Datasets:

Mahendrakharra

/

BBC-News-Articles-Summaries

like 1

Peers debate Crown succession lawPeers are debating proposals to change the rules governing the succession to the throne.Labour peer Lord Dubs' Succession to the Crown Bill aims to end the right of male heirs to succeed to the crown even if they have an older sister. The private member's bill would also abolish the ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics. The Fabian Society's Sundar Katwala said the change was "long overdue" and that he expected a "warm response". The political reform group's general secretary told BBC Radio 4's Today Programme there were some "very out-dated features" at the heart of Britain's constitution."In 1998 the government said in principle it supported the idea of ending gender discrimination and that it would consult on how to come forward with its own measures. "We hope they are warm towards it and don't say this is the wrong time." He pointed out that it was 30 years since the sex discrimination act and urged politicians on all sides to back the bill. Mr Katwala added: "This is long overdue. Parliament will have to do it eventually, the government, and I hope all of the political parties, might think this is a very simple thing to have in their manifestos."But he acknowledged that even if the bill did win support, it was unlikely to become law because the legislative programme is likely to be squeezed by the coming general election. He said he hoped the bill would be a "gentle nudge" to the government and suggested it would "demand a response". The bill, which is in the Lords for its second reading, has been adopted by former chief whip Ann Taylor in the Commons. The rule of succession is regulated not only through descent and tradition but also by the Act of Settlement which confirmed in 1701 that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.

The Fabian Society's Sundar Katwala said the change was "long overdue" and that he expected a "warm response".He said he hoped the bill would be a "gentle nudge" to the government and suggested it would "demand a response".The private member's bill would also abolish the ban on heirs to the throne marrying Roman Catholics.The rule of succession is regulated not only through descent and tradition but also by the Act of Settlement which confirmed in 1701 that it was for Parliament to determine the title to the throne.But he acknowledged that even if the bill did win support, it was unlikely to become law because the legislative programme is likely to be squeezed by the coming general election.He pointed out that it was 30 years since the sex discrimination act and urged politicians on all sides to back the bill.

Whitehall shredding increasing - ToriesCivil servants have drastically stepped up the shredding of official documents, figures compiled by the Tories suggest.Some government departments had doubled the number of documents being shredded ahead of the Freedom of Information Act's implementation on 1 January. Departments for defence, environment and trade, which had all increased file destruction, said they were following rules governing public records. But the Tories want the information commissioner to investigate. The Freedom of Information Act will for the first time give members of the public access to government records previously kept secret for 30 years. But BBC Political Correspondent James Hardy said the prospect of outsiders poking their noses into the inner workings of Whitehall appeared to be causing jitters among the mandarins.Liberal Democrat Alan Beith - who chairs the select committee which monitors the Department of Constitutional Affairs - said if the claims were true, Whitehall was "acting entirely against the spirit of the new Act". "Both the information commissioner and the select committee will have to keep this issue under very close scrutiny." Fellow Lib Dem Norman Baker said the episode painted an "unflattering picture of the inner workings of government". "It is clear that the government's initial enthusiasm for open government has turned to self-serving cynicism." Dr Julian Lewis, the Conservative spokesman for the Cabinet Office, said he had discovered a huge acceleration in shredding from a series of parliamentary answers.The Department of Work and Pensions destroyed nearly 37,000 files last year - up 22,000 on four years ago when the Act was passed. The number of files destroyed by the Ministry of Defence and the departments of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Trade and Industry has also risen dramatically. Dr Lewis has called for an investigation by the information commissioner Richard Thomas. Earlier this week, Mr Thomas said he was looking into Cabinet Office orders telling staff to delete e-mails more than three months old. He said he "totally condemned" the deletion of e-mails to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information laws coming into force on 1 January.Government guidance said e-mails should only be deleted if they served "no current purpose", Mr Thomas said. A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said the move was not about the new laws or "the destruction of important records". The Freedom of Information Act will cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland from next year. Similar measures are being brought in at the same time in Scotland. It provides the public with a right of access to information held by about 100,000 public bodies, subject to various exemptions.

The Freedom of Information Act will for the first time give members of the public access to government records previously kept secret for 30 years.Government guidance said e-mails should only be deleted if they served "no current purpose", Mr Thomas said.He said he "totally condemned" the deletion of e-mails to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information laws coming into force on 1 January.Some government departments had doubled the number of documents being shredded ahead of the Freedom of Information Act's implementation on 1 January.Dr Lewis has called for an investigation by the information commissioner Richard Thomas.A Cabinet Office spokeswoman said the move was not about the new laws or "the destruction of important records".But the Tories want the information commissioner to investigate.Departments for defence, environment and trade, which had all increased file destruction, said they were following rules governing public records.Liberal Democrat Alan Beith - who chairs the select committee which monitors the Department of Constitutional Affairs - said if the claims were true, Whitehall was "acting entirely against the spirit of the new Act".

Brown's poll campaign move deniedThe government has denied reports that Gordon Brown is preparing to oust Alan Milburn as Labour's election supremo.Work and pensions minister Alan Johnson said it was wrong to suggest the chancellor would usurp Mr Milburn, adding they would "work as a team". A report in the Sunday Business claimed Mr Brown has been asked to take charge of media strategy, while Mr Milburn would move to a behind-the-scenes role. Labour has always maintained Mr Brown would have a central campaign role.But many Labour backbenchers are said to be dissatisfied with the way election campaigning has gone and have said they wanted to see the chancellor take a bigger role. Some commentators say the Tories have grasped the initiative, putting Labour on the back foot, having to respond to Conservative policy announcements. These claims follow various opinion polls which suggest the Tories have been gaining on Labour. Party strategists are believed to want to bring Mr Brown to centre-stage having seen support rise, in private polling, after his Budget last week. But another report in the Sunday Telegraph claims Mr Milburn is unwilling to allow any new role for the chancellor to come at his expense. Mr Johnson told BBC News: "Gordon Brown will play a central role in any election campaign. "They were wrong when they said Milburn was ousting Brown and they're wrong now if they are saying Brown is ousting Milburn. We work as a team." Mr Milburn has repeatedly said the chancellor was key to the campaign and dismissed claims of a rift. Neither Downing Street nor the Labour Party would comment directly on the reports.

Labour has always maintained Mr Brown would have a central campaign role.Work and pensions minister Alan Johnson said it was wrong to suggest the chancellor would usurp Mr Milburn, adding they would "work as a team".A report in the Sunday Business claimed Mr Brown has been asked to take charge of media strategy, while Mr Milburn would move to a behind-the-scenes role.Mr Milburn has repeatedly said the chancellor was key to the campaign and dismissed claims of a rift.Mr Johnson told BBC News: "Gordon Brown will play a central role in any election campaign.But another report in the Sunday Telegraph claims Mr Milburn is unwilling to allow any new role for the chancellor to come at his expense.

Clarke faces ID cards rebellionCharles Clarke faces his first real test as home secretary on Monday with a possible backbench rebellion over the controversial ID cards bill.Up to 30 Labour MPs could oppose the scheme during a Commons debate. Mr Clarke, who took on the post on Thursday after David Blunkett quit, has rejected calls to "pause" on the bill. Tory leader Michael Howard also faces a possible rebellion after deciding to back identity cards. The Liberal Democrats oppose the plans.Mr Clarke, writing in The Times, accused some critics of "liberal woolly thinking and spreading false fears" by claiming ID cards would erode civil liberties. He writes that it is actually a "profoundly civil libertarian measure because it promotes the most fundamental civil liberty in our society - which is the right to live free from fear crime and fear". Mr Clarke is expected to try and win over opponents to the scheme by saying officials who secretly accessed information they were not allowed to see would face up to two years in jail. He is also expected to cut the £85 cost of the card and passport, for the elderly and those on lower incomes.Mr Howard last week said his front bench team had reached a "collective view" to back ID cards 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. But former shadow attorney general Bill Cash said there was still "very deep" disquiet about the plan among senior Tories. He told BBC Radio 4's Today the government was "intensely authoritarian" and was creating "increasingly a Big Brother society". Critics argue that introducing the cards would be a costly scheme with no specific aim.Ministers say it would help the fight against terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime. But opponents say that similar schemes in other countries have not prevented attacks like the Madrid rail bombing. On Sunday, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy repeated his call for a "pause" in considering the legislation.He told BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme that Mr Clarke had a "real opportunity" on Monday following the departure of Mr Blunkett. "If you were running a family or a business would you have the second reading of the Identity Cards Bill tomorrow or would you pause to reflect and see what you might do about it in the New Year? "That is the sensible way to go about it but I think this government has got itself so much into tram lines now that it is not behaving sensibly at all." 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 would also create new criminal offences on the possession of false identity documents.

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.Mr Clarke, writing in The Times, accused some critics of "liberal woolly thinking and spreading false fears" by claiming ID cards would erode civil liberties."If you were running a family or a business would you have the second reading of the Identity Cards Bill tomorrow or would you pause to reflect and see what you might do about it in the New Year?Mr Clarke is expected to try and win over opponents to the scheme by saying officials who secretly accessed information they were not allowed to see would face up to two years in jail.Charles Clarke faces his first real test as home secretary on Monday with a possible backbench rebellion over the controversial ID cards bill.Mr Clarke, who took on the post on Thursday after David Blunkett quit, has rejected calls to "pause" on the bill.Critics argue that introducing the cards would be a costly scheme with no specific aim.The new bill would also create new criminal offences on the possession of false identity documents.He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration.

UK set to cut back on embassiesNine overseas embassies and high commissions will close in an effort to save money, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has announced.The Bahamas, East Timor, Madagascar and Swaziland are among the areas affected by the biggest shake-up for the diplomatic service for years. Other diplomatic posts are being turned over to local staff. Mr Straw said the move would save £6m a year to free up cash for priorities such as fighting terrorism.Honorary consuls will be appointed in some of the areas affected by the embassy closures. Nine consulates or consulates general will also be closed, mostly in Europe and America.They include Dallas in the US, Bordeaux in France and Oporto in Portugal, with local staff replacing UK representation in another 11. The changes are due to be put in place before the end of 2006, with most savings made from cutting staff and running costs. Some of the money will have to be used to fund redundancy payments. In a written statement, Mr Straw said: "The savings made will help to underpin higher priority work in line with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's strategic priorities, including counter- proliferation, counter-terrorism, energy and climate change. "Some of the savings will also be redeployed to strategic priority work within certain regions where we are closing posts. "In Africa, for instance, we plan to create new jobs to cover these issues across the region, with a new post in Nairobi to help support our work on climate change, one in Nigeria to cover energy and one in Pretoria to cover regional issues more generally as well as covering Maseru and Mbabane."The Foreign Office currently has about 6,100 UK-based staff. It has opened major new missions on Baghdad and Basra in Iraq, Kabul in Afghanistan and Pyongyang in North Korea since 1997 in response to what the government says are changing needs. Since 1997 10 overseas posts have been closed - excluding Wednesday's cuts - but 18 new embassies or consulates have been opened. The shake-up is aimed at helping making £86m in efficiency savings between 2005 and 2008. The chancellor has demanded all government departments make similar savings. Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said there was a constant need to ensure value for money from foreign missions. "But the government must give a far clearer reason for making the dramatic changes it has announced and must show that British commercial interests and the interests of Britons abroad will not be adversely affected," he said.

Nine overseas embassies and high commissions will close in an effort to save money, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has announced.In a written statement, Mr Straw said: "The savings made will help to underpin higher priority work in line with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's strategic priorities, including counter- proliferation, counter-terrorism, energy and climate change.The Foreign Office currently has about 6,100 UK-based staff.Since 1997 10 overseas posts have been closed - excluding Wednesday's cuts - but 18 new embassies or consulates have been opened.Other diplomatic posts are being turned over to local staff."But the government must give a far clearer reason for making the dramatic changes it has announced and must show that British commercial interests and the interests of Britons abroad will not be adversely affected," he said.Shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said there was a constant need to ensure value for money from foreign missions.The changes are due to be put in place before the end of 2006, with most savings made from cutting staff and running costs.

Visa row mandarin made Sir JohnThe top civil servant at the centre of the David Blunkett visa affair has been knighted in the New Year Honours.Sir John Gieve was Home Office permanent secretary during the saga which ended with Mr Blunkett quitting. He and other civil servants were criticised for failing to recall how the visa for Mr Blunkett's ex-lover's nanny came to be fast-tracked. The outgoing head of the troubled Child Support Agency Doug Smith also earns an honour in the New Year's list. Mr Smith, 57, whose retirement was announced by Work and Pensions Secretary Alan Smith in November, is made a Commander of the Order of Bath.Both men were giving evidence to a Commons committee on the computer difficulties facing the agency, which left thousands of single parents without any maintenance payments, when the announcement was made. The knighting of Sir John, 54, will be received with astonishment by opposition politicians.The Liberal Democrats said it "beggared belief" he and fellow officials could not remember how Leoncia Casalme's application for indefinite leave to remain went from Mr Blunkett's office to the head of the Immigration and Nationality Department. Meanwhile, the Conservatives accused officials of a "collective failure" of memory. But Sir Alan Budd, who led an inquiry into the affair, said he had no reason to believe anyone involved had deliberately withheld information.Downing Street defended the decision to honour both men, with a spokesperson saying: "You have to look at their whole career." Sir John was made permanent secretary in April 2001 following a Civil Service career which dates back to 1974. He has also worked in the Treasury and the Department of Employment. A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said of Mr Smith's honour: "The award reflects all that he has achieved in a Civil Service career, principally in the Inland Revenue, spanning over 40 years - not just his role as chief executive of the Child Support Agency."In his career he has personally led a number of successful major change programmes." Mr Smith is set to stay on at the CSA until March. Less controversial will be the knighthoods for Derek Wanless and Mike Tomlinson, who undertook major government reviews on health and education respectively. Former NatWest chief executive Mr Wanless, 57, has delivered not one but two major reports on the NHS. Ex-chief inspector of schools Mr Tomlinson, 62, has recommended replacing A-Levels and GCSEs with a new diploma system in a shake-up of the exams system.

A Department for Work and Pensions spokeswoman said of Mr Smith's honour: "The award reflects all that he has achieved in a Civil Service career, principally in the Inland Revenue, spanning over 40 years - not just his role as chief executive of the Child Support Agency.Sir John Gieve was Home Office permanent secretary during the saga which ended with Mr Blunkett quitting.Sir John was made permanent secretary in April 2001 following a Civil Service career which dates back to 1974.Mr Smith, 57, whose retirement was announced by Work and Pensions Secretary Alan Smith in November, is made a Commander of the Order of Bath.Former NatWest chief executive Mr Wanless, 57, has delivered not one but two major reports on the NHS.The top civil servant at the centre of the David Blunkett visa affair has been knighted in the New Year Honours."In his career he has personally led a number of successful major change programmes."The Liberal Democrats said it "beggared belief" he and fellow officials could not remember how Leoncia Casalme's application for indefinite leave to remain went from Mr Blunkett's office to the head of the Immigration and Nationality Department.

Labour plans maternity pay riseMaternity pay for new mothers is to rise by £1,400 as part of new proposals announced by the Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt.It would mean paid leave would be increased to nine months by 2007, Ms Hewitt told GMTV's Sunday programme. Other plans include letting maternity pay be given to fathers and extending rights to parents of older children. The Tories dismissed the maternity pay plan as "desperate", while the Liberal Democrats said it was misdirected.Ms Hewitt said: "We have already doubled the length of maternity pay, it was 13 weeks when we were elected, we have already taken it up to 26 weeks. "We are going to extend the pay to nine months by 2007 and the aim is to get it right up to the full 12 months by the end of the next Parliament." She said new mothers were already entitled to 12 months leave, but that many women could not take it as only six of those months were paid. "We have made a firm commitment. We will definitely extend the maternity pay, from the six months where it now is to nine months, that's the extra £1,400." She said ministers would consult on other proposals that could see fathers being allowed to take some of their partner's maternity pay or leave period, or extending the rights of flexible working to carers or parents of older children. The Shadow Secretary of State for the Family, Theresa May, said: "These plans were announced by Gordon Brown in his pre-budget review in December and Tony Blair is now recycling it in his desperate bid to win back women voters."She said the Conservatives would announce their proposals closer to the General Election. Liberal Democrat spokeswoman for women Sandra Gidley said: "While mothers would welcome any extra maternity pay the Liberal Democrats feel this money is being misdirected." She said her party would boost maternity pay in the first six months to allow more women to stay at home in that time.Ms Hewitt also stressed the plans would be paid for by taxpayers, not employers. But David Frost, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, warned that many small firms could be "crippled" by the move. "While the majority of any salary costs may be covered by the government's statutory pay, recruitment costs, advertising costs, retraining costs and the strain on the company will not be," he said. Further details of the government's plans will be outlined on Monday. New mothers are currently entitled to 90% of average earnings for the first six weeks after giving birth, followed by £102.80 a week until the baby is six months old.

She said her party would boost maternity pay in the first six months to allow more women to stay at home in that time.She said new mothers were already entitled to 12 months leave, but that many women could not take it as only six of those months were paid.The Tories dismissed the maternity pay plan as "desperate", while the Liberal Democrats said it was misdirected.She said ministers would consult on other proposals that could see fathers being allowed to take some of their partner's maternity pay or leave period, or extending the rights of flexible working to carers or parents of older children.Liberal Democrat spokeswoman for women Sandra Gidley said: "While mothers would welcome any extra maternity pay the Liberal Democrats feel this money is being misdirected."We will definitely extend the maternity pay, from the six months where it now is to nine months, that's the extra £1,400."Ms Hewitt said: "We have already doubled the length of maternity pay, it was 13 weeks when we were elected, we have already taken it up to 26 weeks.Other plans include letting maternity pay be given to fathers and extending rights to parents of older children.

MPs assess Scots fishing industryA group of MPs are on a two-day fact-finding mission to Scotland to gather evidence for a report into the UK's fishing industry.Members of Westminster's environment, food and rural affairs committee will be touring fish markets and talking to fish processors. They will also talk to Fisheries Minister Ross Finnie and scientists. MPs are deciding whether to recommend a new system of "community quotas" to conserve fish stocks. The aim is that fishing ports like Peterhead or Fraserburgh would be allocated a quota and local people would decide how to fish it. The scheme is a variation on the local management committees already being established by the European Union.Details are contained in a Royal Commission report for the UK Government, along with the more controversial idea of closing some mixed fishing grounds completely. Six members of the committee will be in Scotland to seek views from fishermen and processors in Aberdeen and Peterhead. They will also speak to Mr Finnie, representatives of the Royal Society and the Sea Fish Industry Authority. Committee chairman Austin Mitchell said some way has to be found of harvesting mixed fisheries without wasting stocks.

They will also speak to Mr Finnie, representatives of the Royal Society and the Sea Fish Industry Authority.Members of Westminster's environment, food and rural affairs committee will be touring fish markets and talking to fish processors.The aim is that fishing ports like Peterhead or Fraserburgh would be allocated a quota and local people would decide how to fish it.A group of MPs are on a two-day fact-finding mission to Scotland to gather evidence for a report into the UK's fishing industry.

UK 'discriminated against Roma'The government's immigration rules racially discriminated against Roma (Gypsies) seeking entry into the UK, the Law Lords have ruled.It follows a Home Office move to cut asylum claims by stopping people, mostly Roma, from boarding flights to Britain from the Czech capital, Prague. Civil rights group Liberty said it exposed "racism at the heart of the government's asylum policy". The Home Office said it had not meant to discriminate against anyone. It said it would look at the implications of the ruling, but pointed out the controls were no longer in place because Czechs are now entitled to free movement across Europe.The screening took place at the airport in July 2001, at a time of concern about the number of asylum seekers entering Britain.Those refused "pre-clearance" were effectively prevented from travelling to the UK, because no airline would carry them. Lady Hale, sitting with Lords Bingham, Steyn, Hope and Carswell, said many Roma had good reason to want to leave the Czech Republic because of persecution. But she said they were treated more sceptically than non-Roma passengers by immigration officers "acting on racial grounds". Lady Hale said immigration officers should have treated all would-be passengers in the same way, only using more intrusive questioning if there was a specific reason.Liberty said statistics suggested Roma Czechs were 400 times more likely to be stopped by British immigration officials at Prague airport than non-Roma Czechs. It took up the case of six unnamed Roma Czechs refused entry to Britain, and that of the European Roma Rights Centre, which said the measures unfairly penalised Roma people. It lost a High Court action in October 2002 when a judge said the system was "no more or less objectionable" than a visa control system. He ruled there was no obligation on Britain not to take steps to prevent a potential refugee from approaching its border to claim asylum.The Court of Appeal then decided the practice almost inevitably discriminated against Roma, but that this was justified because they were more likely to seek asylum. Immigration law allows officials to discriminate against citizens from named countries, but it does not allow officers to go further than that.Responding to the ruling, a Home Office spokesman said: "The scheme was operated two years ago as a short-term response to the high levels of passengers travelling from Prague who are subsequently found to be ineligible for entry to the UK."Welcoming the ruling, Maeve Sherlock, chief executive of the Refugee Council, said: "Human rights abuses against the Roma in Eastern Europe are well documented, and it is hugely troubling that the government sought to deny entry to such a vulnerable group." Amnesty International's Jan Shaw said: "That the government's own asylum policy was being operated discriminatorily is bleakly ironic given that discrimination often lies at the heart of serious human rights abuse, not least in the Czech Republic." But the chairman of Migration Watch UK, Sir Andrew Green, said the House of Lords decision was a "step in the wrong direction". "The basic point is that the government has a duty to control our borders and this decision appears to extend the race relations legislation beyond sensible limits."

Liberty said statistics suggested Roma Czechs were 400 times more likely to be stopped by British immigration officials at Prague airport than non-Roma Czechs.It took up the case of six unnamed Roma Czechs refused entry to Britain, and that of the European Roma Rights Centre, which said the measures unfairly penalised Roma people.Responding to the ruling, a Home Office spokesman said: "The scheme was operated two years ago as a short-term response to the high levels of passengers travelling from Prague who are subsequently found to be ineligible for entry to the UK."Lady Hale said immigration officers should have treated all would-be passengers in the same way, only using more intrusive questioning if there was a specific reason.Civil rights group Liberty said it exposed "racism at the heart of the government's asylum policy".Amnesty International's Jan Shaw said: "That the government's own asylum policy was being operated discriminatorily is bleakly ironic given that discrimination often lies at the heart of serious human rights abuse, not least in the Czech Republic."But she said they were treated more sceptically than non-Roma passengers by immigration officers "acting on racial grounds".The government's immigration rules racially discriminated against Roma (Gypsies) seeking entry into the UK, the Law Lords have ruled.But the chairman of Migration Watch UK, Sir Andrew Green, said the House of Lords decision was a "step in the wrong direction".

MPs quiz aides over royal incomeSenior officials at the two bodies generating private income for the Queen and Prince of Wales are to be questioned by MPs.Aides from the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall will appear before the Commons Public Accounts Committee. It has been reported they could be questioned about Prince Charles' spending on Camilla Parker Bowles. But BBC correspondent Peter Hunt said they are not responsible for how money is spent and may be unable to answer. Duchy officials, who will appear before the committee on Monday, are only responsible for generating money. The Duchy of Lancaster provides the Queen's private income, while the Duchy of Cornwall provides Prince Charles' annual income. The Duchy of Cornwall is a 140,000-acre estate across 25 counties, and also includes residential properties, shops, offices, stocks and shares. It was set up in 1337 by King Edward III to provide income for successive heirs to the throne. It covers the cost of the prince's public and private life - neither Charles, nor William and Harry, receive taxpayers' money from the Civil List. However, the Prince of Wales did receive over £4m from government departments and grants-in-aid in 2003-4. The duchy last year generated almost £12m. The prince has voluntarily paid income tax - currently 40% - since 1993.

The Duchy of Lancaster provides the Queen's private income, while the Duchy of Cornwall provides Prince Charles' annual income.Aides from the Duchy of Lancaster and Duchy of Cornwall will appear before the Commons Public Accounts Committee.Duchy officials, who will appear before the committee on Monday, are only responsible for generating money.Senior officials at the two bodies generating private income for the Queen and Prince of Wales are to be questioned by MPs.The prince has voluntarily paid income tax - currently 40% - since 1993.

Howard taunts Blair over splitsTony Blair's feud with Gordon Brown is damaging the way the UK is governed, Tory leader Michael Howard has claimed in a heated prime minister's questions.Mr Howard asked: "How can they fight crime when they are fighting each other?" That question was later unveiled as the headline for new Tory campaign posters. But Mr Blair dismissed the talk of splits and said people's priorities at the next elections would be on the economic successes achieved by Labour. "He can stick up whatever he likes on billboards about something in a book but what the public will concentrate on are the low mortgages, low inflation, low unemployment that we delivered and that he failed to," he said. The chancellor is currently on a high-profile tour of Africa to highlight new anti-poverty plans. But before doing so, he insisted he still trusted Mr Blair, despite claims to the contrary in a new book.Brown's Britain, by Robert Peston, says there is mutual animosity between the two men. It claims Mr Blair said in November 2003 he would stand down as prime minister before the next election. But he went back on his pledge after support from Cabinet allies and suspicion that Mr Brown was manoeuvring against him, it says.Mr Peston's book claimed that Mr Brown told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe." Mr Blair directly denied that quote on Wednesday. He again insisted there could be no deals about the premiership but twice declined directly to say whether or not he had offered to quit.The Tory leader countered that such agreements had been struck twice at dinners with the chancellor. He declared: "He is the deals on meals prime minister. No wonder the chancellor is not a happy eater." He continued: "How can there be discipline in schools when there is no discipline in government, how can they clean up our hospitals when they don't clean up their act?" Mr Blair said he would not respond to "tittle tattle in books" and promised to hail Labour's record on the economy, waiting lists and law and order "from now until polling day". Later at their poster launch Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said his party would exploit opportunities to show how "juvenile" the prime minister and chancellor were.Labour staged a show of unity at its own poster launch on Tuesday, where Mr Brown was joined by Alan Milburn, who Mr Blair controversially put in charge of election planning in place of the chancellor. But Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy told BBC News: "The government is clearly split at the top. This kind of cosmetic exercise does not persuade anybody." Later this week Mr Blair is expected to outline the direction of his party's next election manifesto. The prime minister and chancellor faced backbench discontent at Monday's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party over claims made Mr Peston's book.

It claims Mr Blair said in November 2003 he would stand down as prime minister before the next election.Mr Peston's book claimed that Mr Brown told Mr Blair: "There is nothing you could ever say to me now that I could ever believe."Labour staged a show of unity at its own poster launch on Tuesday, where Mr Brown was joined by Alan Milburn, who Mr Blair controversially put in charge of election planning in place of the chancellor.The prime minister and chancellor faced backbench discontent at Monday's meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party over claims made Mr Peston's book.But Mr Blair dismissed the talk of splits and said people's priorities at the next elections would be on the economic successes achieved by Labour.But before doing so, he insisted he still trusted Mr Blair, despite claims to the contrary in a new book.Mr Blair directly denied that quote on Wednesday.Later at their poster launch Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said his party would exploit opportunities to show how "juvenile" the prime minister and chancellor were.Later this week Mr Blair is expected to outline the direction of his party's next election manifesto.Mr Blair said he would not respond to "tittle tattle in books" and promised to hail Labour's record on the economy, waiting lists and law and order "from now until polling day".

Goldsmith denies war advice claimThe attorney general has denied his statement to Parliament about the legality of the Iraq war was drafted by Downing Street officials.Lord Goldsmith said Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan played no part in drafting the answer. He added the answer represented his view that the war was legal, but was not a summary of his advice to the PM. The government has resisted calls to publish the full advice, saying such papers are always kept confidential.In a statement, Lord Goldsmith said: "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." He suggested the claim that Lord Falconer and Lady Morgan had drafted the answer were the result of a mis-transcription of his evidence to the Butler Inquiry into pre-war intelligence. "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."Earlier, Tony Blair 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."The claims about Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan's involvement were made in a book published this week by Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers. He also 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. Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said the ministerial answer was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action. She said the full advice should have been attached, according to the ministerial code, and demanded a Lords inquiry into the matter. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they still want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General. Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said Lord Goldsmith's statement still did not clear up the outstanding issues. "If his original advice of 7 March accepted that military action might be illegal, how was it that he resolved any such doubts by the time the Parliamentary answer was published on 17 March?" he said. "Only the fullest disclosure will now do."

Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said the ministerial answer was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action.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.In a statement, Lord Goldsmith said: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer."He added the answer represented his view that the war was legal, but was not a summary of his advice to the PM.Lord Goldsmith said Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan played no part in drafting the answer."The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said."If his original advice of 7 March accepted that military action might be illegal, how was it that he resolved any such doubts by the time the Parliamentary answer was published on 17 March?"Earlier, Tony Blair dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion.he said."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.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.

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.

Mallon wades into NE vote battleMiddlesbrough mayor Ray Mallon has been drafted in to boost the Yes campaign as the North East assembly referendum enters its final week.The former police chief, dubbed Robocop for his zero tolerance style, clashed on Thursday with Sunderland No campaigner Neil Herron. Mr Mallon said an assembly would give local people more of a say over key issues such as transport and crime. But Mr Herron said North East people did not want or need an assembly.The pair met on the platform at Sunderland station as Mr Mallon toured the region highlighting claimed improvements to transport if the area gets an assembly. But Mr Herron - who gained fame as one of Sunderland's "metric martyrs" and is running his own No campaign alongside the official North East Says No campaign - said he was not convinced by Mr Mallon's arguments. "The reality is that it is not going to deliver," he said. "Labour has had two-and-a-half years to convince people of this. If you can't sell a deal in that time, it is a bad deal." On Wednesday, Mr Mallon provoked fury by branding the official No Campaign "two-bit Tories" in a confrontation outside its Durham headquarters. "The campaign is being run by two-bit Conservatives who are not interested in what happens in the North East; they are interested in hitting the Labour party over the head," he said. Mr Mallon is a late recruit to the Yes campaign after rejecting overtures from No campaigners including, he claims, Tory leader Michael Howard.Most local observers believe the contest is too close to call, although little recent polling has been carried out. Yes campaign chairman John Tomaney said he hoped for a late flurry of votes to boost turnout - something he says will boost their cause. He added: "The government exerts a lot of political power in the North East. The accountability should be in the North East as well." He also defended the decision to attack the official No campaign's alleged political allegiances. "We felt we had to show what people were behind the No campaign - London Tory spin doctors." Graham Robb, spokesman for North East Says No, said the Yes campaign's decision to get personal dragged the campaign "into the gutter" and showed they were "rattled". And he hit back at Mr Mallon's claim that an assembly would improve transport links in the region. "It can push paper around but it can not get people moving," he said. Some 487,939 people had returned their ballot papers by Wednesday - a turnout of 25.7%. The deadline for voting is next Thursday, 4 November.

But Mr Herron said North East people did not want or need an assembly.But Mr Herron - who gained fame as one of Sunderland's "metric martyrs" and is running his own No campaign alongside the official North East Says No campaign - said he was not convinced by Mr Mallon's arguments.Mr Mallon said an assembly would give local people more of a say over key issues such as transport and crime.Middlesbrough mayor Ray Mallon has been drafted in to boost the Yes campaign as the North East assembly referendum enters its final week.Graham Robb, spokesman for North East Says No, said the Yes campaign's decision to get personal dragged the campaign "into the gutter" and showed they were "rattled"."The campaign is being run by two-bit Conservatives who are not interested in what happens in the North East; they are interested in hitting the Labour party over the head," he said."It can push paper around but it can not get people moving," he said.Mr Mallon is a late recruit to the Yes campaign after rejecting overtures from No campaigners including, he claims, Tory leader Michael Howard.On Wednesday, Mr Mallon provoked fury by branding the official No Campaign "two-bit Tories" in a confrontation outside its Durham headquarters.The accountability should be in the North East as well."

Student 'inequality' exposedTeenagers from well-off backgrounds are six times more likely to go to university than those from the most deprived areas, a report says.The Higher Education Funding Council for England said more people went to university between 1994 and 2000. But the percentage of poorer students "hardly changed at all", said its chief executive, Sir Howard Newby. Increasingly more women than men went to university, while tuition fees and student loans made no major difference.The Hefce report, drawing on child benefits data, said teenagers in the richest areas could expect a better than 50% chance of going to university, while in the poorest neighbourhoods it was 10%. Participation at constituency level ranged from 69% in Kensington and Chelsea, 65% in the City of London and Westminster and 62% in Sheffield Hallam, down to 10% in Bristol South and Leeds Central and 8% in Nottingham North and Sheffield Brightside.Sir Howard said the report highlighted the "entrenched divisions" between rich and poor areas, but added it was a social as much as an educational problem. He told BBC News: "We know, once children from deprived backgrounds get into university, they do very well. In fact surprisingly more go into postgraduate study than those from more affluent backgrounds. "The issue is, I think, one of raising aspirations amongst those families and those communities that university is something for them and not for other people."He said by the time universities traditionally dealt with pupils, between the ages of 16 and 18, it was too late. Instead they should be reaching out to communities and schools much earlier, even down to primary school level, to persuade them a university education was something they could aspire to, he said. But while the report revealed stark inequalities and exposed the extent of the challenge, there were some encouraging findings, he added.Tuition fees and student loans in England and Wales - and the different fee regime in Scotland - did not seem to have affected the choices of young people, even the poorest. The report also showed women were 18% more likely than men to enter higher education in 2000 - up from 6% in 1994. In the poorest areas, the gap was 30% in women's favour and growing faster than anywhere else. The Higher Education Minister, Kim Howells, said: "We are working in schools to raise the attainment and aspiration of young people in disadvantaged areas." Higher standards in schools would lead to greater participation in higher education. From 2006 upfront tuition fees in England would be removed, with grants for the less well off. The shadow education secretary, Tim Collins, said: "It is clear from this report that children from disadvantaged areas are far more likely to have encountered poor standards in their secondary education. "Tackling these must be the top priority for any government looking to improve university access." The group which represents university vice-chancellors, Universities UK, said the new system of deferred fees in England, due to start in 2006, with grants and bursaries for poorer students, would encourage more of them to go into higher education. The National Union of Students argued the opposite - that the situation was "likely to get much worse, with poorer students being restricted in choice and having to make decisions based on their financial situation rather than aspiration".The tables below show the participation rate for each Parliamentary constituency in Britain:

The Higher Education Funding Council for England said more people went to university between 1994 and 2000.The group which represents university vice-chancellors, Universities UK, said the new system of deferred fees in England, due to start in 2006, with grants and bursaries for poorer students, would encourage more of them to go into higher education.Instead they should be reaching out to communities and schools much earlier, even down to primary school level, to persuade them a university education was something they could aspire to, he said.The Higher Education Minister, Kim Howells, said: "We are working in schools to raise the attainment and aspiration of young people in disadvantaged areas."Teenagers from well-off backgrounds are six times more likely to go to university than those from the most deprived areas, a report says.The Hefce report, drawing on child benefits data, said teenagers in the richest areas could expect a better than 50% chance of going to university, while in the poorest neighbourhoods it was 10%.The shadow education secretary, Tim Collins, said: "It is clear from this report that children from disadvantaged areas are far more likely to have encountered poor standards in their secondary education.Higher standards in schools would lead to greater participation in higher education.He said by the time universities traditionally dealt with pupils, between the ages of 16 and 18, it was too late.The report also showed women were 18% more likely than men to enter higher education in 2000 - up from 6% in 1994.

