Datasets:

Mais99

/

CLASS-dataset

like 0

Budget to set scene for election Gordon Brown will seek to put the economy at the centre of Labour's bid for a third term in power when he delivers his ninth Budget at 1230 GMT. He is expected to stress the importance of continued economic stability, with low unemployment and interest rates. The chancellor is expected to freeze petrol duty and raise the stamp duty threshold from £60,000. But the Conservatives and Lib Dems insist voters face higher taxes and more means-testing under Labour. Treasury officials have said there will not be a pre-election giveaway, but Mr Brown is thought to have about £2bn to spare. - Increase in the stamp duty threshold from £60,000 - A freeze on petrol duty - An extension of tax credit scheme for poorer families - Possible help for pensioners The stamp duty threshold rise is intended to help first time buyers - a likely theme of all three of the main parties' general election manifestos. Ten years ago, buyers had a much greater chance of avoiding stamp duty, with close to half a million properties, in England and Wales alone, selling for less than £60,000. Since then, average UK property prices have more than doubled while the starting threshold for stamp duty has not increased. Tax credits As a result, the number of properties incurring stamp duty has rocketed as has the government's tax take. The Liberal Democrats unveiled their own proposals to raise the stamp duty threshold to £150,000 in February. The Tories are also thought likely to propose increased thresholds, with shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin branding stamp duty a "classic Labour stealth tax". The Tories say whatever the chancellor gives away will be clawed back in higher taxes if Labour is returned to power. Shadow Treasury chief secretary George Osborne said: "Everyone who looks at the British economy at the moment says there has been a sharp deterioration in the public finances, that there is a black hole," he said. "If Labour is elected there will be a very substantial tax increase in the Budget after the election, of the order of around £10bn." But Mr Brown's former advisor Ed Balls, now a parliamentary hopeful, said an examination of Tory plans for the economy showed there would be a £35bn difference in investment by the end of the next parliament between the two main parties. He added: "I don't accept there is any need for any changes to the plans we have set out to meet our spending commitments." For the Lib Dems David Laws said: "The chancellor will no doubt tell us today how wonderfully the economy is doing," he said. "But a lot of that is built on an increase in personal and consumer debt over the last few years - that makes the economy quite vulnerable potentially if interest rates ever do have to go up in a significant way." SNP leader Alex Salmond said his party would introduce a £2,000 grant for first time buyers, reduce corporation tax and introduce a citizens pension free from means testing. Plaid Cymru's economics spokesman Adam Price said he wanted help to get people on the housing ladder and an increase in the minimum wage to £5.60 an hour.

Army chiefs in regiments decision Military chiefs are expected to meet to make a final decision on the future of Scotland's Army regiments. A committee of the Army Board, which is made up of the most senior defence figures, will discuss plans for restructuring regiments on Monday. The proposals include cutting Scotland's six single-battalion regiments to five and merging these into a super regiment. The plans have faced stiff opposition from campaigners and politicians alike. The committee's decision must be ratified by Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon and Prime Minister Tony Blair. It is expected that it will be made public next week. When ministers announced a reorganisation of the Army it drew a question mark over the futures of the Black Watch, the Kings Own Scottish Borderers, the Royal Scots, the Royal Highland Fusiliers and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. In October, the Council of Scottish Colonels proposed the merger of the Royal Scots and the King's Own Scottish Borderers into a single battalion. Under their vision, it would be one of five in the new super regiment. The proposals to either merge or amalgamate the six regiments into a super regiment sparked a political outcry, with Labour backbenchers and opposition politicians opposing the plan. They felt the timing was insensitive because the Black Watch was in the frontline in Iraq, suffering casualties. The Save the Scottish Regiments campaigners were so angered they threatened to stand against Labour at the next general election. Speaking ahead of the expected Army Board meeting, a spokesman said: "The government and the Army Board have spent the past four months attempting to trick serving soldiers and the public into thinking their planned changes for the Scottish regiments are for the good of the Army and for that of the serving soldier. "They are very much not for the good and will destroy Scotland's regiments by moulding them into a single super regiment which will lead to severe recruitment problems, a loss of local connections to those regiments and a loss to Scotland of an important part of her heritage and, most importantly, her future - the regiments are the envy of armies around the world." An alternative blueprint had been put forward by Labour MP Eric Joyce, who proposed going ahead with the merger while preserving the other regiments. For a brief time, there was speculation the prime minister might consider the plan, but that now seems unlikely. Speaking in Scotland last week, Mr Blair said the aim was to preserve tradition but introduce a more effective structure and hinted that a super regiment was likely. He said: "They don't want to get rid of the history or the traditions of the regiment or the local connections - far from it, all they want to do is make sure they can transfer people easily across regiments and deploy them more flexibly." The prime minister said he hoped campaigners' concerns would be taken into account but the need for effective change had to be paramount.

