutely rubbish", arguing that he has been consistent on his support for the war but critical of Mr Blair's failure to tell the truth on intelligence.He says Tony Blair was not worried by his opponents' early performance in their Commons clashes because Mr Howard lacked a "big strategy", including on issues like Iraq.The film shows Mr Howard laughing at Rory Bremner's impression of him as Dracula, which he calls "good fun", apart from the serious falsehood of a comment suggesting he wants fewer black people in the UK.

Concerns at school diploma planFinal appeals are being made for the government not to ditch the reform plan for England's secondary schools put forward by the Tomlinson report.The government's response to the plan for a four-tier diploma to replace all existing 14-19 qualifications is expected next week. Some are worried it could be scuppered if, as Tony Blair and Ruth Kelly have suggested, GCSEs and A-levels stay. Sir Mike Tomlinson himself was briefed only this week. He is said to be feeling more comfortable about what the government is likely to say than if he had read only what was in newspapers in the earlier part of the week. But the government was said to be still rewriting its response on Friday. "It will be a tragedy if the government comes through with a half-hearted response," said the chairman of the Commons education select committee, Labour MP Barry Sheerman.His main concern was the reports that there would be a diploma - but only to replace existing vocational qualifications. "We must tackle head-on the structural mess that is our secondary education system," he wrote in the Times Educational Supplement. "It is not the case that the academic stream in secondary is fine while the vocational route is desperately weak." The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has also told the government not to "compromise". The QCA said the potential "step-change in participation and attainment" lay in the integrity of the whole diploma. "Any partial implementation of the proposals would, in our view, compromise that integrity," said its chairman, Sir Anthony Greener. It is a sign of the QCA's concern that its advice went to ministers last December but was publicised only recently. But people understand that a White Paper response is government policy and has to command wider ministerial support than if it were coming only from the Department for Education and Skills. They may be content if it does not "close too many doors" in writing - whatever spin is put on it.The chief inspector of schools, David Bell, also said recently that GCSEs and A-levels should go. "One of the reasons why I'm so strongly in favour of these terms disappearing over time is that it's good for the symbols of change to be seen right across the system," he said. "If we don't say this is a sea-change in education, we will miss a great opportunity." Universities and head teachers in both the independent and state sectors have also backed the Tomlinson proposals, which include having higher grades at advanced level to differentiate between the brightest students. A note of concern has been expressed repeatedly by the employers' organisation, the CBI, which complains of a lack of skills. In an attempt to address this, the Tomlinson plan is for tests in "functional" maths and literacy - decidedly not GCSEs. It has been suggested the government will take steps of some sort to meet firms' concerns on this score. Another dissenter is Sir Mike Tomlinson's predecessor as chief schools inspector, Professor Chris Woodhead, who has said there is no need for such a "massive upheaval". The Conservative Party has put forward plans to revert to a system of having only the brightest percentage of students each year getting the top A-level grade, no matter how well the others have done.

But the government was said to be still rewriting its response on Friday.He is said to be feeling more comfortable about what the government is likely to say than if he had read only what was in newspapers in the earlier part of the week.Final appeals are being made for the government not to ditch the reform plan for England's secondary schools put forward by the Tomlinson report."It will be a tragedy if the government comes through with a half-hearted response," said the chairman of the Commons education select committee, Labour MP Barry Sheerman.His main concern was the reports that there would be a diploma - but only to replace existing vocational qualifications.The Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) has also told the government not to "compromise".Sir Mike Tomlinson himself was briefed only this week.It has been suggested the government will take steps of some sort to meet firms' concerns on this score.But people understand that a White Paper response is government policy and has to command wider ministerial support than if it were coming only from the Department for Education and Skills.The chief inspector of schools, David Bell, also said recently that GCSEs and A-levels should go.

Blair dismisses quit claim reportTony Blair has dismissed reports he told Gordon Brown he would quit before the next general election."You don't do deals over jobs like this," the prime minister told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme. According to a new book, Brown's Britain, Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004. Mr Blair said the claims were "reheated from six months ago" and that he was concentrating on running the country. Mr Blair said: "I've dealt with this six months ago. I said then you don't do deals over jobs like this - you don't."What both of us are actually concentrating on are the issues that concern the country." The book, by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston and serialised in the newspaper, said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other.It claims Tony Blair felt by November 2003 he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war and that he was no longer an asset to the Labour Party. And that at a dinner hosted by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott he told Mr Brown of his intention to stand down. According to Mr Peston the prime minister said: "Help me to get through the year and I will then stand down." But he then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, according to the book.Mr Peston told BBC News: "My understanding is that they are not nearly as close or as friendly as they once were. "What the book says is there is now a pretty profound mutual mistrust, mutual animosity. "I think in public you see this double-act pretending everything is alright, but in private I don't think the relationship is good because Brown, understandably, feels deeply betrayed - particularly over this issue of the leadership." But, in a wide-ranging BBC interview covering issues such as the Asian tsunami disaster, the Middle East peace process and Northern Ireland, Mr Blair said: "When you get to the top in politics you get this huge swell around you. "All sorts of people make all sorts of claims and counter-claims." He admitted to a "sense of frustration" about the allegations which he said had been made "countless times".There has been fresh speculation of a rift recently, following their separate responses to the Asian tsunami. These rumours were fuelled by Mr Blair's decision to hold his monthly media conference at the same time as a long-planned speech by Mr Brown on UK plans to tackle global poverty with a new "Marshall Plan" for Africa. There was speculation the pair were trying to outdo each other's response to the disaster. But the prime minister said he had discussed these claims with the chancellor and dismissed them as a "load of nonsense". Former welfare minister Frank Field MP said the prime minister should sack Mr Brown, but did not believe Mr Blair was strong enough to do so.Tory leader Michael Howard accused the prime minister and Mr Brown of "squabbling like schoolboys". He told Sky News' Sunday with Adam Boulton: "This is the politics of the playground and Britain really does deserve better." The Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said the personal ambition of Mr Blair and Mr Brown was "getting in the way of good government". "Either they need to grow up and put their squabbles to one side or they cannot expect the electorate to support a divided government at the next election." During the interview Mr Blair also said the former home secretary David Blunkett would play a "big role" at the general election.

Former welfare minister Frank Field MP said the prime minister should sack Mr Brown, but did not believe Mr Blair was strong enough to do so.Mr Blair said the claims were "reheated from six months ago" and that he was concentrating on running the country.The Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said the personal ambition of Mr Blair and Mr Brown was "getting in the way of good government".According to Mr Peston the prime minister said: "Help me to get through the year and I will then stand down."According to a new book, Brown's Britain, Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004.Mr Blair said: "I've dealt with this six months ago.And that at a dinner hosted by Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott he told Mr Brown of his intention to stand down.During the interview Mr Blair also said the former home secretary David Blunkett would play a "big role" at the general election.Tory leader Michael Howard accused the prime minister and Mr Brown of "squabbling like schoolboys".But, in a wide-ranging BBC interview covering issues such as the Asian tsunami disaster, the Middle East peace process and Northern Ireland, Mr Blair said: "When you get to the top in politics you get this huge swell around you.But the prime minister said he had discussed these claims with the chancellor and dismissed them as a "load of nonsense".Tony Blair has dismissed reports he told Gordon Brown he would quit before the next general election.

Police chief backs drinking moveA chief constable has backed the introduction of 24-drinking, saying police had a responsibility to ensure people could benefit from a law change.However, Norfolk police chief Andy Hayman also warned that a great deal of preparatory work was still needed. "I don't subscribe to the views of some of my colleagues who are coming out and objecting to it," he said. His comments come after the Liberal Democrats backed Tory demands that the government's plans be put on hold. Andy Hayman said he did not agree with politicians and senior police officers who have objected to the plans, which come into force on 7 February. "I feel that is a premature position to be taking," he said. Among those who have criticised the plans are the UK's top policeman Sir John Stevens.The Metropolitan police chief said last week that the plans for 24-hour drinking should be re-examined because of a binge drinking "epidemic". However, Mr Hayman said: "It would be totally unacceptable in my view for a chief constable to say, 'I'm very sorry'. He said that police should make sure that responsible people who wanted a change could benefit from more liberal legislation. "My view is that I have got a responsibility to create an environment where that can happen, " he said. However, he believes a lot of preparatory work is still needed to be done by police, local authorities and the drinks industry before the nation was ready for 24-hour drinking. But he is confident problems in the early days can be "ironed out". He believed the majority of people favoured this law change and "we have to accept that lifestyles are changing". But aspects such as transport, and basic things such as making sure public toilets are open all night had to be taken into account.Prime Minister Tony Blair has defended the Licensing Act, saying it is wrong to deny people the relaxed hours enjoyed elsewhere in Europe because of a "tiny minority" of violent binge drinkers. A six-month transitional period starts on 7 February during which time venues can apply for extended licences. The Conservatives have called for 24-hour drinking to be shelved until the problems of binge drinking are solved. On Monday, the Lib Dems also called for a delay. Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "It would clearly be prudent to allow the police and local authorities more time to prepare for flexible drinking hours." Chief constable Mr Hayman acknowledged that binge drinking did cause problems. "If you come to Norwich on a Friday or Saturday night you will see things going on that will you make you feel ashamed. "However, I want industry to succeed in Norwich and I want Norwich to be the recognised nightspot of East Anglia. "There is no way I want to say we cannot manage it or police it. We can."

The Metropolitan police chief said last week that the plans for 24-hour drinking should be re-examined because of a binge drinking "epidemic".A chief constable has backed the introduction of 24-drinking, saying police had a responsibility to ensure people could benefit from a law change.He said that police should make sure that responsible people who wanted a change could benefit from more liberal legislation.However, Mr Hayman said: "It would be totally unacceptable in my view for a chief constable to say, 'I'm very sorry'.Andy Hayman said he did not agree with politicians and senior police officers who have objected to the plans, which come into force on 7 February.The Conservatives have called for 24-hour drinking to be shelved until the problems of binge drinking are solved.Lib Dem Home Affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "It would clearly be prudent to allow the police and local authorities more time to prepare for flexible drinking hours."However, he believes a lot of preparatory work is still needed to be done by police, local authorities and the drinks industry before the nation was ready for 24-hour drinking.Chief constable Mr Hayman acknowledged that binge drinking did cause problems.However, Norfolk police chief Andy Hayman also warned that a great deal of preparatory work was still needed.