EU China arms ban 'to be lifted'The EU embargo on arms exports to China is likely to be lifted in the next six months despite US objections, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.The 15-year-old ban was imposed in the aftermath of China's crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square. Mr Straw told a Commons select committee human rights concerns over China remained. But he said it was wrong to put China under the same embargo as countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma.In December, the EU pledged to work towards lifting the ban but said it was not ready to do so yet. The EU's move was welcomed at the time by Beijing, which described the embargo as a "product of the Cold War". German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and French President Jacques Chirac have repeatedly called for the embargo to be lifted. Britain has been more cautious on the issue, but on Wednesday Mr Straw said he also wanted it to end. "I have long understood China's argument, that to lump them in with, say, Burma and Zimbabwe is not appropriate and I don't think it is," he told the joint committee on Strategic Export Controls. He said "it is more likely than not" that the ban would be lifted before Britain takes over the presidency of the EU from Luxembourg in July. But he said an EU code of conduct would prevent an increase in the number of arms being exported to the country. "If it is lifted we will end up with as effective arms controls in relation to China as we have now."Mr Straw said the US government was suspicious of "the motives of some other countries within the EU" in wanting the ban lifted. But he said many of Washington's objections were based on a "lack of information and understanding" of how export control guidelines worked in EU countries. And "intense discussions" were taking place with US officials to convince them it was the right thing to do. Washington is thought to fear it would lead to a buying spree for arms that could be used by China to threaten its diplomatic rival Taiwan. US officials say they are not satisfied the mechanisms in the EU code of conduct are robust enough to prevent abuses. US Undersecretary of State John Bolton is meeting British officials this week to press the case for keeping the embargo.

Mr Straw said the US government was suspicious of "the motives of some other countries within the EU" in wanting the ban lifted.The EU embargo on arms exports to China is likely to be lifted in the next six months despite US objections, UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has said.But he said it was wrong to put China under the same embargo as countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma.He said "it is more likely than not" that the ban would be lifted before Britain takes over the presidency of the EU from Luxembourg in July.But he said an EU code of conduct would prevent an increase in the number of arms being exported to the country.In December, the EU pledged to work towards lifting the ban but said it was not ready to do so yet."If it is lifted we will end up with as effective arms controls in relation to China as we have now."US officials say they are not satisfied the mechanisms in the EU code of conduct are robust enough to prevent abuses.

Campbell: E-mail row 'silly fuss'Ex-No 10 media chief Alastair Campbell is at the centre of a new political row over an e-mail containing a four-letter outburst aimed at BBC journalists.Mr Campbell sent the missive by mistake to BBC2's Newsnight after it sought to question his role in Labour's controversial poster campaign. He later contacted the show saying the original e-mail had been sent in error and that it was all a "silly fuss". Mr Campbell has recently re-joined Labour's election campaign.The e-mail was revealed the day after Peter Mandelson, former Labour minister and now a European Commissioner, warned the BBC to steer away from "demonising" Mr Campbell. Mr Campbell messaged Newsnight after the programme investigated claims that Labour's advertising agency TBWA was blaming him for controversy over its campaign posters. The images, including one of flying pigs and another of what critics claim depicted Tory leader Michael Howard as Fagin, prompted accusations of anti-Semitism, claims denied by Labour.Mr Campbell's e-mail, which was apparently intended for a party official, suggested they should get Trevor Beattie, TBWA's boss, to issue a statement. In it, he said: "Just spoke to trev. think tbwa shd give statement to newsnight saying party and agency work together well and nobody here has spoken to standard. Posters done by by tbwa according to political brief. Now fuck off and cover something important you twats!" The e-mail was sent by mistake to Newsnight journalist Andrew McFadyen. Realising his error, Mr Campbell then e-mailed Mr McFadyen pointing out the mistake, but suggesting presenter Jeremy Paxman would have seen the funny side.He said: "Not very good at this e-mail Blackberry malarkey. Just looked at log of sent messages, have realised e-mail meant for colleagues at TBWA has gone to you. For the record, first three sentences of email spot on. No row between me and trevor. "Posters done by them according to our brief. I dreamt up flying pigs. Pigs not great but okay in the circs of Tories promising tax cuts and spending rises with the same money. TBWA made production. "Campbell swears shock. Final sentence of earlier e-mail probably a bit colourful and personal considering we have never actually met but I'm sure you share the same sense of humour as your star presenter Mr P. "Never known such a silly fuss since the last silly fuss but there we go. Must look forward not back."Later the prime minister's spokesman was asked by journalists about his view on Mr Campbell's use of abusive language. The spokesman said: "The person you are referring to is capable of speaking for himself and he no longer works in government." Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he had always had "very good and polite relations" with Mr Campbell, who he described as "very talented". But on the former spin doctor's use of language, Mr Straw said: "I do know the odd journalist who has occasionally used the odd word that would probably be inappropriate in some circumstances. Maybe I mix with the wrong kind of journalists." Liam Fox, Tory co-chairman, said the return of Mr Campbell was a sign of new "sinister and underhand tactics" by Labour.

Mr Campbell messaged Newsnight after the programme investigated claims that Labour's advertising agency TBWA was blaming him for controversy over its campaign posters.Liam Fox, Tory co-chairman, said the return of Mr Campbell was a sign of new "sinister and underhand tactics" by Labour.The e-mail was revealed the day after Peter Mandelson, former Labour minister and now a European Commissioner, warned the BBC to steer away from "demonising" Mr Campbell.The e-mail was sent by mistake to Newsnight journalist Andrew McFadyen.Mr Campbell has recently re-joined Labour's election campaign.Mr Campbell sent the missive by mistake to BBC2's Newsnight after it sought to question his role in Labour's controversial poster campaign.Mr Campbell's e-mail, which was apparently intended for a party official, suggested they should get Trevor Beattie, TBWA's boss, to issue a statement.Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said he had always had "very good and polite relations" with Mr Campbell, who he described as "very talented".Ex-No 10 media chief Alastair Campbell is at the centre of a new political row over an e-mail containing a four-letter outburst aimed at BBC journalists.Realising his error, Mr Campbell then e-mailed Mr McFadyen pointing out the mistake, but suggesting presenter Jeremy Paxman would have seen the funny side.He said: "Not very good at this e-mail Blackberry malarkey.He later contacted the show saying the original e-mail had been sent in error and that it was all a "silly fuss".Posters done by by tbwa according to political brief.

Blair rejects Iraq advice callsTony Blair has rejected calls for the publication of advice on the legality of the Iraq war amid growing calls for an investigation.The prime minister told his monthly press conference the matter had been dealt with by the Attorney General. Earlier, Conservative MP Michael Mates joined calls for a probe into claims Lord Goldsmith's statement to Parliament was drawn up at Number 10. Mr Blair said the statement was a "fair summary" of Lord Goldsmith's 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, saying it had been dealt with "literally scores of times and the position has not changed". Lord Goldsmith has denied being "leaned on" and says the words written were his.The government refuses to publish his advice on the legality of the war - saying such papers have always been kept confidential. Mr Mates, who is a member of the Commons intelligence and security committee and was part of the Butler inquiry into pre-war intelligence, told the BBC on Friday: "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: "We discovered that there were two or three occasions in the past when law officers' advice to the government has been published. "And 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." This is argument was rejected by Mr Blair, who said: "Firstly, we haven't broken the precedent, and secondly Peter Goldsmith has made his statement and I have got absolutely nothing to add to it." In a book published this week, 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.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. Mr Sands' book suggests it was actually written by Home Office Minister Lord Falconer and Downing Street adviser Baroness Morgan. Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said it was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action. She told the BBC the full advice should have been attached, according to the ministerial code."My view is we need the House of Lords to set up a special committee, summon the attorney, get all the papers out, look at exactly what happened," she said. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General. On Thursday, Lord Goldsmith said his statement had not been "written by or at Number 10". "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," he said.

Mr Blair said the statement was a "fair summary" of Lord Goldsmith's opinion.On Thursday, Lord Goldsmith said his statement had not been "written by or at Number 10".Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said it was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action.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.This is argument was rejected by Mr Blair, who said: "Firstly, we haven't broken the precedent, and secondly Peter Goldsmith has made his statement and I have got absolutely nothing to add to it.""That's what he (Lord Goldsmith) said and that's what I say.Lord Goldsmith has denied being "leaned on" and says the words written were his.In a book published this week, 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.Mr Sands' book suggests it was actually written by Home Office Minister Lord Falconer and Downing Street adviser Baroness Morgan.Mr Mates added: "We discovered that there were two or three occasions in the past when law officers' advice to the government has been published.

Abortion not a poll issue - BlairTony Blair does not believe abortion should be an election issue, arguing it is a matter for individual conscience.The prime minister's spokesman set out Mr Blair's view after the top Catholic in England and Wales backed Michael Howard's stance on abortions. The Tory leader supports a reduction in the legal limit from 24 weeks to 20 and has said current rules are "tantamount to abortion on demand". The prime minister has made it clear he has no plans to the change the law.Mr Blair's spokesman said: "The Catholic church has a well-known position on this issue and it was one of many issues the Cardinal mentioned and therefore it should be seen in that context." His words came as Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor, the Archbishop of Westminster, backed Mr Howard's stance and distanced himself from Labour. In a statement, he said abortion was a "very key issue", saying: "The policy supported by Mr Howard is one that we would commend, on the way to a full abandonment of abortion."Cardinal O'Connor claimed Labour had "developed" the notion that it was the natural party of Catholics, but he said: "We are not going to suggest people support one particular party." The Family Planning Association says a reduction would particularly affect young women who often seek help later. More than 180,000 women in England and Wales had terminations last year, of which fewer than 1% were carried out between 22 and 24 weeks.In the Cosmopolitan interview Mr Howard said: "I believe abortion should be available to everyone, but the law should be changed. "In the past I voted for a restriction to 22 weeks and I would be prepared to go down to 20." All three main parties say the issue is one for each MP's conscience, rather than one where there is a party-wide policy. Mr Howard stressed his views were his personal views. Shadow home secretary David Davis said he understood Mr Howard had been signalling that a Conservative government would allow a Commons vote on the issue. Mr Blair and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy also gave their views during interviews, conducted as part of the magazine's "High Heeled Vote" campaign.Mr Blair, who last year denied he planned to join his wife and four children in the Catholic faith despite regularly taking communion, said abortion was a "difficult issue". "However much I dislike the idea of abortion, you should not criminalise a woman who, in very difficult circumstances, makes that choice. "Obviously there is a time beyond which you can't have an abortion, and we have no plans to change that although the debate will continue." Mr Kennedy said he had previously voted for a 22-week limit but medical advances mean "I don't know what I would do now". The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Cardiff, the Most Reverend Peter Smith, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme that the church merely wanted people to "reflect on issues in light of the gospel" before voting. Anne Weyman, chief executive of the Family Planning Association, asked: "What is the benefit to women, or to the potential child, of forcing a woman to have a baby?" Anti-abortion group the Pro-Life Alliance "congratulated" Mr Howard on his new stance, but said it did not go far enough.

In a statement, he said abortion was a "very key issue", saying: "The policy supported by Mr Howard is one that we would commend, on the way to a full abandonment of abortion."Mr Blair's spokesman said: "The Catholic church has a well-known position on this issue and it was one of many issues the Cardinal mentioned and therefore it should be seen in that context."Mr Blair, who last year denied he planned to join his wife and four children in the Catholic faith despite regularly taking communion, said abortion was a "difficult issue".In the Cosmopolitan interview Mr Howard said: "I believe abortion should be available to everyone, but the law should be changed.Shadow home secretary David Davis said he understood Mr Howard had been signalling that a Conservative government would allow a Commons vote on the issue.Mr Kennedy said he had previously voted for a 22-week limit but medical advances mean "I don't know what I would do now".Anti-abortion group the Pro-Life Alliance "congratulated" Mr Howard on his new stance, but said it did not go far enough.The Tory leader supports a reduction in the legal limit from 24 weeks to 20 and has said current rules are "tantamount to abortion on demand".The prime minister's spokesman set out Mr Blair's view after the top Catholic in England and Wales backed Michael Howard's stance on abortions.Mr Howard stressed his views were his personal views.

'No-one can define new hunt ban'The new law banning hunting with dogs is "so poorly drafted" no-one can define the offence, pro-hunt MPs say.The accusation came after it emerged a Devon man had been told he could use his four dogs to "chase away unwanted animals" from his farm. Because he did not intend to kill deer or foxes it was not hunting. Lib Dem MP Lembit Opik said ministers had invented a new category of hunting - chasing away - and asked how police were supposed to interpret the rules.North Devon landowner Giles Bradshaw was put in touch with the Middle Way Group, of which Mr Opik is a co-chairman, after he had been in contact with the rural affairs ministry, Defra. He had asked whether his technique of using his four dogs to frighten off deer and foxes would be outlawed under the Hunting Act. Mr Bradshaw was initially told it was an offence - prompting him to complain. The Middle Way group also said Mr Bradshaw would be put in a position where he would have to buy a rifle to shoot animals that would have previously gone free. In a later conversation Mr Bradshaw was told that according to Defra's lawyers chasing away unwanted animals was "not in fact hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004 therefore you would not be committing an offence".Mr Opik said: "Hunting with dogs and flushing are not defined in the Hunting Act. "Now Defra have also invented a completely new category of hunting - 'chasing away' which isn't even covered by the Act. "However, all these activities involve the use of dogs to chase wild mammals. "How is the village bobby who sees a group of people with dogs supposed to distinguish between illegal hunting, exempt hunting, drag hunting, unintentional hunting, a hunt exercising hounds or simply chasing away?" Tory MP Peter Luff, another co-chairman of Middle Way, said that the legislation was "so poorly drafted nobody appears able to properly define the offence"."It is no wonder the government desperately wants to move on from this disastrous law. However, I seriously doubt the countryside will be that accommodating." Mike Hobday, of the League Against Cruel Sports, said: "There is no confusion, it is a matter of simple common sense. "If Mr Bradshaw is setting his dogs to chase wild animals then he is hunting them and that will be a criminal offence. "If all the dogs are doing is barking at the deer, then nobody can define that as hunting."

Mr Opik said: "Hunting with dogs and flushing are not defined in the Hunting Act.In a later conversation Mr Bradshaw was told that according to Defra's lawyers chasing away unwanted animals was "not in fact hunting as described in the Hunting Act 2004 therefore you would not be committing an offence"."If Mr Bradshaw is setting his dogs to chase wild animals then he is hunting them and that will be a criminal offence."How is the village bobby who sees a group of people with dogs supposed to distinguish between illegal hunting, exempt hunting, drag hunting, unintentional hunting, a hunt exercising hounds or simply chasing away?""If all the dogs are doing is barking at the deer, then nobody can define that as hunting."The new law banning hunting with dogs is "so poorly drafted" no-one can define the offence, pro-hunt MPs say.He had asked whether his technique of using his four dogs to frighten off deer and foxes would be outlawed under the Hunting Act.Because he did not intend to kill deer or foxes it was not hunting.

MPs demand 'Budget leak' answersMinisters have been asked to explain how Budget details were printed in a London newspaper half an hour before Gordon Brown made his speech.The Tories said a large chunk of the Budget appeared to have been leaked in what they describe as a "serious breach of Treasury confidentiality". The Lib Dems called for Commons leader Peter Hain to make a statement and said chancellors had resigned over leaks. They were told it would be brought to Speaker Michael Martin's attention. In the Commons, Tory frontbencher Andrew Tyrie MP demanded an immediate ministerial statement about how measures had been "clearly, or at least apparently, leaked to the Evening Standard".Raising a point of order, he said it was "the latest in a long line of discourtesies to this House", as well as a breach of confidentiality. He said: "I can only hope it is unintentional. If it were planned it would be a very grave matter indeed. A previous Labour chancellor resigned after he leaked the Budget." Hugh Dalton resigned after leaking details of his 1947 budget to journalist John Carvel, who published them in a London newspaper, just minutes before they were announced to the House of Commons. Liberal Democrat David Laws said it was a "very serious matter" and said Mr Hain should make a statement on Thursday. Deputy Speaker Sylvia Heal agreed it was "of concern" but said nothing could be done immediately but the issue would be brought to Mr Martin's attention.

Liberal Democrat David Laws said it was a "very serious matter" and said Mr Hain should make a statement on Thursday.The Tories said a large chunk of the Budget appeared to have been leaked in what they describe as a "serious breach of Treasury confidentiality".The Lib Dems called for Commons leader Peter Hain to make a statement and said chancellors had resigned over leaks.Deputy Speaker Sylvia Heal agreed it was "of concern" but said nothing could be done immediately but the issue would be brought to Mr Martin's attention.A previous Labour chancellor resigned after he leaked the Budget."

Profile: David BlunkettBefore he resigned the position of home secretary on Wednesday, David Blunkett had been in charge of a substantial body of government portfolios including race, policing and immigration.His responsibilities in running the Home Office included civil emergencies, security, terrorism and expenditure. Named home secretary after the 2001 general election, Mr Blunkett had seen the focus on his office intensify. The attacks on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001 heightened concern for security and immigration in particular. A Labour loyalist from a working class background Mr Blunkett, 57, had been unafraid of pushing for tough changes to Labour policy.Recently the issue of identity cards had provoked controversy with questions raised over cost and invasions of civil liberties. Mr Blunkett was also at the centre of a humiliating scandal involving the former immigration minister Beverly Hughes. Having received his full backing, Ms Hughes was forced to resign in April over abuses in the visa processing system, which she claimed to be unaware of. Mr Blunkett's own comments on immigration had prompted censure - he told refugees from Afghanistan and Kosovo to "get back home" to start rebuilding their countries. And he also urged people from ethnic minorities to develop a "sense of belonging" in Britain, telling them to speak English at home. Avoiding political correctness is second nature to the former home secretary, who spurns a metropolitan elite and "airy fairy libertarians" and earlier in the year coined the phrase "liberati", as an amalgam of "glitterati" and "liberal". Yet in January of this year he courted further controversy over his seemingly liberal reclassification of cannabis, from a Grade B to Grade C status drug .Before the recent furore, Mr Blunkett had always appeared more interested in politics than his personal life. Mr Blunkett told the Daily Telegraph in 2001 that he continued to wear his wedding ring, in spite of being a divorcee, as "a useful way of ensuring that people don't casually think I am available". He added: "I am not available because I am just getting on with the job." Mr Blunkett entered Parliament for Sheffield Brightside in 1987, after first contesting the Sheffield Hallam seat in 1974. He is one of very few blind MPs, and was the first to reach the front bench and the Cabinet. His relaxed performances - with his guide dog by his side - at the despatch box, in the Labour Party's National Executive, and on the conference platform made it easy to forget his disability. Mr Blunkett himself described not being able to see as simply "an inconvenience". Using Braille for speeches, and briefed by his officials on tape, he also has a sharp tongue at times, and a pragmatic approach to politics.Mr Blunkett was schooled in Sheffield where he led the city council for seven years before entering the Commons. He chaired the Labour Party nationally, and was a unifying force in the 80s and 90s, shadowing health and education. In Tony Blair's first government Mr Blunkett was put in charge of education and employment, where he won big increases in funds for schools, while insisting on improved standards of literacy and numeracy. He was prepared to stand up to the teaching unions - which sometimes heckled his speeches - and his policy of charging university students for tuition fees was not popular. In the Labour Party he has been regarded as a loyal colleague, a conciliator who avoids factions, and a man whose humour and determination make him widely popular. There have been wry smiles as well. In 1999, his then guide dog Lucy threw up in the Chamber during the speech of his Tory opponent. Lucy was replaced by her half-sister, Sadie, a black Labrador-curly-coated retriever cross, in 2003 after nearly a decade by Mr Blunkett's side.

Mr Blunkett was also at the centre of a humiliating scandal involving the former immigration minister Beverly Hughes.Mr Blunkett was schooled in Sheffield where he led the city council for seven years before entering the Commons.Named home secretary after the 2001 general election, Mr Blunkett had seen the focus on his office intensify.In Tony Blair's first government Mr Blunkett was put in charge of education and employment, where he won big increases in funds for schools, while insisting on improved standards of literacy and numeracy.A Labour loyalist from a working class background Mr Blunkett, 57, had been unafraid of pushing for tough changes to Labour policy.Mr Blunkett himself described not being able to see as simply "an inconvenience".Mr Blunkett entered Parliament for Sheffield Brightside in 1987, after first contesting the Sheffield Hallam seat in 1974.Before the recent furore, Mr Blunkett had always appeared more interested in politics than his personal life.Lucy was replaced by her half-sister, Sadie, a black Labrador-curly-coated retriever cross, in 2003 after nearly a decade by Mr Blunkett's side.Mr Blunkett told the Daily Telegraph in 2001 that he continued to wear his wedding ring, in spite of being a divorcee, as "a useful way of ensuring that people don't casually think I am available".Before he resigned the position of home secretary on Wednesday, David Blunkett had been in charge of a substantial body of government portfolios including race, policing and immigration.Mr Blunkett's own comments on immigration had prompted censure - he told refugees from Afghanistan and Kosovo to "get back home" to start rebuilding their countries.

UK helps raped Rwandan womenBritain is to give a £4m grant to help women survivors of the Rwandan genocide who were raped and often deliberately infected with HIV/Aids.An estimated 25,000 girls and women were raped during the 1994 genocide. About 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu militias after the assassination of an ethnic Hutu leader. The five-year Department for International Development funding will enable more survivors to have access to anti-retroviral treatment.The plight of the infected women was overshadowed for a long time. It was overshadowed by Rwanda's emergence from the 100 days of slaughter, during which time the mass killings took place, and the women's fate was largely a taboo subject. But many of the women were widowed and they now not only have their own children to care for but, in many cases, orphans too.As the women die, the number of Rwanda's orphans rises. Until recently, very few of the women have had access to anti-retroviral treatment. That is now starting to change. This funding is intended to make anti-retrovirals and other care available for some 2,500 women. Mary Kayitesi Blewitt, founder of the Survivors Fund (SURF), one of the organisations through which the funds are being channelled, said it was a recognition, before it was too late, that the survivors should be a priority for help.

The plight of the infected women was overshadowed for a long time.Until recently, very few of the women have had access to anti-retroviral treatment.Britain is to give a £4m grant to help women survivors of the Rwandan genocide who were raped and often deliberately infected with HIV/Aids.An estimated 25,000 girls and women were raped during the 1994 genocide.As the women die, the number of Rwanda's orphans rises.

Lib Dems unveil women's manifestoThe Liberal Democrats are attempting to woo female voters with the launch of their manifesto for women.Charles Kennedy is pledging a maternity income guarantee and a pension system based on years of residence rather than national insurance payments. He also thinks women will back plans to end university tuition fees and for free long-term care for the elderly. Both Labour and the Conservatives have said they also plan to boost pensions and to improve childcare support. Mr Kennedy says he wants to deal with policy areas that disadvantage women. "Two million pensioners in Britain currently live below the government's own poverty line - two-thirds of whom are women," he said.He says that pensions based on the number of years worked ignore the contribution women make caring for children. The Lib Dem's Citizen's Pension, based on length of residency not on national insurance contributions, would address that imbalance, Mr Kennedy argues. Under the package, new mothers would be offered minimum guaranteed maternity pay of £170 a week for the first six months after the birth of their first child. Mr Kennedy also believes the party's plans to use the money saved from not introducing "illiberal" ID cards to boost police numbers by 10,000 would appeal to women too. The policies are not new announcements, but the way they are structured as a package to appeal to women is.Mr Kennedy also points to the fact that 40% of the party's candidates set to stand in winnable or target seats are women. Party strategists claim that where women candidates replace men turnout rises by 4%. Mr Kennedy began the pitch for female support with an interview on BBC Radio 4's Women's Hour on Monday. During the interview Mr Kennedy revealed that he planned to structure the party's general election campaign around the birth of his first child, which is expected in April. The baby and his wife Sarah would be "priority number one" even if it arrived in the middle of the election campaign, he said.Party strategists believe winning over a significant proportion of women voters is key to electoral success. A party spokesman said it was courting female votes because they tended to vote more than men and are believed to be more considered and open-minded in deciding who they vote for. Labour's deputy minister for women Jacqui Smith accused the Lib Dems of offering "false promises" to women and said their sums did not add up. She said: "These proposals would increase the costs to the public purse drastically year on year, and hard working families will pay dearly, through either increased taxes or reduced spending on public services". The Labour party has committed itself to "universal, affordable and flexible" childcare for parents of all 3 to 14 year-olds, including childcare centred on schools to be available from 8am to 6pm. In September, Trade and Industry Secretary Patricia Hewitt said she would like to see longer paid maternity leave, higher paternity pay and the extension of flexible working rights to carers, if Labour won a third term. The Conservatives are yet to unveil their manifesto plans for childcare but said in November they would increase maternity pay and pay the child tax credit in cash to parents to spend as they like, on a nanny, au pair or even a family member, such as a grandparent, acting as a carer. They were also consulting on making childcare costs tax deductible.

Mr Kennedy also believes the party's plans to use the money saved from not introducing "illiberal" ID cards to boost police numbers by 10,000 would appeal to women too.Both Labour and the Conservatives have said they also plan to boost pensions and to improve childcare support.The Conservatives are yet to unveil their manifesto plans for childcare but said in November they would increase maternity pay and pay the child tax credit in cash to parents to spend as they like, on a nanny, au pair or even a family member, such as a grandparent, acting as a carer.The Lib Dem's Citizen's Pension, based on length of residency not on national insurance contributions, would address that imbalance, Mr Kennedy argues.Mr Kennedy also points to the fact that 40% of the party's candidates set to stand in winnable or target seats are women.Mr Kennedy says he wants to deal with policy areas that disadvantage women.Labour's deputy minister for women Jacqui Smith accused the Lib Dems of offering "false promises" to women and said their sums did not add up.He says that pensions based on the number of years worked ignore the contribution women make caring for children.During the interview Mr Kennedy revealed that he planned to structure the party's general election campaign around the birth of his first child, which is expected in April.She said: "These proposals would increase the costs to the public purse drastically year on year, and hard working families will pay dearly, through either increased taxes or reduced spending on public services".

Parties warned over 'grey vote'Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.A survey for the charity suggests 69% of over-55s say they always vote in a general election compared with just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds. Charity boss Gordon Lishman said if a "decisive blow" was struck at the election it would be by older voters who could be relied on to turn out. A total of 3,028 adults aged 18 or over were interviewed for the study. Mr Lishman urged the next government to boost state pension.He also called for measures to combat ageism and build effective public services to "support us all in an ageing society". "Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said. "Political parties must wake up to the fact that unless they address the demands and concerns of older people they will not keep or attract their vote." In the survey carried out by ICM Research, 14% of people aged between 18 and 34 said they never voted in general elections. Among the over-65s, 70% said they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 39% of people under 55. Age Concern says the over-55s are "united around" key areas of policy they want the government to focus on. For 57%, pensions and the NHS were key issues, while the economy was important for a third, and tax was a crucial area for 25%.The report was welcomed by Conservative shadow pensions secretary David Willetts. "The pensioners' voice must certainly be heard in the next election as they have never fitted into Blair's cool Britannia," he said. "Labour's continued refusal to admit the true extent of the pensions crisis will be one of the monumental failures of this government." He pointed to Tory plans to increase the basic state pension to reduce means testing, strengthen company pensions and encourage savings. A Liberal Democrat spokesman said the party took the issues raised in the report very seriously. He highlighted the party's promises to raise the basic state pension, provide free long-term care for the elderly and replace council tax, seen as a particular problem for pensioners on fixed incomes. Labour has said it wants to use savings reforms to Incapacity Benefit to improve the basic state pension and has set up a review of the council tax system.

Among the over-65s, 70% said they would be certain to vote in an immediate election, compared with 39% of people under 55.Charity boss Gordon Lishman said if a "decisive blow" was struck at the election it would be by older voters who could be relied on to turn out.Mr Lishman urged the next government to boost state pension.Labour has said it wants to use savings reforms to Incapacity Benefit to improve the basic state pension and has set up a review of the council tax system."Older people want to see manifesto commitments that will make a difference to their lives," Mr Lishman said.In the survey carried out by ICM Research, 14% of people aged between 18 and 34 said they never voted in general elections.Political parties cannot afford to take older UK voters for granted in the coming election, says Age Concern.A survey for the charity suggests 69% of over-55s say they always vote in a general election compared with just 17% of 18 to 24 year olds.

Hunt demo at Labour meetingPro-hunt supporters are set to protest at Labour's spring conference.The Countryside Alliance says it expects up to 4,000 supporters to demonstrate against the hunting ban. They have agreed to keep to a demonstration site on the other side of the River Tyne from the conference venue in Gateshead. A bid to overturn the law banning hunting with dogs in England and Wales has begun in the Court of Appeal. The ban comes into force on 18 February. The Court of Appeal is expected to rule early next week on whether the alliance's challenge has succeeded. Richard Dodd, regional director of the Countryside Alliance, said he expected between 2,000 and 4,000 supporters in Tyneside to make their protest, with hunt horns and placards.Campaigners have been asked not to bring any animals or alcohol.Mr Dodd said he did not believe there would be any repeat of the trouble which marred the pro-hunt demonstration outside Parliament in September. "We are holding a static demonstration, just to remind Labour that we are not going away," he said. Northumbria Police said the pedestrian Millennium Bridge, by the demonstration site, will be shut if necessary. But Assistant Chief Constable David Warcup has liaised with several protest groups and said all negotiations had gone well. Fathers 4 Justice, pensioners' rights activists and Stop the War campaigners were also expected to demonstrate during the three-day conference which starts on Friday. Pro-hunt campaigners claims the 1949 Parliament Act - which extends the right of the House of Commons to overrule the House of Lords - was itself invalid because it was never passed by peers. The High Court last month ruled the act was valid and the proposed hunting ban was lawful. Pro-hunt supporters formally launched their second legal challenge to the ban in London's High Court on Thursday. The Countryside Alliance has lodged papers seeking a judicial review on human rights grounds. Animal welfare groups have welcomed the ban, many of whom have campaigned for a ban for decades saying hunting is cruel and unnecessary.

The Countryside Alliance says it expects up to 4,000 supporters to demonstrate against the hunting ban.Pro-hunt supporters formally launched their second legal challenge to the ban in London's High Court on Thursday.Richard Dodd, regional director of the Countryside Alliance, said he expected between 2,000 and 4,000 supporters in Tyneside to make their protest, with hunt horns and placards.Animal welfare groups have welcomed the ban, many of whom have campaigned for a ban for decades saying hunting is cruel and unnecessary.The High Court last month ruled the act was valid and the proposed hunting ban was lawful.Pro-hunt supporters are set to protest at Labour's spring conference.Mr Dodd said he did not believe there would be any repeat of the trouble which marred the pro-hunt demonstration outside Parliament in September.A bid to overturn the law banning hunting with dogs in England and Wales has begun in the Court of Appeal.

Lib Dems target first-time buyersThe Liberal Democrats have unveiled plans to build 100,000 new "affordable" homes on publicly owned land.The party's scheme would allow people to buy a share in a home through a mutual home ownership trust, as a way of getting onto the housing ladder. The Lib Dems would also encourage the conversion of existing buildings in an effort to protect greenfield sites. Labour has already announced plans to help first-time buyers and the Tories would extend right-to-buy schemes.All the major parties are focusing on the issue in the run-up to the election after a survey suggested first-time buyers could not afford a home in 92% of UK towns. The Lib Dems say their "mutual homes" would let people buy a share of a property, usually worth about 5% of the building costs. Party leader Charles Kennedy said the homes would be affordable because they would be built on surplus public sector land, donated by central or local government. People would also only have to pay for the cost of the building and not the land, he added.They would spend about 30% of their monthly salary on rent and buying extra shares in the property. When they moved house, they would be able to cash in on any rise in property prices by selling their share. It would also allow councils to vary discounts to tenants given the right to buy their council homes so local needs were taken into account. Mr Kennedy said: "Mutual homes will offer people the opportunity to build up an equity stake in a home gradually, investing only as much as they can afford."There are also plans to prevent high house prices forcing people out of their local communities. The kind of "golden share" used by the Lib Dems in South Shropshire could be rolled out more widely. Under the plan, councils secure deals with developers where they keep a 1% share in a property scheme so properties cannot be sold on the open market. Instead, they are sold at "build cost" to people who the local council decides have local needs. The party says its help for first-time buyers can be funded at no extra cost to the taxpayer. But the plans involve changing the VAT system, which the party says often makes it too expensive to renovate existing buildings.The Conservatives claimed the plans would amount to an extra tax of up to £11,000 on every new house. "This is typical of Lib Dem hypocrisy," said Tory shadow local government secretary Caroline Spelman. "They claim that they want to help people on to the property ladder, but the small print of their policies reveal how they intend to price even more people out of the housing market." The flagship Tory proposal on housing policy is to give a million more housing association tenants the right to buy their homes. Labour has said it will allow 300,000 council and housing association tenants to buy a share in their homes. Housing Minister Keith Hill said much of the Lib Dem plans mimicked the government's strategy. "However, as usual, the Lib Dems' proposals are completely uncosted," he said. Mr Hill said he also asked whether the Lib Dems would match Labour's promise to spend £42bn on making refurbishing and repair council homes by 2010.