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

Observers to monitor UK election Ministers will invite international observers to check the forthcoming UK general election is fairly run. The move comes amid claims the poll could be marred by electoral fraud. A report by two MPs committees called on Thursday for urgent changes to the electoral registration system to combat vote rigging and boost turnout. But in a written response to Labour MP Gordon Prentice, the government said it would normally invite observers to any UK election. Junior constitutional affairs minister Christopher Leslie said: "I fully expect us to repeat our previous practice of doing so once the date for the next general election is announced." The government has looked at ways of boosting voter turnout, which fell to 59% in the last general election in 2001. But trial all-postal ballots in four English regions last summer were hit by delays and some fraud allegations. Liberal Democrat peer Lord Greaves called last week for international observers at the general election - saying otherwise there could be months of court challenges "on a scale not seen since the 19th Century". Thursday's report was drawn up by two committees scrutinising the work of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) and the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA). It said that, with the growth of postal voting, there was a strong case to tighten up fraud protection by requiring voters to register individually, rather than by household. It also said about three million people eligible to vote are not registered to do so. Figures for the 2001 general election suggest 29% of people aged between 18 and 24, and 19% of black voters were not on the electoral roll. Young people in shared accommodation are thought to miss out because no one acts as head of the household to fill in the form. ODPM committee chairman Andrew Bennett said individual voter registration, as opposed to registration by household, should be quickly introduced as it could "dramatically reduce the chances of fraud". But his counterpart on the DCA committee, Alan Beith, said it should be delayed "until measures likely to increase registration have been put in place and proved effective." Shadow Constitutional Affairs Secretary Oliver Heald accused the government of "dragging its feet" over "this badly needed measure". "It is vital that we move ahead with the Northern Ireland system of individual electoral registration to safeguard the integrity of the Britain's electoral system," he said. The report said individual registration should be treated carefully as 12% of voters disappeared from the electoral roll in Northern Ireland when it was introduced in 2002. The report said the government should consider fines for unregistered voters, but accepted many experts said it would be an expensive system that would be hard to enforce. It said incentives to register, such as £20 council tax rebate, were likely to be seen as "gimmicks" and risked undermining the integrity of the system, MPs said. Instead they called for "imaginative campaigns" to boost interest.

Kilroy names election seat target Ex-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk is to contest the Derbyshire seat of Erewash at the next general election. Labour's Elizabeth Blackman won the seat in 1997 and has a 6,932 majority. She says she will fight on her record "as a hard-working constituency MP". Mr Kilroy-Silk announced his plans a day after launching his new party, Veritas, the Latin for truth. The East Midlands MEP, who quit the UK Independence Party, wants his new group to "change the face" of UK politics. His choice of election constituency quashes speculation that he would stand against Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon in Ashfield, Nottinghamshire. UKIP won 31% of the vote in Erewash in last June's European elections - with Mr Kilroy-Silk among their candidates for the region. Until 1997, Erewash had been held by the Tories since 1970. Ms Blackman said she was proud of the government's achievements in the area. She declined to give her view of Mr Kilroy-Silk at this point. On Thursday, he told a London news conference that Veritas would avoid the old parties' "lies and spin". He said "our country" was being "stolen from us" by mass immigration and promised a "firm but fair" policy on immigration. Veritas says it hopes to contest most seats at the forthcoming general election but plans to announce detailed policies on crime, tax, pensions, health and defence over the next few weeks. UKIP leader Roger Knapman says he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk. Labour campaign spokesman Fraser Kemp said Veritas was joining "an already crowded field on the right of British politics". Mr Kilroy-Silk 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. UKIP's 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.

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

Research fears over Kelly's views Scientists 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.