Tories plan migrant health checksNon-European Union citizens wanting to work in the UK will have to undergo tests for Tuberculosis and HIV, under plans unveiled by the Conservatives.A positive test for TB would mean visa applications being turned down, while HIV would be dealt with case by case. Leader Michael Howard said the checks on new arrivals would help protect public health and the NHS. Labour said many tests were already done. The Lib Dems warned both parties against "pandering to prejudice".The proposals, which would be brought in if the Conservatives won the General Election, would not apply to people coming to the UK for less than six months unless they intended to work in health or childcare or teaching. Mr Howard said the plans were based on policies already in action in Canada, New Zealand and Australia. "It's very important that we should safeguard the good standards of public health that Britain enjoys," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. Government figures suggest TB in England has increased by 25% over the past 10 years. "Nearly two thirds of people with TB are born abroad," said Mr Howard."I don't think a responsible government can stand aside and do nothing in the face of this problem." But Mr Howard said the plans would not affect asylum applicants' claims. The proposals include:- People coming to the UK from outside the EU for between six and 12 months from a "high incidence TB country" will have to undergo a chest X-ray. - People coming to settle in the UK permanently from outside the EU will have to "demonstrate they have an acceptable standard of health". - They will also have to show they are unlikely to be a danger to public health and are unlikely to "impose significant costs or demands" on the NHS. - The tests will include a health check, chest X-rays for TB (except for children and pregnant women) and tests for hepatitis and HIV for over 16-year-olds. Only the discovery of TB will mean people will be automatically denied a visa, other conditions will be dealt with on a "case by case basis".There is already some screening in place. Last year 185,000 people were tested for TB at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, only about 200 were found to be infected. And Dr John Moore-Gillon, of the British Lung Foundation, said: "TB is not simply imported, we are seeing a rise in many sections of the UK-born population as well." The government says the Tories are "a bit late" to the issue. Immigration minister Des Browne quoted its five-year plan for immigration and asylum, as saying: "We are implementing our existing powers by targeted health screening for TB in high-risk areas at the entry clearance stage. "Those who are diagnosed would then need to seek treatment at home before being allowed to enter the UK." Meanwhile Mark Oaten, Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, said: "This is another worrying step in the war of words over asylum and immigration between Labour and the Conservatives. "Michael Howard knows perfectly well what bigger game he is playing, and history proves it is a very dangerous one." Lisa Power, head of policy at Aids charity the Terrence Higgins Trust said the policy was prejudice-based rather than evidence-based. "In fact, it would be more likely to drive people with health conditions to falsify tests while others gain entry by simple dint of their EU status," she said.

"Nearly two thirds of people with TB are born abroad," said Mr Howard.Leader Michael Howard said the checks on new arrivals would help protect public health and the NHS."In fact, it would be more likely to drive people with health conditions to falsify tests while others gain entry by simple dint of their EU status," she said.But Mr Howard said the plans would not affect asylum applicants' claims.A positive test for TB would mean visa applications being turned down, while HIV would be dealt with case by case.The proposals, which would be brought in if the Conservatives won the General Election, would not apply to people coming to the UK for less than six months unless they intended to work in health or childcare or teaching.Labour said many tests were already done.Mr Howard said the plans were based on policies already in action in Canada, New Zealand and Australia.The proposals include: - People coming to the UK from outside the EU for between six and 12 months from a "high incidence TB country" will have to undergo a chest X-ray.- The tests will include a health check, chest X-rays for TB (except for children and pregnant women) and tests for hepatitis and HIV for over 16-year-olds.- People coming to settle in the UK permanently from outside the EU will have to "demonstrate they have an acceptable standard of health".

Blair pledges unity to Labour MPsTony Blair has sought to reassure Labour backbenchers that nothing will stand in the way of the party's bid for a third term in power.Mr Blair was speaking to MPs amid fresh rumours of a rift with Gordon Brown. A new book says the prime minister went back on a pledge to Mr Brown to stand down before the next general election. The chancellor has said he is focused on winning the poll and is due to join election supremo Alan Milburn for a Labour poster launch this week. Mr Blair told the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) on Monday: "I know from everyone here, in Cabinet and government, nothing is going to get in the way of a unified Labour Party with a unified position and winning the third term people desperately need." The prime minister and his chancellor arrived within seconds of each other and seemingly in good spirits at the start of the meeting which lasted around an hour. A new book, Brown's Britain by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston, says Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004.It has caused a new wave of concern among Labour MPs gearing up to defend their seats in an election, widely expected to be held in May, and several members are understood to have lined up to express their discontent at the PLP meeting. Health Secretary John Reid earlier warned that Labour members would not easily forgive anybody fuelling damaging speculation. He told BBC News: "Those who co-operate or inspire these books, in my view, have to know that, whatever the short-term political or personal advantage that they think they might secure, they always do it by damaging the record, the unity and the re-election chances of the Labour Party and the government." Mr Blair on Sunday dismissed claims of broken promises, saying: "I've dealt with this six months ago. I said then you don't do deals over jobs like this - you don't."In a separate BBC interview, Mr Brown said he and the prime minister would not be distracted by "gossip". "It's very important that we all do what we can in a unified way to ensure the election of a Labour government," he said.On Monday, Mr Blair's spokesman said: "The prime minister is determined that he will get on with the business of government because he believes that what people want." Mr Brown says he discussed the election campaign with Mr Blair on Saturday and promised to play his part.Mr Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt". Mr Blair had decided in November 2003 he would quit because he felt he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war.He had then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from Cabinet allies and suspicion that the chancellor was manoeuvring against him. Mr Brown allegedly said he could no longer believe anything Mr Blair told him. Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox likened the two men to "self-obsessed schoolboys". Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said their personal ambition was "getting in the way of good government". Ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock said Mr Blair and Mr Brown could only deal with the media frenzy by continuing to say they would not allow a row to damage Labour or British interests. He told BBC Radio Five Live that Mr Brown would never encourage any kind of insurrection or coup.

Mr Brown allegedly said he could no longer believe anything Mr Blair told him.Ex-Labour leader Neil Kinnock said Mr Blair and Mr Brown could only deal with the media frenzy by continuing to say they would not allow a row to damage Labour or British interests.Mr Brown says he discussed the election campaign with Mr Blair on Saturday and promised to play his part.In a separate BBC interview, Mr Brown said he and the prime minister would not be distracted by "gossip".A new book, Brown's Britain by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston, says Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004.Mr Blair told the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) on Monday: "I know from everyone here, in Cabinet and government, nothing is going to get in the way of a unified Labour Party with a unified position and winning the third term people desperately need."A new book says the prime minister went back on a pledge to Mr Brown to stand down before the next general election."It's very important that we all do what we can in a unified way to ensure the election of a Labour government," he said.On Monday, Mr Blair's spokesman said: "The prime minister is determined that he will get on with the business of government because he believes that what people want."Mr Blair was speaking to MPs amid fresh rumours of a rift with Gordon Brown.

Blair 'up for it' ahead of pollTony Blair says his personal standing in the eyes of voters will be "an issue" in the general election.The prime minister said he was "up for it" as the country waits to go to the polls, possibly in a matter of weeks. He told The Observer government life was a "constant barrage of attack" but said he would not stay in charge if he felt unable to contribute. Mr Blair also spoke of meeting many people across the country with concerns about the compensation culture.He said Britain was in danger of needless panic over public safety issues.Speaking amid a flurry of pre-election campaigning, the prime minister said: "I am an issue, I always will be. Whoever is the prime minister will be." He added: "If you are afraid to take criticism, you should go and do another job." Asked if he would quit as leader if he felt like a liability to Labour, he said: "It's important always not to do the job unless you feel you have something to contribute." Whether he still had something to offer, he said, was a judgement for people to make. Mr Blair's assessment is likely to be seen as a signal that replacing him would not bring an upsurge in fortunes for the Labour administration.His comments come as the co-chairman of the Conservative Party, Liam Fox, on Saturday called him "a disappointment of historic proportions" as a prime minister. Mr Blair said he had learned from a series of at times tough encounters with members of the public, during question and answer sessions across the country in recent weeks. He pledged to clamp down on Britain's growing compensation culture, which has brought concerns that doctors, teachers and other professionals are being hampered in their work by the fear of frivolous lawsuits."I was quite shocked to be told by people who were running a nursery that they were worried about letting the kids out into the playground when it was wet in case one of them slipped and fell and they ended up having a legal case [against them]," he said."We have got to look at a way of getting people protection on that." Mr Blair said the government was also looking at "how to make sure that legal aid is not abused with actions against doctors and others", as part of a review being carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department. And there should be "real debate" about the risk posed by public safety threats, he said. "We are in danger of - depending on whatever is the media campaign of the day - ending up spending literally hundreds, sometimes millions of pounds meeting quite a small risk."His comments come after the government announced it is to spend £200m on drugs to treat a possible outbreak of bird flu, and the Sudan 1 food scare. Meanwhile, Commons leader Peter Hain has warned that on the campaign trail he has seen "dangerous complacency" being displayed by Labour voters convinced of a general election victory. If Labour voters "stayed at home" in marginal seats they could see Tory leader Michael Howard "coming in the back door to Number 10 with the tradesman's key to Number 10, getting into power", he added.

The prime minister said he was "up for it" as the country waits to go to the polls, possibly in a matter of weeks.Whether he still had something to offer, he said, was a judgement for people to make.Speaking amid a flurry of pre-election campaigning, the prime minister said: "I am an issue, I always will be.He said Britain was in danger of needless panic over public safety issues.Mr Blair said the government was also looking at "how to make sure that legal aid is not abused with actions against doctors and others", as part of a review being carried out by the Lord Chancellor's Department.Asked if he would quit as leader if he felt like a liability to Labour, he said: "It's important always not to do the job unless you feel you have something to contribute."He told The Observer government life was a "constant barrage of attack" but said he would not stay in charge if he felt unable to contribute.Mr Blair said he had learned from a series of at times tough encounters with members of the public, during question and answer sessions across the country in recent weeks.Mr Blair also spoke of meeting many people across the country with concerns about the compensation culture.