The Lib Dems say their "mutual homes" would let people buy a share of a property, usually worth about 5% of the building costs.The party's scheme would allow people to buy a share in a home through a mutual home ownership trust, as a way of getting onto the housing ladder.Mr Hill said he also asked whether the Lib Dems would match Labour's promise to spend £42bn on making refurbishing and repair council homes by 2010.Party leader Charles Kennedy said the homes would be affordable because they would be built on surplus public sector land, donated by central or local government.It would also allow councils to vary discounts to tenants given the right to buy their council homes so local needs were taken into account.Labour has said it will allow 300,000 council and housing association tenants to buy a share in their homes.People would also only have to pay for the cost of the building and not the land, he added.There are also plans to prevent high house prices forcing people out of their local communities.The Lib Dems would also encourage the conversion of existing buildings in an effort to protect greenfield sites.They would spend about 30% of their monthly salary on rent and buying extra shares in the property.When they moved house, they would be able to cash in on any rise in property prices by selling their share.

Brown calls for £5.5bn Aids fundGordon Brown has called on rich nations to fund a £5.5bn ($10bn) plan to fight the Aids epidemic and find a vaccine.On the fourth day of his six-day tour of Africa, the UK chancellor predicted a vaccine could be found by 2012 if the world stepped up its funding pledges. Doubling the £400m being spent yearly on finding such a vaccine could advance it by three years and save six million lives, Mr Brown said on Thursday. He hopes to use the UK's G8 presidency to push the issue forward."I believe that the generation that provided the finance to combat, cure and eradicate the world's deadliest disease of today - and today the world's least curable disease - HIV/Aids - will rightly earn the title 'the great generation'," Mr Brown said in a speech during his African tour. The problems of HIV/Aids were inseparable from poverty, he added. "At least $10 billion per annum (£5.5bn) is needed to address the HIV/Aids crisis in low and middle income countries. "Existing financial commitments on their own will not stop the pandemic. "The UK's proposal for an International Finance Facility is so important - increasing world aid flows by over $50 billion (£27bn). A doubling of world aid to halve world poverty." Mr Brown also said he had agreed with the Italian finance minister Domenico Siniscalco to push forward with plans for the world-wide sharing and co-ordination of research into the disease.Currently the private sector was only spending £60m a year on seeking an inoculation and the market needed boosting, Mr Brown said. He called on industrialised nations to commit themselves to buying the first 300m vaccines at a cost of $20 each, thereby boosting the market for inoculations. This would be a "large enough inducement to create much stronger interest from both large and small pharmaceutical firms", Mr Brown added.More must also be done to finance the treatment and care of those living with HIV/Aids and their families, he said. But Aid charity Actionaid criticised Mr Brown's preoccupation with finding a vaccine and called on G8 nations to fund HIV/Aids treatments. The charity's head of HIV/Aids in Britain, Simon Wright said: "While encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to discover an HIV vaccine is important, a failure to provide any funding for HIV treatments condemns a generation of people to death. "HIV is decimating African countries, killing the most productive adults who should be working, caring for children and building the economy. An HIV vaccine is probably at least 10 years away. Treatments are needed now." On Wednesday, Mr Brown visited slums in the Kenyan capital Nairobi . He will visit an HIV/Aids orphanage in Tanzania and a women's credit union in Mozambique before chairing a meeting of the Commission for Africa in Cape Town. The chancellor has already unveiled proposals for a G8 aid package which he has likened to the Marshall Plan used by the United States to rebuild Europe after World War Two.

But Aid charity Actionaid criticised Mr Brown's preoccupation with finding a vaccine and called on G8 nations to fund HIV/Aids treatments.Doubling the £400m being spent yearly on finding such a vaccine could advance it by three years and save six million lives, Mr Brown said on Thursday.Currently the private sector was only spending £60m a year on seeking an inoculation and the market needed boosting, Mr Brown said.Mr Brown also said he had agreed with the Italian finance minister Domenico Siniscalco to push forward with plans for the world-wide sharing and co-ordination of research into the disease.Gordon Brown has called on rich nations to fund a £5.5bn ($10bn) plan to fight the Aids epidemic and find a vaccine.The charity's head of HIV/Aids in Britain, Simon Wright said: "While encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to discover an HIV vaccine is important, a failure to provide any funding for HIV treatments condemns a generation of people to death."I believe that the generation that provided the finance to combat, cure and eradicate the world's deadliest disease of today - and today the world's least curable disease - HIV/Aids - will rightly earn the title 'the great generation'," Mr Brown said in a speech during his African tour."The UK's proposal for an International Finance Facility is so important - increasing world aid flows by over $50 billion (£27bn)."At least $10 billion per annum (£5.5bn) is needed to address the HIV/Aids crisis in low and middle income countries.An HIV vaccine is probably at least 10 years away.

Tory leader unveils spending planTory leader Michael Howard says his party can save £35bn in government spending by tackling waste.The money would be ploughed back into frontline services like the NHS and schools with the rest used to cut government borrowing and reduce taxes. The Tory leader has also shrugged off the defection of one of his MPs, Robert Jackson, a former minister, to Labour. Mr Howard said that these things happened in politics and it would not affect the outcome of the election. "Let's be realistic - the election is not going to be decided on the basis of what Mr Jackson did", he told BBC 1's Breakfast with Frost programme. However the defection on Saturday has cast a shadow over the launch of the Conservatives' spending plans. Fuller details are due to be unveiled on Monday.The bulk of the £35bn saved by tackling bureaucracy and inefficient systems will go back into frontline services, Mr Howard said. The £12bn left over would then be spent on reducing government borrowing, he added. However, the remainder would deal with some of the "unfair taxes". "Almost every independent expert says if you get another Labour government you are going to have to pay higher taxes," Mr Howard insisted. "Because borrowing is going up, it is out of control, that is bound to lead to higher taxes or higher interest rates or both. "So part of the £12bn we are going to apply to filling the government's black hole, reducing the borrowing. "The rest will be used to reduce these unfair taxes which are bearing so heavily on the people of our country today."Mr Howard is expected to say that around £6bn will be available for tax cuts when he makes his announcement on Monday. The cuts will be paid for out of the savings identified by business trouble-shooter David James. Home Office spending could be cut by £1.6bn, according to the final instalment of his year-long review. Savings of £153m at the Foreign Office and £336m at the Department for Culture Media and Sport, have also been identified. In all, almost a quarter of a million jobs and 168 public bodies would go under Mr James' proposals.Mr Howard said: "All this adds up to a bottom line and the bottom line is at this election people will have a clear choice between Mr Blair, who will waste more and tax more, and a Conservative government that will give them value for money and tax less." However, Chief Treasury Secretary Paul Boateng said: "None of the Tories' figures add up so they can't make these savings and can't pay for any tax cuts, which means the only guaranteed cut from the Tories is £35bn of cuts, hitting frontline public services hard." Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy added: "People will not be taken in by Michael Howard's claims of £35bn worth of savings. "This can't be achieved without drastic cuts in local services in their own communities." A poll for the News of the World newspaper suggests the Conservatives are on course for their worst election defeat in a century. Labour will hold key marginal constituencies, winning a majority of 160, the Populus survey suggests. And the Liberal Democrats will take three key seats from the Conservatives, leaving the Tories with just 163 MPs, two less than they returned atLabour's 1997 landslide and their worst showing since 1906.

Mr Howard is expected to say that around £6bn will be available for tax cuts when he makes his announcement on Monday.Tory leader Michael Howard says his party can save £35bn in government spending by tackling waste."Almost every independent expert says if you get another Labour government you are going to have to pay higher taxes," Mr Howard insisted.The money would be ploughed back into frontline services like the NHS and schools with the rest used to cut government borrowing and reduce taxes.Mr Howard said: "All this adds up to a bottom line and the bottom line is at this election people will have a clear choice between Mr Blair, who will waste more and tax more, and a Conservative government that will give them value for money and tax less."The £12bn left over would then be spent on reducing government borrowing, he added.The bulk of the £35bn saved by tackling bureaucracy and inefficient systems will go back into frontline services, Mr Howard said.Mr Howard said that these things happened in politics and it would not affect the outcome of the election.However, Chief Treasury Secretary Paul Boateng said: "None of the Tories' figures add up so they can't make these savings and can't pay for any tax cuts, which means the only guaranteed cut from the Tories is £35bn of cuts, hitting frontline public services hard."Home Office spending could be cut by £1.6bn, according to the final instalment of his year-long review."So part of the £12bn we are going to apply to filling the government's black hole, reducing the borrowing.

Taxes must be trusted - KennedyPublic trust in taxes is breaking down because Labour and Tories are not being straight with people on the issue, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said.A day ahead of the government's pre-Budget report, Mr Kennedy used a speech to say his party was facing up to "painful economic realities". He said the current level of taxation was about right, although he would put a new 50% tax on top earners. Other parties have accused the Lib Dems of making uncosted promises. Mr Kennedy made it clear he was determined to counter that accusation. The Lib Dems have already published what they say are the full costings for all their plans and Wednesday's speech did not announce new policies.Speaking at the Commonwealth Club, Mr Kennedy said it was critical for a political party to have economic credibility, both on what it promised and what it was expected to deliver. He said. "Budgets have to add up. Tough choices are needed in public spending." The Lib Dems would cut "low priority" spending, including the government's ID cards scheme and the Child Trust Fund.Those cutbacks would free up funds for increasing basic state pensions for over-75s, putting more police on the streets and reintroducing fee eye and dental checks, he said. The Lib Dems argue they were honest about taxes in the past by calling for a 1p rise on income tax. Now they say the only simple tax rise they want is a new 50% tax band for top earners to pay for scrapping university tuition fees, providing free personal care for elderly and disabled people and keeping local taxes down. There would also be a local income tax to replace council tax and a number of changes to environmental taxes to ensure it is the "polluter who pays".The Lib Dems say the Tories have only laid out possible options for cutting taxes to grab headlines while Labour has hidden most of its tax rises. Mr Kennedy said: "That contract with the people - that the government will only tax fairly and will spend their money wisely - can only be sustained if the political parties are straightforward about their plans. "With the stealth tax strategy of Gordon Brown, the obvious unfairness of our current tax system - especially the council tax, and the empty promises of the Conservative party on this issue - it is no wonder that trust in taxation is breaking down." He challenged the Treasury to open up its books so the National Audit Office can report on the government's performance.Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox said: Liam Fox said "If Charles Kennedy is serious about making his budgets add up he should start by explaining how they would fund their 100 spending commitments. "The reality is, the Lib Dems lack the courage to tackle waste and bureaucracy, and the only people who would face 'tough choices' would be the families who would be £630 worse off a year. " And Chancellor Gordon Brown said the Lib Dem figures did not add up. He accused the party of claiming it would spend less while across the country committing itself to spend more.

Public trust in taxes is breaking down because Labour and Tories are not being straight with people on the issue, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said.Mr Kennedy said: "That contract with the people - that the government will only tax fairly and will spend their money wisely - can only be sustained if the political parties are straightforward about their plans.He said the current level of taxation was about right, although he would put a new 50% tax on top earners.The Lib Dems argue they were honest about taxes in the past by calling for a 1p rise on income tax.The Lib Dems say the Tories have only laid out possible options for cutting taxes to grab headlines while Labour has hidden most of its tax rises.Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox said: Liam Fox said "If Charles Kennedy is serious about making his budgets add up he should start by explaining how they would fund their 100 spending commitments."With the stealth tax strategy of Gordon Brown, the obvious unfairness of our current tax system - especially the council tax, and the empty promises of the Conservative party on this issue - it is no wonder that trust in taxation is breaking down."There would also be a local income tax to replace council tax and a number of changes to environmental taxes to ensure it is the "polluter who pays".And Chancellor Gordon Brown said the Lib Dem figures did not add up.Speaking at the Commonwealth Club, Mr Kennedy said it was critical for a political party to have economic credibility, both on what it promised and what it was expected to deliver.

'UK will stand firm on EU rebate'Britain's £3bn EU rebate is not up for renegotiation at next week's European Council summit, Jack Straw said.The foreign secretary told MPs the rebate, secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984, was "entirely justified". New European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has suggested the cash could be shared out among net contributors to the EU budget. Mr Straw acknowledged some countries in the newly enlarged 25 nation EU still had to "see the light" on the rebate.But the foreign secretary told the Commons foreign affairs committee: "Our position is very clear: it is entirely justified and it is not for negotiation." He added that he did not think there would be a political price to pay for the UK's stance - Britain contributed more and received less than other EU states. The two-day European Council summit in Brussels begins on 16 December and is widely expected to mark the beginning of a lengthy negotiating period over the EU's budget for 2007-13. The wrangling could stretch into 2005, even 2006.The UK, France, Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden want the EU budget to be capped at 1% of member states' combined national incomes - the Commission wants it to be 1.26%. Mr Straw said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget. "I don't know of any national government thinking of increasing its budget by that amount," he added. The foreign secretary said he hoped the talks next week could produce a date in 2005 for the beginning of negotiations with Turkey about possible EU membership although that there would be no prospect of a date for joining for some time.

Mr Straw said the EU commission's proposal would mean a 35% hike in the budget.Britain's £3bn EU rebate is not up for renegotiation at next week's European Council summit, Jack Straw said.The foreign secretary said he hoped the talks next week could produce a date in 2005 for the beginning of negotiations with Turkey about possible EU membership although that there would be no prospect of a date for joining for some time.New European commission president Jose Manuel Barroso has suggested the cash could be shared out among net contributors to the EU budget.Mr Straw acknowledged some countries in the newly enlarged 25 nation EU still had to "see the light" on the rebate.

UKIP could sue Veritas defectorsThe UK Independence Party could take legal action to unseat two London Assembly members who defected to Robert Kilroy Silk's Veritas Party.Damian Hockney, now Veritas deputy leader, and Peter Hulme-Cross were elected in 2004 on the list system. The party argues the pair should give up their seats as they won them as UKIP representatives, not as individuals. Mr Hockney said the law was clear that those elected on a list who quit their party should keep their seats. UKIP chairman Petrina Holdsworth urged the men to step down from the GLA in a letter.She said: "The party has taken legal advice and it is clear that we could take legal proceedings against you which could result in the return of our seats and/or damages against you. "We would however like you to be given an opportunity to reflect on what you have done, to restore your own credibility with the electorate and return the seats to the party which won them fair and square at the last election." Mr Hockney said the law worked in exactly the same way for the GLA as it did for other electoral list systems. "The Greater London Act is clear that if someone resigns who was elected on a list, their party whip the seat belongs to them and not the party." He said Mr Hulme-Cross and himself had no intention of resigning and added that they felt that it was UKIP who were not being true to the electorate. He accused the party of signing up to a deal with the Tories in Europe, rather than sticking to an independent stance. But the claim was denied by UKIP spokesman, who said: "Mr Hockney's accusations are like his sense of political morals - empty." Veritas was formed by Mr Kilroy-Silk earlier this month after he quit UKIP following an unsuccessful bid to take over as leader.

Mr Hockney said the law was clear that those elected on a list who quit their party should keep their seats."The Greater London Act is clear that if someone resigns who was elected on a list, their party whip the seat belongs to them and not the party."He said Mr Hulme-Cross and himself had no intention of resigning and added that they felt that it was UKIP who were not being true to the electorate.The party argues the pair should give up their seats as they won them as UKIP representatives, not as individuals.She said: "The party has taken legal advice and it is clear that we could take legal proceedings against you which could result in the return of our seats and/or damages against you.Veritas was formed by Mr Kilroy-Silk earlier this month after he quit UKIP following an unsuccessful bid to take over as leader.

Thousands join strike in WalesThousands of civil servants were on strike across Wales on Friday in protest at planned job cuts.A range of services in Wales were affected as civil servants in Wales joined the UK-wide strike. The strike, called by the Public and Commercial Services Union, was the biggest by civil servants in a decade. The action follows Chancellor Gordon Brown's announcement in July that 104,000 jobs would be cut, with around 6,000 of those expected in Wales. The worst-affected area in Wales will be the Department of Work and Pensions where 2,000 jobs are threatened. Across Wales, pickets were held by striking civil servants with protests in towns and cities including Cardiff, Bangor, Aberystwyth and Wrexham. Gordon Brown issued a defiant statement about the strike, saying the action would not affect the government's "determination" to make savings in order to increase investment in healthcare, education, transport and the fight against crime. "Our decisions mean more police, more teachers, more doctors and more nurses," he said. "We will provide help with information, relocation and retraining to help staff move into frontline work within the public sector, but we will not be diverted from these necessary changes so that we can make this essential investment." The UK-wide action hit Jobcentres, benefit agencies, pensions offices and driving test centres. The strike also affected the Welsh assembly building in Cardiff Bay, where only pass-holders were allowed in.Pickets were in place across Wales, with protests around the country. PCS Union spokesman Jeff Evans said: "In Wales the civil service is major employer, there are more civil servants employed in Wales proportionately than in any other part of the country. "Our protest is about defending jobs and also local services across the country. "Parts of Objective One areas and Welsh-speaking areas will be particularly affected by these cuts." The chancellor has said that the cuts will allow funding for more teachers and police. Piers Freelove is senior benefit officer on the picket line at Companies House, in Cardiff. He said: "The majority of people have decided not to come in because of the threat to their jobs. "I joined the civil service to provide services as well as get a decent pension, as we thought, and pay, and it's those services that are being threatened as well as our jobs. "People like pensioners need a face-to-face service not an impersonal service on the phone which is what they want to impose." PCSU deputy general secretary Hugh Lanning, who was on the same picket line, said: "We're asking for them to negotiate not just to make announcements. "There's a sensible way to do things and at the moment they're not even talking about how to go about it sensibly." "The ballot was for one day's action. No further action is anticipated without a further ballot of staff." The Welsh Assembly Government said: "This is a strike about national civil service issues. It is not about specific issues local to Wales or the assembly.

A range of services in Wales were affected as civil servants in Wales joined the UK-wide strike.PCS Union spokesman Jeff Evans said: "In Wales the civil service is major employer, there are more civil servants employed in Wales proportionately than in any other part of the country.Thousands of civil servants were on strike across Wales on Friday in protest at planned job cuts.The Welsh Assembly Government said: "This is a strike about national civil service issues.Across Wales, pickets were held by striking civil servants with protests in towns and cities including Cardiff, Bangor, Aberystwyth and Wrexham."Our protest is about defending jobs and also local services across the country.The action follows Chancellor Gordon Brown's announcement in July that 104,000 jobs would be cut, with around 6,000 of those expected in Wales.Pickets were in place across Wales, with protests around the country."I joined the civil service to provide services as well as get a decent pension, as we thought, and pay, and it's those services that are being threatened as well as our jobs.The strike, called by the Public and Commercial Services Union, was the biggest by civil servants in a decade.The worst-affected area in Wales will be the Department of Work and Pensions where 2,000 jobs are threatened.

Women MPs reveal sexist tauntsWomen MPs endure "shocking" levels of sexist abuse at the hands of their male counterparts, a new study shows.Male MPs pretended to juggle imaginary breasts and jeered "melons" as women made Commons speeches, researchers from Birkbeck College were told. Labour's Yvette Cooper said she found it hard to persuade Commons officials she was a minister and not a secretary. Some 83 MPs gave their answers in 100 hours of taped interviews for the study "Whose Secretary are You, minister".The research team, under Professor Joni Lovenduski, had set out to look at the achievements and experiences of women at Westminster. But what emerged was complaints from MPs of all parties of sexist barracking in the Chamber, sexist insults and patronising assumptions about their abilities. Barbara Follet, one of the so-called "Blair Babes" elected in 1997, told researchers: "I remember some Conservatives - whenever a Labour woman got up to speak they would take their breasts - imaginary breasts - in their hands and wiggle them and say 'melons' as we spoke." Former Liberal Democrat MP Jackie Ballard recalled a stream of remarks from a leading MP on topics such as women's legs or their sexual persuasion. And ex-Tory education secretary Gillian Shepherd remembered how one of her male colleagues called all women "Betty"."When I said, 'Look you know my name isn't Betty', he said, 'ah but you're all the same, so I call you all Betty'." Harriet Harman told researchers of the sheer hostility prompted by her advancement to the Cabinet: "Well, you've only succeeded because you're a woman." Another current member of the Cabinet says she was told: "Oh, you've had a very fast rise, who have you been sleeping with?" Even after the great influx of women MPs at the 1997 general election, and greater numbers of women in the Cabinet, female MPs often say they feel stuck on the edge of a male world.Liberal Democrat Sarah Teather, the most recent female MP to be elected, told researchers: "Lots of people say it's like an old boys club. "I've always said to me it feels more like a teenage public school - you know a public school full of teenagers." Prof Joni Lovenduski, who conducted the study with the help of Margaret Moran MP and a team of journalists, said she was shocked at the findings. "We expected a bit of this but nothing like this extent. We expected to find a couple of shocking episodes." But she said there was a difference between the experiences of women before the 1997 intake and afterwards. This was mainly because there were more women present in Parliament who were not prepared to "put up with" the sexist attitudes they came across, Prof Lovenduski said. But she added: "Some women, including the women who came in 1997, received extraordinary treatment and I am not convinced that if the number of women changed back to what it was before 1997 that things would not change back. "What I think is shocking to the general public is that these things go on in the House of Commons." The interviews are to be placed in the British Library as a historical record.

But she said there was a difference between the experiences of women before the 1997 intake and afterwards.Even after the great influx of women MPs at the 1997 general election, and greater numbers of women in the Cabinet, female MPs often say they feel stuck on the edge of a male world.This was mainly because there were more women present in Parliament who were not prepared to "put up with" the sexist attitudes they came across, Prof Lovenduski said.Male MPs pretended to juggle imaginary breasts and jeered "melons" as women made Commons speeches, researchers from Birkbeck College were told.Prof Joni Lovenduski, who conducted the study with the help of Margaret Moran MP and a team of journalists, said she was shocked at the findings.But she added: "Some women, including the women who came in 1997, received extraordinary treatment and I am not convinced that if the number of women changed back to what it was before 1997 that things would not change back.Labour's Yvette Cooper said she found it hard to persuade Commons officials she was a minister and not a secretary.Women MPs endure "shocking" levels of sexist abuse at the hands of their male counterparts, a new study shows.And ex-Tory education secretary Gillian Shepherd remembered how one of her male colleagues called all women "Betty".Barbara Follet, one of the so-called "Blair Babes" elected in 1997, told researchers: "I remember some Conservatives - whenever a Labour woman got up to speak they would take their breasts - imaginary breasts - in their hands and wiggle them and say 'melons' as we spoke."

Labour accused of broken pledgeLabour has already broken its pre-election promise on immigration before the ink has dried on its new pledge card, the Tories have claimed.Home Secretary Charles Clarke has been quoted as telling Labour members he wants more migrants to come to the UK. Tory co-chairman Liam Fox said the comments were at odds with Tony Blair's prediction of a net cut in immigration. But Mr Clarke accused him of trying to score "cheap political points" by muddling immigration with asylum.London's Evening Standard quoted Mr Clarke telling Labour activists at a question and answer session in Gateshead that he wanted Britain to offer refuge for those fleeing tyranny. "That's not only a moral duty and a legal duty, but something which is part of the essence of this country," he said."We want more migration, more people come to study and to work. "We want more people coming to look for refuge." Mr Blair's was asked last Wednesday if the government's new immigration plans, including a point system for economic migrants, would reduce net migration. The prime minister told MPs: "The abusers will be weeded out, and as a result of the end of chain migration [where families have an automatic right to settle], the numbers will probably fall."On Monday, Dr Fox told reporters: "The prime minister has broken his word so many times in the past but now his promises do not even last a week. "The Labour Party election pledges, even when they are so incredibly vague, do not even last four days."The Tories want quotas for economic migrants and refugees and on Tuesday will outline more details of their plans for health checks on migrants. Mr Clarke dismissed the latest Tory attack. "This is simply a scurrilous attempt by the Tories to score cheap political points," he said. "The Tories are purposely mixing together two separate issues of immigration and asylum."Mr Clarke said he had made clear the UK would welcome genuine economic migrants for key jobs on a strict points based system. And only asylum seekers genuinely fleeing death or persecution would be admitted. "Under our plans we expect unfounded applications to continue to fall," he added. Earlier, Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about Tory policies and then attacking the lies. He told BBC Radio: "If you are willing to lie about the reasons for going to war, I guess you are going to lie about anything at all." The latest pre-election spats come after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda" which would take Britain backwards. Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy accelerating Lib Dem election preparations this week as he visits Manchester, Liverpool, Leicester, Somerset, Basingstoke, Shrewsbury, Dorset and Torbay.

Home Secretary Charles Clarke has been quoted as telling Labour members he wants more migrants to come to the UK.The latest pre-election spats come after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda" which would take Britain backwards.But Mr Clarke accused him of trying to score "cheap political points" by muddling immigration with asylum.Mr Blair's was asked last Wednesday if the government's new immigration plans, including a point system for economic migrants, would reduce net migration.Mr Clarke said he had made clear the UK would welcome genuine economic migrants for key jobs on a strict points based system.Earlier, Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about Tory policies and then attacking the lies.London's Evening Standard quoted Mr Clarke telling Labour activists at a question and answer session in Gateshead that he wanted Britain to offer refuge for those fleeing tyranny.Mr Clarke dismissed the latest Tory attack.Labour has already broken its pre-election promise on immigration before the ink has dried on its new pledge card, the Tories have claimed.On Monday, Dr Fox told reporters: "The prime minister has broken his word so many times in the past but now his promises do not even last a week.

UKIP MEP attacked German 'empire'A UK Independence Party MEP suggested Germany saw the EU as an 'empire' and was cheaper than using tanks, a new documentary has revealed. Mike Nattrass, UKIP's deputy leader, made the comments to an audience at a meeting during last September's Hartlepool by-election campaign. But challenged on the remark, he denied accusing Germany of using the EU as cover for a "4th German Reich". He says he was not "German-bashing" but saying peace was the EU's founding aim. The meeting was shown in a BBC 3 film on ex-UKIP MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk. The former chat show host quit the party earlier this month, calling it a joke.The documentary showed Mr Nattrass, apparently talking about the EU, telling the meeting: "The Germans are the big losers here but they don't care because to them the project is worthwhile. "It's like an empire for them spreading in all directions away from Germany into Hungary, into what they call the Sudetenland - Czechoslovakia, places like that. "So it's cheaper for them to do it this way than roll the tanks in." On Tuesday, he told the BBC News website he did not think the comments were offensive and worked happily with MEPs of different nationalities in the European Parliament. He argued that peace was the only reason for having the "outdated" EU as there was no economic justification. Pointing to Germany's trade interests as a country in the centre of Europe, Mr Nattrass said: "The fact is that the EU benefits Germany but it does not benefit Britain. "I'm not at all German-bashing. It's the truth." A UKIP spokesman said: "Mike has some passionate beliefs and sometimes uses excessively colourful language with which to express them."The documentary showed some of the tensions between Mr Kilroy-Silk and his fellow MEPs after UKIP took third place in last year's European elections. He denied wanting to be leader until October 2004, when he told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme he aspired to the job. Asked by the documentary makers why he had lied about his leadership ambitions, Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "There was one thing I said that I shouldn't have said at the time. "I was trying to be helpful to the party and it was the wrong thing to do, I should have told the truth." The film also included footage of a row between Mr Kilroy-Silk, MEP Nigel Farage and party leader Roger Knapman about rumours that he was about to resign the UKIP whip in the European Parliament. Mr Kilroy-Silk told them he had not left the UKIP group - a move he announced shortly after the meeting. He told Mr Farage: "Don't tell lies Nigel, now you've told too many. Most of the trouble had been caused by you." UKIP officials claim it was in fact Mr Kilroy-Silk, not Mr Farage, who briefed newspapers he was leaving the group of MEPs.Later in unguarded, off-air comments in a television studio, Mr Kilroy-Silk was heard saying he was irritated by "defending some of these right-wing fascist nutters". Mr Kilroy-Silk separately said he had argued against UKIP working with such groups which believed homosexuality was a sin. A UKIP spokesman said there were more than 40 MEPs in the same group in the European Parliament. They were from a broad spectrum - some right-wing, some left-wing - but with a shared belief in the "unfeasibility of the EU as it is now". He did not defend other groups' religious beliefs but argued it was their right to hold such views - just as Mr Kilroy-Silk had a right to criticise Arab states. London UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said: "Robert has made a variety of comments about UKIP and its MEPs. "There are of course two sides to every story. What Robert does not say is that he was offered several positions which would have given him effective control of the party, but not the title of leader." Mr Kilroy-Silk is to launch his own parry, Veritas, in Westminster on Wednesday.

UKIP officials claim it was in fact Mr Kilroy-Silk, not Mr Farage, who briefed newspapers he was leaving the group of MEPs.Mr Kilroy-Silk separately said he had argued against UKIP working with such groups which believed homosexuality was a sin.The film also included footage of a row between Mr Kilroy-Silk, MEP Nigel Farage and party leader Roger Knapman about rumours that he was about to resign the UKIP whip in the European Parliament."I was trying to be helpful to the party and it was the wrong thing to do, I should have told the truth."Later in unguarded, off-air comments in a television studio, Mr Kilroy-Silk was heard saying he was irritated by "defending some of these right-wing fascist nutters".Mr Kilroy-Silk told them he had not left the UKIP group - a move he announced shortly after the meeting.A UK Independence Party MEP suggested Germany saw the EU as an 'empire' and was cheaper than using tanks, a new documentary has revealed.Asked by the documentary makers why he had lied about his leadership ambitions, Mr Kilroy-Silk said: "There was one thing I said that I shouldn't have said at the time.The meeting was shown in a BBC 3 film on ex-UKIP MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk.He argued that peace was the only reason for having the "outdated" EU as there was no economic justification.He says he was not "German-bashing" but saying peace was the EU's founding aim.The documentary showed some of the tensions between Mr Kilroy-Silk and his fellow MEPs after UKIP took third place in last year's European elections.He did not defend other groups' religious beliefs but argued it was their right to hold such views - just as Mr Kilroy-Silk had a right to criticise Arab states.A UKIP spokesman said there were more than 40 MEPs in the same group in the European Parliament.

More reforms ahead says MilburnLabour will continue to pursue controversial reforms if it wins a third term in power, the party's election chief Alan Milburn has said.He pledged Labour would encourage more people to achieve their aspirations. "What we want is for more people to earn and own," Mr Milburn told BBC Radio 4's Today show. Tory Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin called Labour "a brilliant machine for talking about things" but said it did not deliver policies the country needs. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats' President Simon Hughes said: "New Labour has lost people's confidence in a way Old Labour never did." Mr Milburn told Today that Labour wanted policies which encouraged increased social mobility in Britain.Pressed on incapacity benefits, he said the tax and welfare system must "provide the right incentives to people". "No-one is talking about driving people into work but what we do know is there are one million people on incapacity benefit who want the opportunity to work, providing the right level of support is there for them". However, backbench Labour MP Karen Buck warned against proposed changes in such benefits. She told the Today programme: "If the policy is seen as being about how do you make the feckless poor go back to work then it is not going to work, on the one hand. And it is not going to improve our electoral chances on the other." Mr Milburn also sought to draw a line under the controversy about reports of a feud between Gordon Brown and Prime Minister Tony Blair.He stressed that Mr Brown would play the same role that he did in the last election. Mr Milburn gave more details of planned reforms in a speech to Labour's Fabian Society, in which he also praised Mr Brown as one of the leaders of the party's reform process. In the speech, he backed choice in schools and hospitals, wider home ownership and changes to the welfare system. Mr Milburn insisted that government reform must continue. "Our task is to rebuild the New Labour coalition around 'one nation politics' that recognise, while life is hard for many, all should have the chance to succeed," he said. "There is a glass ceiling on opportunity in this country. In our first two terms we have raised it. In our third term we have to break it." Voters turned on the party when it failed to reform industrial relations in the 1960s, he also told his audience.Oliver Letwin said the government had failed to deliver in any of the key public services, such as cleaner hospitals, discipline in schools and putting more police on the streets. He said ministers had not delivered cleaner hospitals, with 5,000 people dying from infections last year. New Labour had failed on school discipline because it had not implemented serious reforms so that teachers could run schools, and which would give parents choice, he went on. For the Lib Dems, Simon Hughes said many pensioners are means tested for the money they needed and students who were told there wouldn't be tuition fees and more debt "have been given exactly the opposite". He added: "Under New Labour, all households are still paying unfair council tax rather than a fairer alternative."

Labour will continue to pursue controversial reforms if it wins a third term in power, the party's election chief Alan Milburn has said.Mr Milburn told Today that Labour wanted policies which encouraged increased social mobility in Britain."What we want is for more people to earn and own," Mr Milburn told BBC Radio 4's Today show.Mr Milburn gave more details of planned reforms in a speech to Labour's Fabian Society, in which he also praised Mr Brown as one of the leaders of the party's reform process.Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats' President Simon Hughes said: "New Labour has lost people's confidence in a way Old Labour never did."Mr Milburn insisted that government reform must continue."Our task is to rebuild the New Labour coalition around 'one nation politics' that recognise, while life is hard for many, all should have the chance to succeed," he said.New Labour had failed on school discipline because it had not implemented serious reforms so that teachers could run schools, and which would give parents choice, he went on.Tory Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin called Labour "a brilliant machine for talking about things" but said it did not deliver policies the country needs.He pledged Labour would encourage more people to achieve their aspirations.Pressed on incapacity benefits, he said the tax and welfare system must "provide the right incentives to people".

Woolf murder sentence rethinkPlans to give murderers lighter sentences if they plead guilty have been watered down.There was an outcry three months ago when the Sentencing Guidelines Council - led by Lord Woolf - published its proposals for England and Wales. It had suggested judges should reduce sentences by a third for murderers who confessed at the earliest opportunity. But that has now been changed to one-sixth, with no reduction for those killers given a "whole life tariff". At the time Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, had said the one third reduction would only be in extraordinary circumstances - for example, if people gave themselves up before their crime had even been detected. The guidelines were to recognise the need to spare victims and witnesses the trauma of going to court where possible, by allowing lighter sentences for guilty pleas and co-operation, he said.But director of the Victims of Crime Trust, Norman Brennan, accused Lord Woolf of having an "arrogant contempt for victims of crime and the law-abiding public". The National Association of Probation Officers said the move would be "political suicide". In revised proposals from the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC), the section on murder said possible reductions would have to be "weighed carefully" by a judge so they did not lead to "an inappropriately short sentence". Where it was appropriate to reduce the minimum term having regard to a plea of guilty, the maximum reduction would be one sixth, and should never exceed five years, it said.In a statement issued on Wednesday Lord Woolf said: "I have no doubt that being able to call on the diverse backgrounds and experiences of all those that serve on the SGC has vastly improved the final guidelines. "I am confident, as a result, that judges will be better placed to deliver sentences which are effective both as punishments and deterrents to offending and reoffending." Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, who sits on the SGC, said the principle of discounting sentences to offenders for early guilty pleas is set down by parliament. "What the new guideline on reduced sentences for guilty pleas does is increase the chances of convicting the guilty by bringing clarity to this process. "It represents a tougher regime than existed previously, because the discount is automatically reduced if a guilty plea is not made at the first available opportunity," he said.