Chancellor rallies Labour voters Gordon Brown has issued a rallying cry, telling supporters the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the forthcoming general election. The chancellor said the vote - expected to fall on 5 May - will give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Conservative cuts. Speaking at Labour's spring conference in Gateshead, Mr Brown claimed the NHS was not safe in Conservative hands. He said Tory plans to cut £35bn tax would "cut deep into public service". To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, the chancellor said the cuts proposed by shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country, he told activists. Laying into the Conservative's record in government he said: "I give you this promise - with Labour, Britain will never return to the mistakes of ERM and 10% inflation, 15% interest rates, £3bn in lost reserves, 250,000 repossessed, one million in negative equity and three million unemployed. "Never again Tory boom and bust. "This will be the central dividing line at the election, between a Conservative Party taking Britain back and planning deep cuts of £35bn in our services, and a Labour government taking Britain forward, which on a platform of stability will reform and renew our hospitals, schools and public services and, I am proud to say, spend by 2008 £60bn more." Turning to the economy, the chancellor pledged to continue economic stability and growth in a third term in power. He said after seven years Labour had transformed from a party not trusted with the economy to "the only party trusted with the economy". It was now a "party not just of employees, but of employers and managers", he said. In the speech - which prompted a standing ovation from an audience clearly "warm" to Mr Brown - he also promised to end teenage unemployment within the next five years. He also highlighted plans for 100% debt relief for the world's poorest countries, a national minimum wage for 16 and 17-year-olds and the creation of a network of children's centres and flexibility in maternity leave. The prime minister is to take part later on Saturday in an interactive question and answer session, fielding queries sent in by e-mail, text message and telephone as part of Labour's attempt to engage the public in their campaign.

Fox attacks Blair's Tory 'lies' Tony Blair lied when he took the UK to war so has no qualms about lying in the election campaign, say the Tories. Tory co-chairman Liam Fox was speaking after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda". Dr Fox 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." He would not discuss reports the party repaid £500,000 to Lord Ashcroft after he predicted an election defeat. The prime minister ratcheted up Labour's pre-election campaigning at the weekend with a helicopter tour of the country and his speech at the party's spring conference. He insisted he did not know the poll date, but it is widely expected to be 5 May. In what was seen as a highly personal speech in Gateshead on Sunday, Mr Blair said: "I have the same passion and hunger as when I first walked through the door of 10 Downing Street." He described his relationship with the public as starting euphoric, then struggling to live up to the expectations, and reaching the point of raised voices and "throwing crockery". He warned his supporters against complacency, saying: "It's a fight for the future of our country, it's a fight that for Britain and the people of Britain we have to win." Mr Blair said that whether the public chose Michael Howard or Mr Kennedy, it would result in "a Tory government not a Labour government and a country that goes back and does not move forward". Dr Fox accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about their opponents' policies and then attacking the lies. "What we learned at the weekend is what Labour tactics are going to be and it's going to be fear and smear," he told BBC News. The Tory co-chairman attacked Labour's six new pledges as "vacuous" and said Mr Blair was very worried voters would take revenge for his failure to deliver. Dr Fox refused to discuss weekend newspaper reports that the party had repaid £500,000 to former Tory Treasurer Lord Ashcroft after he said the party could not win the election. "We repay loans when they are due but do not comment to individual financial matters," he said, insisting he enjoyed a "warm and constructive" relationship to Lord Ashcroft. Meanwhile Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is expected to attack Mr Blair's words as he begins a nationwide tour on Monday. Mr Kennedy is accelerating Lib Dem election preparations this week as he visits Manchester, Liverpool, Leicester, Somerset, Basingstoke, Shrewsbury, Dorset and Torbay. He said: "This is three-party politics. In the northern cities, the contest is between Labour and the Liberal Democrats. "In southern and rural seats - especially in the South West - the principal contenders are the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, who are out of the running in Scotland and Wales." The Lib Dems accuse Mr Blair of making a "touchy-feely" speech to Labour delegates which will not help him regain public trust.

Tories unveil quango blitz plans Plans to abolish 162 quangos have been unveiled by the Conservatives as part of their effort to show how government red tape can be cut. Six government units would also be scrapped under proposals which the Tories say would save more than £4.3bn. Among the targets are strategic health authorities and the new fair access regulator for universities. Tory frontbencher John Redwood said Britain needed a slimmer government and lower taxes to be competitive. The plans would abolish regional assemblies and other regional bodies, such as boards tackling industrial development and housing. Their powers would be returned to elected local councils or national government. The Tories say the strategic health authorities are not needed as it is better that local people, rather than officials, run hospitals and surgeries. Announcing the plans, Mr Redwood said: "Mr Blair has forgotten the interests of taxpayers, and has broken the pledges he made. "Far from improving public services, spending taxpayers' money on quangos has led only to more bureaucrats, more regulation and higher taxes." His party leader, Michael Howard, argued a change in direction was needed to get a grip on spending. "Labour are creating Two Britains: the Britain of the forgotten majority and bureaucratic Britain," he said. "In the real world, people are working harder just to stand still. They've seen their pensions knocked for six. "They're being squeezed by extra taxes. The forgotten majority are paying the price of bureaucratic Britain." The government has announced plans to cut 100,000 civil servants as part of its efficiency drive. But Chief Secretary to the Treasury Paul Boateng attacked the Tory plans. "The Conservatives are committed to cutting Labour's public spending plans by a massive £35 billion," he said. "Cuts on this scale cannot be found from cutting 'bureaucracy' but would require massive cuts to front-line public services such as schools, hospitals and the police." The Liberal Democrats have said they would cut the number of Whitehall departments to make sure money reaches frontline services.