Labour faces 'cold calls' inquiryLabour is to be investigated by a watchdog over claims its election campaign has broken the rules on "cold calling" householders.The information commissioner is to look into a complaint from the Lib Dems about how Labour uses its call centres. The Lib Dems say Labour is telephoning people who have signed up to make sure they do not get marketing calls. Labour denies breaking rules. It says calls are not marketing if they just ask about people's voting intentions. The party says it would expect the watchdog to take complaints seriously but it has clear legal advice on the issue.Telephone call centres are expected to be used as never before by all the three major parties in the run-up to the general election. But seven million telephone numbers are on the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) lists, which ban unsolicited sales and marketing calls. Lib Dem chairman Matthew Taylor has written to the watchdog accusing Labour of a "flagrant and systematic breach" of the laws governing the TPS.He says the initial call may not be marketing but it identifies voters to whom the party can send promotional material in the future. His letter to the commissioner quotes from a Labour Party handbook about "identifying target voters". And it quotes a Stevenage Labour Party members' newsletter explaining how voters will be telephoned about their voting intentions.The voters are put in 24 categories according to their last known voting intention, ranging from "Labour (firm)" to "target (Conservative)" - those who supported the party in the past but this time will be voting Tory. The newsletter says: "Using the information we know about people, we can send them direct mailings. "For example, we could send the target (Conservative) people a letter from someone who had defected from the Tories to Labour explaining the reasons why voting Tory is a bad idea or we could send Labour (weak) people a letter encouraging them to sign up for a postal vote."Mr Taylor tells the commissioner: "It is clear beyond peradventure from the above that the Labour Party is engaging in a large-scale voter ID project for subsequent promotional purposes through targeted and segmented mailings. "Insofar as this project is directed at TPS subscribers, it is equally clear that it is unlawful." The Lib Dems raised worries about Labour and Conservative calls in February and 680 people have signed up to the website they set up to help people to complain. A party official said there was only scattered evidence of the Tories breaking the rules but people had complained every day about Labour.A spokeswoman for the Information Commissioner's Office said it was examining one complaint about political calls - understood to be Mr Taylor's. "We are investigating one of the complaints where some evidence has been given to us," she said. "Obviously evidence is needed for us to start investigations." The commissioner's office will now examine the Lib Dem evidence. "The guidance is that cold calling can be made as long as no marketing is going on," said the spokeswoman. If Labour is judged to have broken the rules, it will be asked stop immediately. If it fails to do so after two or three warning letters, the commissioner can issue an enforcement notice spelling out what the party needs to do or stop doing.The party could appeal against the decision to an Information Tribunal. If the appeal fails and it continues breaking the rules, it could be fined up to £5,000. Labour says it avoids those on TPS lists when telephoning people about membership or fundraising but not when making "voter identification" calls. Asked about the commissioner's inquiry, a Labour spokesman told BBC News: "We expect the information commissioner to take any complaint seriously. However, we are absolutely clear that we haven't broken any rules. "As the information commissioner himself has said, if people are not marketing something, if they are asking them which way they are going to vote, they are not in breach of the law. "We always ask everyone we phone up whether they would be happy to be contacted by the Labour Party again."

The information commissioner is to look into a complaint from the Lib Dems about how Labour uses its call centres.A party official said there was only scattered evidence of the Tories breaking the rules but people had complained every day about Labour.The Lib Dems say Labour is telephoning people who have signed up to make sure they do not get marketing calls.His letter to the commissioner quotes from a Labour Party handbook about "identifying target voters"."For example, we could send the target (Conservative) people a letter from someone who had defected from the Tories to Labour explaining the reasons why voting Tory is a bad idea or we could send Labour (weak) people a letter encouraging them to sign up for a postal vote."And it quotes a Stevenage Labour Party members' newsletter explaining how voters will be telephoned about their voting intentions.Labour denies breaking rules.The Lib Dems raised worries about Labour and Conservative calls in February and 680 people have signed up to the website they set up to help people to complain.Labour says it avoids those on TPS lists when telephoning people about membership or fundraising but not when making "voter identification" calls.Mr Taylor tells the commissioner: "It is clear beyond peradventure from the above that the Labour Party is engaging in a large-scale voter ID project for subsequent promotional purposes through targeted and segmented mailings.Asked about the commissioner's inquiry, a Labour spokesman told BBC News: "We expect the information commissioner to take any complaint seriously."As the information commissioner himself has said, if people are not marketing something, if they are asking them which way they are going to vote, they are not in breach of the law.The party says it would expect the watchdog to take complaints seriously but it has clear legal advice on the issue.If Labour is judged to have broken the rules, it will be asked stop immediately.

Job cuts 'false economy' - TUCPlans to shed 71,000 civil service jobs will prove to be a "false economy" that could hamper public sector reforms, according to a TUC report.Public and Commercial Services union members have already voted to strike over cuts for one day on 5 November. The TUC said cuts would deliver less than 6% of the £22bn ministers hope to save through efficiency reforms. General secretary Brendan Barber warned the "costs could easily outweigh the benefits". "The government's big boost to public spending is now showing results," said Mr Barber. "Public services are improving but looking for simple savings through job cuts at this stage could be a false economy."They may shoot a Tory fox, but cutting thousands of civil service jobs will hit the morale and capabilities of the public servants expected to implement government reforms. The costs could easily outweigh the benefits." Next Friday's strike action by the PCS is the biggest in the civil service since 1993, hitting Jobcentres, benefit agencies, pensions offices, customs and driving tests. The union says it is concerned about pensions, sick pay and forced relocation as well as the cut in jobs. Last month it was announced that a total of 37 social security offices and Jobcentres across the UK would close in the first wave of plans to shed civil service jobs. The number of civil servants in Britain rose to more than 520,000 in April. Other areas the strike will affect include passports, museums and galleries, libraries and health and safety inspections.

Plans to shed 71,000 civil service jobs will prove to be a "false economy" that could hamper public sector reforms, according to a TUC report."Public services are improving but looking for simple savings through job cuts at this stage could be a false economy."They may shoot a Tory fox, but cutting thousands of civil service jobs will hit the morale and capabilities of the public servants expected to implement government reforms.Public and Commercial Services union members have already voted to strike over cuts for one day on 5 November.General secretary Brendan Barber warned the "costs could easily outweigh the benefits".The costs could easily outweigh the benefits."

Blair 'said he would stand down'Tony Blair promised Gordon Brown he would stand down before the next election, a new book about the chancellor claims.But the prime minister changed his mind following intervention from allies in the Cabinet, according to the book. The book by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other. The book, Brown's Britain, said Tony Blair felt by November 2003 he had lost voters' trust.The author's sources, all unnamed "allies" of Mr Blair and Mr Brown, said the prime minister felt the Iraq war had undermined him and that he was no longer an asset to the Labour Party.The book, serialised in the Sunday Telegraph, alleges that Mr Blair told the chancellor at a dinner hosted by deputy PM John Prescott in November 2003 of his intention to stand down. "At that stage he saw Gordon Brown and said, 'look you are the next most influential member of the government, I need your help to get through the next year," Mr Peston said. "I myself recognise that I'm going to have to stand down before the election but help me to get through the year and I will then stand down.'" But he changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, the book claims.Mr Peston told BBC News: "My understanding is that they are not nearly as close or as friendly as they once were. "What the book says is there now a pretty profound mutual mistrust, mutual animosity. "I think in public you see this double act pretending everything is alright but in private I don't think the relationship is good because Brown, understandably, feels deeply betrayed - particularly over this issue of the leadership." There has been fresh speculation of a rift recently, following their separate responses to the Asian tsunami. Rumours of a rift were fuelled by the sudden decision to hold Mr Blair's monthly media conference at the same time as a long-planned speech by Mr Brown on UK plans to tackle global poverty with a new "Marshall Plan" for Africa. There was speculation the pair were trying to outdo each other's response to the disaster.Former welfare minister Frank Field MP criticised the reported rivalry between the pair on GMTV's Sunday Programme."What sort of model does it give to the nation when the two most important political leaders do nothing but fight it out together or use their aides to fight it out?" the Labour MP for Birkenhead asked. He said the prime minister should sack Mr Brown, but did not believe Mr Blair was strong enough to do so. Conservative policy co-ordinator David Cameron, MP for Witney, added: "If it wasn't so serious it would be funny. "But it is serious - you've got the two most senior people in the government not concentrating on fighting crime, poverty or dirty hospitals - they are fighting each other." Carol Walker, BBC News 24 political correspondent, added: "There is a real concern that this could undermine the general election campaign. "And clearly it is very bad news for the government at a time when it is trying to explain what it is doing to respond to the terrible problems thrown up by the tsunami disaster."

He said the prime minister should sack Mr Brown, but did not believe Mr Blair was strong enough to do so.The author's sources, all unnamed "allies" of Mr Blair and Mr Brown, said the prime minister felt the Iraq war had undermined him and that he was no longer an asset to the Labour Party.Tony Blair promised Gordon Brown he would stand down before the next election, a new book about the chancellor claims."At that stage he saw Gordon Brown and said, 'look you are the next most influential member of the government, I need your help to get through the next year," Mr Peston said.The book, serialised in the Sunday Telegraph, alleges that Mr Blair told the chancellor at a dinner hosted by deputy PM John Prescott in November 2003 of his intention to stand down.The book by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other.But the prime minister changed his mind following intervention from allies in the Cabinet, according to the book.But he changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, the book claims.The book, Brown's Britain, said Tony Blair felt by November 2003 he had lost voters' trust.Mr Peston told BBC News: "My understanding is that they are not nearly as close or as friendly as they once were.