In revised proposals from the Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC), the section on murder said possible reductions would have to be "weighed carefully" by a judge so they did not lead to "an inappropriately short sentence".The guidelines were to recognise the need to spare victims and witnesses the trauma of going to court where possible, by allowing lighter sentences for guilty pleas and co-operation, he said.Director of Public Prosecutions, Ken Macdonald QC, who sits on the SGC, said the principle of discounting sentences to offenders for early guilty pleas is set down by parliament.Where it was appropriate to reduce the minimum term having regard to a plea of guilty, the maximum reduction would be one sixth, and should never exceed five years, it said.At the time Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, had said the one third reduction would only be in extraordinary circumstances - for example, if people gave themselves up before their crime had even been detected."What the new guideline on reduced sentences for guilty pleas does is increase the chances of convicting the guilty by bringing clarity to this process.

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 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. It is likely to set out much of the tax and spending battleground for the election, widely expected on 5 May.Next month's Budget will be Mr Brown's eighth 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. 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.The Budget, likely to be the last before the General Election, will be at 1230 GMT on that Wednesday, just after Prime Minister's question time.Chancellor Gordon Brown will deliver his Budget to the House of Commons on 16 March, the Treasury has announced.

Research fears over Kelly's viewsScientists have expressed concerns that new education secretary Ruth Kelly's religious views could hamper vital scientific research.Ms Kelly, who is Catholic, is reported to be "pro-life" and has opposed embryo research. Medical Research Council Professor Nancy Rothwell said Ms Kelly's views mattered as she was responsible for training future scientists. The Department for Education and Skills would not comment on the concerns.A spokeswoman said: "It is not news that Ms Kelly is a Catholic but we are not going into any details on this." But she added that claims Ms Kelly was in charge of a £1bn university research budget were not true. It was down to the Higher Education Funding Council and the research councils to decide on universities' research allocations. British law is open to the cloning of human embryos to create stem cells, master cells that can develop into all the body's tissue types. This cloning activity is not permitted for reproductive purposes - only for research into new disease treatments. However, it is controversial because it involves the destruction of embryos.Professor Rothwell, who is also vice-president of research at Manchester University, told the Times Higher Education Supplement it would worry her "a great deal" if ministers were anti-stem cell. She said: "The views of ministers in the DfES do matter as they are responsible for training the next generation of scientists. "You can't have a higher education policy that is at odds with the government's science policy." Head of developmental genetics at the National Institute of Medical Research, Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, said he had witnessed the confused situation in the US where many religious groups opposed the practice. He said: "If someone as senior as Ruth Kelly is not going to favour stem cell research we will end up with a similarly schizophrenic system in this country. It is very worrying." But fertility expert Lord Winston said he thought it was "rather good" ministers held ethical views. Concerns have also been raised by "pro-choice" organisations that Ms Kelly's views might affect sex education policy in schools.Family Planning Association chief executive, Anne Weyman, said teaching pupils about contraception and abortion were key. "Young people must be informed about all the issues within sexual health, which include contraception and abortion. "I think it is very important that the government maintains its commitment to the teenage pregnancy strategy." Currently, individual schools devise their own sex education policies based on a framework provided by the DfES. Ms Kelly has not set out her detailed views on either issue yet, but has said she intends to put parents first in education policy. This would include the quality of teaching, classroom discipline and academic standards in schools, she said.

Medical Research Council Professor Nancy Rothwell said Ms Kelly's views mattered as she was responsible for training future scientists.Ms Kelly has not set out her detailed views on either issue yet, but has said she intends to put parents first in education policy.It was down to the Higher Education Funding Council and the research councils to decide on universities' research allocations.Ms Kelly, who is Catholic, is reported to be "pro-life" and has opposed embryo research.Concerns have also been raised by "pro-choice" organisations that Ms Kelly's views might affect sex education policy in schools.He said: "If someone as senior as Ruth Kelly is not going to favour stem cell research we will end up with a similarly schizophrenic system in this country.Professor Rothwell, who is also vice-president of research at Manchester University, told the Times Higher Education Supplement it would worry her "a great deal" if ministers were anti-stem cell.Scientists have expressed concerns that new education secretary Ruth Kelly's religious views could hamper vital scientific research.A spokeswoman said: "It is not news that Ms Kelly is a Catholic but we are not going into any details on this."But she added that claims Ms Kelly was in charge of a £1bn university research budget were not true.

Labour trio 'had vote-rig factory'Three Labour councillors in Birmingham were caught operating a "vote-rigging factory", an Election Court has heard.Police found the trio handling unsealed postal ballots in a deserted warehouse in the city during a late-night raid in June 2004, the hearing was told. The votes were later counted towards that month's English local elections. The men, elected to the Aston ward, deny collecting votes fraudulently. The judge presiding has indicated the whole postal voting system is under scrutiny. Deputy High Court Judge Richard Mawrey, QC told the hearing at the Birmingham and Midlands Institute the case could have potentially serious consequences for any forthcoming General Election.The special Election Court, the first in living memory to hear allegations of vote-rigging, opened in Birmingham last month. The case against Muhammad Afzal, Mohammed Islam and Mohammed Kazi is being brought by local Liberal Democrat supporters. They claim the trio benefited from the widespread misuse of postal votes during the 10 June election. Ravi Sukul, counsel for the petitioners, accused the three men of being "deeply involved" in illegal practices. Witnesses saw them carrying several bags from their campaign office, which the men drove to a warehouse on an industrial estate off Birch Road East, the court was told.The police were alerted and called to the premises. Mr Sukul said: "When (the officers) arrived there, in the middle of the night, they saw a large room with a 10ft long table and six Asian men present. "Hundreds of documents and unsealed envelopes were scattered all over the table." The police officers left the warehouse, but were later ordered back to seize the documents. "When the officers left, all the envelopes and papers were scattered," Mr Sukul said."(When they went) back to make the seizure, every one of these 275 yellow ballot papers were placed neatly in envelope A and sealed. The house was in order." Interrupting Mr Sukul in his opening, Mr Mawrey said: "What you are saying is, these men were operating a vote-forging factory on an industrial estate." The court heard how documents were taken by police to the elections office next morning, where they were mixed in with other ballots. The case against the men follows a hearing into postal fraud allegations made against three other Birmingham councillors in the Bordesley Green ward, claims which are denied. Mr Mawrey is due to deliver a judgment in their case once the Aston petition has been heard. Mr Afzal, Mr Islam and Mr Kazi deny conspiring to commit election fraud to deceive the returning officer. The case continues.

"When the officers left, all the envelopes and papers were scattered," Mr Sukul said.Interrupting Mr Sukul in his opening, Mr Mawrey said: "What you are saying is, these men were operating a vote-forging factory on an industrial estate."The case against the men follows a hearing into postal fraud allegations made against three other Birmingham councillors in the Bordesley Green ward, claims which are denied.Three Labour councillors in Birmingham were caught operating a "vote-rigging factory", an Election Court has heard.Mr Afzal, Mr Islam and Mr Kazi deny conspiring to commit election fraud to deceive the returning officer.Mr Mawrey is due to deliver a judgment in their case once the Aston petition has been heard.Police found the trio handling unsealed postal ballots in a deserted warehouse in the city during a late-night raid in June 2004, the hearing was told.Deputy High Court Judge Richard Mawrey, QC told the hearing at the Birmingham and Midlands Institute the case could have potentially serious consequences for any forthcoming General Election.The court heard how documents were taken by police to the elections office next morning, where they were mixed in with other ballots.Witnesses saw them carrying several bags from their campaign office, which the men drove to a warehouse on an industrial estate off Birch Road East, the court was told.

NHS waiting time target is cutHospital waiting times for patients in Wales are to be cut, but not to the same extent as those in England.Welsh Health Minister Jane Hutt said no patient would wait more than 12 months for an outpatient appointment by March 2006, against a current target of 18 months. But she said the target for an inpatient appointment would remain at 12 months for March 2006. The announcement came as new monthly waiting figures showed a drop. This current inpatient target was set when the assembly government extended its second offer guarantee scheme, which gives patients the option of having their treatment outside Wales.Details about funding to resource the new targets are expected in the New Year. In England, the current target for inpatients - seeing a consultant to having an operation - is six months. Dr Richard Lewis, Welsh secretary of the British Medical Association (BMA), welcomed the new targets "to make further and faster progress on waiting lists". "However, much remains to be done on waiting lists and waiting times because Wales still lags a long way behind England," he said. "Capacity must be built into the system with sustained investment to ensure that Welsh patients don't receive a worse service than patients over the border." Health analyst Tony Beddow, from the Welsh Institute for Health and Social Care, called the new targets "reasonably impressive".On Wednesday, Ms Hutt also announced £264m for health services will be spent reducing waiting times, improving key areas and modernising staff pay structures in Wales.Ms Hutt said major achievements had been made in cutting "unacceptably long waits for treatment over the past year". "We are turning the corner on long waits in Wales. Now we need to see those reductions in long waiters being improved again," she said. She added the targets intended to ensure no-one waits more than a year for treatment or to see a consultant. "But let us not forget two thirds of those waiting for treatment now are waiting less than six months, and these targets affect the small minority of patients in Wales that are waiting far too long." Rhodri Glyn Thomas, Plaid Cymru health spokesman said: "It's exactly the same target she set in 1999, with the qualification that it's dependent on a second offer. It's a failed target, from a failed minister..with a failed policy." For the Welsh Liberal Democrats, Kirsty Williams called the new target "hugely unambitious". "It leaves patients in Wales still waiting two years before they're treated." Conservative health spokesman Jonathan Morgan said: "We're spending more money but waiting lists have gone through the roof. "The Audit Commission has said that the money is not being spent efficiently or effectively, and that's quite a criticism." Meanwhile, the latest monthly waiting list figures showed the total number of people waiting more than 18 months as an inpatient in Wales has fallen by 9.8%. Statistics to the end of November showed a decline since October from 785 to 708. The number waiting over 12 months also fell from 7,613 to 6,630, or 12.9%. Ms Hutt said they were "excellent figures". There are 305,775 people on a waiting list of some kind, down from 311,764 last month.

"But let us not forget two thirds of those waiting for treatment now are waiting less than six months, and these targets affect the small minority of patients in Wales that are waiting far too long."Welsh Health Minister Jane Hutt said no patient would wait more than 12 months for an outpatient appointment by March 2006, against a current target of 18 months.Meanwhile, the latest monthly waiting list figures showed the total number of people waiting more than 18 months as an inpatient in Wales has fallen by 9.8%."However, much remains to be done on waiting lists and waiting times because Wales still lags a long way behind England," he said.But she said the target for an inpatient appointment would remain at 12 months for March 2006."It leaves patients in Wales still waiting two years before they're treated."Hospital waiting times for patients in Wales are to be cut, but not to the same extent as those in England.Conservative health spokesman Jonathan Morgan said: "We're spending more money but waiting lists have gone through the roof.The announcement came as new monthly waiting figures showed a drop.There are 305,775 people on a waiting list of some kind, down from 311,764 last month.Dr Richard Lewis, Welsh secretary of the British Medical Association (BMA), welcomed the new targets "to make further and faster progress on waiting lists".The number waiting over 12 months also fell from 7,613 to 6,630, or 12.9%.

Police urge pub closure powerNew powers are needed to close disorderly pubs, bars and clubs for up to a week or even permanently, police chiefs have told MPs.Association of Chief Police Officers president Chris Fox said the current 24-hour closure power did not have enough impact on bad landlords. Mr Fox's comments follow the controversy over plans to allow pubs to open around the clock. He rejected critics' calls for the law change to be delayed. Instead, the new Licensing Act could help reduce drunken disorder - but only if it was properly planned, he argued.Acpo made its call for stronger closure powers in a paper for the Commons home affairs select committee. After the meeting, Mr Fox said being able to close premises for only 24 hours did not necessarily make an impact. "If it's 12.30 on a Saturday morning and you close for 24 hours there's not a lot of pain for the premises because they probably wouldn't open on Sunday anyway."This is about getting through to the management that they can't run a disorderly house without facing some immediate sanctions." Under Acpo's proposal, the closure orders would be used only with the agreement of the local licensing authority. The new licensing laws will give police greater powers to close pubs and clubs - but only for 24-hour periods.Mr Fox said the drinks industry was currently not regulating itself. "It's making money at the cost of human misery and the public purse, and the strategic planning process has been less than useless," he said. Mr Fox said the new laws, due to start being phased in next month, could help if food outlets, public transport and public toilets could cope with late-night drinkers. "Staggering it (closing hours) will be a solution if the infrastructure is there, if the premises are properly managed and people aren't being served rolling drunk and underage and then tossed out into the street," he said. "We have the problem from 11pm to 2am in any event. We have to get a grip on the underlying causes of this."Acpo wants pubs and clubs which cause extra work for police and hospitals to have to pay towards the costs. Home Secretary Charles Clarke is currently looking at the idea of a levy on the drinks industry to pay for the cost of extra policing. The licensing changes have sparked concern among some MPs, councils and some senior police officers who fear they could exacerbate drinking problems. Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell on Tuesday said it was not her job to bow to the campaign against the changes. It was the status quo, not the new laws, which were causing current binge drinking problems, she told BBC Two's Newsnight. Leaked documents have suggested ex-Home Secretary David Blunkett branded new opening hours as a "leap in the dark". But Ms Jowell insisted his concerns had been met. The police's job against alcohol-related crime would be made easier if all pubs did not close at the same time, she added.

The new licensing laws will give police greater powers to close pubs and clubs - but only for 24-hour periods.After the meeting, Mr Fox said being able to close premises for only 24 hours did not necessarily make an impact.Association of Chief Police Officers president Chris Fox said the current 24-hour closure power did not have enough impact on bad landlords.New powers are needed to close disorderly pubs, bars and clubs for up to a week or even permanently, police chiefs have told MPs.Mr Fox said the drinks industry was currently not regulating itself.Mr Fox said the new laws, due to start being phased in next month, could help if food outlets, public transport and public toilets could cope with late-night drinkers.Acpo wants pubs and clubs which cause extra work for police and hospitals to have to pay towards the costs.Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell on Tuesday said it was not her job to bow to the campaign against the changes.The licensing changes have sparked concern among some MPs, councils and some senior police officers who fear they could exacerbate drinking problems.Instead, the new Licensing Act could help reduce drunken disorder - but only if it was properly planned, he argued.

Tories opposing 24-hour drinkingThe Tories say plans to extend pub opening times should be put on hold until binge drinking is under control, despite backing a law change last year.Spokesman David Davis said ministers had failed to make his party aware of concern among senior police that plans would cause more anti-social behaviour. Notts police chief Steve Green said innocent people would suffer. But Culture Secretary Tessa Jowell said a delay would be "disastrous" and she accused the Tories of opportunism. The government would go ahead with the changes which would give police more power to tackle excessive drinking, she added. Earlier chief constable Green questioned how his officers would be able to practically apply powers allowing them to shut down problem premises. "If you look at the Market Square in Nottingham, if a fight takes place which licensed premises do you go and lay the responsibilty at the door of?" he asked on BBC Radio 4's World at One programme.He warned that if drinking establishments were allowed to open until three or four in the morning the police would have to take officers off day shifts in order to do their job effectively at night. Earlier this year the Royal College of Physicians said it opposed the plan to extend drinking hours when there was already an "epidemic" of binge drinking. Minister Richard Caborn said the government was tackling the causes and the symptoms of the problem by allowing more powers to close down problem premises. It is hoped that allowing pubs and clubs to stay open longer will stagger closing times and end the current situation where drinkers spill on to the streets all at once. Earlier Tony Blair defended the plans against criticism from one of his own backbenchers."My view of this is very clear: we should have the same flexibility that other countries have and then we should come down really hard on those who abuse that freedom and don't show the responsibility," he told MPs. "The law-abiding majority who want the ability, after going to the cinema or theatre say, to have a drink at the time they want should not be inconvenienced, we shouldn't have to have restrictions that no other city in Europe has, just in order to do something for that tiny minority who abuse alcohol, who go out and fight and cause disturbances. "To take away that ability for all the population - even the vast majority who are law abiding - is not, in my view, sensible." This week a judge claimed easy access to drink was breeding "urban savages" and turning town centres into no go areas. Judge Charles Harris QC made his remarks as he sentenced three men for assaults carried out while drunk and high on drugs after a night out.

The government would go ahead with the changes which would give police more power to tackle excessive drinking, she added.He warned that if drinking establishments were allowed to open until three or four in the morning the police would have to take officers off day shifts in order to do their job effectively at night.Earlier this year the Royal College of Physicians said it opposed the plan to extend drinking hours when there was already an "epidemic" of binge drinking.Earlier chief constable Green questioned how his officers would be able to practically apply powers allowing them to shut down problem premises.Spokesman David Davis said ministers had failed to make his party aware of concern among senior police that plans would cause more anti-social behaviour.Notts police chief Steve Green said innocent people would suffer.The Tories say plans to extend pub opening times should be put on hold until binge drinking is under control, despite backing a law change last year.Minister Richard Caborn said the government was tackling the causes and the symptoms of the problem by allowing more powers to close down problem premises.

Kennedy questions trust of BlairLib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said voters now have a "fundamental lack of trust" of Tony Blair as prime minister.He said backing his party was not a wasted vote, adding that with the Lib Dems "what you see is what you get". He made his comments at the start of a day of appearances on Channel Five in a session on The Wright Stuff programme. Questions from callers, a studio audience and the show's presenter covered Lib Dem tax plans, anti-terror laws and immigration.Mr Kennedy said during his nearly 22 years in Parliament he had seen prime ministers and party leaders come and go and knew the pitfalls of British politics. "1983 was when I was first elected as an MP - so Tony Blair, Michael Howard and myself were all class of '83 - and over that nearly quarter of a century the world has changed out of recognition," he said. "We don't actually hear the argument any longer: 'Lib Dems, good people, reasonable ideas but only if we thought they could win around here - it's a wasted vote'. "You don't hear that because the evidence of people's senses demonstrates that it isn't a wasted vote." But he said Mr Blair had lost the trust of the British people. "There is a fundamental lack of trust in Tony Blair as prime minister and in his government," he said."What we've got to do as a party - what I've got to do as a leader of this party - is to convey to people that what you see is what you get." Mr Kennedy also used his TV appearance to defend his party's plans to increase income tax to 50% for those earning more than £100,000, saying it would apply to just 1% of the population. He said the extra revenue would allow his party to get rid of tuition and top-up fees, introduce free personal care for the elderly and replace the council tax with a local income tax. Mr Blair has already spent a day with Five and Michael Howard is booked for a similar session.

Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy has said voters now have a "fundamental lack of trust" of Tony Blair as prime minister.He said backing his party was not a wasted vote, adding that with the Lib Dems "what you see is what you get".But he said Mr Blair had lost the trust of the British people."There is a fundamental lack of trust in Tony Blair as prime minister and in his government," he said.Mr Kennedy said during his nearly 22 years in Parliament he had seen prime ministers and party leaders come and go and knew the pitfalls of British politics.Mr Blair has already spent a day with Five and Michael Howard is booked for a similar session.

TV debate urged for party chiefsBroadcasters should fix a date for a pre-election televised debate between the three main political leaders, according to the Hansard Society.It would then be up to Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy to decide whether to take part, the non-partisan charity said. Chairman Lord Holme argued that prime ministers should not have the right of veto on a matter "of public interest". "The broadcasters should make the decision to go ahead," he said.Lord Holme's proposal for a televised debate comes just four months after millions of viewers were able to watch US President George W Bush slug it out verbally with his Democratic challenger John Kerry. He said it was a "democratically dubious proposition" that it was up to the incumbent prime minister to decide whether a similar event takes place here.If Mr Blair did not want to take part, the broadcasters could go ahead with an empty chair or cancel the event and explain their reasons why, Lord Holme said. "What makes the present situation even less acceptable is that although Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy have said they would welcome a debate, no-one has heard directly from the prime minister," he said. "It has been left to nudges and winks, hints and briefings from his aides and campaign managers to imply that Mr Blair doesn't want one, but we haven't heard from the prime minister himself."Lord Holme, who has campaigned for televised debates at previous elections, said broadcasters were "more than willing to cooperate with the arrangements". Opinion polls suggested that the idea had the backing of the public who like comparing the personalities and policies of the contenders in their own homes, he said.Lord Holme argued that as part of their public service obligations, broadcasters "should make the decision to go ahead" as soon as the election is called. An independent third-party body such as the Hansard Society or Electoral Commission could work out the ground rules so they were fair to participants and informative to the public, he said. "It would be up to each party leader to accept or refuse," said Lord Holme."If the prime minister's reported position is true and he does want to take part, he would then be obliged to say why publicly. "The broadcasters would then have the option of cancelling the event for obvious and well-understood reasons, or going ahead with an empty chair. "Either way would be preferable to the present hidden veto." The Hansard Society has long campaigned for televised debates and has published reports on the issue in 1997 and 2001. Tony Blair has already ruled out taking part in a televised debate during the forthcoming election campaign. Last month he said: "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."

If Mr Blair did not want to take part, the broadcasters could go ahead with an empty chair or cancel the event and explain their reasons why, Lord Holme said.Lord Holme, who has campaigned for televised debates at previous elections, said broadcasters were "more than willing to cooperate with the arrangements"."What makes the present situation even less acceptable is that although Mr Howard and Mr Kennedy have said they would welcome a debate, no-one has heard directly from the prime minister," he said."It would be up to each party leader to accept or refuse," said Lord Holme."The broadcasters should make the decision to go ahead," he said.Lord Holme argued that as part of their public service obligations, broadcasters "should make the decision to go ahead" as soon as the election is called.It would then be up to Tony Blair, Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy to decide whether to take part, the non-partisan charity said.Tony Blair has already ruled out taking part in a televised debate during the forthcoming election campaign.

Labour MP praises Tory campaignThe Conservatives have been "a lot smarter" in the way they have conducted the general election campaign, a Labour backbencher has said.Derek Wyatt said having a five month campaign "turned off voters" and suggested people were already "rather bored of the thing". He wants a greater campaigning role for Chancellor Gordon Brown. Labour said the economy was at the heart of the campaign and Mr Brown therefore had a prominent role. But Mr Wyatt argued: "By some way, he is currently the figure in all of the polls that people trust and see that has delivered over eight years an economy unmatched anywhere in the world. "So, it would be a tad foolish of the Labour Party if we did not use him as we have done over the past three elections."Labour's election chief Alan Milburn denied there was an attempt to sideline Mr Brown after facing criticism for letting the Tories set the agenda. However, Mr Wyatt predicted the campaign would get under way properly once the chancellor delivered his budget. The MP for Sittingbourne and Sheppey said Prime Minister Tony Blair had been "trying very hard" to improve his own standing with the electorate through a "sort of campaign of trust". But Mr Blair had been "hurt" by the Iraq controversy, he added. A Labour party spokesman played down differences with Mr Wyatt and said Mr Brown already had a prominent campaign role. "This election is a choice between Labour taking Britain forward and the Conservatives taking us back."

A Labour party spokesman played down differences with Mr Wyatt and said Mr Brown already had a prominent campaign role.Labour said the economy was at the heart of the campaign and Mr Brown therefore had a prominent role.However, Mr Wyatt predicted the campaign would get under way properly once the chancellor delivered his budget.The Conservatives have been "a lot smarter" in the way they have conducted the general election campaign, a Labour backbencher has said.But Mr Wyatt argued: "By some way, he is currently the figure in all of the polls that people trust and see that has delivered over eight years an economy unmatched anywhere in the world.

Blair rejects Tory terror offerTony Blair has rejected a Conservative compromise offer that could have eased the passage of anti-terror legislation.The Tories wanted a sunset clause inserted in the Anti-Terrorism Bill that would have forced ministers to revisit it in November. Mr Blair said the bill, which brings in house arrest for terror suspects, had time limiting safeguards already. The Tories say they will vote against it unless changes they want are agreed. The Lib Dems also oppose the plans.The government has already given way over the role of judges in house arrest cases.Mr Blair's refusal to accept the Tories' sunset clause proposals means that the government faces concerted opposition from all sides in the Lords. Peers begin three days of detailed deliberation on the bill on Thursday. The bill proposes "control orders", which as well as placing terrorism suspects under house arrest could mean curfews, tagging or bans on telephone and internet use. These would replace current powers to detain foreign terror suspects without trial, which the law lords have ruled against as a breach of human rights.The Tories want judicial oversight of all control orders, not just house arrest. Shadow Home Secretary David Davis told BBC Radio Four's the World at One his primary concern was potential miscarriages of justice. He said if someone was wrongly given a control order it would act as a "recruiting sergeant" for terrorists. He went on to say: "If we don't get the amendments we regard as essential, including the sunset clause, we will vote against the bill." In the Commons, Mr Howard said it would be "far better if the whole of the legislation was subject to a sunset clause so Parliament could consider it all in a proper way instead of it being ramrodded through". Mr Blair said the house arrest powers were already going to be subject to a sunset clause because it was annually renewable.The second, less stringent, type of control orders would be subject to a court appeal within 14 days and there would be a three-monthly report on their use by "an eminent and independent person". "I believe (the new powers) are a proper balance between the civil liberties of the subject and the necessary national security of this country that I will not put at risk," said Mr Blair. The Lib Dems plan to oppose the Bill in the Lords on Thursday. Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "There's a lot of talking left. I would be uneasy about supporting a very bad bill even if it was just for eight months." A spokeswoman for Human Rights Watch said it was a "basic principle" that people should only be punished after a fair trial. She added: "Having a judge impose those punishments without a trial does not sanitise them either."

Mr Blair said the house arrest powers were already going to be subject to a sunset clause because it was annually renewable.Mr Blair said the bill, which brings in house arrest for terror suspects, had time limiting safeguards already.In the Commons, Mr Howard said it would be "far better if the whole of the legislation was subject to a sunset clause so Parliament could consider it all in a proper way instead of it being ramrodded through".The Tories wanted a sunset clause inserted in the Anti-Terrorism Bill that would have forced ministers to revisit it in November.He said if someone was wrongly given a control order it would act as a "recruiting sergeant" for terrorists.The Lib Dems plan to oppose the Bill in the Lords on Thursday.The bill proposes "control orders", which as well as placing terrorism suspects under house arrest could mean curfews, tagging or bans on telephone and internet use.I would be uneasy about supporting a very bad bill even if it was just for eight months."The Tories want judicial oversight of all control orders, not just house arrest.He went on to say: "If we don't get the amendments we regard as essential, including the sunset clause, we will vote against the bill."

Howard dismisses Tory tax fearsMichael Howard has dismissed fears from some Conservatives that his plans for £4bn tax cuts are too modest.He defended the package, saying it was a plan for the Tories' first Budget and he hoped to be able to go further. The Tories on Monday highlighted £35bn in "wasteful" spending they would stop to allow tax cuts, reduced borrowing and more spending on key services. Labour and the Liberal Democrats say the party's sums do not add up and claim it would cut frontline services. The Tory tax plan follows complaints from some of the party's MPs that Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin have taken too long to unveil the proposals. Now they have promised a figure but have yet to reveal which taxes would be targeted.Tory backbencher Edward Leigh said the proposals were a step in the right direction but he told the Financial Times: "I would come up sooner with much greater tax cuts." Interviewed on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show, Mr Howard said: "It is perfectly true that I am being attacked on one side by people who think we ought to be promising much, much bigger tax cuts and spending cuts."On the other side, there are people who say we won't be able to achieve these tax cuts. "I think we have got it about right." Mr Howard said voters faced a clear choice at the next election between more waste and more tax under Labour and Tory value for money and lower taxes. He added: "I would like to be able to do more, and over time I am sure we will be able to do more, but at the start, we have got to recognise there is a limit to what we can do in one go, in our first Budget. "I have got to be responsible about this."The latest Tory plans came as campaigning for the election - widely expected in May - gathered pace. The Liberal Democrats launched their pre-election platform, with leader Charles Kennedy saying his party was the "authentic opposition", particularly on the Iraq war, council tax and university tuition fees. Lib Dem Treasury spokesman Vince Cable also branded the Tory plans as "fantasy economics". Labour hit back at the Tory proposals even before their publication with election coordinator Alan Milburn accusing Mr Howard of producing a "fraudulent prospectus". The party on Tuesday challenged the Tories to publish the full report from David James, the trouble-shooter they asked to identify possible savings. But the Tories are in turn demanding that Tony Blair spell out which taxes he would raise if he wins the election.

Tory backbencher Edward Leigh said the proposals were a step in the right direction but he told the Financial Times: "I would come up sooner with much greater tax cuts."Mr Howard said voters faced a clear choice at the next election between more waste and more tax under Labour and Tory value for money and lower taxes.The Tory tax plan follows complaints from some of the party's MPs that Mr Howard and shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin have taken too long to unveil the proposals.But the Tories are in turn demanding that Tony Blair spell out which taxes he would raise if he wins the election.Interviewed on BBC Radio 2's Jeremy Vine show, Mr Howard said: "It is perfectly true that I am being attacked on one side by people who think we ought to be promising much, much bigger tax cuts and spending cuts."On the other side, there are people who say we won't be able to achieve these tax cuts.Michael Howard has dismissed fears from some Conservatives that his plans for £4bn tax cuts are too modest.The Tories on Monday highlighted £35bn in "wasteful" spending they would stop to allow tax cuts, reduced borrowing and more spending on key services.

Lib Dems' new election PR chiefThe Lib Dems have appointed a senior figure from BT to be the party's new communications chief for their next general election effort.Sandy Walkington will now work with senior figures such as Matthew Taylor on completing the party manifesto. Party chief executive Lord Rennard said the appointment was a "significant strengthening of the Lib Dem team". Mr Walkington said he wanted the party to be ready for any "mischief" rivals or the media tried to throw at it."My role will be to ensure this new public profile is effectively communicated at all levels," he said. "I also know the party will be put under scrutiny in the media and from the other parties as never before - and we will need to show ourselves ready and prepared to counter the mischief and misrepresentation that all too often comes from the party's opponents. "The party is already demonstrating on every issue that it is the effective opposition." Mr Walkington's new job title is director of general election communications.

Mr Walkington said he wanted the party to be ready for any "mischief" rivals or the media tried to throw at it."I also know the party will be put under scrutiny in the media and from the other parties as never before - and we will need to show ourselves ready and prepared to counter the mischief and misrepresentation that all too often comes from the party's opponents.The Lib Dems have appointed a senior figure from BT to be the party's new communications chief for their next general election effort.Party chief executive Lord Rennard said the appointment was a "significant strengthening of the Lib Dem team".

Howard backs stem cell researchMichael Howard has backed stem cell research, saying it is important people are not frightened of the future.The controversial issue was a feature of the recent US presidential election, where George Bush opposed extending it. But the Tory leader argued there was a moral case for embracing science which could help victims of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and Motor Neurone disease. "I believe we have a duty to offer hope to the millions of people who suffer devastating illnesses," he said. The use of embryonic stem cells in the UK is already allowed. Stem cells are master cells that have the ability to develop into any of the body's tissue types. Scientists hope that by growing such cells in the laboratory they can programme them to form specific tissue such as kidney, heart or even brain tissue.Mr Howard acknowledged there were genuine concerns about stem cell research. But he argued: "We mustn't be frightened of change or nostalgic about the past - we must be optimistic about the future. "Politicians must create the right framework so that the great potential of science can be harnessed for the benefit of mankind. "With the life expectancy of the average Briton now around the mid-70s, society has a responsibility to enhance the quality of people's lives as they grow older. "I know many people are concerned about stem-cell research. They are fearful of meddling with what they see as the stuff of souls. "I respect those concerns. But I also believe we have a duty to offer hope to the millions of people who suffer devastating illnesses like Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Motor Neurone Disease, Alzheimer's and - as we saw in the papers today - now possibly heart problems."Mr Howard acknowledged there were "no easy answers" over such an issue but it was necessary to "have the courage to do what we know to be morally right". He added: "Of course, stem cells are still a recent discovery. More research needs to be done. But we must look at their potential in a responsible and grown-up way. The hopes of millions of people rest on what could be achieved." Former Superman actor the late Christopher Reeve was an advocate for the research after he was paralysed in a horse riding accident. Mr Howard made his remarks during a speech in Westminster to the Conservative National Women's Committee on ambitions and values.

Michael Howard has backed stem cell research, saying it is important people are not frightened of the future.Mr Howard acknowledged there were genuine concerns about stem cell research.Stem cells are master cells that have the ability to develop into any of the body's tissue types.But I also believe we have a duty to offer hope to the millions of people who suffer devastating illnesses like Parkinson's, Multiple Sclerosis, Motor Neurone Disease, Alzheimer's and - as we saw in the papers today - now possibly heart problems."Mr Howard acknowledged there were "no easy answers" over such an issue but it was necessary to "have the courage to do what we know to be morally right".He added: "Of course, stem cells are still a recent discovery."I know many people are concerned about stem-cell research."I believe we have a duty to offer hope to the millions of people who suffer devastating illnesses," he said.The use of embryonic stem cells in the UK is already allowed.