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

Howard rejects BNP's claim Tory leader Michael Howard has dismissed claims that his immigration policy was "moving onto the turf" of the British National Party (BNP). BNP leader Nick Griffin told the Independent he expected some BNP voters to switch to the Tories over the issue. But Mr Howard said he rejected the idea that the Tories and BNP appealed to the same voting instincts. Asked if he would welcome BNP voters he told the BBC: "I don't want anybody to vote for these extremist parties". He added, on BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "If you want good community relations in this country...then you have to have firm, fair immigration controls." The Tories have promised an upper limit on the number of people allowed into Britain with the slogan: "It's not racist to impose limits on immigration". All parties are stepping up campaiging in the run-up to the general election, widely expected to be called for 5 May. Labour has unveiled its own "points system" for ensuring migrants who want to work in the UK have skills that are required, but have rejected immigration quotas. The Liberal Democrats have warned both parties against "pandering to prejudice". Mr Griffin told the Independent the Tories' plans were "a definite move onto our turf". He said: "I quite freely accept that on a nationwide basis, the Tories will con enough people to make a significant hole in our vote." Asked whether he was comfortable with the perception that the Conservatives and the BNP appeal to the same voting instincts, Mr Howard told the BBC: "I reject that entirely". He said he found BNP's policies "abhorrent" but he said the UK had to take a different approach to immigration, which he said was out of control. "The government doesn't want to limit it in any way, we do, there's a legitimate difference between us there which we can discuss in a calm, rational and reasonable way," he said. He again rejected newspaper speculation that his own father entered Britain illegally.

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

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

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

Brown targets OAPs and homebuyers Gordon Brown has doubled the level at which house buyers pay stamp duty to £120,000 as he put the economy at the heart of Labour's election campaign. The chancellor also unveiled a one-off £200 council tax refund for pensioners and a rise in child tax credit. Mr Brown put 1p a pint on beer, 4p on a bottle of wine and 7p on 20 cigarettes but froze petrol duty until September. The Tories called it a "vote now, pay later" Budget. The Lib Dems branded it a "sticking plaster" for the election. Tory leader Michael Howard predicted the Budget would do nothing to help Labour's "faltering" election campaign. "This government and this chancellor have run out of solutions to the problems Britain faces," Mr Howard told MPs. "Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later." He ended his response with an election challenge to Labour, saying "bring it on". Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy attacked Mr Brown for failing to mention the environment and for his record on social justice. "How can it be right in Britain today that the poorest 20% pay more in tax, as a proportion of their income, than the richest 20%?" he asked. Mr Kennedy criticised Mr Brown for failing to mention the "ticking bomb" of council tax revaluation, saying it was "high time" the system was replaced by a "local tax based on the ability to pay". During his 49 minute speech Mr Brown told MPs he had defied the pundits by hitting his growth target of 3.1% for 2004. He said his Budget struck a balance "between tax cuts that are affordable, investments that are essential and stability that is paramount". He rejected across-the-board tax cuts in favour of targeted help for families. The child tax credit will rise in line with earnings, giving families an extra £5 a week. In contrast, the personal income tax allowance will rise only in line with inflation from £4,745 to £4,895 next month. Mr Brown told MPs child benefit would rise to a maximum of £63 a week for the first child and £111 for two children. Despite his giveaways, Budget documents show Mr Brown clawed back £265m through a clampdown on tax avoidance and increased revenue from a windfall tax on oil companies. He also scrapped stamp duty relief for commercial property in disadvantaged areas - a measure brought in just over three years ago. BBC political editor Andrew Marr suggested the sweeteners were not big enough to have a transforming effect on voters. But trust in Mr Brown's economic stewardship would be a central election issue, he said. Mr Brown also unveiled plans for a memorial to the Queen Mother, funded through a special coin to celebrate the Queen's 80th birthday. Other measures include equal tax status for same-sex couples and a deal with the Council of Mortgage Lenders to boost low cost home ownership. The level where people start paying inheritance tax will also rise from £263,000 to £275,000 from April. Mr Brown said he had met his financial "golden rule" with a £6bn surplus and he said public borrowing would continue to fall over the next five years. The economy had grown for 50 consecutive quarters, he said, and was forecast to continue doing so over the next year, with a forecast of 3% to 3.5% in 2005 and 2.5% to 3% in 2006. The first £2bn of value-for-money savings identified in the Gershon Review have been achieved, the chancellor said. Some 12,500 civil servant posts have been axed, and 7,800 relocated out of the south east of England, he added. SNP leader Alex Salmond said Mr Brown had failed the "tartan test" as there were no measures to boost the Scottish economy. Simon Thomas, of Plaid Cymru, called it a budget for Middle England. UK Independence Party leader Roger Knapman attacked the plans for pensioners saying they needed "more money and the dignity of being allowed to spend it how they want," not "free bus rides". The Green Party said the Budget was a "wasted opportunity" for environmental protection, adding: "Brown obviously has an eye on the coming election, and has taken his eye off the needs of the planet."