Falconer rebuts 'charade' claimsConcessions on a bill which critics claim would allow euthanasia "through the back door" were not a political ploy, the lord chancellor has said.Ministers have been accused of panic in offering last minute changes to the Mental Capacity Bill amid chaotic scenes in the Commons on Tuesday. Lord Falconer said it was fair to criticise the late timing of the offer. He said the changes provided a solution to a very difficult issue but some MPs argue the situation is still unclear.The bill allows people to give somebody the power of attorney to make decisions on their behalf if they become too ill to decide for themselves. Ministers insist the plans would not change laws on euthanasia and would improve safeguards. Critics fear it could allow "killing by omission" through withdrawing treatment, including food and fluids.Tony Blair said he would do everything he could to meet concerns about the bill. But changes to the bill must not overturn the law set when a court ruled that doctors could withdraw artificial feeding and hydration from Hillsborough coma victim Tony Bland. "It is important we don't end up in the situation where doctors and consultants are confused about the law and may lay themselves open to prosecution in circumstances where no sensible person would want that to happen," he said.On Tuesday, the government saw off a backbench attempt to force changes to the bill by 297 votes to 203, despite rebellion by 34 Labour MPs. The revolt was also reduced by news that Lord Falconer had promised the Catholic archbishop of Cardiff to strengthen safeguards in the bill. But that only came after MPs bombarded Constitutional Affairs Minister David Lammy with a barrage of requests for him to read the letter as they complained they had been left in the dark. Eventually, he was hurriedly handed the letter to read out five minutes before the crunch votes, prompting claims of a shambles. The deputy speaker later said the debate had not been handled as it should have been.Lord Falconer says there will be amendments when the bill goes to the House of Lords. He told BBC News: "We have given a commitment to put into the bill a clause that says that nothing in the bill authorises any act where the motive of the person authorising the decision is to end life. "The motive has got to be to end suffering." He denied the concessions were a "political manoeuvre" forced by panic about the rebellion. It was inevitable that minds became more focused as the bill went through Parliament but the result was a "sensible solution", he said. "I don't think it is something to be embarrassed about. These issues are not easy to deal with," he went on. BBC political editor Andrew Marr said Mr Lammy was "waste deep in quicksand and sinking fast" after his performance. But Lord Falconer praised his minister for an "excellent job". Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, one of the chief critics of the plans, condemned the debate as a "charade" and complained the promises of changes to the bill were vague.

Concessions on a bill which critics claim would allow euthanasia "through the back door" were not a political ploy, the lord chancellor has said.Tony Blair said he would do everything he could to meet concerns about the bill.It was inevitable that minds became more focused as the bill went through Parliament but the result was a "sensible solution", he said.Lord Falconer said it was fair to criticise the late timing of the offer.Lord Falconer says there will be amendments when the bill goes to the House of Lords.The revolt was also reduced by news that Lord Falconer had promised the Catholic archbishop of Cardiff to strengthen safeguards in the bill.He told BBC News: "We have given a commitment to put into the bill a clause that says that nothing in the bill authorises any act where the motive of the person authorising the decision is to end life."It is important we don't end up in the situation where doctors and consultants are confused about the law and may lay themselves open to prosecution in circumstances where no sensible person would want that to happen," he said.He said the changes provided a solution to a very difficult issue but some MPs argue the situation is still unclear.On Tuesday, the government saw off a backbench attempt to force changes to the bill by 297 votes to 203, despite rebellion by 34 Labour MPs.

Hague's six-figure earnings shownThe rewards of leaving front-bench politics are shown in the latest annual register of members' interests.The register shows former Tory leader William Hague earning up to £820,000 on top of his MPs' salary, much of it from speaking fees. His former shadow chancellor Michael Portillo makes up to £560,000 a year - partly because of speeches and TV work. Ex-health secretary Alan Milburn earned up to £85,000 from speeches, articles and advice while not in the Cabinet.Mr Milburn was away from the frontbench for just more than a year between stepping down as health secretary and becoming Labour's election supremo. His declared interests include £20,000 from newspaper articles and fees of up to £35,000 for four speeches. He also commanded a salary of between £25,000 and £35,000 for being on investment company Bridgepoint Capital's European advisory committee. His time out of office will, however, have lost him his £71,433 minister's salary. Mr Hague's work outside Parliament included two one-man shows, which with other speaking fees netted him up to £480,000. He also earned up to £195,000 for a weekly column in the News of the World, and between £5,000 and £10,000 for presenting BBC'2's Have I Got News for You. Mr Hague was also paid an undisclosed amount for the newspaper serialisation of his biography of William Pitt the Younger and up to £135,00 for work as an adviser to various companies.Former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo makes some of his money as a non-executive director of BAE Systems. He is to stand down as an MP at the next election. And former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook was paid between £45,001 and £50,000 for the paperback edition of his book about his resignation from government. His declared income of up to £205,000 also includes payments for being a consultant to the Tote and for his regular column in the Guardian newspaper. The register also shows former Home Office Minister Ann Widdecombe declaring a £100,000 advance for her third and fourth novels. She also received up to £30,000 for acting as the Guardian's agony aunt and between £5,001 and £10,000 for appearing on ITV's Celebrity Fit Club. David Blunkett has become a paid adviser to Indepen Consulting Limited now he is not home secretary - he helps them with seminars about the relationship between government and business. He earns between £5,001and £10,000 for the work.Tony Blair's entry confirms that King Abdullah of Jordan paid for him to fly from a holiday in Egypt to official discussions - and for a sightseeing tour to Wadi Rum. Tory leader Michael Howard's only fresh entry is a Christmas hamper from the Sultan of Brunei. He also declares a trip to Mexico last year to address executives of News International, and helicopter and private jet travel paid for by supporters. Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy registered donations to his office from supporters, a free ticket to last year's Bafta awards and rent from a single-bedroom flat in London. The register only contains new information for December 2004 - but Monday saw the publication of the annual review of the register, with the year's details. The payments are shown in bands of up £5,000, making it difficult to calculate the exact earnings.

Mr Hague was also paid an undisclosed amount for the newspaper serialisation of his biography of William Pitt the Younger and up to £135,00 for work as an adviser to various companies.The register also shows former Home Office Minister Ann Widdecombe declaring a £100,000 advance for her third and fourth novels.The register shows former Tory leader William Hague earning up to £820,000 on top of his MPs' salary, much of it from speaking fees.His former shadow chancellor Michael Portillo makes up to £560,000 a year - partly because of speeches and TV work.Mr Milburn was away from the frontbench for just more than a year between stepping down as health secretary and becoming Labour's election supremo.And former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook was paid between £45,001 and £50,000 for the paperback edition of his book about his resignation from government.He also declares a trip to Mexico last year to address executives of News International, and helicopter and private jet travel paid for by supporters.His declared income of up to £205,000 also includes payments for being a consultant to the Tote and for his regular column in the Guardian newspaper.Former Defence Secretary Michael Portillo makes some of his money as a non-executive director of BAE Systems.He also earned up to £195,000 for a weekly column in the News of the World, and between £5,000 and £10,000 for presenting BBC'2's Have I Got News for You.

Donor attacks Blair-Brown 'feud'The reported feud between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown has prompted a Labour donor to say he will almost certainly refuse to give more funds.Duncan Bannatyne also attacked the government over Iraq and its "poor" response to the Asian tsunami crisis. His broadside came as ex-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said he hoped Mr Brown would be premier at some point. Mr Bannatyne has previously given Labour £50,000. He made his fortune from care homes and health clubs.The 52-year-old on Tuesday said was he was reviewing his donations because of Cabinet disunity and international issues. His spokesman said it was highly unlikely he would give Labour more money, although he would remain a supporter and not fund the Conservatives.Robert Peston's new book has prompted more speculation about the Blair-Brown rift with its claims that the prime minister broke a promise made in 2003 to stand down. Mr Bannatyne said: "Disunity in the Cabinet has a corrosive effect on the country. "Gordon Brown is a great chancellor who has delivered a stable economy, but business wants that to continue and not be blown off course by petty squabbles based on personal ambition." The businessman, whose latest venture is a casino in Newcastle, also voiced concern about the ongoing violence in Iraq.And he branded the UK government's response to the tsunami as "piecemeal and poor". "The people there need practical help not just pledges of money," he said. "The US has forces helping on the ground - we can do more." British Navy ships have helped the relief effort and the prime minister has said the government could ultimately give hundreds of millions of pounds in aid. Mr Bannatyne is due to host a new television programme and is also appearing on BBC2 business start-up programme Dragon's Den. But his spokesman insisted his attack on Labour was not a publicity stunt.In a separate development, Robin Cook gave his support to Mr Brown's prime ministerial ambitions but told a lunch for political journalists winning the election had to be Labour's election. But he insisted the recent squabbles between Mr Blair and Mr Brown were not "perceived as a problem by the voters," adding there was no impression of governmental incompetence. Mr Cook argued that more prominence was given to these matters because there was "not an alternative source of opposition to the government". He warned the "Abstentions Party" was the real challenge to Labour - and they would not be motivated by Mr Blair's promise to produce an "unremittingly New Labour" election manifesto. His comments come after Dave Prentis, the leader of Britain's biggest union Unison, told the Daily Record newspaper he wants a date to be set for Mr Blair to be replaced as Labour leader.

Mr Bannatyne has previously given Labour £50,000.Mr Bannatyne said: "Disunity in the Cabinet has a corrosive effect on the country.He warned the "Abstentions Party" was the real challenge to Labour - and they would not be motivated by Mr Blair's promise to produce an "unremittingly New Labour" election manifesto.But he insisted the recent squabbles between Mr Blair and Mr Brown were not "perceived as a problem by the voters," adding there was no impression of governmental incompetence.Mr Cook argued that more prominence was given to these matters because there was "not an alternative source of opposition to the government".His spokesman said it was highly unlikely he would give Labour more money, although he would remain a supporter and not fund the Conservatives.His broadside came as ex-Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said he hoped Mr Brown would be premier at some point.The reported feud between Tony Blair and Gordon Brown has prompted a Labour donor to say he will almost certainly refuse to give more funds.Duncan Bannatyne also attacked the government over Iraq and its "poor" response to the Asian tsunami crisis.