Kilroy launches 'Veritas' partyEx-BBC chat show host and East Midlands MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk said he wanted to "change the face of British politics" as he launched his new party. Mr Kilroy-Silk, who recently quit the UK Independence Party, said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration. He told a London news conference that Veritas - Latin for "truth" - would avoid the old parties' "lies and spin". UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.Mr Kilroy-Silk promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration and said they hoped to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election. He said Veritas would also announce detailed policies on crime, tax, pensions, health and defence over the next few weeks. Labour campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp said Veritas was joining "an already crowded field on the right of British politics". On Thursday Mr Kilroy-Silk is due to announce which constituency he will run in at the next general election - that will come amid speculation he has his sights set on Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's Ashfield seat. He was joined in the new venture by one of UKIP's two London Assembly members, Damien Hockney who is now Veritas' deputy leader. UKIP's chairman Petrina Holdsworth has said the group will just be a parody of the party the men have left.Mr Kilroy-Silk quit UKIP last week after months of tension as he vied unsuccessfully for the leadership of that party. He said he was ashamed to be a member of a UKIP whose leadership had "gone AWOL" after the great opportunity offered by its third place at last June's European elections. "While UKIP has turned its back on the British people, I shall not," he said. "I will be standing at the next general election. I shall be leading a vigorous campaign for the causes I believe in. "And, unlike the old parties, we shall be honest, open and straight."Mr Hockney also left UKIP saying Mr Kilroy-Silk would "deliver better" as the leader of a Eurosceptic party. A spokesman for UKIP called on Mr Hockney to quit the London Assembly. The party asserts that Mr Hockney "has a moral obligation, if not a legal one" to stand down. Its leader, Roger Knapman, has said he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk. "He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the [European] election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," he said. UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead.Veritas? It's the BNP in an expensive suit!It's all well and good Robert Kilroy-Silk claiming, that 'Veritas' is a party that doesn't believe in "lies and spin", but the truth of the matter is, its completely useless, due to proportional representation, there is no chance that 'Veritas' will have any chance in claiming power, and change the two-horse race trend. In my opinion this is just a publicity stunt which has just been used as a smoke-screen for his anti-Islamism slurs which got him sacked from the television.I think that his views regarding immigration are shared by many. It really is time that the UK government ceased to be a paper tiger on this issue. In addition as an Ashfield constituent I would be more than interested in Kilroy -Silk opposing Geoff Hoon!!Good to see the parties of the right splintering in the way the parties of the left have always done. Let's hope Kilroy-Silk, UKIP and the euro-sceptic wing of the Tory Party all fade further into obscurity so we can have some truth in the debate about Europe. We benefit enormously from our membership of the EU, we need to be at the heart of Europe, leading it and driving it to where we as a country want to go, not running away from it.All mouth and trousers. A clown. Trouble is, any votes he collects may just end up helping New Labour into a third term.Whatever Kilroy-Silk and UKIP do, none of their anti-European policies have any relevance outside middle England. This new party might gain support from right-wing England, but will have little impact in Wales or Scotland.Hopefully this all this fighting within euro-sceptic parties will allow them to slip out of the way and get people voting for real political parties which address more than one issue. England needs Europe to survive and as soon as people realise this the better, we can't rely on the USA forever!At last an impetus for increasing the likely 40% turn out for the election. The electorate is disillusioned with British politics. Kilroy has one agenda - the UK - and I'll be voting for him.Both UKIP and RK-S are representatives of small-mindedness and a lack of vision for the whole of humankind. The interests of humanity and the world lie so much beyond the scope of these people's bickering that who, in the overall scheme of things, really cares about their petty tiff?Many people believe you Kilroy. You may even believe yourself but switching horses midstream and then bad mouthing the steed that got you halfway seriously diminishes your credibility.The very idea of political parties born out of such negative feelings as Euroscepticism or British Supremacy is nauseating. One can only hope the public recognise these extremists for what they are and shun them at the polls.I've always thought that Kilroy-Silk was a self-publicising, egotist and this news does absolutely nothing to alter my opinion.Brilliant, about time this country had a plausible party!Having seen the recent BBC 3 documentary and witnessed the thoroughly disgraceful chauvinistic behaviour of a number of senior UKIP figures I can well understand why Kilroy-Silk feels embarrassed to be associated with such people. Hopefully the UKIP members who are interested in the political debate will support his action.Fantastic news. Pro-Europeans now have far less to worry about from the right. The Conservatives are as confused as they have been since the mid-1990s, and the extreme anti-Europeans are fracturing themselves into splinter groups that split any votes they might get in local, European and general elections. Robert Kilroy-Silk's ego and vanity are his own (and his supporters') worst enemy.As a euro-enthusiast I could not be more delighted by Kilroy-Silk's behaviour. He took a party that was just building up a head of steam, and having exposed it to ridicule by attempting a coup-d'etat, he is now setting about the serious business of dividing it in two. The closer to straight-down-the-middle the better, as far as I am concerned, but in any eventuality, the two sceptic parties will exhaust their energies fighting each other.If every politician with ambitions to lead their party resorted to forming their own for that purpose, we'd have ballot papers a mile long! You've got to hand it to Kilroy-Silk for his sheer arrogance and supreme self-belief.Whilst not being a great fan of Kilroy I do agree with his comments about the UKIP leadership, and like him I am also leaving UKIP. I believe countless opportunities have been lost to discredit the EU and to show our people what belonging to the EU really means. The EU's comments last week about Michael Howard's plans to reform immigration show how little we govern our own country when they can turn round and say immigration is a matter for the EU and not individual member states. The sooner we leave this corrupt super-state the betterDoes anyone else think that it is ironic that Euro-Sceptic Kilroy-Silk has used a Latin name for his new party, rather than a 'good old British' name? Is this indicative of the man - contradictory, vain and pompous?I think Mr Kilroy-Silk has got a very good point. British politics has become too PC and as a result has no straight talking honest strong politicians. They are all interested in their own careers and not the people who put them in power. As a result I feel our democracy is being abused and I want it stopped. If Mr Kilroy-Silk lives up to half his promises he will get my vote.Honestly, who really cares? Man with tan leaves party with no plan, to set up party with no idea.As one of Kilroy-Silk's East Midlands constituents I hope those who voted for him are proud to have been taken in by such charming vacuity. I feel insulted by having him represent me in the European Parliament.UKIP tried hard to accommodate Robert Kilroy Silk, but he made it clear that only control of it would satisfy him. Someone so keen on complete control was bound to fall foul of UKIP's democratic nature.Kilroy is an able communicator and a capable politician, in exactly the way those who lead UKIP are not. He tried to make it work, but they didn't seem to want to grow up. He was left in the position of having to defend their gaffes to the media. This new party seems a logical next step for Kilroy. Good luck to the man, I say.Oh please! This is an amusing irrelevance. There is absolutely no chance of either of these parties communicating a sensible and constructive 'Eurosceptic' argument. They will play a key part in winning the country round to the idea of a reformed, more democratic, more dynamic Europe Union. Future generations will thank him for his ridiculousness.The refreshing thing about Robert is that he is open, honest and straight. What other politician can claim this. I have a suspicion that he talks for a larger part of the electorate that his critics would like. I shall be voting for him.The electorate of the East Midlands voted not for Kilroy-Silk but for the UKIP. Kilroy-Silk was made an MEP because of his position on the UKIP's party list. He has no mandate to represent the area and should resign from the European Parliament.I wouldn't write off Kilroy-Silk. While he's a clown and a one man band at the moment, he's a populist and that's always dangerous.The man clearly has an enormous ego and looking at our current political masters, that seems to be one of the factors in success.Good luck to Kilroy though I think he is doing more harm than good for both his new party and UKIP because their vote base is not strong enough for both parties to be successful and at the moment UKIP have the upper hand while Veritas are starting from square one and fighting a somewhat uphill battle.The man I once found cringe worthy on Day time TV, could well turn out to be my country's knight in shining armour. He expresses views which are now more than common amongst society today - but people are almost too scared to express them. Kilroy Silk has secured my vote, and many more like me. What's more, I look forward to the day when he claims victory, wrecks the EU, and rescues my great nation... without a hair out of place and his tan as perfect as ever!Great Stuff. The longer the UK dithers over Europe, the richer we in Ireland become, as the only English-speaking country fully committed to Europe. Oh and send us over those hard-working immigrants - our economy needs them.This is just what the Europhiles pray for. As the main Eurosceptic party, UKIP should try to resolve its differences with Kilroy to show a united front and give the UK public a serious political voice against Europe. Having multiple parties with the same view point just splits the vote further.Thank goodness that Kilroy-Silk has gone - now UKIP at least has a chance in the election!It is very sad to see the cause of Britain regaining its proper relationship with Europe damaged by this split within UKIP. Robert Kilroy-Silk could have a lot to offer. Instead we have a split party and a damaged cause. Under the present electoral system, people must work together, and small parties have no hope of representation. Last summer, UKIP achieved a major advance, partly and only partly due to Kilroy-Silk. It is a great shame this has been dissipated in in-fighting.UKIP has a wide platform of policies, not just withdrawal from the EU. This Kilroy-Silk conveniently ignores in the comments surrounding the launch of his own party. Neither the English Democrats nor the New Party were interested in letting him join them and take over their leadership speaks volumes. Veritas is the beginning of the end for Kilroy-Silk.If he believes in truth and democracy then he and the two assembly members should resign and force a by-elections to stand on their own platform rather than this backdoor approach to politics of being elected for one party then defecting to another.So UKIP was good enough for him to lead, not good enough for him to follow!Interesting that a party committed to plain speaking should have a Latin name!Every opinion poll points to an overwhelming anti-Europe feeling in this country. Kilroy-Silk could be on the verge of something huge if he can broaden his appeal beyond this one issue. He is an extremely able communicator with years of political experience. We wants quality schools, top hospitals, clean and efficient public transport, punishments that fit the crime, limited asylum, a purge on bureaucracy and less taxes. It needs courage and honesty, two qualities sadly lacking in our politicians. Kilroy-Silk may just have those very qualities. Recruit the right colleagues, Robert, and your time may have come!Well if you cannot get enough limelight being an ordinary MP then go out and start up your own Party. It's all flash and no real policy hereLet's hope this is the start of both UKIP and Kilroy-Silk slipping into obscurity.Veritas? The name will doom it. But perhaps I am wrong for surely all modern schoolchildren will understand it since they do still learn Latin in the classroom do they not? The whole essence of what RKS represents is Euroscepticism, so explain to me how the too-twee label of Veritas symbolises that?

"He has remarkable ability to influence people but, sadly, after the [European] election it became clear that he was more interested in the Robert Kilroy-Silk Party than the UK Independence Party so it was nice knowing him, now 'goodbye'," he said.UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead.Mr Hockney also left UKIP saying Mr Kilroy-Silk would "deliver better" as the leader of a Eurosceptic party.Good luck to Kilroy though I think he is doing more harm than good for both his new party and UKIP because their vote base is not strong enough for both parties to be successful and at the moment UKIP have the upper hand while Veritas are starting from square one and fighting a somewhat uphill battle.Mr Kilroy-Silk quit UKIP last week after months of tension as he vied unsuccessfully for the leadership of that party.Thank goodness that Kilroy-Silk has gone - now UKIP at least has a chance in the election!Let's hope Kilroy-Silk, UKIP and the euro-sceptic wing of the Tory Party all fade further into obscurity so we can have some truth in the debate about Europe.Mr Kilroy-Silk, who recently quit the UK Independence Party, said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration.I think Mr Kilroy-Silk has got a very good point.Kilroy-Silk was made an MEP because of his position on the UKIP's party list.The sooner we leave this corrupt super-state the better Does anyone else think that it is ironic that Euro-Sceptic Kilroy-Silk has used a Latin name for his new party, rather than a 'good old British' name?"While UKIP has turned its back on the British people, I shall not," he said.Hopefully this all this fighting within euro-sceptic parties will allow them to slip out of the way and get people voting for real political parties which address more than one issue.Ex-BBC chat show host and East Midlands MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk said he wanted to "change the face of British politics" as he launched his new party.Good to see the parties of the right splintering in the way the parties of the left have always done.Man with tan leaves party with no plan, to set up party with no idea.The electorate of the East Midlands voted not for Kilroy-Silk but for the UKIP.Its leader, Roger Knapman, has said he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.This Kilroy-Silk conveniently ignores in the comments surrounding the launch of his own party.UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.As the main Eurosceptic party, UKIP should try to resolve its differences with Kilroy to show a united front and give the UK public a serious political voice against Europe.It's all well and good Robert Kilroy-Silk claiming, that 'Veritas' is a party that doesn't believe in "lies and spin", but the truth of the matter is, its completely useless, due to proportional representation, there is no chance that 'Veritas' will have any chance in claiming power, and change the two-horse race trend.Veritas is the beginning of the end for Kilroy-Silk.This new party seems a logical next step for Kilroy.UKIP's chairman Petrina Holdsworth has said the group will just be a parody of the party the men have left.Brilliant, about time this country had a plausible party!It's all flash and no real policy here Let's hope this is the start of both UKIP and Kilroy-Silk slipping into obscurity.Whilst not being a great fan of Kilroy I do agree with his comments about the UKIP leadership, and like him I am also leaving UKIP.Having multiple parties with the same view point just splits the vote further.The party asserts that Mr Hockney "has a moral obligation, if not a legal one" to stand down.Robert Kilroy-Silk could have a lot to offer.Kilroy-Silk may just have those very qualities.UKIP has a wide platform of policies, not just withdrawal from the EU.Whatever Kilroy-Silk and UKIP do, none of their anti-European policies have any relevance outside middle England.Instead we have a split party and a damaged cause.Kilroy has one agenda - the UK - and I'll be voting for him.If Mr Kilroy-Silk lives up to half his promises he will get my vote.On Thursday Mr Kilroy-Silk is due to announce which constituency he will run in at the next general election - that will come amid speculation he has his sights set on Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon's Ashfield seat.Mr Kilroy-Silk promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration and said they hoped to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election.Having seen the recent BBC 3 documentary and witnessed the thoroughly disgraceful chauvinistic behaviour of a number of senior UKIP figures I can well understand why Kilroy-Silk feels embarrassed to be associated with such people.He said he was ashamed to be a member of a UKIP whose leadership had "gone AWOL" after the great opportunity offered by its third place at last June's European elections.Interesting that a party committed to plain speaking should have a Latin name!Last summer, UKIP achieved a major advance, partly and only partly due to Kilroy-Silk.UKIP tried hard to accommodate Robert Kilroy Silk, but he made it clear that only control of it would satisfy him.British politics has become too PC and as a result has no straight talking honest strong politicians.I wouldn't write off Kilroy-Silk.The very idea of political parties born out of such negative feelings as Euroscepticism or British Supremacy is nauseating.Under the present electoral system, people must work together, and small parties have no hope of representation.Kilroy Silk has secured my vote, and many more like me.Kilroy is an able communicator and a capable politician, in exactly the way those who lead UKIP are not.Kilroy-Silk could be on the verge of something huge if he can broaden his appeal beyond this one issue.He was joined in the new venture by one of UKIP's two London Assembly members, Damien Hockney who is now Veritas' deputy leader.If he believes in truth and democracy then he and the two assembly members should resign and force a by-elections to stand on their own platform rather than this backdoor approach to politics of being elected for one party then defecting to another.So UKIP was good enough for him to lead, not good enough for him to follow!

Analysis: No pain, no gain?He called it his "masochism strategy" in the run-up to the Iraq war and now Tony Blair has signed up for another dose of pain.The idea is simple - the prime minister goes head to head with an often hostile group of "real" voters in the full spotlight of the television cameras. The theory is that talking to the great British public, even if they are the "great unwashed", is better than having the media filter what voters hear from politicians. It is also the most effective way of showing that he is aware of real people's concerns and - on occasions - of their outright fury. Mr Blair used the tactic before the Iraq war to try to show he really was engaging with public concerns and you can expect to see it much more in the run-up to the election.Labour knows it has been damaged by accusations of spin, "control freakery" and over-slick presentation - sometimes from within the ranks of its own MPs. Tony Blair himself has said people complain he does not listen. Mr Blair's latest bout of flagellation came with a series of questions sessions on Five television throughout Wednesday.The trouble began on the Wright Stuff show, with Maria Hutchings marching up to him, saying "Tony, that's rubbish" as she tried to complain about her autistic son's school being threatened with closure. A few "don't worries" as Mrs Hutchings was led back to the audience averted a public slanging match - he spoke to her privately after the show. But that was only the start and later sessions produced the type of grilling not even the toughest television interviewer could produce.Writer Neil Coppendale, from West Sussex, asked of the Iraq war: "Tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children died - how do you manage to sleep at night?" On immigration, London teacher Diane Granger said: "Where are you going to put everyone?" And can you imagine even Jeremy Paxman putting the question posed by Brighton nurse Marion Brown: "Would you wipe somebody's backside for £5?"Mr Blair tried to use the questioners' first names - and sometimes threw them off their stride by asking what they would do about the problems. Many of the newspapers have branded the exercise a PR stunt which backfired. Indeed there is a danger Mr Blair simply ends up looking "embattled". Conservative Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat Charles Kennedy are to be offered chances to appear in similar slots on the channel next month. Labour strategists believe more of the sessions will mean the hecklers no longer become a story and the real issues take prominence.James Humphreys, ex-head of corporate communications at Number 10, says the strategy shows frustration with the media. "They feel they don't get their voice across and going direct to people is clearly their game on this occasion," he says. There are risks but the prize is tackling the trend of lower turnouts at the polls, he argues. The prime minister knows full well the potential hazards .He must remember with gritted teeth his confrontation with Sharron Storer, the Birmingham woman who harangued him over the state of her local hospital in the 2001 election campaign. "All you do is walk around and make yourself known, you don't do anything to help anybody," she told Mr Blair before stomping off, refusing his pleas to discuss the issue privately. Former Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell has described the episode as a "bit of a disaster" as it meant the launch of Labour's election manifesto received little coverage. But it was seen as one of the few moments when that election campaign came alive, not least because it coincided with John Prescott's even more direct contact - when he punched an egg-throwing protester.Former prime ministers too have come to grief at the hands of a persistent member of the public. The undoubted highlight of years of election phone-in shows was Margaret Thatcher discomfort on Nationwide in 1983, when viewer Diana Gould put her on the spot about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands War. John Major reaped the benefits of street campaigning during the 1992 election campaign with his famous soapbox.It may have left him splattered with eggs and engine oil at times but he felt it added "fizz" to his campaign. In his memoirs, he also argues the strategy contrasted with Neil Kinnock's "contrived photo opportunities" and attempts at an artful campaign. "He wanted to look like a prime minister. Iwasprime minister and I wanted a flesh and blood fight," says Mr Major. Mr Blair told prospective Labour MPs on Thursday that taking part in phone-ins and public meetings could "enthuse and engage and give the public a sense of empowerment". But he also wants to counter complaints that he has spent too much time on international affairs and foreign trips. Mr Blair recalls how Bill Clinton once advised him: "Always remember that what people see of you in the news in the evening is how they think you spend your day." His hope must be that voters watching him on the rack will bear out for Labour the old maxim: "No pain, no gain."

Mr Blair used the tactic before the Iraq war to try to show he really was engaging with public concerns and you can expect to see it much more in the run-up to the election.I was prime minister and I wanted a flesh and blood fight," says Mr Major.He called it his "masochism strategy" in the run-up to the Iraq war and now Tony Blair has signed up for another dose of pain.Mr Blair told prospective Labour MPs on Thursday that taking part in phone-ins and public meetings could "enthuse and engage and give the public a sense of empowerment".Tony Blair himself has said people complain he does not listen.But it was seen as one of the few moments when that election campaign came alive, not least because it coincided with John Prescott's even more direct contact - when he punched an egg-throwing protester.Former prime ministers too have come to grief at the hands of a persistent member of the public.Mr Blair recalls how Bill Clinton once advised him: "Always remember that what people see of you in the news in the evening is how they think you spend your day."Mr Blair tried to use the questioners' first names - and sometimes threw them off their stride by asking what they would do about the problems.Indeed there is a danger Mr Blair simply ends up looking "embattled"."All you do is walk around and make yourself known, you don't do anything to help anybody," she told Mr Blair before stomping off, refusing his pleas to discuss the issue privately.A few "don't worries" as Mrs Hutchings was led back to the audience averted a public slanging match - he spoke to her privately after the show.The undoubted highlight of years of election phone-in shows was Margaret Thatcher discomfort on Nationwide in 1983, when viewer Diana Gould put her on the spot about the sinking of the Belgrano in the Falklands War.The idea is simple - the prime minister goes head to head with an often hostile group of "real" voters in the full spotlight of the television cameras."He wanted to look like a prime minister.The prime minister knows full well the potential hazards .

UKIP outspent Labour on EU pollThe UK Independence Party outspent both Labour and the Liberal Democrats in the European elections, new figures show.UKIP, which campaigned on a slogan of "Say no to Europe", spent £2.36m on the campaign - second only to the Conservatives' £3.13m. The campaign took UKIP into third place with an extra 10 MEPs. Labour's campaign cost £1.7m, the Lib Dems' £1.19m and the Greens' £404,000, according to figures revealed by the Electoral Commission on Wednesday. Much of the UKIP funding came from Yorkshire millionaire Sir Paul Sykes, who helped bankroll the party's billboard campaign. Critics have accused the party of effectively buying votes. But a UKIP spokesman said Labour and the Conservatives had spent £10m between them on the last general election. "With the advantages of public money the others have, the only way the smaller parties can get their message across is by buying the advertising space," he added.

UKIP, which campaigned on a slogan of "Say no to Europe", spent £2.36m on the campaign - second only to the Conservatives' £3.13m.The campaign took UKIP into third place with an extra 10 MEPs.But a UKIP spokesman said Labour and the Conservatives had spent £10m between them on the last general election.Much of the UKIP funding came from Yorkshire millionaire Sir Paul Sykes, who helped bankroll the party's billboard campaign.

Straw attacked on China armsMoves to lift the European Union's ban on arms exports to China have been condemned by human rights groups and the Conservatives.The 15 year embargo was imposed in the aftermath of China's crackdown on protesters in Tiananmen Square in 1989. UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who will hold talks in Beijing on Thursday, said an EU arms code was more effective than the current ban. But Human Rights Watch says the EU is putting commerce above abuse concerns.In December, the EU pledged to work towards lifting the ban but said it was not ready to do so yet. Germany and France have repeatedly called for the embargo to be lifted. Britain has been more cautious but Mr Straw last week said he also wanted it to end, despite US objections.He expects it to be lifted over the next six months, a prediction which has alarmed critics. Brad Adams, from Human Rights Watch, said: "This is a huge political signal from Europe that they are willing to forget about Tiananmen Square. "There are still thousands of people who are unaccounted for."Mr Straw said it was wrong to put China under the same embargo as countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma. The scope of the embargo was very narrow and did not have any force of law behind it, he told BBC Radio 4's World At One. In the UK, more export licences were refused under the existing European Union arms code than under the embargo, he said. And only two of the licences denied under the embargo would have been granted under the code. "The code of conduct is much more effective, it's a more powerful tool of and we intend to strengthen it as a pre-condition of lifting the embargo with China," he said.Mr Straw denied the decision would suggest to China that Tiananmen Square had been forgotten. The level of human rights was a key criteria under the EU arms exports code, he said. Human rights groups say the code of conduct is not legally binding - but Mr Straw said it would be given legal force by the laws of many EU countries. Conservative shadow foreign secretary Michael Ancram said the move would be "profoundly wrong". The decision could undermine Nato as it severely damaged relations with the US, which is opposed to ending the ban.Mr Ancram argued: "What the British Government is doing is giving in to French and German pressure, especially the French, who see vast contracts available to them if the embargo is lifted... "It gives the wrong signals to China, who are simply not prepared to accept that what happened at Tiananmen Square was wrong." Mr Straw's China trip is part of regular high-level meetings with Beijing ministers. He will meet Chinese counterpart Minister Li Zhaoxing to discuss developing relations between their two countries, Hong Kong and China's part in the talks on North Korea.

Mr Straw said it was wrong to put China under the same embargo as countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma.The level of human rights was a key criteria under the EU arms exports code, he said.Human rights groups say the code of conduct is not legally binding - but Mr Straw said it would be given legal force by the laws of many EU countries.UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who will hold talks in Beijing on Thursday, said an EU arms code was more effective than the current ban.In the UK, more export licences were refused under the existing European Union arms code than under the embargo, he said."The code of conduct is much more effective, it's a more powerful tool of and we intend to strengthen it as a pre-condition of lifting the embargo with China," he said.Mr Straw denied the decision would suggest to China that Tiananmen Square had been forgotten.Mr Ancram argued: "What the British Government is doing is giving in to French and German pressure, especially the French, who see vast contracts available to them if the embargo is lifted... "It gives the wrong signals to China, who are simply not prepared to accept that what happened at Tiananmen Square was wrong."And only two of the licences denied under the embargo would have been granted under the code.In December, the EU pledged to work towards lifting the ban but said it was not ready to do so yet.

Election deal faltered over Heath roleThe Tories failed to hold onto power in 1974 after Liberals demanded Sir Edward Heath quit in return for co-operation.Documents released after 30 years reveal the failed negotiations by the then prime minister following the dramatic February general election. Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe appeared willing to form a coalition government. But it partly collapsed over the Conservative leader's own role, prompting the Queen to ask Harold Wilson to form a Labour government. The February 1974 general election surprised the nation when it created a hung parliament with no party in overall control. Sir Edward had gone to the country for a fresh mandate amid the spiralling economic crisis, a miners' strike and the subsequent three-day week. Labour emerged with the most seats - but its 301 MPs were 17 short of the number Mr Wilson needed to form a majority.Sir Edward, who had received more votes but had fewer MPs, believed he had the authority to remain at Number 10 providing the 14 Liberal MPs would support his government. He said the Liberals could keep out Labour in three ways: lend ad hoc support to his minority government, help draw up the government's programme, or have up to three Cabinet members in a coalition with the Conservatives. According to the documents released at the National Archives, the "friendly and easy" first meeting indicated that both Sir Edward and Mr Thorpe thought they had the makings of a deal. Mr Thorpe was in high spirits, having just led his party to a historic jump in support. He also argued for a grand coalition of all three main parties. But Sir Edward said that was impossible because the Labour left was set against it and the pair settled on trying for a Conservative-Liberal pact.Hours later Sir Edward's hopes of a deal unravelled as Mr Thorpe's colleagues refused to support him. "Jeremy said he was encountering a rather embarrassing problem with his colleagues about the prime minister personally," reads a telephone memo for Mr Heath."They feel they could not agree to serve as long as he is the prime minister. "Asked if this was his own view he said - no it was not, I am very close to Ted and thought he was by far the most able man we had and he would be perfectly happy to serve - it was only some of his colleagues who were being difficult." The following day, the stickling points had clearly become two-fold: Mr Thorpe's colleagues wanted electoral reform and Sir Edward's resignation. Mr Thorpe told Sir Edward: "I am sorry this is obviously hell - a nightmare on stilts for you. "Somehow I personally hope that we can work something out."Four hours later, Sir Edward called the Liberal leader back to Downing Street in a last attempt at a deal. The minutes of the meeting show how the chance of a coalition government quickly evaporated. "The PM said he was bound to tell Mr Thorpe that his colleagues had told him that they would not agree to serve under any other prime minister. Mr Thorpe was at liberty to verify this by talking to one or two of the prime minister's colleagues." Documents show that Sir Edward mulled over resigning and perhaps returning to coalition government in a Labour-led coalition. But he already knew Mr Wilson would not form a coalition with either the Liberals or the Conservatives because of the opposition of the Labour left. Within hours of his final talks with Mr Thorpe, Sir Edward told the nation he was resigning and the Queen invited Mr Wilson to form a new minority government.

Within hours of his final talks with Mr Thorpe, Sir Edward told the nation he was resigning and the Queen invited Mr Wilson to form a new minority government."The PM said he was bound to tell Mr Thorpe that his colleagues had told him that they would not agree to serve under any other prime minister.Mr Thorpe told Sir Edward: "I am sorry this is obviously hell - a nightmare on stilts for you.Documents show that Sir Edward mulled over resigning and perhaps returning to coalition government in a Labour-led coalition.But Sir Edward said that was impossible because the Labour left was set against it and the pair settled on trying for a Conservative-Liberal pact."Jeremy said he was encountering a rather embarrassing problem with his colleagues about the prime minister personally," reads a telephone memo for Mr Heath.Hours later Sir Edward's hopes of a deal unravelled as Mr Thorpe's colleagues refused to support him.But he already knew Mr Wilson would not form a coalition with either the Liberals or the Conservatives because of the opposition of the Labour left.According to the documents released at the National Archives, the "friendly and easy" first meeting indicated that both Sir Edward and Mr Thorpe thought they had the makings of a deal.Mr Thorpe was in high spirits, having just led his party to a historic jump in support.Mr Thorpe was at liberty to verify this by talking to one or two of the prime minister's colleagues."

Guantanamo man 'suing government'A British terror suspect held in Guantanamo Bay for 33 months plans to sue the government, it is reported.Martin Mubanga claimed in the Observer that an MI6 officer played a key role in consigning him to the US camp in Cuba, following his arrest in Zambia. Mr Mubanga, 32, from Wembley, London, said he was brutally interrogated and daubed with urine at the camp. The home secretary said he would not be launching an investigation and that the media reports were not "well informed". Mr Mubanga, who has dual British and Zambian nationality, was one of four Britons who were released from the US camp in January.He said he was sent there after being interrogated by a British man who said he was from MI6, shortly after his arrest in Zambia in March 2002. Mr Mubanga said he had been in Afghanistan and Pakistan to study Islam. But he said he was unable to return to the UK because he had lost his British passport, and was travelling on his Zambian passport instead. Mr Mubanga said the "MI6 agent" told him the passport had been found in a cave in Afghanistan along with documents listing Jewish groups in New York and suggested he had been on an al-Qaeda reconnaissance mission. Mr Mubanga said the man, and an American female defence official, tried to recruit him as an agent, but he refused and within three weeks was told he would be sent to Guantanamo Bay.His lawyer Louise Christian said: "'We are hoping to issue proceedings for the misfeasance of officials who colluded with the Americans in effectively kidnapping him and taking him to Guantanamo." And Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said it was vital to establish whether ministers approved Mr Mubanga's transfer to Guantanamo. But a Foreign Office spokesman said he could not comment on the activities of British intelligence or security agencies. And Home Secretary Charles Clarke told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost: "I'm not organising a specific investigation into it." Mr Mubanga is the first of the four detainees freed last month to give a media interview. He told the Observer his worst moment was when he was told he would be released last March, only to be confined and told he would be there for many more years.He claimed he was stripped of his clothes and mattress and forced to remain in an empty metal box, naked except for boxer shorts. And he said an interrogator used a mop to daub him with his own urine while he was chained hand and foot. Mr Mubanga, who insists he does not feel bitter, said: "I've lost three years of my life, because I was a Muslim. He added: "The authorities wanted to break me but they strengthened me. They've made me what I am - even if I'm not quite sure yet who that person is." The US government denied the claims, saying it condemned and prohibited torture. In a statement, it said: "The Department of Defense has no doubt that Mr Mubanga was properly detained as an enemy combatant under the laws of war. "He was detained to prevent him from fighting against the US and our allies in the war on terror." But Fair Trials Abroad director Stephen Jakobi said there were similarities between Mr Mubanga's account and those of other Guantanamo detainees. He said: "The pattern is the same. The real problem is the concentration camp conditions in Guantanamo. "Is [Charles Clarke] really pretending this is all made up?" Mr Mubanga and the three other freed British detainees were released without charge by UK police on their return from Cuba.

He said he was sent there after being interrogated by a British man who said he was from MI6, shortly after his arrest in Zambia in March 2002.Mr Mubanga, 32, from Wembley, London, said he was brutally interrogated and daubed with urine at the camp.Mr Mubanga said the man, and an American female defence official, tried to recruit him as an agent, but he refused and within three weeks was told he would be sent to Guantanamo Bay.Mr Mubanga, who insists he does not feel bitter, said: "I've lost three years of my life, because I was a Muslim.In a statement, it said: "The Department of Defense has no doubt that Mr Mubanga was properly detained as an enemy combatant under the laws of war.Mr Mubanga said he had been in Afghanistan and Pakistan to study Islam.Mr Mubanga, who has dual British and Zambian nationality, was one of four Britons who were released from the US camp in January.But he said he was unable to return to the UK because he had lost his British passport, and was travelling on his Zambian passport instead.And Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said it was vital to establish whether ministers approved Mr Mubanga's transfer to Guantanamo.He said: "The pattern is the same.Mr Mubanga said the "MI6 agent" told him the passport had been found in a cave in Afghanistan along with documents listing Jewish groups in New York and suggested he had been on an al-Qaeda reconnaissance mission.And he said an interrogator used a mop to daub him with his own urine while he was chained hand and foot.

Final hunts held as ban loomsHunts in England and Wales have begun on the last day that hunting with dogs is legal, with more due out later.Thousands of supporters are expected to turn out at more than 250 meets, many of which have altered their normal schedules to be out on a Thursday. The ban on hunting with dogs comes into effect from 0001 GMT on Friday. The Countryside Alliance had its latest legal bid to block the ban thwarted on Wednesday when the Appeal Court ruled the Hunting Act was lawful.But the group says hunting will continue in some form after the ban comes in, with hunts expected to test the new law to its limits. Others are expected to defy the ban by continuing to hunt illegally.Anti-hunt organisations, for whom the ban is the culmination of years of campaigning, say they hope most will stay within the law. Mike Hobday, of the League Against Cruel Sports, told BBC News: "We've long urged them to go drag hunting - to follow an artificial scent - and that is what we hope they do. "But if they continue to chase foxes, to chase wild mammals around the countryside, that's against the law and we're confident they'll be brought to justice." At the headquarters of Quorn hunt in Leicestershire, feelings were running high as hunt enthusiasts prepared for their final legal hunt. BBC correspondent Sarah Mukherjee said hunt supporters were in tears.She said many people did not share the Countryside Alliance's optimism that hunting would be able to continue. Farmer Geoff Brooks, a senior member of the Quorn hunt, told BBC News people's lives "revolved around hunting". He described the ban as "ridiculous" and "badly thought out" but said it would be hard for most people to defy it as they would not want to risk their incomes by getting a criminal record.At the Court of Appeal on Wednesday, the Countryside Alliance failed in its attempt to have the Hunting Act ruled invalid. But it says the ban is unenforceable because the law is unclear and impossible to police.The alliance says hunt supporters will go out and test this law to its limits on Saturday. The League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA say they will monitor hunts and assist police in bringing prosecutions. The Association of Chief Police Officers has issued guidance to forces on how to deal with the new rules. A spokesman said: "Basically, it's not going to be police officers chasing about in cars across fields, it will be based on intelligence and information received as well." The decision on how to police individual hunts will be left to local forces, with more officers sent to hunts where disruption is expected. He said police would consider evidence submitted by anti-hunt organisations on its merits.

But the group says hunting will continue in some form after the ban comes in, with hunts expected to test the new law to its limits.The alliance says hunt supporters will go out and test this law to its limits on Saturday.But it says the ban is unenforceable because the law is unclear and impossible to police.The decision on how to police individual hunts will be left to local forces, with more officers sent to hunts where disruption is expected.Others are expected to defy the ban by continuing to hunt illegally.The League Against Cruel Sports and the RSPCA say they will monitor hunts and assist police in bringing prosecutions.The Countryside Alliance had its latest legal bid to block the ban thwarted on Wednesday when the Appeal Court ruled the Hunting Act was lawful.She said many people did not share the Countryside Alliance's optimism that hunting would be able to continue.At the headquarters of Quorn hunt in Leicestershire, feelings were running high as hunt enthusiasts prepared for their final legal hunt.

'Poll Idols' face first hurdlesVote For Me - ITV1's Pop Idol style talent contest for would-be politicians - finally hits our screens this week.Over the next four days, hundreds of potential candidates will be whittled down by a panel of experts and public vote. The winner will then be encouraged to stand as an independent at the next general election, which is expected in the spring. But opinion is divided on whether any of the potential candidates unearthed so far have got what it takes to make it in politics. "Any of them would make competent MPs," former independent MP Martin Bell insisted on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.Mr Bell, who will be offering his advice to the contestants on Wednesday, argues that Westminster has its share of "odd balls" and the show will engage ordinary voters. "If it gets more people voting and more people interested in politics there is no harm in that," he said. But Sir Bernard Ingham, Margaret Thatcher's former press secretary, took a less charitable view, accusing the programme of "corrupting politics".He said the producers would not achieve their aim of re-engaging voters "with that bunch of nutters". To give Sir Bernard his dues, Monday evening's opening episode did attract more than a smattering of eccentrics and self-publicists. Among those chancing their arm were a druid priest and a former porn star, who insisted on removing her top to make her point about the legalisation of brothels. Among the more eccentric policy proposals was a public holiday on Bruce Forsyth's birthday and Bill Oddie for prime minister. The show follows the time-honoured Pop Idol format, with queues of nervous hopefuls and a panel of three experts judging their performance.The contestants were given 60 seconds to present their manifestos. Then the final 25 were tested on their lobbying ability. They were then cross-examined by the panel, which was chaired by ex-ITN political editor John Sergeant, with television host Lorraine Kelly taking the Nicki Chapman role. But the real star of the show is Kelvin MacKenzie, in the Simon Cowell, Mr Nasty seat.The former Sun editor dispensed a stream of well-crafted insults and one-liners. His advice for one young contestant was to "get a haircut and a brain transplant". Wheelchair user Kevin Donnellon was asked: "Why on earth do you want our elected representatives to be disabled?" "Don't you care about the Inuit?", implored guitar-toting environmental campaigner Barry Lim. "I don't care about them. I care about myself and when the sun's shining I think - fantastic," replied Mr MacKenzie.Mr Lim later reduced the panel to fits of giggles as he outlined his plan to make people do community service instead of paying taxes. "When the prime minister turns to the chancellor and says how much have we got in the coffers Mr Brown, he says well, prime minister, bad news, all the houses in Britain have been painted but actually nobody has paid any tax," observed Mr MacKenzie. "That was an total disaster. I just couldn't seem to think of things to say," a crestfallen Mr Lim confided in the show's presenter, Jonathan Maitland. Irfan Hanif, a 25-year-old doctor from Bolton, made a good impression, even if he was a little thrown by Mr MacKenzie's suggestion that instead of being treated by the NHS, young drunks should "given a good beating" and left to die. Dominic Carman - son of late libel lawyer George Carman - was voted through to the final 25, on a platform of cutting defence spending to boost education. Opinion was more divided over Rodney Hylton-Potts, a 59-year-old convicted fraudster. Mr MacKenzie thought the smooth-talking former solicitor - with a hardline on crime and immigration - deserved a chance to progress. "He could join the rest of the crooks in the Houses of Parliament." But Ms Kelly said she "would not trust him as far as she could throw him". The series continues throughout the week, with the public given the chance to evict one prospective MP every night. ITV will not fund the election campaign for the eventual winner, but the publicity could give the winner a flying start over other candidates.

I care about myself and when the sun's shining I think - fantastic," replied Mr MacKenzie.His advice for one young contestant was to "get a haircut and a brain transplant".Mr Lim later reduced the panel to fits of giggles as he outlined his plan to make people do community service instead of paying taxes."Any of them would make competent MPs," former independent MP Martin Bell insisted on BBC Radio 4's Today programme.Mr MacKenzie thought the smooth-talking former solicitor - with a hardline on crime and immigration - deserved a chance to progress.Irfan Hanif, a 25-year-old doctor from Bolton, made a good impression, even if he was a little thrown by Mr MacKenzie's suggestion that instead of being treated by the NHS, young drunks should "given a good beating" and left to die."That was an total disaster.Among the more eccentric policy proposals was a public holiday on Bruce Forsyth's birthday and Bill Oddie for prime minister."When the prime minister turns to the chancellor and says how much have we got in the coffers Mr Brown, he says well, prime minister, bad news, all the houses in Britain have been painted but actually nobody has paid any tax," observed Mr MacKenzie.But Ms Kelly said she "would not trust him as far as she could throw him".Opinion was more divided over Rodney Hylton-Potts, a 59-year-old convicted fraudster.But the real star of the show is Kelvin MacKenzie, in the Simon Cowell, Mr Nasty seat.But opinion is divided on whether any of the potential candidates unearthed so far have got what it takes to make it in politics.Mr Bell, who will be offering his advice to the contestants on Wednesday, argues that Westminster has its share of "odd balls" and the show will engage ordinary voters.They were then cross-examined by the panel, which was chaired by ex-ITN political editor John Sergeant, with television host Lorraine Kelly taking the Nicki Chapman role.

Ministers 'naive' over phone-tapsThe government is being naive by refusing to allow phone-tap evidence in court, a senior EU politician says.Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief, says phone-tap evidence works in the courts of other European countries. Human rights groups, top police officers and many MPs say allowing the evidence would remove the need to detain terror suspects without charge. But Home Secretary Charles Clarke says the evidence would not make much difference to these cases. Mr Solana told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme: "[Phone-tap evidence in court] works, it is normal that it is done, it would be naive not to do it. "It would be naive not to use this technological thing that we have at our disposal." Mr Solana's comments come the day after Sir Ian Blair, the newly-appointed Metropolitan Police commissioner, said he was in favour of phone-tap evidence.Under the Anti-Terrorism Crimes and Security Act 2001, foreign terror suspects can be detained in British jails without trial or charge. Several suspects have been detained under these powers because evidence against them was deemed too sensitive to be heard in court.Some of this evidence is believed to be telephone intercepts. Human Rights group Liberty has argued that if intercept evidence could be heard, these detainees could be brought to trial. But critics of phone-tap trials say the evidence is often weak and can expose the methods of the security services. The home secretary says intercepts would not make much difference because cases against terror suspects frequently rely on other kinds of surveillance. But Mr Clarke has been forced to change the regime of detention without trial after Law Lords ruled it illegal. He has opted for a system of "control orders" whereby suspects, both British and foreign, can be held under house arrest or surveillance. These orders will again involve a UK opt-out of parts of the European Convention on Human Rights. While accepting that people "have to be prepared" for a possible terrorist attack, Mr Solana said he had "qualms" about the home secretary's new plans. "We have to fight terrorism with all our means, but not so far as to change our way of life," he said.

Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief, says phone-tap evidence works in the courts of other European countries.Mr Solana told ITV1's Jonathan Dimbleby programme: "[Phone-tap evidence in court] works, it is normal that it is done, it would be naive not to do it.But Home Secretary Charles Clarke says the evidence would not make much difference to these cases.Human rights groups, top police officers and many MPs say allowing the evidence would remove the need to detain terror suspects without charge.But critics of phone-tap trials say the evidence is often weak and can expose the methods of the security services.The government is being naive by refusing to allow phone-tap evidence in court, a senior EU politician says.Several suspects have been detained under these powers because evidence against them was deemed too sensitive to be heard in court.The home secretary says intercepts would not make much difference because cases against terror suspects frequently rely on other kinds of surveillance.

Schools to take part in mock pollRecord numbers of schools across the UK are to take part in a mock general election backed by the government.Some 600 schools have already signed up for the Y Vote Mock Elections 2005 run by the Hansard Society and aimed at boosting interest in politics. Pupils in the schools taking part will learn the skills of speech writers, canvassers and political candidates. Schools Minister Stephen Twigg said engaging young people's interest was "essential" to the future of democracy.He added: said "Young people who are engaged and motivated by the political process are essential to the future health of our democracy. "The mock elections initiative provides an opportunity for pupils to develop their own understanding of how the democratic process works and why it matters. "By experiencing the election process first hand - from running a campaign to the declaration of the final result - we hope that young people will develop the enthusiasm to take part in the future." The Hansard Society, the Electoral Commission and the Department for Education and Skills are running the programme. Pupils will stand as party candidates, speech writers and canvassers. Michael Raftery, project manager at the Hansard Society, said: "The Y Vote Mock Elections for schools mirror the excitement and buzz of a real election, raising awareness of citizenship, and the benefits of active democracy." The mock votes will take place around 5 May, widely expected to be the date of the general election. Information packs, including ballot papers and manifesto guides, with elections happening in early May were sent out to the 3,000 schools invited to take part.

Record numbers of schools across the UK are to take part in a mock general election backed by the government.Michael Raftery, project manager at the Hansard Society, said: "The Y Vote Mock Elections for schools mirror the excitement and buzz of a real election, raising awareness of citizenship, and the benefits of active democracy.""By experiencing the election process first hand - from running a campaign to the declaration of the final result - we hope that young people will develop the enthusiasm to take part in the future."The mock votes will take place around 5 May, widely expected to be the date of the general election.Some 600 schools have already signed up for the Y Vote Mock Elections 2005 run by the Hansard Society and aimed at boosting interest in politics.

MP attacked by muggers in KenyaAn MP has had more than £600 and his passport stolen after being mugged by six men in a park in Kenya.Quentin Davies, the MP for Grantham and Stamford, was attacked in a notoriously dangerous park in the capital, Nairobi. He was not hurt in the mugging on Saturday evening. Several people are being questioned over the attack. He was in Kenya before travelling to Sudan with the Parliamentary committee. Local police were said to be "surprised" he was in the area. Mr Davies, 60, said the mugging occurred 100 yards from the Nairobi Serena Hotel and equally close to the Anglican Cathedral in the centre of the city at dusk.He said in a statement: "It was a frightening experience. "Six men managed to steal up on me and grab me from behind. "I knew I had to stay very calm and passive - you cannot fight six men". He had to spend an extra 24 hours in Nairobi before rejoining the rest of the House of Commons International Development Committee in Dafur after the mugging. "Naturally, I was afraid they would use a knife or gun, though they never produced any weapon," he said. "Two of them held me from behind and two others held my legs and another one expertly rifled all my pockets."

He said in a statement: "It was a frightening experience.Local police were said to be "surprised" he was in the area.An MP has had more than £600 and his passport stolen after being mugged by six men in a park in Kenya.He was not hurt in the mugging on Saturday evening.He was in Kenya before travelling to Sudan with the Parliamentary committee.Quentin Davies, the MP for Grantham and Stamford, was attacked in a notoriously dangerous park in the capital, Nairobi.

David Blunkett in quotesDavid Blunkett - who has resigned as home secretary - built his reputation as a plain-speaking Yorkshire man. I fell in love with someone and they wouldn't go public and things started to go very badly wrong in the summer, and then the News of the World picked up the story. "I tried for three years to make something work." "Trust, plain-speaking and straight talking is something which matters so much to me as a politician and as a man that I have decided, of my own volition, to request an independent review of the allegations that I misused my position.""I don't think anyone can say I have said one thing in public and done another in private." "It would be dangerous territory if I wasn't practising what I preach which is to always accept responsibility, always accept the consequences of your actions. "None of us believe countering terrorism is about party politics.""I accepted by necessity we have to have prevention under a new category which is to intervene before the act is committed, rather than do so by due process after the act is committed when it's too late," he said in reference to new anti-terrorism measures. "Our work with the French government...has been hugely successful," said Mr Blunkett. "The number of illegal immigrants detected in Dover has dropped dramatically." "Strengthening our identity is one way or reinforcing people's confidence and sense of citizenship and well-being." "I foolishly thought as this was a celebrity edition it would be more relaxed than normal." "You wake up and you receive a phone call - Shipman's topped himself. You have just got to think for a minute: is it too early to open a bottle?"

"I don't think anyone can say I have said one thing in public and done another in private.""Our work with the French government...has been hugely successful," said Mr Blunkett.David Blunkett - who has resigned as home secretary - built his reputation as a plain-speaking Yorkshire man."It would be dangerous territory if I wasn't practising what I preach which is to always accept responsibility, always accept the consequences of your actions."I foolishly thought as this was a celebrity edition it would be more relaxed than normal.""Trust, plain-speaking and straight talking is something which matters so much to me as a politician and as a man that I have decided, of my own volition, to request an independent review of the allegations that I misused my position."

How political squabbles snowballIt's become commonplace to argue that Blair and Brown are like squabbling school kids and that they (and their supporters) need to grow up and stop bickering.But this analysis in fact gets it wrong. It's not just children who fight - adults do too. And there are solid reasons why even a trivial argument between mature protagonists can be hard to stop once its got going. The key feature of an endless feud is that everyone can agree they'd be better off if it ended - but everyone wants to have the last word.Each participant genuinely wants the row to stop, but thinks it worth prolonging the argument just a tiny bit to ensure their view is heard. Their successive attempts to end the argument with their last word ensure the argument goes on and on and on. (In the case of Mr Blair and Mr Brown, successive books are published, ensuring the issues never die.) Now this isn't because the participants are stupid - it's actually each individual behaving entirely rationally, given the incentives facing them. Indeed, there's even a piece of economic theory that explains all this. Nothing as obscure as "post-neo-classical endogenous growth theory" which the chancellor himself once quoted - but a ubiquitous piece of game theory which all respectable policy wonks are familiar with.It's often referred to as the "prisoner's dilemma", based on a parable much told in economics degree courses... about a sheriff and two prisoners. The story goes that two prisoners are jointly charged with a heinous crime, and are locked up in separate cells. But the sheriff desperately needs a confession from at least one of them, to provide enough evidence to convict them of the crime. Without a confession, the prisoners will get a minimal sentence on some trumped up charge.Clearly the prisoners' best strategy is to keep their mouths shut, and take the short sentence, but the clever sheriff has an idea to induce them to talk. He tells each prisoner separately, that if they confess - and they are the only one to confess - they'll be let off their crime. And he tells them that if they don't confess - and they are the only one not to confess - they'll get life. Now, if you are prisoner confronted with this choice, your best bet is to confess. If your partner doesn't confess, you'll get off completely. And if your partner does confess, you'd better confess to ensure you don't get life. The result is of course, both prisoners confess, so the sheriff does not have to let either one off. Both prisoners' individual logic was to behave that way, even though both would have been better if they had somehow agreed to shut up. Don't worry if you don't entirely follow it - you can to look it up on Google, where there are 283,000 entries on it.The prisoners' dilemma and all its ramifications have truly captured economists in the last couple of decades. It is a parable used to describe any situation where there is an obvious sensible choice to be taken collectively, but where the only rational choice individually is to behave selfishly.A cold war arms race for example - a classic case where both Russia and America would be better off with just a few arms, rather than a lot of arms. But as long as each wants just a few more arms than the other, an arms race ensues with the results that the individually logical decision to buy more arms, results in arms levels that are too high. What economics tells us is that once you're in a prisoners' dilemma - unless you are repeating the experience many times over - it's hard to escape the perverse logic of it. It's no good just exhorting people to stop buying arms, or to stop arguing when all their incentives encourage them to carry on. Somehow, the incentives have to change.In the case of the Labour Party, if you believe the rift between Blair and Brown camps is as bad as the reports suggest, Solomon's wisdom needs to be deployed to solve the problem. Every parent knows there are ingenious solutions to arguments, solutions which affect the incentives of the participants. An example, is the famous rule that "one divides, the other chooses" as a way of allocating a piece of cake to be sliced up between greedy children. In the case of an apparently endless argument, if you want it to come to an end, you have to ensure the person who has the last word is one who loses rather than the one who wins the row. The cost of prolonging the row by even one more briefing, or one more book for that matter, has to exceed the benefit of having the last word, and getting your point in. If the rest of the party can enforce that, they'll have the protagonists retreating pretty quickly.

And he tells them that if they don't confess - and they are the only one not to confess - they'll get life.He tells each prisoner separately, that if they confess - and they are the only one to confess - they'll be let off their crime.And if your partner does confess, you'd better confess to ensure you don't get life.In the case of an apparently endless argument, if you want it to come to an end, you have to ensure the person who has the last word is one who loses rather than the one who wins the row.The result is of course, both prisoners confess, so the sheriff does not have to let either one off.The cost of prolonging the row by even one more briefing, or one more book for that matter, has to exceed the benefit of having the last word, and getting your point in.Now, if you are prisoner confronted with this choice, your best bet is to confess.Both prisoners' individual logic was to behave that way, even though both would have been better if they had somehow agreed to shut up.Their successive attempts to end the argument with their last word ensure the argument goes on and on and on.If your partner doesn't confess, you'll get off completely.Each participant genuinely wants the row to stop, but thinks it worth prolonging the argument just a tiny bit to ensure their view is heard.But the sheriff desperately needs a confession from at least one of them, to provide enough evidence to convict them of the crime.And there are solid reasons why even a trivial argument between mature protagonists can be hard to stop once its got going.It's no good just exhorting people to stop buying arms, or to stop arguing when all their incentives encourage them to carry on.It's often referred to as the "prisoner's dilemma", based on a parable much told in economics degree courses... about a sheriff and two prisoners.

Lawyer attacks anti-terror lawsA senior barrister who has resigned in protest over the government's anti-terror laws says the current system is giving Britain a bad name.Ian MacDonald QC quit when the government failed to recognise a House of Lords ruling that detaining terror suspects indefinitely is unlawful. He was part of a 19-strong panel who have special security clearance to act for suspected terrorists. Five more barristers are now reported to be threatening to resign.Mr MacDonald told BBC News: "The reason why I am resigning is because I fundamentally disagree with locking people up without any trial for an indefinite period on reasonable suspicion. "The current legal system is certainly having a very adverse effect on the Muslim community in Britain and the whole Asian community. "I think it is giving Britain a bad name internationally".Under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act introduced by the government in 2001 in response to the 11 September attacks, foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism who cannot be deported can be held indefinitely without trial. But Mr MacDonald believes that detainees currently being held should be entitled to a trial by jury. "My own view is we need to have a full return to trial by jury, a proper criminal trial with proper accusations. "As far as I'm concerned, the government have to start all over again and rethink their whole strategy for dealing with this." he added.The Attorney General Lord Goldsmith will receive a letter of resignation from Mr MacDonald on Monday. According to the Independent, his resignation is expected to be followed by those of five other barristers - Nicholas Blake QC, Andrew Nicol QC, Manjit Singh Gill QC, Rick Scannell and Tom de la Mare. They are all believed to be carefully considering their positions on the panel of Special Advocates who represent detainees before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - a secure court without a jury, which tries terror suspects. Mr MacDonald said he had "no idea" whether further resignations would follow. But Barry Hugill, a spokesman for the campaign group Liberty, told Radio 4's Today programme that more lawyers may go. "I can assure that there is a distinct possibilty that more lawyers may be resigning," he said. "They are now in a situation where everything they have been trained to believe in, the right to trial by jury, has been abandoned and that is what gives some of them sleepless nights."Helena Kennedy, a Labour peer and a human rights lawyer, said the Special Advocates' main concern was that once they had seen any special intelligence they were not allowed to speak to the detainees. "When this whole procedure was being considered immediately after 11 September there was a great deal of argument particularly in the House of Lords about whether there really was a process that could be considered a judicial review," she said. "Without that you are having detention with no habeus corpus and really a blot, as Ian McDonald has said, on our legal landscape, something really quite shocking with regard to the rule of the law."

But Mr MacDonald believes that detainees currently being held should be entitled to a trial by jury.Mr MacDonald said he had "no idea" whether further resignations would follow.A senior barrister who has resigned in protest over the government's anti-terror laws says the current system is giving Britain a bad name.Mr MacDonald told BBC News: "The reason why I am resigning is because I fundamentally disagree with locking people up without any trial for an indefinite period on reasonable suspicion.Helena Kennedy, a Labour peer and a human rights lawyer, said the Special Advocates' main concern was that once they had seen any special intelligence they were not allowed to speak to the detainees.Under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act introduced by the government in 2001 in response to the 11 September attacks, foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism who cannot be deported can be held indefinitely without trial."When this whole procedure was being considered immediately after 11 September there was a great deal of argument particularly in the House of Lords about whether there really was a process that could be considered a judicial review," she said.Ian MacDonald QC quit when the government failed to recognise a House of Lords ruling that detaining terror suspects indefinitely is unlawful.They are all believed to be carefully considering their positions on the panel of Special Advocates who represent detainees before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC) - a secure court without a jury, which tries terror suspects.

Turkey deal 'to help world peace'A deal bringing Turkey a step closer to EU membership is of "fundamental importance" to the peace and security of the world, Tony Blair has said.The deal, struck at the European Council last week, also proved claims of a clash between Muslims and Christians were "wrong", Mr Blair said. It represented the achievement of an "historic British objective", he added. Tory leader Michael Howard said the deal laid to rest any suggestion the EU was "anti-Islamic".Turkey's involvement with the EU would provide an "invaluable bridge" between Europe and the rest of the world, Mr Howard added. But the Tory leader argued that the EU constitution was not designed to take in a country as large as Turkey. Mr Blair has been a leading advocate of Turkish membership despite controversy surrounding the idea. He insisted that the Turkish leadership had made great advances in improving its human rights records. 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. 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. If it joins, Turkey may have to accept restrictions to limit migration by its citizens. 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.

A deal bringing Turkey a step closer to EU membership is of "fundamental importance" to the peace and security of the world, Tony Blair has said.The deal to open formal talks with Ankara came despite an EU demand for Turkey to recognise Cyprus.But the Tory leader argued that the EU constitution was not designed to take in a country as large as Turkey.Tory leader Michael Howard said the deal laid to rest any suggestion the EU was "anti-Islamic".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 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.

UK 'needs true immigration data'A former Home Office minister has called for an independent body to be set up to monitor UK immigration.Barbara Roche said an organisation should monitor and publish figures and be independent of government. She said this would counter "so-called independent" groups like Migration Watch, which she described as an anti-immigration body posing as independent. Migration Watch says it is not against all immigration and the government already publishes accurate figures. Sir Andrew Green, chairman of the organisation, says there is no need for an independent body because Office of National Statistics data are accurate. He says he opposes large-scale immigration "both on the grounds of overcrowding and culture".He said: "For example, over the next 20 years one household in three will be due to immigration. "We are already more overcrowded than India and we are four times more overcrowded than France." Ms Roche, Labour MP for Hornsey and Wood Green, believes legal migration is something we should welcome. She said her proposals mean "we wouldn't have so-called independent experts, like Migration Watch, who come into this debate from an anti-immigration point of view." She went on: "What I would like to see is there being a body which actually looked at the figures, published them, and was independent of government. "I think that would go a long way to allaying some of the fears that are sometimes whipped up during this debate."

She said this would counter "so-called independent" groups like Migration Watch, which she described as an anti-immigration body posing as independent.Migration Watch says it is not against all immigration and the government already publishes accurate figures.She said her proposals mean "we wouldn't have so-called independent experts, like Migration Watch, who come into this debate from an anti-immigration point of view."She went on: "What I would like to see is there being a body which actually looked at the figures, published them, and was independent of government.Barbara Roche said an organisation should monitor and publish figures and be independent of government.

Probe launched on Ken Nazi jibeAn investigation by the Standards Board is under way following allegations that Ken Livingstone has brought his office into disrepute.The probe follows the London mayor's comments to a Jewish journalist comparing him to a concentration camp guard, after a party about a week ago. The local government watchdog also said the allegation related to a failure to respect others. It has the power to suspend or bar Labour's Mr Livingstone from office. A complaint was made to the body by the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Commission for Racial Equality.Speaking after the investigation was announced Bob Neill, leader of the London Assembly Conservatives, said: "He has behaved in a manner unbecoming of his office and in so doing, has shown extraordinarily poor civic leadership. "His administration is now in crisis." On Sunday, Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron told the BBC's Politics Show she believed the Mayor of London would say sorry on Tuesday for offending the wider Jewish community. The Prime Minister Tony Blair is among those who have called for an apology but so far the mayor has refused.The mayor accused Oliver Finegold, of the Evening Standard newspaper, of "doorstepping" him at a "predominately gay event" held for MP Chris Smith. Ms Gavron said she thought Mr Livingstone's comments were "inappropriate" but she did not believe the mayor was anti-Semitic. She said: "I work very closely with Ken so I can speak of what he's like in his guarded and unguarded moments and... he is in no way anti-Jewish, I wouldn't for a moment work with him if he were. "On the other hand, I think his remarks were inappropriate and I believe it is important, and I believe he will, come to the point where he says, 'I regret that I have caused offence to the wider Jewish community'. "I hope he will do it soon and it is mooted that he is going to make some sort of statement on Tuesday."

Ms Gavron said she thought Mr Livingstone's comments were "inappropriate" but she did not believe the mayor was anti-Semitic.Speaking after the investigation was announced Bob Neill, leader of the London Assembly Conservatives, said: "He has behaved in a manner unbecoming of his office and in so doing, has shown extraordinarily poor civic leadership.An investigation by the Standards Board is under way following allegations that Ken Livingstone has brought his office into disrepute.On Sunday, Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron told the BBC's Politics Show she believed the Mayor of London would say sorry on Tuesday for offending the wider Jewish community.It has the power to suspend or bar Labour's Mr Livingstone from office.The Prime Minister Tony Blair is among those who have called for an apology but so far the mayor has refused.

Tories urge 'change at the top'Tory delegates are gathering for what is expected to be their last conference before the general election, declaring Britain needs "a change at the top".The party goes into its spring forum trying to highlight what it sees as a clear choice between it and Labour. Tory co-chairman Liam Fox has opened proceedings with a speech criticising Tony Blair's record in government. Labour's rule has been characterised by "lost trust and failure to deliver", he told the Brighton conference. He also attacked the government's "failure" to control immigration and asylum and criticised its record on the NHS, telling delegates Labour cannot be trusted on education or crime. A Tory government would sort out the "shambles" of immigration, put patients before statistics and bring discipline to schools, he said. Dr Fox also underlined Tory promises to cut tax by £4bn.BBC political correspondent Shaun Ley says opinion polls suggest the Tories still lag some way behind Labour on the issues of health, education and the economy. Conservative leader Michael Howard, who had been due to welcome delegates to the conference on Friday, will address them in a lunchtime speech. His welcome address had to be postponed after he stayed in London to lead the party's opposition to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in its lengthy progress through Parliament. The bill was finally passed on Friday evening, after more than 30 hours of debate. Mr Howard is likely to defend his party's handling of the bill, which was only passed after the Conservatives accepted Prime Minister Tony Blair's promise that MPs would be able to review it within a year.

Tory co-chairman Liam Fox has opened proceedings with a speech criticising Tony Blair's record in government.Conservative leader Michael Howard, who had been due to welcome delegates to the conference on Friday, will address them in a lunchtime speech.He also attacked the government's "failure" to control immigration and asylum and criticised its record on the NHS, telling delegates Labour cannot be trusted on education or crime.Mr Howard is likely to defend his party's handling of the bill, which was only passed after the Conservatives accepted Prime Minister Tony Blair's promise that MPs would be able to review it within a year.Tory delegates are gathering for what is expected to be their last conference before the general election, declaring Britain needs "a change at the top".

Lords wrong on detainees - StrawJack Straw has attacked the decision by Britain's highest court that detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws.The foreign secretary said the right to life was the "most important liberty" and the government had a duty to protect people from terrorism. Law lords were "simply wrong" to imply the men were being held arbitrarily. New Home Secretary Charles Clarke vowed the nine men would remain in prison while the law was being reviewed.The House of Lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by the men - dealing a major blow to the government's anti-terror policy.But Mr Straw denied it amounted to a "constitutional crisis". He said those held had a right of appeal to the special immigration appeal tribunal and the decision to hold the suspects was upheld by that court. "The law lords are simply wrong to imply that this is a decision to detain these people on the whim or the certificate of the home secretary," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. The foreign secretary insisted it was for Parliament, and not judges, to decide how best Britain could be defended against the threat of terrorism. But Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, said it was possible some of the detainees could now be released. He said the Law Lords' ruling was an "embarrassment" for the government and major changes were needed to the law.The ruling came on Charles Clarke's first day as home secretary following David Blunkett's resignation. In a statement to MPs, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year."In the meantime, we will be studying the judgment carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords." The detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge. The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US. Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported. But those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland. On Thursday, Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.In a statement, detainee 'A' in Woodhill Prison said: "I hope now that the government will act upon this decision, scrap this illegal 'law' and release me and the other internees to return to our families and loved ones." The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case. Solicitor Gareth Pierce, who represents eight of the detainees, claimed the detention had driven four of the detainees to "madness", saying two were being held in Broadmoor hospital.

He said the Law Lords' ruling was an "embarrassment" for the government and major changes were needed to the law.The foreign secretary said the right to life was the "most important liberty" and the government had a duty to protect people from terrorism.New Home Secretary Charles Clarke vowed the nine men would remain in prison while the law was being reviewed.On Thursday, Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons.Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.He said those held had a right of appeal to the special immigration appeal tribunal and the decision to hold the suspects was upheld by that court."The law lords are simply wrong to imply that this is a decision to detain these people on the whim or the certificate of the home secretary," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.Law lords were "simply wrong" to imply the men were being held arbitrarily.But Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, the government's independent reviewer of anti-terrorism laws, said it was possible some of the detainees could now be released.The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case.

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.

Labour's '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.

CSA 'could close', says ministerMinisters would not rule out scrapping the Child Support Agency if it failed to improve, Work and Pensions Secretary Alan Johnson has warned.But he said replacing the controversial CSA would be "the nuclear option". A report by the Commons work and pensions committee called for the agency to be wound up unless it improved its service within weeks. Chairman Sir Archy Kirkwood said: "If the agency cannot be rescued, then it must be replaced."The committee reached its conclusions after it found that nearly 250,000 cases have yet to be processed. It warned that it could be five years before the CSA was "fit for purpose", describing it as "a failing organisation" and "in crisis" with parents facing payment delays and inaccurate maintenance calculations. The report urged the CSA to draw up contingency plans, including the "abandonment option", to be presented to Parliament by Easter, in case the CS2 computer system could not be made to work.And responding to calls for the agency to be scrapped, Mr Johnson told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I certainly wouldn't rule out the nuclear option of moving to a completely new system. "But I think the select committee would agree with me we would only do that when we were absolutely convinced that this system just isn't going to work."The MPs 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 building up. The MPs found the £456m system from American IT giant EDS was "nowhere near being fully functional and the number of dissatisfied, disenchanted and angry customers continues to escalate". Faced with the committee's criticism, the government has suspended its plan to cut the agency's staff by 25%. The CSA has been surrounded in controversy since its introduction in 1993 to assess and enforce child support payments by absent parents.It is currently chasing outstanding payments of more than £720m, while a further £947m has been designated as "unrecoverable".Michelle, a mother of twins, said she had not received a penny of the £57 a week she should be receiving from her ex-partner and had faced an "on-going battle" with the CSA. Her forms have twice been lost in the post, she said. "I don't receive correspondence, I don't receive phone calls, I have to chase them all the time," she said. Theresa May, Tory shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "We have got to find a way that's going to ensure those payments get through to the people who are due them." The agency's former chief executive Doug Smith quit last autumn claiming he was "seriously disappointed" with its performance. The committee said the National Audit Office should investigate why the EDS system had gone so badly wrong. It blamed the agency's senior management for a "multitude of problems" within the agency, including for an apparent lack of training of frontline staff.

But he said replacing the controversial CSA would be "the nuclear option".Ministers would not rule out scrapping the Child Support Agency if it failed to improve, Work and Pensions Secretary Alan Johnson has warned.The committee said the National Audit Office should investigate why the EDS system had gone so badly wrong.The report urged the CSA to draw up contingency plans, including the "abandonment option", to be presented to Parliament by Easter, in case the CS2 computer system could not be made to work."But I think the select committee would agree with me we would only do that when we were absolutely convinced that this system just isn't going to work."The MPs 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 building up.Theresa May, Tory shadow work and pensions secretary, said: "We have got to find a way that's going to ensure those payments get through to the people who are due them."The CSA has been surrounded in controversy since its introduction in 1993 to assess and enforce child support payments by absent parents.A report by the Commons work and pensions committee called for the agency to be wound up unless it improved its service within weeks.

Mandelson warning to BBCThe BBC should steer away from "demonising" ex-Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson has said.The European commissioner and former Labour minister was speaking amid claims that Mr Campbell is part of a Labour "dirty tricks" campaign. That charge was denied by Mr Mandelson, who said the Tories were afraid of Mr Campbell's campaigning skills. He warned the BBC that attacking Mr Campbell had brought it trouble before. That was a reference to the Hutton inquiry following a BBC story claiming Downing Street "sexed up" Iraq's weapons of mass destruction dossier.The affair prompted the resignation of BBC chairman Gavyn Davies, director-general Greg Dyke and reporter Andrew Gilligan. Labour has attracted media criticism for using new freedom of information laws to dig up information about Tory leader Michael Howard's past.Mr Mandelson, a former Labour communications director, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I understand why the Tories will be gunning for Alastair Campbell because they fear his campaigning skills. "What I understand less is why the BBC should be joining with the Tories in driving that agenda. "In my experience of these things, parties which shout about dirty tricks and the like tend to do so because they fear a direct hit in some vulnerable part of their political anatomy. "I suggest the BBC concentrates on the issues and helps the public to understand the policies and the choices that are at stake in the election rather than engages in the process politics, the trivialisation of the campaign. "I think the BBC would be much better advised to leave all this stuff well alone, concentrate on the issues as I say, not resume their demonisation of Alastair Campbell - we all know where that led before."Mr Campbell is acting as an adviser for Labour, which denies engaging in personal campaigning. Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox said Mr Campbell's return and Labour poster plans attacking Mr Howard - recently withdrawn from the party's website - were a sign of "abusive politics". "The government, despite the fact that they would say want to go forward, not back, seem intent on talking about history rather than their own record or even more importantly, about the future," he said on Sunday. Labour peer Baroness Kennedy, who is chairing the Power Inquiry into political disengagement, said people already thought politicians engaged in dirty tricks. "This feeling of distrust is going to be enlarged if this campaigning on all sides is conducted in the way that it looks as if it just might," she said.