MPs tout Lords replacement planA group of MPs has tried to raise the pressure on Tony Blair over reform to the House of Lords by publishing a detailed blueprint for change.The cross-party group has unveiled a draft bill proposing a smaller second chamber in which 70% of members would be elected. MPs and peers have failed to agree on reform since 1999 when 600 hereditaries lost their seats. The group says it can win support for removing the last 92 hereditaries. The government postponed plans to remove the remaining hereditary peers because they said they were unlikely to succeed after opposition in the Lords. Tony Blair has argued. there needs to be consensus on reforms. There have been suggestions there will be proposals for changing at least the powers of the Lords in Labour's manifesto.But the all-party group, including Tories Ken Clarke and Sir George Young, Labour's Robin Cook and Tony Wright and Liberal Democrat Paul Tyler, is confident its plan would win support from a "large majority". And they list former Conservative leader William Hague and former Labour leader Neil Kinnock as supporters of the plans. The group says the British public and a clear majority of MPs support replacing the Lords with a largely-elected second chamber. Their plan would see the House of Lords being renamed the Second Chamber of Parliament, and its members would be known as MSCPs.There would be 385 MSCPs, including 270 elected members, 87 appointed members and 16 bishops. They would serve for between 12 and 14 years. Mr Cook said holding elections for MSCPs on the same day as those for MPs might help motivate the electorate and increase voter turnout. He added: "Over the last year I have seen many statements from senior figures of this government insisting the public must have the right of choice. "What could be more important than a choice of the people who sit in our Parliament?"The group believes pressure is growing for change and the government's current position is unsustainable. It wants all three main parties to include a commitment to a "largely democratic" second chamber in their manifestos. Mr Clarke said the issue "went to the heart of reforming the health of the British political system". And Mr Tyler said the prime minister's view that there was no agreement on the shape of the future of the Lords was flawed. "The problem, I think, in the prime minister's mind is there doesn't appear to be a consensus that includes him," he said. "We are providing a consensus". The Elect the Lords Campaign said the draft bill was an important contribution to the debate. "We believe this draft bill is detailed enough to form the basis of closer parliamentary scrutiny," said co-ordinator Peter Facey. "In lieu of any other such clear proposals, the government must permit that to happen."

Their plan would see the House of Lords being renamed the Second Chamber of Parliament, and its members would be known as MSCPs.The group says the British public and a clear majority of MPs support replacing the Lords with a largely-elected second chamber.The cross-party group has unveiled a draft bill proposing a smaller second chamber in which 70% of members would be elected.A group of MPs has tried to raise the pressure on Tony Blair over reform to the House of Lords by publishing a detailed blueprint for change.The Elect the Lords Campaign said the draft bill was an important contribution to the debate.The government postponed plans to remove the remaining hereditary peers because they said they were unlikely to succeed after opposition in the Lords.But the all-party group, including Tories Ken Clarke and Sir George Young, Labour's Robin Cook and Tony Wright and Liberal Democrat Paul Tyler, is confident its plan would win support from a "large majority".And Mr Tyler said the prime minister's view that there was no agreement on the shape of the future of the Lords was flawed."The problem, I think, in the prime minister's mind is there doesn't appear to be a consensus that includes him," he said.The group says it can win support for removing the last 92 hereditaries.There would be 385 MSCPs, including 270 elected members, 87 appointed members and 16 bishops.

Clarke to press on with ID cardsNew Home Secretary Charles Clarke has vowed to plough on with plans for ID cards despite a call for him to "pause for thought" from Charles Kennedy.The Lib Dem leader said David Blunkett's resignation was a "good opportunity" to question whether the legislation was necessary. But Mr Clarke said he had supported the plans when Mr Blunkett argued for them in Cabinet and he supported them now. "ID cards are a means to creating a more secure society," he said. Mr Clarke acknowledged how the measure was introduced remained a matter for debate but he said legislation had already been "significantly influenced" by the recommendations of the Commons' home affairs committee.The issue would be debated in Parliament next Monday as scheduled he insisted. Earlier Mr Kennedy, whose party opposes the ID cards plan as "deeply flawed" said with Christmas coming up the new home secretary had time to think again. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Mr Clarke had been reported to be less enthusiastic about ID cards than his predecessors. "Wouldn't this be a good opportunity for a new home secretary, a new broom, to sweep clean in this respect and why do we need this legislation in the first place?" he asked. Earlier this week the Tories announced they would back the government's plans although Michael Howard was forced to deny the shadow cabinet was split over its decision.They had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration. Among those reported to have serious reservations over the strategy were senior shadow cabinet members David Davis, Oliver Letwin and Tim Yeo. The chairman of the Bar Council, Guy Mansfield QC has warned there is a real risk that people on the "margins of society" would be driven into the hands of extremists. "What is going to happen to young Asian men when there has been a bomb gone off somewhere? They are going to be stopped. If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."The Home Office says people will pay £85 for a passport and ID card together or a undecided fee for a separate ID card. The first cards would be issued in 2008 and when he was introducing the bill, Mr Blunkett suggested Parliament could decide in 2011 or 2012 whether to make it compulsory for everybody to own the cards, although not to carry them. The new bill will also create new criminal offences on the possession of false identity documents. And there will be civil penalties including a fine of up to £1,000 fine for people who fail to say they have moved house or changed other details and of up to £2,500 for failing to sign up if the cards become compulsory. The scheme will be overseen by a new independent watchdog.

Earlier Mr Kennedy, whose party opposes the ID cards plan as "deeply flawed" said with Christmas coming up the new home secretary had time to think again.New Home Secretary Charles Clarke has vowed to plough on with plans for ID cards despite a call for him to "pause for thought" from Charles Kennedy.The Home Office says people will pay £85 for a passport and ID card together or a undecided fee for a separate ID card."ID cards are a means to creating a more secure society," he said.The first cards would be issued in 2008 and when he was introducing the bill, Mr Blunkett suggested Parliament could decide in 2011 or 2012 whether to make it compulsory for everybody to own the cards, although not to carry them.He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that Mr Clarke had been reported to be less enthusiastic about ID cards than his predecessors.But Mr Clarke said he had supported the plans when Mr Blunkett argued for them in Cabinet and he supported them now.If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."Mr Clarke acknowledged how the measure was introduced remained a matter for debate but he said legislation had already been "significantly influenced" by the recommendations of the Commons' home affairs committee.

Housing plans criticised by MPs"Irreversible environmental damage" will be caused by government plans to build more than one million homes in south-east England, MPs have warned."Sustainable communities" were being promoted without a real understanding of what "sustainable" means, the Environmental Audit Committee said. It said issues like energy needs and transport were not properly addressed. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said the report was completed before new initiatives were announced. He said: "We are working across government, especially with our colleagues at Defra, to create cleaner, safer and greener communities, while protecting and enhancing the environment."The report said there was far too little attention paid to many environmental issues, including water, even though supplies in parts of the South East are already too low. Regulations designed to ensure energy-efficient buildings are too lax, and builders routinely flout them anyway, it said.Financing for improving transport was around one-twentieth of what would be required. The report was a stinging rebuke for the government and especially John Prescott's department, BBC environment correspondent Richard Black said. Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee Peter Ainsworth MP, said: "The government's housing policy is an alarming example of disjointed thinking in an areas where joined-up policy is crucial. "I accept the need to improve housing supply but, as things stand, the principal beneficiary of housing growth will be property developers, with the environment we all depend on being the principal loser." Points raised in the report included: - No proposals to further increase housing supply should be taken forward without strong supporting evidence. - The government should recognise shortcomings of the Treasury's Barker Review, which said 140,000 new homes a year were needed in Britain. - The government should consider a "national spatial framework" for England such as those already in place in Scotland and Wales. - The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should maximise brown field development and housing densities. - Measures to encourage improved energy efficiency for existing homes should be considered - including reduced stamp duty for homes that achieve set standards and a clear timetable for achieving zero-emissions homes. - The government should make clear how it intends to measure its success at creating sustainable communities. Conservative local government spokeswoman Caroline Spelman said: "There is now growing evidence that John Prescott's buildings programme is environmentally unsustainable, leaving a concrete scar across the face of rural England."

The report was a stinging rebuke for the government and especially John Prescott's department, BBC environment correspondent Richard Black said.Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott said the report was completed before new initiatives were announced.- The government should recognise shortcomings of the Treasury's Barker Review, which said 140,000 new homes a year were needed in Britain.He said: "We are working across government, especially with our colleagues at Defra, to create cleaner, safer and greener communities, while protecting and enhancing the environment.""Sustainable communities" were being promoted without a real understanding of what "sustainable" means, the Environmental Audit Committee said.The report said there was far too little attention paid to many environmental issues, including water, even though supplies in parts of the South East are already too low.Conservative local government spokeswoman Caroline Spelman said: "There is now growing evidence that John Prescott's buildings programme is environmentally unsustainable, leaving a concrete scar across the face of rural England."It said issues like energy needs and transport were not properly addressed.

The memory driving Brown's missionThe memory Gordon Brown says keeps returning to him - the one that he says is burnt into him - is that of a 12 year-old girl, whose parents died of Aids, and who is HIV positive herself.Mr Brown seems haunted by her eyes, desolate of all hope. And then he talks of those eyes that do inspire optimism: an extraordinary performance by schoolgirls of Kenya's largest slum, advancing with crowded menace, flicking their hips in a manner almost as disturbing, before the finale of a clenched fist salute and shout of "free education - free education for all". Mr Brown's message generally, that compassion must become action before that hope is squandered. But he is such a pivotal figure in British politics, it is almost impossible not to ask him why he is doing this. His answer, in part, is because of the missionaries that used to come to his father's church. Ever since, he says, Africa has been important to him.I've absolutely no doubt whatsoever this is heartfelt. But he also believes it is time for the world to see a new Gordon Brown. Not the dull, reassuring bank manager but a man driven by a moral passion - and it just so happens the Labour Party feels an awful lot happier ridding the world of debt than ridding the world of dictators.There's also a sense of liberation. If Mr Blair won't allow him to run the election campaign then he can at least pretend it was all getting tedious and he'd much rather be out examining social problems in the raw. It also goes some way to solving one of the overarching problems for all politicians of all parties: scepticism sliding into cynicism about politics itself. If he can help the world's poor just a little, then it shows politics isn't worthless. But is his vision for Africa too grand? Can poverty in the continent really be halved? Brown replies that no one thought the Berlin Wall would ever come down either. He's still got to overcome - not only the reluctance of other finance ministers in the world - but also the cynicism of experts who wonder whether debt relief will just be squandered by governments that just won't in the end spend wisely.