Mr Mandelson, a former Labour communications director, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I understand why the Tories will be gunning for Alastair Campbell because they fear his campaigning skills.That charge was denied by Mr Mandelson, who said the Tories were afraid of Mr Campbell's campaigning skills.He warned the BBC that attacking Mr Campbell had brought it trouble before.The European commissioner and former Labour minister was speaking amid claims that Mr Campbell is part of a Labour "dirty tricks" campaign.Mr Campbell is acting as an adviser for Labour, which denies engaging in personal campaigning.The BBC should steer away from "demonising" ex-Downing Street media chief Alastair Campbell, Peter Mandelson has said.Conservative co-chairman Liam Fox said Mr Campbell's return and Labour poster plans attacking Mr Howard - recently withdrawn from the party's website - were a sign of "abusive politics".

Escaped prisoner report orderedFirst Minister Jack McConnell has ordered a report on the decision to allow a paranoid schizophrenic knife attacker to go on a visit unguarded.Michael Ferguson, 36, escaped after being allowed out of the high-security Carstairs unit. The SNP's Nicola Sturgeon has demanded to know who was responsible for signing off the leave. The Scottish Executive said ministers would be notified but it would "not be common practice" to sign approval. An executive spokesman said the health department and the state hospital itself would work together on preparing the report. Ministerial responsibility for Carstairs rests with Rhona Brankin, the deputy health minister. Ms Brankin said: "The first minister has called for a review of what has happened, we need to talk to the state hospital and we need to reflect on this." Ms Sturgeon has written to Mr McConnell asking for clarification on the move to allow the prisoner out. She said questions must be answered about his escape, if the public is to be reassured about safety. Police are still searching for Ferguson, who failed to return after a trip to East Kilbride on Monday.The Scottish National Party's parliamentary leader argued that under the law, authorisation of Ferguson's leave of absence would have come directly from ministers. She said: "The Scottish Executive seemed to indicate yesterday that the escape of Mr Ferguson was a matter for Carstairs. "However, my understanding is that, under the mental health legislation, the decision to grant this patient - and any restricted patient - leave of absence, would have required direct and specific authorisation by Scottish ministers." She added: "I have written to the first minister today asking for confirmation of that fact. I have also asked him to confirm which minister would routinely take decisions of this nature and what information they are based on. "This is not an attempt to apportion blame, but to ensure a better understanding of the decision making process in such important and sensitive cases."Police said Ferguson posed a danger to the public. BBC Scotland political correspondent Glenn Campbell said the first minister had ordered an urgent report into the situation. He said: "We understand from the executive that in this case no individual minister signed off the approval for Michael Ferguson to be released unescorted from Carstairs. "The executive concedes that it is up to Scottish ministers, they have a legal responsibility for approving this sort of leave, but they say routinely it is specialised officials that make that decision and simply inform ministers that they have taken it. "But at that stage presumably ministers can ask hard questions and can ask for reassurances that the patient is not a serious danger to the public or that any risk has been minimised." Scottish Conservative leader, David McLetchie, said earlier it was "almost beyond belief that this has been allowed to happen".The executive spokeswoman said the recommendation for leave was agreed by a psychiatric advisor "in conjunction with officials on behalf of ministers". She said: "Ministers were told of that, notified of it, but it would not be common practice for them to sign it off. "They do have statutory responsibility, but the common practice has been that people who work with the patient and have the best knowledge about risk would make that decision." Ferguson, who slashed a man in a doctors' surgery in Coatbridge in 1994, had been out to see his fiancée Annabella Holmes, 47, whom he met when she was a patient at the high security complex in South Lanarkshire. He is described as being 5ft 9ins tall, slim, with blond hair, blue eyes and a fair complexion. Ferguson was wearing a black jacket, grey jeans, black jumper and black shoes when he was last seen. He has multiple fading tattoos on his left hand and a very faded tear tattoo under his left eye. Ms Holmes is not missing but there have been no sightings of Ferguson since Monday. Strathclyde Police asked anyone who spots Ferguson to contact Sergeant Keith McDonald on.

The Scottish Executive said ministers would be notified but it would "not be common practice" to sign approval.She said: "The Scottish Executive seemed to indicate yesterday that the escape of Mr Ferguson was a matter for Carstairs.He said: "We understand from the executive that in this case no individual minister signed off the approval for Michael Ferguson to be released unescorted from Carstairs.Ms Brankin said: "The first minister has called for a review of what has happened, we need to talk to the state hospital and we need to reflect on this."Police said Ferguson posed a danger to the public.She said: "Ministers were told of that, notified of it, but it would not be common practice for them to sign it off."They do have statutory responsibility, but the common practice has been that people who work with the patient and have the best knowledge about risk would make that decision.""The executive concedes that it is up to Scottish ministers, they have a legal responsibility for approving this sort of leave, but they say routinely it is specialised officials that make that decision and simply inform ministers that they have taken it.Scottish Conservative leader, David McLetchie, said earlier it was "almost beyond belief that this has been allowed to happen".An executive spokesman said the health department and the state hospital itself would work together on preparing the report.The executive spokeswoman said the recommendation for leave was agreed by a psychiatric advisor "in conjunction with officials on behalf of ministers".First Minister Jack McConnell has ordered a report on the decision to allow a paranoid schizophrenic knife attacker to go on a visit unguarded.

Blunkett unveils policing plansPeople could be given the mobile phone number of their local bobby under an overhaul of policing in England and Wales unveiled by David Blunkett.The plans include a dedicated policing team for each neighbourhood and a 10 point compulsory customer charter. The home secretary said targets would be put in place to ensure that the public got a good response from police. Local people would also be able to "trigger" action on specific problems if they felt nothing was being done. Local councillors would have to show certain conditions had been met before invoking the power. And police could refuse the request if the complaints were frivolous, would only cause annoyance or would pose too heavy a burden on resources.Mr Blunkett said a new three digit number would be created for non-emergency phone calls to police. The best performing police services would get more cash and extra freedoms, he said, but he would not shirk from stepping in where the public was being failed. The home secretary's powers to suspend or sack chief constables are being reviewed after Mr Blunkett's battle with Humberside chief David Westwood over intelligence failures on Soham murderer Ian Huntley.Opposition parties also want more local policing to tackle nuisance behaviour and other crime but they accuse ministers of tying the police up with paperwork. Tory spokesman David Davis said the proposals were "little more than a taxpayer-funded PR exercise" ahead of a general election predicted for next May.Police forces were already "buried" under existing government initiatives and there was little in the latest plans to reassure them," said Mr Davis. Earlier Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the government was right to want to increase the links between local people and the police. "But these measures will only work if they're matched with a cut in the amount of paperwork - and investment in modern equipment to keep the police out on the streets."Before delivering a statement to MPs, Mr Blunkett was joined by Tony Blair at Welling School, in south east London, which is at the heart of a community policing initiative. Mr Blunkett said he wanted "to go back to a time when I was very young, when you expected the police to be part of the community and the community to be part of policing and where people were joined together in partnership making it work". The prime minister said the law-abiding citizen should be in charge of the community and "not the minority who want to cause trouble".Mr Blunkett already boasts about producing record police numbers. He has also started to recruit 25,000 Community Support Officers (CSOs) and the new plans would allow all police forces to give them the power to detain suspects. An extra £50m was promised on Tuesday so 2,000 new CSOs can be recruited now rather than next year. Within two years, every force will be expected to keep to a "coppers' contract" on what kind of service the public can expect. A Mori poll this summer suggested policing, unlike health and education, was the one major public service where people were less satisfied the more contact they had with it. The plans also include the idea of allowing people join police forces at different levels rather than the traditional way of making everybody spend specific amounts of time as a constable before being promoted. There will also be "specific exercises" to encourage black and Asian people to join the police at senior ranks.

Mr Blunkett said he wanted "to go back to a time when I was very young, when you expected the police to be part of the community and the community to be part of policing and where people were joined together in partnership making it work".The best performing police services would get more cash and extra freedoms, he said, but he would not shirk from stepping in where the public was being failed.Mr Blunkett said a new three digit number would be created for non-emergency phone calls to police.Police forces were already "buried" under existing government initiatives and there was little in the latest plans to reassure them," said Mr Davis.Earlier Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said the government was right to want to increase the links between local people and the police.He has also started to recruit 25,000 Community Support Officers (CSOs) and the new plans would allow all police forces to give them the power to detain suspects.The home secretary said targets would be put in place to ensure that the public got a good response from police.Local people would also be able to "trigger" action on specific problems if they felt nothing was being done.The plans also include the idea of allowing people join police forces at different levels rather than the traditional way of making everybody spend specific amounts of time as a constable before being promoted.Opposition parties also want more local policing to tackle nuisance behaviour and other crime but they accuse ministers of tying the police up with paperwork.

Lib Dems predict 'best ever poll'The Lib Dems are set for their best results in both the general election and the local council polls, one of their frontbenchers has predicted.Local government spokesman Ed Davey was speaking as the party launched its campaign for the local elections being held in 37 English council areas. The flagship pledge is to replace council tax with a local income tax. The Tories say the Lib Dems would make people pay more tax and Labour says the party's sums do not add up. Looking to the coming elections, which are all expected to be held on 5 May, Mr Davey said: "We are going to be winning more votes and winning more seats. "I think we are going to have the best general election results and local election results we have ever had under [party leader] Charles Kennedy. "I couldn't think of a stronger endorsement of a leader."

"I think we are going to have the best general election results and local election results we have ever had under [party leader] Charles Kennedy.The Lib Dems are set for their best results in both the general election and the local council polls, one of their frontbenchers has predicted.Local government spokesman Ed Davey was speaking as the party launched its campaign for the local elections being held in 37 English council areas.

Nat Insurance to rise, say ToriesNational Insurance will be raised if Labour wins the next election, Tory leader Michael Howard has claimed.Tony Blair has said he does not want higher tax rates for top earners but on Wednesday said other tax promises would be left to Labour's manifesto. Prime minister's questions also saw Mr Blair predict that new plans would probably cut net immigration. He attacked Tory plans to process asylum claims abroad - but Mr Howard said Labour had proposed the idea too.The Commons questions session again saw the leaders of the two biggest parties shape up for the forthcoming election campaign. The Tories have promised £4bn in tax cuts but have yet to say where they will fall. Mr Howard pointed to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' predictions that Labour will need to increase taxes to cover an £11bn gap in its spending plans. He accused ministers of wasting money on unsuccessful attempts to curb bad behaviour and truancy in schools and on slow asylum processing. It was no good Mr Blair claiming tax pledges were being left to the manifesto as he had given one to MPs on Tuesday about the top rate of income tax, argued Mr Howard. Pointing to national insurance, he added: "Everyone knows tax will go up under Labour: isn't it now clear which tax it would be?"Mr Blair instead hailed Labour's achievement in using a strong economy to invest in public services. "When we have money not only going into extra teachers and nurses but equipment in schools and hospitals, that money is not wasted," he said. On the tax questions, he added: "We will make commitments on tax at the time of the manifesto." Home Secretary Charles Clarke this week published plans for a new points system for economic migrants, with only high-skilled workers allowed into the UK from outside the European Union.Mr Blair said abuses would be weeded out and chain migration, where families automatically get the right to settle with immigrant workers, would end. That would probably create a fall in the migrant numbers, he said. The prime minister ridiculed the Tory plans for asylum quotas and for processing all asylum claims overseas. He challenged the Tories on which country would house their processing centres - what he called a "fantasy island". Mr Howard read from a letter about the government's own plans at the European Council of Ministers for processing asylum seekers outside the EU. But Mr Blair said: "All the other countries could not agree on the way forward, nor could the UN."

Tony Blair has said he does not want higher tax rates for top earners but on Wednesday said other tax promises would be left to Labour's manifesto.He attacked Tory plans to process asylum claims abroad - but Mr Howard said Labour had proposed the idea too.It was no good Mr Blair claiming tax pledges were being left to the manifesto as he had given one to MPs on Tuesday about the top rate of income tax, argued Mr Howard.Prime minister's questions also saw Mr Blair predict that new plans would probably cut net immigration.Mr Howard read from a letter about the government's own plans at the European Council of Ministers for processing asylum seekers outside the EU.Pointing to national insurance, he added: "Everyone knows tax will go up under Labour: isn't it now clear which tax it would be?"Mr Blair said abuses would be weeded out and chain migration, where families automatically get the right to settle with immigrant workers, would end.Mr Howard pointed to the Institute for Fiscal Studies' predictions that Labour will need to increase taxes to cover an £11bn gap in its spending plans.

Pakistani women 'must not hide'Hiding women away in the home hidden behind veils is a backward view of Islam, President Musharraf of Pakistan has said during a visit to Britain.He was speaking to the BBC's Newsnight programme a few hours before visiting the Pakistani community in Manchester. "My wife is travelling around. She is very religious but she is very moderate," said General Musharraf. It comes after Pakistan's High Commissioner to Britain said some Pakistanis should integrate more. Dr Maleeha Lodhi said people could not expect others to listen to their grievances if they isolated themselves.Gen Musharraf told the BBC: "Some people think that the women should be confined to their houses and put veils on and all that and they should not move out - absolutely wrong." The Pakistani president was also asked whether he thought the war on terror had made the world less safe. "Yes, absolutely. And I would add that unfortunately we are not addressing the core problems, so therefore we can never address it in its totality," he said. "We are fighting it in its immediate context but we are not fighting it in its strategic long-term context."It is the political disputes and we need to resolve them, and also the issue of illiteracy and poverty. This combined are breeding grounds of extremism and terrorism." On Monday the Pakistani president met Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street, on his first official visit to London. He is due to visit the Pakistani community in Manchester on Tuesday afternoon.The Mirror newspaper said on Tuesday it had been handed a sensitive dossier outling the details of Gen Musharraf's visit to Britain. The paper said the document had been found in a London street by a member of the public. It said the dossier contained details about his movements and also confidential police radio channels, call signs and codes. Speaking in London on Monday, Gen Musharraf said al-Qaeda was "on the run" in Pakistan.But standing next to Mr Blair he added that it was crucial to tackle the "core of what creates terrorists, what creates an extremist, militant environment which then leads on to terrorism". "That is the resolution of political disputes."Mr Blair said the two leaders had talked about Afghanistan, the wider war on terror, the situation in the Middle East and the ongoing dispute over Kashmir. "We agreed that in Afghanistan there is some cause for optimism about the progress that has been made there," said Mr Blair. "In respect of Iraq, we agreed that whatever the issues of the past, the important thing now is to see the strategy through and ensure that Iraq is capable of becoming a stable and democratic state."

Speaking in London on Monday, Gen Musharraf said al-Qaeda was "on the run" in Pakistan.Hiding women away in the home hidden behind veils is a backward view of Islam, President Musharraf of Pakistan has said during a visit to Britain."We agreed that in Afghanistan there is some cause for optimism about the progress that has been made there," said Mr Blair.The Mirror newspaper said on Tuesday it had been handed a sensitive dossier outling the details of Gen Musharraf's visit to Britain.She is very religious but she is very moderate," said General Musharraf.Mr Blair said the two leaders had talked about Afghanistan, the wider war on terror, the situation in the Middle East and the ongoing dispute over Kashmir.The paper said the document had been found in a London street by a member of the public.It said the dossier contained details about his movements and also confidential police radio channels, call signs and codes.It comes after Pakistan's High Commissioner to Britain said some Pakistanis should integrate more.On Monday the Pakistani president met Prime Minister Tony Blair at 10 Downing Street, on his first official visit to London.

Straw to attend Auschwitz serviceForeign Secretary Jack Straw will visit Auschwitz for the 60th anniversary of the former Nazi concentration camp's liberation, it has been announced.Prince Edward will also join the UK delegation in Poland for National Holocaust Memorial Day on 27 January. Between 1.1 and 1.5 million people, mainly Jews, were killed at Auschwitz. The Tories said they were glad Mr Straw had been "shamed" into going, having earlier criticised the decision to send a lower-ranking official. Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram said: "I am glad the foreign secretary has finally been shamed into representing Britain at this important act of commemoration. "Once again this government has shown crass insensitivity until it has been forced by public opinion into doing what it should have done in the first place."In Britain, the Queen and Prince Philip will lead the nation's commemoration at a service in Westminster Hall, London. The Queen will also host a reception for holocaust survivors at St James's Palace. Altogether, some six million people, mainly Jews, perished in the Holocaust. The Queen's grandson, Prince Harry, sparked outrage earlier this week after photographs of him wearing a Nazi uniform at a costume party emerged. The prince, 20, apologised, but critics have called for him to go to Auschwitz for the commemoration of the Soviets' 1945 liberation of the camp. Prince Harry should see for himself "the results of the hated symbol he so foolishly and brazenly chose to wear", Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder of Jewish human rights group the Simon Wiesenthal Center said.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Michael Ancram said: "I am glad the foreign secretary has finally been shamed into representing Britain at this important act of commemoration.Foreign Secretary Jack Straw will visit Auschwitz for the 60th anniversary of the former Nazi concentration camp's liberation, it has been announced.The prince, 20, apologised, but critics have called for him to go to Auschwitz for the commemoration of the Soviets' 1945 liberation of the camp.Between 1.1 and 1.5 million people, mainly Jews, were killed at Auschwitz.Altogether, some six million people, mainly Jews, perished in the Holocaust.

Lib Dems demand new inquiryA judge should look into the David Blunkett controversy as key questions remain unanswered, the Lib Dems say.Sir Alan Budd's inquiry linked the ex-home secretary to the speeding up of a visa claim by his ex-lover's nanny. But he could not say whether Mr Blunkett had treated the nanny as a special case or had used her as an example of immigration problems. Lib Dem spokesman Mark Oaten said the number of officials who had forgotten what happened was worrying. He told BBC News: "I'm extremely concerned that 20 individuals appear to have forgotten what happened or more suspiciously are not prepared to say what happened. "That must be bad for government, it must be bad for public confidence in the system."Mr Oaten said people would be mystified why Sir Alan's inquiry failed to uncover why processing of the visa application was speeded up. He said: "There is a strong case for a judge-led judicial review of this because, of course, next time it happens it may not be about a nanny and their visa. It may be about something even more important than that. "So we do need to understand what took place and who was involved." The Tories criticised the Lib Dem stance, saying Mr Oaten had initially said he accepted Mr Blunkett's word unless further evidence emerged. But Lib Dem officials say Mr Oaten was speaking when an inquiry was under way and was avoiding rushing to judgement.

But Lib Dem officials say Mr Oaten was speaking when an inquiry was under way and was avoiding rushing to judgement.Lib Dem spokesman Mark Oaten said the number of officials who had forgotten what happened was worrying.Mr Oaten said people would be mystified why Sir Alan's inquiry failed to uncover why processing of the visa application was speeded up.The Tories criticised the Lib Dem stance, saying Mr Oaten had initially said he accepted Mr Blunkett's word unless further evidence emerged.He said: "There is a strong case for a judge-led judicial review of this because, of course, next time it happens it may not be about a nanny and their visa.

Clarke defends terror detentionsThe home secretary has defended his decision not to release foreign terror suspects despite a legal ruling their detention breached human rights laws.House of Lords law lords ruled against the detention measures last week. They said it was wrong to have one set of laws for foreign suspects and another for British suspects. New Home Secretary Charles Clarke said he would carefully consider the ruling and would return to Parliament early in the new year with proposals.He insisted that he would not be rushed into judgement but would examine the law lords' findings in detail. "My duty is to look at first of all the security of this country and in so doing to consider very carefully the precise legal measures that there are." Mr Clarke's comments came in response to an emergency question from Liberal Democrat constitutional affairs spokesman David Heath. Mr Heath said the judgement contained "unprecedented condemnation and could not have been more unequivocal". He said he accepted the difficult balance between the nation's security and human rights but questioned why the home office had made "no contingency plans for the present circumstances"."These detainees should be prosecuted and tried. Simply renewing the present deeply unsatisfactory legislation is not an option." Shadow home secretary David Davis said it was not possible to overstate the importance of the judgment and urged the government to move as fast as "competently possible" to sort the problem out in the interests of natural justice. "If you do, we will give you every support." The law lords' ruling came on Charles Clarke's first day as home secretary last Thursday following David Blunkett's resignation. In a statement on the same day, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year. "In the meantime, we will be studying the judgment carefully to see whether it is possible to modify our legislation to address the concerns raised by the House of Lords."But the government was widely criticised for insisting the detentions would continue following the ruling last week. Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons. Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law." The detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge. The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US.

The law lords' ruling came on Charles Clarke's first day as home secretary last Thursday following David Blunkett's resignation.New Home Secretary Charles Clarke said he would carefully consider the ruling and would return to Parliament early in the new year with proposals.House of Lords law lords ruled against the detention measures last week.Lord Bingham - a senior law lord - said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status" by justifying detention without trial for foreign suspects, but not Britons.Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law."The home secretary has defended his decision not to release foreign terror suspects despite a legal ruling their detention breached human rights laws.In a statement on the same day, Mr Clarke said: "I will be asking Parliament to renew this legislation in the New Year.But the government was widely criticised for insisting the detentions would continue following the ruling last week.They said it was wrong to have one set of laws for foreign suspects and another for British suspects.

UK youth 'interested' in politicsThe majority of young people are interested in politics, holding "strong opinions" on policies and have a "keen appetite" for direct action.Research undertaken for voting watchdog the Electoral Commission suggests 81% of 16 to 20-year-olds feel strongly about issues like crime and education. The survey findings are being released to coincide with the launch of the Y Vote Mock Elections 2005 initiative. Mock elections are planned to take place in schools across the UK.Electoral Commission boss Sam Younger said: "We know that young people often feel disengaged from democratic life and we believe in working creatively to encourage their interest and participation. "Mock elections can play an extremely valuable role in helping young people understand how the democratic process works and why it matters," he said. The survey of a sample of 500 British 16 to 20-year-olds and 500 21 to 25-year olds "showed Britain's young people are far from apathetic about issues that matter to most of their lives". The Y Vote initiative is being run jointly by the Electoral Commission, the Hansard Society and the Department for Education and Skills in the run-up to local elections and the general election, possibly on 5 May. Michael Rafferty, who is mock elections project manager at the Hansard Society, said he looked forward to seeing schools and colleges across the UK participating in the mock votes.

"Mock elections can play an extremely valuable role in helping young people understand how the democratic process works and why it matters," he said.Michael Rafferty, who is mock elections project manager at the Hansard Society, said he looked forward to seeing schools and colleges across the UK participating in the mock votes.The Y Vote initiative is being run jointly by the Electoral Commission, the Hansard Society and the Department for Education and Skills in the run-up to local elections and the general election, possibly on 5 May.Mock elections are planned to take place in schools across the UK.

'Fido' to be taken off vote listsThe risk of pets and children being given votes could be cut by changing how people register to vote, the UK elections watchdog has said.Those are some of the mistakes found under the current system, where one person in each household applies for voting forms for the other occupants. The Electoral Commission says enabling people to register individually could cut some errors and combat fraud. Voters need to register by 11 March if the next poll is on 5 May as expected. But any individual registration scheme would not be introduced in Britain before that general election.The proposed scheme would mean voters using individual "identifiers" when they vote - such as their own voting number, date of birth and signature. The Electoral Commission says having voters register individually rather than the head of household do it for them fits better with human rights laws. Chairman Sam Younger told MPs on Tuesday care was needed to ensure that people were not lost off the register in the process - which happened when Northern Ireland switched to a similar system. There have been rare cases when household pets have been put on the electoral roll, the MPs heard. And some people have registered all their family, regardless of their age - birth dates are not included on the forms so election officers cannot easily check. Non-British citizens who are not entitled to vote have also been registered in some cases.Mr Younger said there was anecdotal evidence of inaccuracies in the register, the vast majority of which were caused by genuine mistakes. He argued local councils could look harder at promoting targeted campaigns at "hard to reach" voters, for example. Some authorities already run such programmes but in others councillors worry about the party political impact of encouraging particular areas to turn out. Mr Younger said using the Royal Mail's postal redirection service had already helped election officers retrace about 50,000 voters.He argued individual registration would also increase security for postal ballots and other new ways of voting. There have been fears there are too few checks to ensure current postal votes are cast by the person on the voting form. He said it might also help register students in halls of residences, where the hall warden often has to do the job for everybody. The MPs on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Constitutional Affairs select committees pressed Mr Younger on how to avoid losing voters in any changeover. He said the Northern Ireland example illustrated real difficulties to be confronted. Currently, British voters have to re-register to vote every year or face being removed from the electoral rolls if they fail to do so two years running. Mr Younger suggested the re-registration could happen less frequently but argued efforts were needed to check the electoral rolls were up-to-date.

The risk of pets and children being given votes could be cut by changing how people register to vote, the UK elections watchdog has said.Mr Younger said using the Royal Mail's postal redirection service had already helped election officers retrace about 50,000 voters.The Electoral Commission says enabling people to register individually could cut some errors and combat fraud.Mr Younger suggested the re-registration could happen less frequently but argued efforts were needed to check the electoral rolls were up-to-date.There have been fears there are too few checks to ensure current postal votes are cast by the person on the voting form.The proposed scheme would mean voters using individual "identifiers" when they vote - such as their own voting number, date of birth and signature.Chairman Sam Younger told MPs on Tuesday care was needed to ensure that people were not lost off the register in the process - which happened when Northern Ireland switched to a similar system.The Electoral Commission says having voters register individually rather than the head of household do it for them fits better with human rights laws.Mr Younger said there was anecdotal evidence of inaccuracies in the register, the vast majority of which were caused by genuine mistakes.

Kilroy unveils immigration policyEx-chatshow host Robert Kilroy-Silk has attacked UK policy on immigration saying Britain's open door approach is hitting low wage "indigenous" workers.The Veritas leader said the only people to benefit from immigrants from places like Poland were employers, landlords, members of the 'metropolitan elite'. The MEP said his party would only admit foreigners who were required because they had specific skills to offer. And he argued asylum cost £2bn a year for 14,000 successful applicants.Mr Kilroy-Silk said that worked out at £143,000 per successful asylum seeker. He said Veritas wanted to grant an amnesty for all those in Britain claiming asylum and who have children and deport everyone else. Britain should take its fair share of asylum seekers under the United Nations Convention on Human Rights, he argued. And Mr Kilroy-Silk said he wanted to spend an extra £500m a year to help provide for refugees abroad.

Mr Kilroy-Silk said that worked out at £143,000 per successful asylum seeker.He said Veritas wanted to grant an amnesty for all those in Britain claiming asylum and who have children and deport everyone else.And Mr Kilroy-Silk said he wanted to spend an extra £500m a year to help provide for refugees abroad.And he argued asylum cost £2bn a year for 14,000 successful applicants.

Ban on hunting comes into forceFox hunting with dogs is now illegal in England and Wales after a ban on the activity came into force overnight.The law faces a stiff test this weekend, with the Countryside Alliance saying many hunts will be out in force. Chief police officers spokesman Nigel Yeo said he expected most people would obey the law - by drag hunting or chasing foxes then shooting them. He said police would challenge the "one of two isolated hunts" which are threatening to break the law.But Simon Hart of the Countryside Alliance has questioned how police will ensure there are no violations. "The definitions of legal and illegal hunting are so blurred that the police are being asked to make impossible judgements. "You can hunt a rat, but not a mouse, a rabbit but not a hare, an artificial scent, but not a real one," he said.The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, has so far issued no instructions to police on how they should deal with hunters who violate the law. He said he will consult the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police "in the near future" to decide what measures to take with regards to hunting prosecutions. He has rejected a "blanket policy" of not enforcing the ban until the House of Lords has considered its legality. John Cooper, a barrister and chairman of the League Against Cruel Sports, said the anti-hunting lobby expects the authorities to prosecute wherever there is clear evidence of illegal hunting practices. He said police had "acknowledged their duty to investigate allegations of hunting offences".The Beaufort Hunt had one pack out on Thursday and has promised a hunt this weekend. Under the new law hunters have a number of legal options available to them.As well as being able to mount a hunt for an artificial scent, it will still be legal for the hunts to "flush out" foxes, as long as they shoot their quarry rather than set the hounds on them. "We are not going away. We will keep these hounds going, we will keep this community going and in the end we will come back and hunt when hunting is legal again," hunt master, Captain Ian Farquhar, said. But Tony Banks, Labour MP for West Ham, said the issue would soon disappear, and that "people in a few years time will be wondering what it was all about". He said had the government not prevaricated since 1997 in introducing the ban, hunting with dogs would have passed into history like other former country pursuits such as otter hunting and badger baiting. "Let the election decide this because the Conservatives have made clear that if they get elected into government they will restore hunting," he said.

We will keep these hounds going, we will keep this community going and in the end we will come back and hunt when hunting is legal again," hunt master, Captain Ian Farquhar, said.Chief police officers spokesman Nigel Yeo said he expected most people would obey the law - by drag hunting or chasing foxes then shooting them.He said police had "acknowledged their duty to investigate allegations of hunting offences".He said police would challenge the "one of two isolated hunts" which are threatening to break the law.He said had the government not prevaricated since 1997 in introducing the ban, hunting with dogs would have passed into history like other former country pursuits such as otter hunting and badger baiting."The definitions of legal and illegal hunting are so blurred that the police are being asked to make impossible judgements.He said he will consult the Director of Public Prosecutions and the police "in the near future" to decide what measures to take with regards to hunting prosecutions."You can hunt a rat, but not a mouse, a rabbit but not a hare, an artificial scent, but not a real one," he said.

Brown comes out shootingLabour may have abolished hunting - but that didn't stop Chancellor Gordon Brown using his Budget to fire both barrels at some of the opposition parties' core election foxes.Specifically, it saw him attempting to slaughter the council tax as an election issue and to tear limb from limb their wider policies for pensioners and families. In a relatively short speech he kept the best for last and was clearly out to give exactly that pre-election boost everyone had been predicting. So if you are a couple with children, a pensioner, a patient or a youngster, there was something pulled from Mr Brown's red box in an attempt to persuade you to stick with or switch to a New Labour government. Like a surgeon, he attempted to target his handouts with absolute precision onto exactly the groups the government needs to appeal to in the election campaign.The announcements brought great cheers from his own MPs who are now in full-on election mode and had been looking to their man to give them ammunition for the doorsteps. They obviously believed he had done that for them and, coincidentally, given his own image as a prime minister-in-waiting another little boost.Labour MPs, for example, will undoubtedly now engage in a debate over exactly how redistributive - a lovely Old Labour word - this chancellor really is. But Gordon Brown is never going to put on a show and even as he was out to cast himself as the man who will win Labour an historic third term, his demeanour remained quiet, confident and reassuring. Prudence made an appearance, albeit towards the end of his address, as he assured voters he would do nothing to mess up the economic stability he had brought to Britain and which, he claimed, would be thrown away by anyone else. According to the opposition parties, however, it is all one big con trick.As always, they accused him of glossing over the facts of the "black hole" at the centre of his finances which, they claim, would ensure tax increases after the election. He did it most obviously with his increase in national insurance contributions after the 2001 election campaign during which he had pledged not to increase income tax. As Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy claimed, for most families the distinction between income tax and a tax on income is meaningless.Tory leader Michael Howard said the chancellor was up to his old trick of deliberately re-casting his forecasts to give the illusion that everything in the Treasury larder is as fresh as the day it was first stored away for future use. He branded it a dodgy "vote now pay later" budget based on dodgy figures from a dodgy government that gave Britain the dodgy dossier. Where the chancellor mostly avoided direct electioneering, Mr Howard felt no such constraint with attacks like comparing Mr Brown's forecasts to the prime minister's forecasts on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. As ever, there will now be a period of frantic activity by the opposition parties' treasury specialists as they pore over the chancellor's red book, which sets out the fine detail of his budget, in an attempt to spot the flaws. In particular there will be an argument over precisely whose policies on the council tax will offer people the best deal. And in Labour circles there will undoubtedly be an argument over just how good a prime minister Gordon Brown will make at some point after the next election.

Labour may have abolished hunting - but that didn't stop Chancellor Gordon Brown using his Budget to fire both barrels at some of the opposition parties' core election foxes.And in Labour circles there will undoubtedly be an argument over just how good a prime minister Gordon Brown will make at some point after the next election.He did it most obviously with his increase in national insurance contributions after the 2001 election campaign during which he had pledged not to increase income tax.As always, they accused him of glossing over the facts of the "black hole" at the centre of his finances which, they claim, would ensure tax increases after the election.Labour MPs, for example, will undoubtedly now engage in a debate over exactly how redistributive - a lovely Old Labour word - this chancellor really is.So if you are a couple with children, a pensioner, a patient or a youngster, there was something pulled from Mr Brown's red box in an attempt to persuade you to stick with or switch to a New Labour government.Tory leader Michael Howard said the chancellor was up to his old trick of deliberately re-casting his forecasts to give the illusion that everything in the Treasury larder is as fresh as the day it was first stored away for future use.Specifically, it saw him attempting to slaughter the council tax as an election issue and to tear limb from limb their wider policies for pensioners and families.

'EU referendum could cost £80m'It could cost £80m to run a UK referendum on the European constitution, ministers have revealed.In a written parliamentary answer, Constitutional Affairs Minister Chris Leslie said the poll was likely to cost the same as a general election. Mr Leslie said the cost could not be compared with the only previous British referendum, held 30 years ago. Ministers say the constitution would make the European Union work better but critics fear creating a "super state". Labour MP John Cryer, whose question revealed the price estimate, said the cost surprised him but was not a central factor as it was important people had their say. But he said it would have been better to have rejected the constitution so avoiding the need for a referendum. The 2001 election cost £80m. No date for the vote has been set but Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has suggested it is unlikely to be held until early 2006 - after the predicted date for the next election. Most voters said the UK should stay in the Common Market in the 1975 referendum.

It could cost £80m to run a UK referendum on the European constitution, ministers have revealed.Mr Leslie said the cost could not be compared with the only previous British referendum, held 30 years ago.In a written parliamentary answer, Constitutional Affairs Minister Chris Leslie said the poll was likely to cost the same as a general election.But he said it would have been better to have rejected the constitution so avoiding the need for a referendum.

Terror detainees win Lords appealDetaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, the UK's highest court has ruled.In a blow to the government's anti-terror measures, the House of Lords law lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by nine detainees. Most of the men are being indefinitely held in Belmarsh prison, south London. The law lords said the measures were incompatible with European human rights laws. The men will stay behind bars while ministers decide how to react. The ruling creates a major problem for Charles Clarke on his first day as home secretary following David Blunkett's resignation. The Liberal Democrats say Mr Clarke should use the fact he is new to the job to take issue with a law established by his predecessor, David Blunkett. Belmarsh prison has been dubbed Britain's Guantanamo Bay by civil rights campaigners opposed to the use of emergency anti-terror laws.The detainees took their case to the House of Lords after the Court of Appeal backed the Home Office's powers to hold them without limit or charge. The government opted out of part of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the right to a fair trial in order to bring in anti-terrorism legislation in response to the 11 September attacks in the US. Any foreign national suspected of links with terrorism can be detained or can opt to be deported. However those detained cannot be deported if this would mean persecution in their homeland.On Thursday, senior law lord Lord Bingham said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status". Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law. "It deprives the detained person of the protection a criminal trial is intended to afford."He said the weakness for the government's case was that it was trying to justify detention without trial for foreign suspects - but not for British suspects. Lord Hoffmann said: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these." But Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, the one law lord to oppose the appeal, said the anti-terror laws contained important safeguards against oppression.In a statement, detainee 'A' in Woodhill Prison said: "I hope now that the government will act upon this decision, scrap this illegal 'law' and release me and the other internees to return to our families and loved ones." The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case. Ben Emmerson QC, representing seven of the detainees, said the men had already been in custody for nearly three years. He said they had been given no idea when, if ever, they would be released, had never been formally interviewed and there was no prospect they would ever be put on trial. When the men were first held, they took their cases to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC). The commission ruled on 30 July, 2002 that the anti-terror act unjustifiably discriminated against foreign nationals as British people could not be held in the same way. But that ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeal who said there was a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation.

The law lords said the measures were incompatible with European human rights laws.But Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, the one law lord to oppose the appeal, said the anti-terror laws contained important safeguards against oppression.Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, in his ruling, said: "Indefinite imprisonment without charge or trial is anathema in any country which observes the rule of law.On Thursday, senior law lord Lord Bingham said the rules were incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights as they allowed detentions "in a way that discriminates on the ground of nationality or immigration status".He said the weakness for the government's case was that it was trying to justify detention without trial for foreign suspects - but not for British suspects.Lord Hoffmann said: "The real threat to the life of the nation, in the sense of a people living in accordance with its traditional laws and political values, comes not from terrorism but from laws such as these."In a blow to the government's anti-terror measures, the House of Lords law lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by nine detainees.The case was heard by a panel of nine law lords rather than the usual five because of the constitutional importance of the case.Detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, the UK's highest court has ruled.But that ruling was later overturned by the Court of Appeal who said there was a state of emergency threatening the life of the nation.

Howard unveils election platformThe Conservatives would stand up for the "forgotten majority", Michael Howard pledged as he unveiled the first part of the Tory election manifesto.The Tory leader argued there was a mass of people whom he says feel let down by Tony Blair and who share Tory values. In the foreword to the manifesto, he promises to focus on restoring order, trying to lower taxes and giving power back to the people. Labour says the document offers only a return to a "failed Tory past". The Liberal Democrats say the Conservatives cannot win what they predict will be a three-party contest.Campaigning activity is accelerating ahead of the general election, which is widely tipped for May but could be any time before June 2006. Labour on Monday postponed a launch of election posters because of the Asian tsunami disaster. Mr Howard published the introduction to the Tory manifesto. Other chapters will follow in coming weeks.In a speech in Northamptonshire, he said the "forgotten majority" made up the backbone of Britain. They were people who were saving for their first home or their retirement, working hard and accepting their responsibilities. He says in the manifesto foreword: "They have been forgotten, neglected and taken for granted by Mr Blair."Saying Britain must change direction, Mr Howard argues government is too big and cannot continue "down the path of ever rising taxes". He promises to ensure frontline professionals, parents and patients make the key decisions rather than Whitehall "bureaucrats". And he says the Tories would get a grip on crime, immigration and disorder. "The decline of responsibility and the proliferation of so-called 'human rights' have left us in a moral quagmire, unable to get a grip on rising crime and disorder," he says.Mr Howard says he will produce a Timetable for Action so people can hold him to account but on issues like taxation he has so far only published options, not specific plans. Mr Howard told BBC News: "I'm determined to lower taxes but I'm also determined not to make any promises I can't keep." The Tories were unveiling material months ahead of the expected election because they needed time to make voters aware of their policies, he said. He was asked if Tory support for the government on Iraq and identity cards had given the Lib Dems the chance to portray themselves as the opposition to Labour. Mr Howard argued the only test for his policies was whether they were best for Britain. It had nothing to do with putting "clear blue water" between himself and his opponents.Labour's election slogan will be: "Britain's working, don't let the Tories wreck it again". Campaign coordinator Alan Milburn accused the Tories of "launching Thatcherism in instalments" while Labour helped the hard working majority of families. Lib Dem president Simon Hughes said his party had set out its election stance in September. "The Liberal Democrats will ask the British people for support this year as the party with the policies best able to deliver freedom and fairness and to restore trust," he said.

The Conservatives would stand up for the "forgotten majority", Michael Howard pledged as he unveiled the first part of the Tory election manifesto.Mr Howard published the introduction to the Tory manifesto.The Tory leader argued there was a mass of people whom he says feel let down by Tony Blair and who share Tory values.He says in the manifesto foreword: "They have been forgotten, neglected and taken for granted by Mr Blair."Mr Howard argued the only test for his policies was whether they were best for Britain.Mr Howard says he will produce a Timetable for Action so people can hold him to account but on issues like taxation he has so far only published options, not specific plans.And he says the Tories would get a grip on crime, immigration and disorder.The Tories were unveiling material months ahead of the expected election because they needed time to make voters aware of their policies, he said.Labour says the document offers only a return to a "failed Tory past".Labour's election slogan will be: "Britain's working, don't let the Tories wreck it again".Saying Britain must change direction, Mr Howard argues government is too big and cannot continue "down the path of ever rising taxes".

Blair prepares to name poll dateTony Blair is likely to name 5 May as election day when Parliament returns from its Easter break, the BBC's political editor has learned.Andrew Marr says Mr Blair will ask the Queen on 4 or 5 April to dissolve Parliament at the end of that week. Mr Blair has so far resisted calls for him to name the day but all parties have stepped up campaigning recently. Downing Street would not be drawn on the claim, saying election timing was a matter for the prime minister.A Number 10 spokeswoman would only say: "He will announce an election when he wants to announce an election." The move will signal a frantic week at Westminster as the government is likely to try to get key legislation through Parliament. The government needs its finance bill, covering the Budget plans, to be passed before the Commons closes for business at the end of the session on 7 April.But it will also seek to push through its Serious and Organised Crime Bill and ID cards Bill. Mr Marr said on Wednesday's Today programme: "There's almost nobody at a senior level inside the government or in Parliament itself who doesn't expect the election to be called on 4 or 5 April. "As soon as the Commons is back after the short Easter recess, Tony Blair whips up to the Palace, asks the Queen to dissolve Parliament ... and we're going." The Labour government officially has until June 2006 to hold general election, but in recent years governments have favoured four-year terms.

Tony Blair is likely to name 5 May as election day when Parliament returns from its Easter break, the BBC's political editor has learned.Andrew Marr says Mr Blair will ask the Queen on 4 or 5 April to dissolve Parliament at the end of that week.Mr Marr said on Wednesday's Today programme: "There's almost nobody at a senior level inside the government or in Parliament itself who doesn't expect the election to be called on 4 or 5 April.The Labour government officially has until June 2006 to hold general election, but in recent years governments have favoured four-year terms.The government needs its finance bill, covering the Budget plans, to be passed before the Commons closes for business at the end of the session on 7 April.

Could rivalry overshadow election?Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are desperately trying to stuff the genie of their rivalry back into the bottle.Along with any number of senior cabinet colleagues, they are insisting their only job is to win the next election and govern in the best interests of Britain. It is a message they are aiming directly at their backbenchers who are becoming irritated and even unnerved by the continuing claims and counter claims surrounding this alleged rift. Ian Gibson, for example, urged the two men to stop squabbling, declaring: "For goodness sake, sometimes you have to rise above petulance and make sure that you do your job as effectively as you can." Those with slim majorities are particularly fearful that the rift could hit their own hopes of re-election. Tony Blair will seek to reassure Labour MPs on Monday evening at their first meeting of the new year at Westminster - a behind-closed doors meeting which Gordon Brown is thought likely to also attend to show unity.Meanwhile the likes of Health Secretary John Reid and Labour peer Lord Haskins are warning of the electoral dangers of allowing this soap opera to continue. And they have both warned the rival camps to stop spreading the poison. Lord Haskins even suggested Mr Blair should reinstate Mr Brown as the central figure in the election planning.But this particular genie is unusually reluctant to return to captivity and many fear it is simply too late to repair the damage. They believe they will be fighting the next election with the sounds of open warfare between the two men ringing in their ears. And it matters little whether the rift is real or, as some try to suggest, simply the product of newspaper headlines and Westminster gossip. Few in Westminster actually believe that, simply because the evidence appears to contradict it.For example, the weekend's attempts by both men to play down the divisions failed to do the trick. Even as they were both insisting on their unity of purpose and claiming they would not be swayed by newspaper stories, they still managed to stir the speculation with their comments.Mr Blair talked about the "New" Labour manifesto - a move which seemed calculated to irritate the chancellor, who has long rejected the label. And Mr Brown pointedly refused to deny claims the prime minister had reneged on a deal to hand him the premiership last year. That claim was repeated in Robert Peston's book, a book which amply demonstrates this corrosive Downing Street soap opera is nowhere near its final act.For his part, Mr Brown insists his only motivation was to get Labour re-elected.The trouble is, both men have fallen short of offering simple, straightforward denials of the central claims. So they have both been accused of actually making matters worse by feeding the speculation with their own behaviour. The first thing to be said is that these suggestions have not come from nowhere. They started with and are sustained by "friends" of the two men. One only had to listen to the chancellor's friend and former spin chief Charlie Whelan last week to understand that there is a real anger from this camp at the prime minister's apparent attempts to confound Mr Brown's leadership ambitions. But it is not just public pronouncements from ex-aides.There are whispered briefings to selected journalists from both sides. It is no secret in Westminster, for example, that Downing Street believes the chancellor is indulging in a mammoth sulk and acting in a petty and deliberately provocative manner.Then there are the actions of the men themselves. Gordon Brown sets out what is seen as a rival manifesto then appears to embark on his own personal campaign. The prime minister responds by scheduling his monthly press conference to clash with a keynote speech by the chancellor. Meanwhile large numbers of backbench MPs insist voters are either entirely uninterested in the chatter, which they believe is a media-only obsession, or that they fear for the efficient running of a government beset by such rivalry. Either way, there is universal agreement that if this goes on through the general election it can only do the Labour party serious damage. There are signs that the two men appreciate the dangers and both want to put a lid on all the speculation. But with probably only four months to the next election, that looks like being a particularly difficult trick to pull off.

Lord Haskins even suggested Mr Blair should reinstate Mr Brown as the central figure in the election planning.They believe they will be fighting the next election with the sounds of open warfare between the two men ringing in their ears.Tony Blair will seek to reassure Labour MPs on Monday evening at their first meeting of the new year at Westminster - a behind-closed doors meeting which Gordon Brown is thought likely to also attend to show unity.And Mr Brown pointedly refused to deny claims the prime minister had reneged on a deal to hand him the premiership last year.For his part, Mr Brown insists his only motivation was to get Labour re-elected.There are signs that the two men appreciate the dangers and both want to put a lid on all the speculation.Then there are the actions of the men themselves.They started with and are sustained by "friends" of the two men.Mr Blair talked about the "New" Labour manifesto - a move which seemed calculated to irritate the chancellor, who has long rejected the label.For example, the weekend's attempts by both men to play down the divisions failed to do the trick.Ian Gibson, for example, urged the two men to stop squabbling, declaring: "For goodness sake, sometimes you have to rise above petulance and make sure that you do your job as effectively as you can."Few in Westminster actually believe that, simply because the evidence appears to contradict it.Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are desperately trying to stuff the genie of their rivalry back into the bottle.Gordon Brown sets out what is seen as a rival manifesto then appears to embark on his own personal campaign.

Lib Dems unveil election sloganThe Liberal Democrats will present themselves as "the real alternative" in the forthcoming general election campaign, Charles Kennedy has said.Unveiling the slogan at the party's spring conference, he said there was no "glass ceiling" to its ambitions. He told delegates that Labour had abused the public's trust and that the Tories had failed to oppose them. In response, the Conservatives insisted that theirs was the party that understood the "forgotten majority".Speaking in Harrogate Mr Kennedy said: "People want a credible, principled political party which offers a different vision of what Britain can be."Only the Liberal Democrats stood against the Iraq war, he said, and they had also provided strong opposition to the government's plans on ID cards, anti-terror measures and taxation. He said: "If you voted Conservative in 2001 ... what good did it do you? Your vote was wasted. "What people needed was ... a party which was listening to their concerns; a party which was prepared to stand up and say so; a party which said no to the prime minister." Responding to the claims Tory Party co-chairman Liam Fox said: "Like Labour, the Lib Dems are soft on crime, support higher taxes, oppose controlled immigration and support giving Europe more control over our lives."Mr Kennedy also outlined his party's plan to impose a 50% income tax rate on earnings over £100,000 a year. The money would be used to help pay for key policies such as abolishing university tuition fees, scrapping council tax in favour of local income tax, and providing free care for the elderly, he said. Labour and the Tories claim the sums do not add up, and that working families would be hardest hit. Mr Kennedy said: "Britain is the fourth-largest economy in the world. We have world class businesses and a world class workforce."So why are two million of our pensioners living below the poverty line?" All the parties are campaigning hard for an expected election in May, although Prime Minister Tony Blair has not confirmed any timing. Earlier, Mr Kennedy told Radio 4's Today programme there was no possibility of forming a coalition with Labour in the event of a hung Parliament. "We go into the election as an independent party and we come out as an independent party," he said. Mr Kennedy has been under fire in recent days for missing Monday's Commons vote on the government's controversial anti-terrorism laws, along with 16 other Lib Dem MPs. On Saturday, the Lib Dem chief executive said it was "just a cock-up" that Mr Kennedy and his colleagues missed the vote, which the government won by a majority of only 14. "Nobody had any idea that was going to happen," Lord Rennard told reporters at the party conference. He said he was certain MPs would get another chance to vote against the plans.

"What people needed was ... a party which was listening to their concerns; a party which was prepared to stand up and say so; a party which said no to the prime minister."On Saturday, the Lib Dem chief executive said it was "just a cock-up" that Mr Kennedy and his colleagues missed the vote, which the government won by a majority of only 14.Mr Kennedy said: "Britain is the fourth-largest economy in the world.He said he was certain MPs would get another chance to vote against the plans.Speaking in Harrogate Mr Kennedy said: "People want a credible, principled political party which offers a different vision of what Britain can be.""We go into the election as an independent party and we come out as an independent party," he said.Unveiling the slogan at the party's spring conference, he said there was no "glass ceiling" to its ambitions.Earlier, Mr Kennedy told Radio 4's Today programme there was no possibility of forming a coalition with Labour in the event of a hung Parliament.The Liberal Democrats will present themselves as "the real alternative" in the forthcoming general election campaign, Charles Kennedy has said.Your vote was wasted.

Howard attacks 'pay later' BudgetTory leader Michael Howard has dismissed Gordon Brown's Budget as "vote now, pay later" spending plans.The simple fact was that under a new Labour government taxes would go up after the election to plug a financial black hole, Mr Howard said. Everyone could see the chancellor's "sweeteners", but these hid tax rises for hard working families, he said. Labour's "faltering election campaign" would not be helped by the package of measures, Mr Howard added.Mr Brown's Budget was not about what was good for the country, but "all about the interests of the Labour party," the Tory leader said after mockingly welcoming the chancellor back to the election campaign. He went on to accuse Mr Brown of giving with one hand while taking away with the other. He urged the chancellor to admit he had been responsible for dragging "millions of people in to the net" to pay stamp duty and inheritance tax. "We can all see the sweeteners, but they hide the crippling tax rises for hard-working families that are inevitable if Labour wins."He also accused the government and the chancellor of running out of solutions to the problems Britain faced. "Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later." Mr Brown liked to rattle off "magical balances conjured out of thin air" in a bid to convince people there was no "black hole" in the nation's finances, the Tory leader said. "This dodgy government that brought us the dodgy dossier is now publishing a dodgy Budget based on dodgy numbers," he said. "You now propose to borrow, over the next six years, no less than £168 billion; so much for prudence. "The chancellor's forecasts of surpluses are no better than the prime minister's forecasts of weapons of mass destruction."Mr Brown's council tax rebate for pensioners was £300 less than what the Tories were offering, Mr Howard said. There was nothing in the Budget that would put more police on the streets, make hospitals cleaner or give parents and teachers the discipline and skills they wanted in schools. People would face a "clear choice" at the election, either "more waste and higher taxes under Labour or lower taxes and value for money with the Conservatives", he said. "That's the battleground of this election. That's what this election is going to be all about and I say bring it on," he concluded, to loud Tory cheering.

The simple fact was that under a new Labour government taxes would go up after the election to plug a financial black hole, Mr Howard said.Mr Brown's Budget was not about what was good for the country, but "all about the interests of the Labour party," the Tory leader said after mockingly welcoming the chancellor back to the election campaign.Mr Brown's council tax rebate for pensioners was £300 less than what the Tories were offering, Mr Howard said.People would face a "clear choice" at the election, either "more waste and higher taxes under Labour or lower taxes and value for money with the Conservatives", he said.Mr Brown liked to rattle off "magical balances conjured out of thin air" in a bid to convince people there was no "black hole" in the nation's finances, the Tory leader said.Everyone could see the chancellor's "sweeteners", but these hid tax rises for hard working families, he said.Labour's "faltering election campaign" would not be helped by the package of measures, Mr Howard added."Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later."

Wales 'must learn health lessons'The new health minister for Wales says there are lessons to learn from England in tackling waiting lists.Dr Brian Gibbons, on his first full day in the job after Jane Hutt was sacked, admitted "big challenges" but insisted the "essentials" were in place. But both Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats said Dr Gibbons needed to change policy. Meanwhile Ms Hutt defended her record, saying waiting times and lists were "only 10% of the health agenda. Dr Gibbons, who was a GP in Blaengwynfi, in the Upper Afan Valley, before becoming AM for Aberavon, said NHS staff wanted a period of consolidation after "tremendous change and reform". One of the biggest problems which had faced Ms Hutt during her five-and-a-half years as the assembly's first health minister was the length of waiting lists in Wales.In November the British Medical Association said NHS staff were "weeping with despair" as figures showed 311,000 people were waiting for treatment in Wales, up by 2,400 on the previous month. In the same month lists in England were at their lowest for 17 years, with 856,600 people waiting for treatment. Dr Gibbons told Radio Wales: "There is no doubt that, in managing waiting lists, England has done a lot of very very useful work, and we do need to learn from that."But he said the NHS in Wales also needed to create a healthier population rather than respond only to ill health, and a balanced view of priorities was important. "We do need a consistent across-the-board approach, recognising the patients' experience of how they use the service is going to be, at the end of the day, the main test of how the service is working." He said NHS staff wanted a period of consolidation after "tremendous change and reform". Later, Dr Gibbons praised the work of Ms Hutt, saying he "agreed with everything she's done" to change the health service in Wales. Dr Gibbons said he accepted there was a problem, but his job now was to build on the foundations put in place by his predecessor. He also acknowledged that until the waiting list issue was sorted out, the rest of the assembly government's health policy would be overshadowed.Opposition members and some Labour MPs had long called for Ms Hutt's removal after sustained criticism over extended hospital waiting times. First Minister Rhodri Morgan told BBC Wales he had agreed with Ms Hutt in 2003 that she would not be health minister in the run-up to the 2007 elections. "She's been doing the job for five years and eight months and, apart from Nye Bevan himself, (architect of the NHS), I don't think anybody has ever done the job for so long." Mr Morgan said he had only told Ms Hutt of the reshuffle on Monday morning, and said the NHS in Wales was Dr Gibbons' "baby" now. In response to Dr Gibbons' comments, Ieuan Wyn Jones, leader of the Plaid Cymru group in the assembly, said: "It is apparent that this reshuffle by the first minister was just changing the deckchairs on a sinking Titanic." Kisrty Williams, for the Lib Dems, added: "If the underlying policy is going to continue, then changing the minister will serve no purpose, other than to deflect flak from Labour's MPs," she said. Meanwhile Ms Hutt said she hoped "that the people of Wales would benefit from my investment of the past five years and eight months" Asked about waiting lists, she said that waiting times and lists were "only 10% of the health agenda" and that the Welsh Assembly Government had "turned the corner" on the issue.

Mr Morgan said he had only told Ms Hutt of the reshuffle on Monday morning, and said the NHS in Wales was Dr Gibbons' "baby" now.Meanwhile Ms Hutt said she hoped "that the people of Wales would benefit from my investment of the past five years and eight months" Asked about waiting lists, she said that waiting times and lists were "only 10% of the health agenda" and that the Welsh Assembly Government had "turned the corner" on the issue.One of the biggest problems which had faced Ms Hutt during her five-and-a-half years as the assembly's first health minister was the length of waiting lists in Wales.Later, Dr Gibbons praised the work of Ms Hutt, saying he "agreed with everything she's done" to change the health service in Wales.Dr Gibbons, who was a GP in Blaengwynfi, in the Upper Afan Valley, before becoming AM for Aberavon, said NHS staff wanted a period of consolidation after "tremendous change and reform".Dr Gibbons said he accepted there was a problem, but his job now was to build on the foundations put in place by his predecessor.Dr Gibbons told Radio Wales: "There is no doubt that, in managing waiting lists, England has done a lot of very very useful work, and we do need to learn from that."First Minister Rhodri Morgan told BBC Wales he had agreed with Ms Hutt in 2003 that she would not be health minister in the run-up to the 2007 elections.Meanwhile Ms Hutt defended her record, saying waiting times and lists were "only 10% of the health agenda.

MPs criticise child access systemDivorced parents seeking access to their children are often disadvantaged by the legal system, MPs have said.The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee said parents with custody could exploit delays in the system to stop former partners gaining access. Courts should be used as a last resort, but where they are, their orders should be enforced more rigorously, MPs said. But they rejected the claim made by some campaign groups that there should be a legal presumption of equal access.Currently the presumption is that the interests of the child are paramount. "An arbitrary 'template' imposed on all families, whatever the needs of the child, would relegate the welfare of individual children to a secondary position," the MPs said.They said the law should be changed to require family courts specifically to take account of the importance of sustaining the relationship between the child and the non-resident parent in contested cases. This would "reassert the rights of non-resident parents to contact with their children, as well as the rights of children to contact with both their parents, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to cope with issues of safety", they said. Delays in court hearings and the inability to effectively enforce court orders allowed "a new 'status quo' arrangement for the children to become established by default", they said."Although the courts rigorously avoid conscious bias, there are considerable grounds for accepting that non-resident parents are frequently disadvantaged by the system as it is administered at present. "Given the strong animosity between the parties which is common in contested family cases, we find it hard to believe that tactical delay is not sometimes used to the advantage of resident parents." Committee chairman Alan Beith said the five-month inquiry had been a "complex and emotive" one. "At the moment, far too many contact and residency cases are being dealt with by the courts when they could be better resolved through professional mediation and negotiation," he said. "This situation has to change. The court system should only be used as a last resort, where mediation and negotiation have completely broken down or where issues of abuse or domestic violence need to be dealt with. "This will help to reduce delays and improve the lives of many children across the country."

Divorced parents seeking access to their children are often disadvantaged by the legal system, MPs have said.They said the law should be changed to require family courts specifically to take account of the importance of sustaining the relationship between the child and the non-resident parent in contested cases."An arbitrary 'template' imposed on all families, whatever the needs of the child, would relegate the welfare of individual children to a secondary position," the MPs said.The Constitutional Affairs Select Committee said parents with custody could exploit delays in the system to stop former partners gaining access.This would "reassert the rights of non-resident parents to contact with their children, as well as the rights of children to contact with both their parents, while maintaining sufficient flexibility to cope with issues of safety", they said.Delays in court hearings and the inability to effectively enforce court orders allowed "a new 'status quo' arrangement for the children to become established by default", they said.Courts should be used as a last resort, but where they are, their orders should be enforced more rigorously, MPs said.

MPs' murder sentence concernMurder sentences should not be reduced automatically simply because of a guilty plea, says a new MPs' report.The influential Commons home affairs committee was responding to sentencing guidelines issued this summer. The MPs also call for tougher sentences for crimes committed under the influence of drink or drugs. They say the influence of drugs and alcohol should be introduced as an aggravating factor when judges and magistrates sentence offenders. Committee chairman John Denham said drugs of alcohol were sometimes used as an excuse."The committee believes that these arguments should be rejected by sentencers and that being under their influence should instead be an aggravating factor." At present judges, when sentencing murderers to the mandatory life sentence, can reduce the tariff - the minimum term they must serve - if the defendant pleads guilty. But although they are spared the ordeal of a trial many murder victims' relatives are unhappy. In July this year Amanda Champion's killer, James Ford, pleaded guilty to her murder and was jailed for at least 15 years - it would have been longer had he denied the charge.Amanda's uncle, Lewis Champion, told the BBC News website Ford did not deserve any credit for his plea, saying: "Nothing at all is worth taking five years off a murder sentence." MPs criticised Home Secretary David Blunkett last year for introducing last-minute rules allowing reduced sentences for murderers who pleaded guilty.The measures passed into law virtually unnoticed after Mr Blunkett introduced them at a late stage of the Criminal Justice Bill.As a result, says the committee, the government may need to re-legislate to "remove ambiguity" over how murderers should be sentenced. It is also calling on the senior judge in England and Wales, Lord Woolf, to abandon draft guidelines he proposed in September to reduce sentences of murderers who plead guilty. The committee said the plans had not reflected the "public disquiet" expressed over the possibility of significantly reduced prison terms for murderers. Lord Woolf's Sentencing Guidelines Council (SGC) caused further controversy by suggesting a one third discount off sentences for early guilty pleas in all types of crime. As a result murderers who face a 15-year tariff could get five years knocked off if they give themselves up to the police.Mr Denham believes the SGC should reconsider its proposals to reflect Parliament's wish that murder should be treated as a separate and especially grave category of offence. He said: "We want to see sentencers advised that in the case of murder, reduction in sentence for a guilty plea should not normally be granted in addition to reductions for other mitigating circumstances." But a spokesman for the Home Office defended the proposals. He said: "By making express provision for murder tariffs in the Criminal Justice Act, Parliament sent a clear signal that it expects murder to be treated differently to other offences. "We stand by the provisions in the Act that cover guilty plea discounts, which have potential benefits for victims and witnesses of avoiding the trauma of a trial."Shadow home secretary David Davis echoed criticisms of the way Mr Blunkett introduced the murder tariff rules. "There is genuine concern about potential reductions in murder sentences - such action sends out the wrong signals to violent criminals and completely undermines the government's claim to be tough on crime," he said. But Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten warned the MPs' committee that binding judges too much might look like political interference. "The danger of having a prescriptive approach is that whilst every murder is awful, it is also different," he told BBC News.

Murder sentences should not be reduced automatically simply because of a guilty plea, says a new MPs' report.MPs criticised Home Secretary David Blunkett last year for introducing last-minute rules allowing reduced sentences for murderers who pleaded guilty.He said: "We want to see sentencers advised that in the case of murder, reduction in sentence for a guilty plea should not normally be granted in addition to reductions for other mitigating circumstances."He said: "By making express provision for murder tariffs in the Criminal Justice Act, Parliament sent a clear signal that it expects murder to be treated differently to other offences.Amanda's uncle, Lewis Champion, told the BBC News website Ford did not deserve any credit for his plea, saying: "Nothing at all is worth taking five years off a murder sentence.""There is genuine concern about potential reductions in murder sentences - such action sends out the wrong signals to violent criminals and completely undermines the government's claim to be tough on crime," he said.They say the influence of drugs and alcohol should be introduced as an aggravating factor when judges and magistrates sentence offenders.Shadow home secretary David Davis echoed criticisms of the way Mr Blunkett introduced the murder tariff rules.At present judges, when sentencing murderers to the mandatory life sentence, can reduce the tariff - the minimum term they must serve - if the defendant pleads guilty.It is also calling on the senior judge in England and Wales, Lord Woolf, to abandon draft guidelines he proposed in September to reduce sentences of murderers who plead guilty.In July this year Amanda Champion's killer, James Ford, pleaded guilty to her murder and was jailed for at least 15 years - it would have been longer had he denied the charge.

Abbas 'will not tolerate' attacksPalestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has said he will not tolerate attacks such as last Friday's suicide bombing in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv.In an interview ahead of a meeting in London to discuss Palestinian reforms, Mr Abbas said such attacks were against Palestinian interests. The Palestinian Authority (PA) was exerting "a 100% effort" to end the violence, Mr Abbas added. The attack, which killed five, was the first of its kind since he took office. Mr Abbas confirmed Israel shared information with the PA in the hunt for the organisers of the attack. The Israeli government refuses to accept Syria's denials that it was implicated in the nightclub bombing. Israeli officials gave an intelligence briefing to foreign ambassadors on Monday, explaining Syria's alleged involvement. British foreign minister Jack Straw said there had been a "continuing stream" of information suggesting Palestinian militant groups were operating from within Syria.In an email interview in the British newspaper the Independent, Mr Abbas said: "We believe peace is possible now and we are ready to negotiate with Israel to reach a true and lasting peace based on justice and international legitimacy." He added: "We have an opportunity and it would be irresponsible if we, the Israelis, or the world allow it to slip away." Tuesday's meeting on Palestinian reform is being hosted by British Prime Minister Tony Blair. Also due to attend are US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, World Bank officials and foreign ministers from 23 European and Arab countries. The conference was a "vital step" in renewing the peace process, Mr Straw said. "It's a high-level attendance, which reflects the sense of momentum and opportunity created by recent events," he added. A spokesman for Mr Blair said the Prime Minister expected the conference to discuss "a comprehensive, co-ordinated and, above all, practical work plan for both the Palestinian Authority and the international community". Israel will not attend, but is said to be closely watching the outcome.

In an interview ahead of a meeting in London to discuss Palestinian reforms, Mr Abbas said such attacks were against Palestinian interests.The Palestinian Authority (PA) was exerting "a 100% effort" to end the violence, Mr Abbas added.A spokesman for Mr Blair said the Prime Minister expected the conference to discuss "a comprehensive, co-ordinated and, above all, practical work plan for both the Palestinian Authority and the international community".Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has said he will not tolerate attacks such as last Friday's suicide bombing in the Israeli city of Tel Aviv.The conference was a "vital step" in renewing the peace process, Mr Straw said.British foreign minister Jack Straw said there had been a "continuing stream" of information suggesting Palestinian militant groups were operating from within Syria.Mr Abbas confirmed Israel shared information with the PA in the hunt for the organisers of the attack.

Crisis 'ahead in social sciences'A national body designed to tackle skills shortages in key subjects should be set up, a committee of MPs has said.There was an "absolute crisis" in the recruitment of statisticians and other social science experts, the Commons science and technology committee added. "Major problems" are expected over the next 10 years as the social science workforce continues to age, it said. The committee was reporting on the work, strategy and spending plans of the Economic Social Research Council.The council aims to promote and support strategic research for social science postgraduates and provide social scientists to meet the needs of the country. It also liaises with the government and industry over their social science needs. In its report on the council's work the committee said: "We are deeply concerned by the skills shortages afflicting, in particular, the qualitative branches of social sciences. This mirrored previous concerns the committee had expressed on shortages in the fields of maths and chemistry, it said. "It is hard to see how significant progress towards rectifying these shortages can be made through the deployment of Economic and Social Research Council's limited resources. "If the government is serious about addressing skills shortages in key subjects it needs to find a more effective mechanism to achieve this." A national "strategic capabilities fund" to address shortages in key areas should be set up in response, the committee added.

In its report on the council's work the committee said: "We are deeply concerned by the skills shortages afflicting, in particular, the qualitative branches of social sciences.A national body designed to tackle skills shortages in key subjects should be set up, a committee of MPs has said.There was an "absolute crisis" in the recruitment of statisticians and other social science experts, the Commons science and technology committee added.The council aims to promote and support strategic research for social science postgraduates and provide social scientists to meet the needs of the country.The committee was reporting on the work, strategy and spending plans of the Economic Social Research Council.

UKIP candidate suspendedEurosceptic party UKIP have suspended a candidate for allegedly suggesting the criminally insane should be killed.John Houston, 54, was due to stand in the East Kilbride seat in Lanarkshire at the next election. But he was suspended after his reported views, including the return of the British Empire, were sent to two Scottish newspapers. UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said those who selected Mr Houston knew nothing of his views. The episode comes at a difficult time for UKIP, soon after the high-profile departure of MEP Robert Kilroy-Silk. Mr Houston is alleged to have said that the organs of the criminally insane should be "made available to law-abiding members of the community" and proposed the legalisation of drugs and the sex trade. The document reportedly said: "We're looking for the resurrection of the British Empire. "The problems for the human race - environmental and others - can only be dealt with on a global scale, and that calls for a radical alliance of the English-speaking nations, which they are uniquely able to do." Mr Croucher said the main issue would be that Mr Houston's reported views had been presented as UKIP policy, which they were not. He said they might have been submissions to a committee working on the party's manifesto, but would not have been matched to Mr Houston when he was standing to become a candidate. He told BBC News: "He appears to have said these things. We have suspended him as a member and as a candidate. "By all accounts none of this was mentioned at his selection meeting. "It is simply a distraction from the task in hand, the EU constitution, not individual idiocies." Mr Houston was quoted in the Herald newspaper saying: "I feel UKIP have over-reacted and overshot the runway."Peter Nielson, who is UKIP Scotland chairman, said he had suspended Mr Houston on Friday night. "He will remain suspended while the matter is being investigated and then we will decide if and what further action will be taken." He said that any evidence would be looked into and Mr Houston may be interviewed by the party. He added: "I can't comment too much at the moment, I have one version from him but I haven't seen the papers yet."

Peter Nielson, who is UKIP Scotland chairman, said he had suspended Mr Houston on Friday night.UKIP spokesman Mark Croucher said those who selected Mr Houston knew nothing of his views.He said they might have been submissions to a committee working on the party's manifesto, but would not have been matched to Mr Houston when he was standing to become a candidate.He said that any evidence would be looked into and Mr Houston may be interviewed by the party.Mr Croucher said the main issue would be that Mr Houston's reported views had been presented as UKIP policy, which they were not.Mr Houston was quoted in the Herald newspaper saying: "I feel UKIP have over-reacted and overshot the runway."Mr Houston is alleged to have said that the organs of the criminally insane should be "made available to law-abiding members of the community" and proposed the legalisation of drugs and the sex trade.Eurosceptic party UKIP have suspended a candidate for allegedly suggesting the criminally insane should be killed.