But he also believes it is time for the world to see a new Gordon Brown.It also goes some way to solving one of the overarching problems for all politicians of all parties: scepticism sliding into cynicism about politics itself.Brown replies that no one thought the Berlin Wall would ever come down either.Mr Brown seems haunted by her eyes, desolate of all hope.He's still got to overcome - not only the reluctance of other finance ministers in the world - but also the cynicism of experts who wonder whether debt relief will just be squandered by governments that just won't in the end spend wisely.Ever since, he says, Africa has been important to him.The memory Gordon Brown says keeps returning to him - the one that he says is burnt into him - is that of a 12 year-old girl, whose parents died of Aids, and who is HIV positive herself.But he is such a pivotal figure in British politics, it is almost impossible not to ask him why he is doing this.

MSPs hear renewed climate warningClimate change could be completely out of control within several decades, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is warning a committee of MSPs.Experts are giving evidence on the subject to the Scottish Parliament's environment committee. Officials believe nuclear energy and wind farms may be better options than trying to tackle global warming. Solutions suggested by conservationists include reducing internal UK air travel and boosting electric trains. The evidence is part of the committee's inquiry into the impact of climate change in Scotland. Sepa is attempting to curb global warming gases, as pollution from transport emissions increases.Ecologists are warning MSPs that Scotland may have to accept "significant intrusion" from wind farms. It is likely also that nuclear power will be needed for possibly several decades. Sepa predict that the two methods will remain as energy sources until climate change is under control. Experts studying the seas off Scotland's west coast have already forecast more devastating weather of the type which caused havoc across the country last month.They predicted that damaging storms will become more frequent. Researchers from the University of the Highlands and Islands and Southampton have been looking at wave heights in the Atlantic over the last nine years. The project was conducted jointly by the Environmental Research Institute in Thurso, which is part of the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI) Millennium Institute network, and the Southampton Oceanography Centre. Scientists carried out a series of studies, including the use of satellites to assess wave heights in the seas around the west coast and the Hebrides.

Climate change could be completely out of control within several decades, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is warning a committee of MSPs.The evidence is part of the committee's inquiry into the impact of climate change in Scotland.Sepa predict that the two methods will remain as energy sources until climate change is under control.Researchers from the University of the Highlands and Islands and Southampton have been looking at wave heights in the Atlantic over the last nine years.Officials believe nuclear energy and wind farms may be better options than trying to tackle global warming.Experts are giving evidence on the subject to the Scottish Parliament's environment committee.

Iraqis win death test case probeThe family of an Iraqi civilian allegedly killed by UK troops have won a challenge against the government's refusal to order a full inquiry.The High Court ruled on Tuesday that Baha Mousa's death in British custody in Iraq fell within the European Convention on Human Rights. And the judges paved the way for an independent inquiry by saying previous investigations were inadequate. But judicial reviews into five other deaths in southern Iraq were ruled out. Their families will be appealing against the judgement.The families' solicitor Phil Shiner described it as "a historic day for human rights and the rule of law in the UK". Father-of-two Mr Mousa, 28, a hotel receptionist, was arrested with eight men seized at a hotel in Basra in September 2003. He was allegedly beaten to death while in the custody of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment. The Iraqi families' lawyer argued that failing to adequately investigate the death breached the European Convention on Human Rights.Ministry of Defence lawyers argued the UK-controlled area of southern Iraq was outside European jurisdiction. But Lord Justice Rix and Mr Justice Forbes ruled that UK jurisdiction could extend to a UK-run prison, but did not apply "to the total territory of another state". They said as Mr Mousa was in custody when he died, his case came within the UK's jurisdiction. The other five Iraqis did not die in custody, so their cases had to fail, they said.And it was difficult to say that the investigation which had already occurred "has been timely, open or effective", the judges said. After the ruling Carla Ferstman, legal director of the human rights organisation Redress, said: "It is not enough for the military to investigate behind closed doors. "There must be an effective public investigation by an independent official body. Only such an investigation could reveal what really happened and who might be responsible." Other allegations involving British soldiers included the shooting of an Iraqi police commissioner and the shooting of four Iraqi civilians in May 2003. Both sides were granted permission to appeal.Prime Minister Tony Blair's official spokesman said: "Obviously we will need to study this detailed judgment. I would point out, however, that a separate criminal case is currently being considered by the army prosecuting authority. "I can't say anything further for obvious reasons. The MoD are considering whether to appeal." But former British Commander Colonel Bob Stewart said : "Anyone at the top [of the military] will be saddened by the verdict that has taken place but will say: 'If there's a case to answer, let's have it out. Because we don't want people thinking that British soldiers beat up civilians and get away with it'," he said. "The Ministry of Defence does everything in its power to try to prove we act ethically and properly under the rules of war."

They said as Mr Mousa was in custody when he died, his case came within the UK's jurisdiction.And it was difficult to say that the investigation which had already occurred "has been timely, open or effective", the judges said.The High Court ruled on Tuesday that Baha Mousa's death in British custody in Iraq fell within the European Convention on Human Rights.The other five Iraqis did not die in custody, so their cases had to fail, they said.Ministry of Defence lawyers argued the UK-controlled area of southern Iraq was outside European jurisdiction.The Iraqi families' lawyer argued that failing to adequately investigate the death breached the European Convention on Human Rights.He was allegedly beaten to death while in the custody of the Queen's Lancashire Regiment.But former British Commander Colonel Bob Stewart said : "Anyone at the top [of the military] will be saddened by the verdict that has taken place but will say: 'If there's a case to answer, let's have it out.The family of an Iraqi civilian allegedly killed by UK troops have won a challenge against the government's refusal to order a full inquiry.Because we don't want people thinking that British soldiers beat up civilians and get away with it'," he said.But judicial reviews into five other deaths in southern Iraq were ruled out.

Brown names 16 March for BudgetChancellor Gordon Brown will deliver his Budget to the House of Commons on 16 March, the Treasury has announced.The Budget, likely to be the last before the General Election, will be at about 1230 GMT on that Wednesday, just after Prime Minister's question time. The annual event is when the chancellor outlines the government's taxation and broader economic predictions. The Tories say it is likely the Budget will contain measures to attract votes. The election is expected on 5 May.Next month's Budget will be Mr Brown's ninth since Labour came to power in 1997. If a May election is called, there could be as little as 18 days between the Budget and the announcement of a date for the election. A shortened Finance Bill would have to be rushed through Parliament with all-party support to allow the Government to continue collecting revenue.The full Finance Bill, with the Budget measures in it, would then be returned to the Commons after the election, if Labour secures another term in office. Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "We can be sure of two things: the Budget will contain measures to attract votes, and it will not contain the £8 billion of tax rises which independent experts say are inevitable if Labour wins the election." As Mr Brown announced the Budget date in a short ministerial statement, accountancy firm Ernst & Young urged him to put politics aside and focus on the long-term requirements of the economy. "In the Budgets that were given immediately before the last six elections, taxes were cut by the incumbent chancellor and, in many cases, taxes were increased soon after the election result," said Aidan O'Carroll, E&Y's UK head of tax.

The full Finance Bill, with the Budget measures in it, would then be returned to the Commons after the election, if Labour secures another term in office.If a May election is called, there could be as little as 18 days between the Budget and the announcement of a date for the election.Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin said: "We can be sure of two things: the Budget will contain measures to attract votes, and it will not contain the £8 billion of tax rises which independent experts say are inevitable if Labour wins the election."The Budget, likely to be the last before the General Election, will be at about 1230 GMT on that Wednesday, just after Prime Minister's question time.The Tories say it is likely the Budget will contain measures to attract votes.

Lib Dems target the student voteStudents can decide the fate of MPs in some seats at the next election, Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy has claimed.The party says the votes of students can win it 27 new seats at the poll. The figures assume all students will vote in their university town. In fact, some may vote where the parents live. The Lib Dems say scrapping university fees wins them student support. But the Tories would also end fees and Labour says both would cap people's ambitions.The Lib Dems have named the 14 seats where there are enough students to take the Lib Dems from second place to beat Labour, and the 13 where they could go from second to beat the Tories. Launching his campaign to win students' votes at the London School of Economics, Mr Kennedy urged students to "make their mark". He underlined Lib Dem plans to scrap university fees and reintroduce maintenance grants of up to £2,000. He said: "Top-up fees put students off university, especially those from a poorer background. "And is it really right that so many young people are starting out in life with mortgage-style debts hanging round their necks?" Mr Kennedy also said students want action on the environment and see the Iraq war, which his party opposed, as a defining issue.Labour has pushed through plans to let universities charge fees of up to £3,000 a year, with the poorest students eligible for non-repayable support of up to £3,000. Ahead of Mr Kennedy's launch, a Labour spokesperson said: "Like the Tories, the Liberal Democrats would restrict access to higher education and put a cap on aspiration, closing the door to students with good grades and restricting their life ambitions. "They are committed to abandoning Labour's targets of getting 50% of 18 to 30-year-olds going into higher education and under Lib Dem plans students would even have to study near home." The Conservatives say they would abolish university tuition fees and instead offer large student loans at commercial rates of interest.They say the Lib Dem policy would leave universities wholly dependent for their income on the "goodwill" of the chancellor.Shadow education secretary Tim Collins is on Thursday setting out a new scheme of vocational grants for 14 to 16-year-olds to tackle what he says are "crippling skills shortages". The Lib Dem analysis of the difference students could make to its election chances is based on all students being registered to vote near their university, not in their home towns. Although the expected 5 May election would be during term time, students can vote by post. The Electoral Commission and National Union of Students are worried students in halls of residence can find it hard to register to vote. Some hall wardens are reluctant to register students because of data protection fears - but students can get themselves registered. If the election is on 5 May, voters need to register by 11 March. - The seats where the Lib Dems say student votes can swing the election for them are: Bristol West, Cardiff Central, Leeds North West, Cambridge, Manchester Gorton, Sheffield Central, Oxford East, Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central, Liverpool Riverside, Holborn and St Pancras, Oldham East and Saddleworth, Manchester Withington, Islington South and Finsbury, Birmingham Yardley, Surrey South West, Taunton, Orpington, Haltemprice and Howden, Eastbourne, Isle of Wight, Dorset West, Bournemouth East, Wells, Canterbury, Cities of London and Westminster, Bournemouth West, Westmorland and Lonsdale.

The Lib Dems say scrapping university fees wins them student support.The Lib Dem analysis of the difference students could make to its election chances is based on all students being registered to vote near their university, not in their home towns.The party says the votes of students can win it 27 new seats at the poll.The figures assume all students will vote in their university town.Although the expected 5 May election would be during term time, students can vote by post.The Conservatives say they would abolish university tuition fees and instead offer large student loans at commercial rates of interest.He said: "Top-up fees put students off university, especially those from a poorer background.Some hall wardens are reluctant to register students because of data protection fears - but students can get themselves registered.Labour has pushed through plans to let universities charge fees of up to £3,000 a year, with the poorest students eligible for non-repayable support of up to £3,000."They are committed to abandoning Labour's targets of getting 50% of 18 to 30-year-olds going into higher education and under Lib Dem plans students would even have to study near home."

Tories unveil quango blitz plansPlans to abolish 162 quangos have been unveiled by the Conservatives as part of their effort to show how government red tape can be cut.Six government units would also be scrapped under proposals which the Tories say would save more than £4.3bn. Among the targets are strategic health authorities and the new fair access regulator for universities. Tory frontbencher John Redwood said Britain needed a slimmer government and lower taxes to be competitive.The plans would abolish regional assemblies and other regional bodies, such as boards tackling industrial development and housing. Their powers would be returned to elected local councils or national government. The Tories say the strategic health authorities are not needed as it is better that local people, rather than officials, run hospitals and surgeries.Announcing the plans, Mr Redwood said: "Mr Blair has forgotten the interests of taxpayers, and has broken the pledges he made. "Far from improving public services, spending taxpayers' money on quangos has led only to more bureaucrats, more regulation and higher taxes." His party leader, Michael Howard, argued a change in direction was needed to get a grip on spending. "Labour are creating Two Britains: the Britain of the forgotten majority and bureaucratic Britain," he said. "In the real world, people are working harder just to stand still. They've seen their pensions knocked for six. "They're being squeezed by extra taxes. The forgotten majority are paying the price of bureaucratic Britain." The government has announced plans to cut 100,000 civil servants as part of its efficiency drive. The Liberal Democrats have said they would cut the number of Whitehall departments to make sure money reaches frontline services.

Six government units would also be scrapped under proposals which the Tories say would save more than £4.3bn.Tory frontbencher John Redwood said Britain needed a slimmer government and lower taxes to be competitive.The Tories say the strategic health authorities are not needed as it is better that local people, rather than officials, run hospitals and surgeries."Labour are creating Two Britains: the Britain of the forgotten majority and bureaucratic Britain," he said.The government has announced plans to cut 100,000 civil servants as part of its efficiency drive.Their powers would be returned to elected local councils or national government.The Liberal Democrats have said they would cut the number of Whitehall departments to make sure money reaches frontline services.

Correction agency plans droppedPlans to create a single correctional agency for Scotland have been scrapped.The Scottish Executive will not now merge the Scottish Prison Service with local authority social work criminal justice departments. The National Correctional Agency would have provided a 'one-stop' justice system but has been abandoned in the wake of stiff opposition. Instead, Scottish councils and the prison service will be compelled to work more closely to cut reoffending. The plan was to ensure offenders were monitored by the same body during and after prison, preventing many from being lost in the system and helping more of them to stop reoffending.Scotland's reoffending rate is high, with more than 60% of prisoners reconvicted within two years of release from jail. This is leading to an ever-expanding prison population and the executive wants to tackle the problem. Ministers thought merging the prison service with the council-controlled criminal justice social work departments, which provide community sentences, might have provided an answer. However, following a consultation on the idea, Justice Minister Cathy Jamieson has decided to drop the plans. Instead, Ms Jamieson will change the law to help produce a closer working relationship between both elements of the justice system.She will announce the move in her Criminal Justice Plan on Monday, aiming to "break down the barriers between what happens in prison and what happens in the community". The new measures will place a new statutory duty on the SPS to work with local authorities and others in area partnerships. A national advisory board on offender management will also be created to advise Ms Jamieson on the SPS's role and performance in reducing reoffending. The minister said: "Better joint working will help prisons play a much stronger role in ending reoffending behaviour and in particular help address the revolving door of reoffending that sees offenders entering prison for short periods during which little is done to address the behaviour that brought them there. "Communities who are paying the price for this reoffending - both in terms of crime and in terms of prison costs - expect better. "It costs the taxpayer £35,000 a year to provide each prison place and that cost is increasing. "Taxpayers who suffer the consequences of crime also end up paying for keeping those people in prison. "Therefore, as we continue to invest in the service, it is only right that we seek to ensure that that service becomes more accountable to the public it serves, to ministers and to parliament."

The Scottish Executive will not now merge the Scottish Prison Service with local authority social work criminal justice departments.Instead, Scottish councils and the prison service will be compelled to work more closely to cut reoffending.Ministers thought merging the prison service with the council-controlled criminal justice social work departments, which provide community sentences, might have provided an answer.The minister said: "Better joint working will help prisons play a much stronger role in ending reoffending behaviour and in particular help address the revolving door of reoffending that sees offenders entering prison for short periods during which little is done to address the behaviour that brought them there."Communities who are paying the price for this reoffending - both in terms of crime and in terms of prison costs - expect better.The plan was to ensure offenders were monitored by the same body during and after prison, preventing many from being lost in the system and helping more of them to stop reoffending.She will announce the move in her Criminal Justice Plan on Monday, aiming to "break down the barriers between what happens in prison and what happens in the community"."It costs the taxpayer £35,000 a year to provide each prison place and that cost is increasing.

Russian ex-spy on hunger strikeAn ex-Russian intelligence officer who risked his life spying for MI6 is entering the seventh week of a hunger strike near 10 Downing Street.Viktor Makarov, 50, claims he has been betrayed by the British authorities, who promised he would live like an "average British citizen". But despite a £65,000 settlement four years ago, he says he has been denied defector status and a decent pension. Other ex-Russian spies have been given civil service pensions. "Hunger strike is a weapon of last resort. It can work only with determination and of course the realisation of the righteousness of your case - without that it will not work," Mr Makarov told the BBC's Newsnight programme. "Since I came to this country two batches of promises have been made and broken one after the other."Oleg Gordievsky, a senior KGB officer who became a secret agent for the British, said he was "very happy" with the way the government have treated him since him since he defected in 1985. Commenting on Mr Makarov's case, he said: "The British state is not a fat cow - it is impossible to come here and demand give me more money every week." But Mr Makarov's case has been backed by David Kahn - a former Yale historian, and a leading expert on code-breaking, who has confirmed his information was valuable to the Western allies. "I believe the government of the United Kingdom, which in that respect was probably the same as most other power authorities - took the information that Victor Makarov had, wrung him dry and left him to hang out in the cold," Mr Kahn said.Mr Makarov joined the KGB in 1970s Russia, as an idealistic 20 year-old. One of his fellow pupils at intelligence school was Vladimir Putin. At KGB headquarters in Moscow, he was posted to the secret 16th directorate - which decoded intercepted diplomatic traffic from the West. By the 1980s he had risen to the rank of senior lieutenant - and was privy to the thoughts of Western powers. But he had became deeply disenchanted with the Soviet regime - fuelled by its repression both at home and in Poland.Through his English teacher, he made an approach to M16 - and then began passing secrets to the British intelligence service. He spied for MI6 for two years before being betrayed by a friend and sent to Perm 35 - a Soviet hard labour camp in the Artic circle. Within a week of his release in 1992, he made contact with the British authorities he'd been spying for, who arranged a meeting between him and an MI6 agent in Latvia. He was given a false passport, and he says, promised that he would be given the chance to live like an average UK citizen. But after arriving in London 13 years ago, he feels this promise has not been fulfilled. After long periods of living in bedsits, with deteriorating health, four years ago he took legal action against the government - and settled for £65,000 to buy a small house. But he says he will remain on hunger strike until he receives a decent pension and the right to work, something he feels he has been denied because the authorities do not trust him. Government sources told the BBC they had reached a final settlement with the former spy, which he has been able to appeal to security and intelligence tribunals.

Oleg Gordievsky, a senior KGB officer who became a secret agent for the British, said he was "very happy" with the way the government have treated him since him since he defected in 1985.Viktor Makarov, 50, claims he has been betrayed by the British authorities, who promised he would live like an "average British citizen".But Mr Makarov's case has been backed by David Kahn - a former Yale historian, and a leading expert on code-breaking, who has confirmed his information was valuable to the Western allies.But he says he will remain on hunger strike until he receives a decent pension and the right to work, something he feels he has been denied because the authorities do not trust him."I believe the government of the United Kingdom, which in that respect was probably the same as most other power authorities - took the information that Victor Makarov had, wrung him dry and left him to hang out in the cold," Mr Kahn said.But despite a £65,000 settlement four years ago, he says he has been denied defector status and a decent pension.But after arriving in London 13 years ago, he feels this promise has not been fulfilled.An ex-Russian intelligence officer who risked his life spying for MI6 is entering the seventh week of a hunger strike near 10 Downing Street.Through his English teacher, he made an approach to M16 - and then began passing secrets to the British intelligence service.Government sources told the BBC they had reached a final settlement with the former spy, which he has been able to appeal to security and intelligence tribunals.

Tories attack burglar 'U-turns'Tory leader Michael Howard has accused Tony Blair of performing U-turns over rules on using force against burglars.The government has ruled out amending the present law, which allows "reasonable force" in self defence. Mr Howard branded the decision unacceptable, saying: "It is not householders who should be frightened, it's the burglars." Home Secretary Charles Clarke said ministers had kept to their pledge to review the law.Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens last month backed a Tory attempt to change the law so only householders using "grossly disproportionate" force could be prosecuted. The pressure prompted the prime minister to say the police and Crown Prosecution Service would be consulted as part of a review of the law. He told MPs: "If we get the right response from those people, we will, of course, support a change in the law." Instead, the government has decided no change is needed but there will be a publicity campaign so people are clear they are entitled to defend themselves. On Thursday, Mr Howard told BBC Radio 4's Today programme Mr Blair had initially refused the law change, then had come round to the idea and was now backtracking again. He said: "We've had three policy positions in three months and two U-turns. "It's not surprising Gordon Brown told him: 'There's nothing you could say to me now that I could ever believe.'"Mr Howard said the "grossly disproportionate" test matched the hurdle ministers had introduced for civil cases where burglars where claimed compensation from householders. The issue entered the public spotlight when Norfolk farmer Tony Martin was jailed for shooting dead a 16-year-old burglar in 1999 as he ran away from the farm. But the home secretary said Mr Howard was wrong to say the law was biased in favour of burglars. The barrister who had represented Mr Martin had said the rules were "weighted overwhelmingly" in favour of the householder, said Mr Clarke. He said: "The problem is there has not been enough understanding of it - that was the point Sir John Stevens was making and the prime minister was making." The new guidance would help ensure clarity on the issue, added Mr Clarke. The director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, says only 11 householders or occupiers of business premises have been prosecuted in the last 15 years. Those cases included a warehouse manager who had waited for a burglar, tied him up, beat him and set him alight, he said. Tory MP Patrick Mercer's private member's bill to change the law received a first reading in Parliament on Wednesday and goes to a full debate next month.

But the home secretary said Mr Howard was wrong to say the law was biased in favour of burglars.On Thursday, Mr Howard told BBC Radio 4's Today programme Mr Blair had initially refused the law change, then had come round to the idea and was now backtracking again.The barrister who had represented Mr Martin had said the rules were "weighted overwhelmingly" in favour of the householder, said Mr Clarke.Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir John Stevens last month backed a Tory attempt to change the law so only householders using "grossly disproportionate" force could be prosecuted.Home Secretary Charles Clarke said ministers had kept to their pledge to review the law.Mr Howard said the "grossly disproportionate" test matched the hurdle ministers had introduced for civil cases where burglars where claimed compensation from householders.He said: "The problem is there has not been enough understanding of it - that was the point Sir John Stevens was making and the prime minister was making."Mr Howard branded the decision unacceptable, saying: "It is not householders who should be frightened, it's the burglars."

Anti-terror plan faces first testPlans to allow Home Secretary Charles Clarke to place terror suspects under house arrest without trial are set for their first real test in Parliament.Tories, Lib Dems and some Labour MPs are poised to vote against the plans. Mr Clarke says the powers are needed to counter terror threats. Opponents say only judges, not politicians, should be able to order detention of UK citizens. The government is expected to win Wednesday's vote in the Commons, but faces a battle in the House of Lords.The Prevention of Terrorism Bill was published on Tuesday. It proposes "control orders", which would mean house arrest in the most serious cases, and curfews, electronic tagging and limits on telephone and internet access for other suspects.The two opposition parties are particularly worried that the control orders would initially be imposed on the say-so of the home secretary, rather than a judge. Tory shadow home secretary David Davis warned of the potential for miscarriages of justice, like the Guildford Four - for which Tony Blair recently apologised - as a result of the pressure on politicians to lock up terror suspects. "Those pressures would be much more for a politician than they would on a judge and that's why we have serious concerns abut that approach," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.Mr Clarke says he does not intend to use the house arrest powers now - even for the 11 current terror detainees. He also said that any decision he made would be reviewed by a judge within seven days. The foreign terror suspects currently detained are mostly held at London's Belmarsh prison. They are held under laws which the Law Lords have ruled break human rights rules - and which are due to expire on 14 March.The new powers, designed to replace the existing laws and meet the Law Lords' concerns, would apply to British as well as foreign terror suspects. Critics say that giving politicians the power to deprive UK citizens of their freedom is the biggest attack on civil liberties for 300 years. Opposition MPs are also angry they will have only two days - Wednesday and next Monday - to debate the new plans before they pass to the House of Lords. But the government says the existing powers run out soon so must be replaced urgently.In a rare move, the Tories and Lib Dems have jointly tabled a motion opposing the new bill, saying the house arrest plans are "excessive". It argues decisions should be taken on a higher standard of proof and the plan "wrongly infringes the right to liberty" by failing to bring terrorists to trial where there is evidence. Mr Davis told Today: "It gives a minister, for the first time in modern history, the right to detain without trial, without showing the evidence and indeed, in some respects, almost the allegation against the individual concerned."He questioned why there was "such a rush" to introduce the legislation when Mr Clarke had indicated he was not planning to use the house arrest powers straight away. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "We believe it should be the judge that takes decisions, not politicians." Mr Clarke said the security services and police backed his measures and it would be "rash and negligent" to ignore their advice. Nobody should doubt that terrorists at home and abroad wanted to attack the UK and its interests, he argued.

Mr Clarke says he does not intend to use the house arrest powers now - even for the 11 current terror detainees.Plans to allow Home Secretary Charles Clarke to place terror suspects under house arrest without trial are set for their first real test in Parliament.Mr Clarke says the powers are needed to counter terror threats.He questioned why there was "such a rush" to introduce the legislation when Mr Clarke had indicated he was not planning to use the house arrest powers straight away.The new powers, designed to replace the existing laws and meet the Law Lords' concerns, would apply to British as well as foreign terror suspects.In a rare move, the Tories and Lib Dems have jointly tabled a motion opposing the new bill, saying the house arrest plans are "excessive".The two opposition parties are particularly worried that the control orders would initially be imposed on the say-so of the home secretary, rather than a judge.It proposes "control orders", which would mean house arrest in the most serious cases, and curfews, electronic tagging and limits on telephone and internet access for other suspects.Opposition MPs are also angry they will have only two days - Wednesday and next Monday - to debate the new plans before they pass to the House of Lords.Mr Clarke said the security services and police backed his measures and it would be "rash and negligent" to ignore their advice.

Parliament's record of scandalIn a locked room at the heart of Parliament there is a hive of scandal.Sex, betrayal and custody of children are all there in this affair but this time it has nothing to do with the recent troubles of David Blunkett or Boris Johnson.Few realise that Westminster in effect has its own divorce den. For sprinkled among 12 floors of archives are blow-by-blow accounts of marital break-ups - and now you can search what's there online. Until 1857, the only way in England to get a full divorce which allowed re-marriage was to obtain an Act of Parliament by proving adultery or life-threatening cruelty. The legacy is pages of testimonies used in the hearings, dating back to 1670, all recorded among the 325,000 items which fill the 12 floors of the parliamentary archives in Parliament's Victoria Tower. Most people researching their family history want to discover some tale of illicit love. This gives them the chance.Divorce by Parliament was an expensive process open really only to the rich but the records also include the testimony of maids, butlers and coachmen about their masters and mistresses. Among the records is the story of Jane Campbell, the first woman ever to divorce her husband. That happened in 1801 after she had discovered her husband, Edward Addison, had committed adultery with her sister Jessy.A transcript of evidence from Jessy's maid, Amelia Laugher, shows her telling how Addison frequently passed by her on the way to the room where she had just put her mistress naked to bed. It must have been a killer blow to Addison's case - he had already fled abroad rather than pay the £5,000 damages ordered by a civil court. As well as making divorce history, Jane Campbell won custody of her children - unusual for a woman at the time. But divorces are by no means the only documents in the archives which hold personal details of people often far removed from politics and Parliament.There are the protestation returns from 1642 - lists of the Protestants who pledged to "maintain the true reformed Protestant religion". There are details of foreign nationals made British citizens by act of Parliament, including composer George Frideric Handel in 1727. And the mass of private bills which, for example authorise the building of railways and roads, contain both the names and addresses of those involved and testimonies giving people a unique perspective on how their ancestors opposed them.Tax bills may be an extra source for pedigree hunters - the longest stretches for about 300m and is longer than the Palace of Westminster itself, listing the names of appointed tax collectors. This wealth of material has long been open to the public at the House of Lords Record Office, with visitors able to phone ahead when they want to view particular items in the search room. But now five years of work has produced an online catalogue. David Prior, assistant clerk of the archives, says the catalogue opens up new possibilities for research. "Before, you just could not do it, you faced trawling through pages and pages of printed material," he says. Mr Prior sees the changes as part of a wider revolution in archives generally. "The archive profession may look fairly staid but is in an enormous period of change, mainly motivated by the potential of IT, which is opening up all sorts of vistas for us," he says.The archives do, of course, hold records of high (and low) politics too for both Houses of Parliament, including copies of all acts passed since 1497 - the oldest dealing with the employment of workers in the woollen industry in Norfolk. Records for the Commons only date back to 1834 - anything earlier was wiped out by the fire which destroyed most of the Parliament buildings in 1834.But that still leaves some of the most important documents of UK political history - parts of the Bill of Rights from 1689, the death warrant for Charles I, the private papers and diaries of major politicians such as David Lloyd George and Andrew Bonar Law. There is also the 1606 act establishing 5 November as a thanksgiving day - the year after the Gunpowder Plot. That document is likely to feature in the exhibition the archives will put on next year as part of a series of events across London to mark the 400th anniversary of Guy Fawkes' conspiracy. As Mr Prior remarks as we walk by shelf after shelf of vellum (parchment made from goat's skin): "All human life is here."

But divorces are by no means the only documents in the archives which hold personal details of people often far removed from politics and Parliament.Divorce by Parliament was an expensive process open really only to the rich but the records also include the testimony of maids, butlers and coachmen about their masters and mistresses.Until 1857, the only way in England to get a full divorce which allowed re-marriage was to obtain an Act of Parliament by proving adultery or life-threatening cruelty.The archives do, of course, hold records of high (and low) politics too for both Houses of Parliament, including copies of all acts passed since 1497 - the oldest dealing with the employment of workers in the woollen industry in Norfolk.Among the records is the story of Jane Campbell, the first woman ever to divorce her husband.As well as making divorce history, Jane Campbell won custody of her children - unusual for a woman at the time.Mr Prior sees the changes as part of a wider revolution in archives generally.The legacy is pages of testimonies used in the hearings, dating back to 1670, all recorded among the 325,000 items which fill the 12 floors of the parliamentary archives in Parliament's Victoria Tower.Few realise that Westminster in effect has its own divorce den.This wealth of material has long been open to the public at the House of Lords Record Office, with visitors able to phone ahead when they want to view particular items in the search room.There are details of foreign nationals made British citizens by act of Parliament, including composer George Frideric Handel in 1727.For sprinkled among 12 floors of archives are blow-by-blow accounts of marital break-ups - and now you can search what's there online.That document is likely to feature in the exhibition the archives will put on next year as part of a series of events across London to mark the 400th anniversary of Guy Fawkes' conspiracy.