Ministers deny care sums 'wrong' Ministers have insisted they are committed to free personal care for the elderly despite research suggesting the cost of the policy was under-estimated. A report by the Fraser of Allander Institute says the decision to push ahead with the flagship policy was based on flawed research. Deputy Health Minister Rhona Brankin has pledged to study the research. SNP Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon said the public needed reassurance that the care programme was secure. The rise in costs stems from a series of mistakes in the research used by the "care development group" of Scottish Executive experts who prepared the original costings, according to findings published in the Quarterly Economic Commentary of Strathclyde University's Fraser of Allander Institute. "Dubious" assumptions about improving health expectancy could drive the cost of the policy up by another £130m by 2022, the report warned. It was carried out by husband and wife economist team Jim and Margaret Cuthbert. But Ms Brankin told BBC Radio Scotland: "We don't think we got our sums wrong. "Obviously we will examine the findings of this new report, along with figures from our own research that we have already commissioned. "We will look in great detail at any contribution to this, because we need to be sure we can provide free personal care and nursing care for our older people into the future. "And we are absolutely committed to doing that." But the Scottish National Party called on ministers to reassure people that enough funding is in place to support the free personal care policy. Ms Sturgeon said that while she had no reason to doubt the executive's support for the policy, there were questions which needed to be answered and, if necessary, sums redone. She said: "Serious concerns have been raised and there are questions which need to be answered by the Scottish Executive. "We need to know that the money is there, not just for this year or next year, but into the future so that older people, and those who are looking forward to older age, can rest assured that their personal care needs will be met."

Straw praises Kashmir moves The UK has welcomed the decision by India and Pakistan to open a bus link across the ceasefire line dividing the disputed region of Kashmir. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, touring South East Asian countries, praised the "spirit of cooperation" in achieving the breakthrough. Media reports in both countries describe the deal as a major step in the ongoing peace process. Mr Straw said he hoped the agreement would make a difference to Kashmiris. The bus service was one of several announcements made after a meeting of foreign ministers of both countries in Islamabad on Wednesday. Kashmiri politicians on both sides of the Line of Control which divides the region welcomed the move. In a statement, Mr Straw said the bus service between Srinagar and Muzaffarabad "will be able to reunite families that have been divided for decades". "This will make a real difference to the lives of Kashmiris on both sides of the Line of Control," he said. "I warmly applaud the efforts of both India and Pakistan to make this happen. "This spirit of cooperation will, I hope, lead to many more measures that will benefit all in the region." On Thursday Mr Straw was in India visiting Sikhism's holiest shrine, the Golden Temple in Amritsar where he tried his hand at making Indian bread or roti. He is due to take part in talks with the Indian government on Friday. A second bus service linking the Pakistani city of Lahore with Amritsar in India was also announced as well as a rail link between Rajasthan state and Pakistan's Sindh province. Both sides agreed to begin talks on reducing the risk of nuclear accidents and also said they planned to reopen their respective consulates in Karachi and Mumbai (Bombay). The mountainous region of Kashmir has been a flashpoint between the two nuclear powers for more than 50 years.

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.

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

Escaped prisoner report ordered First 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 .

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. I was prime 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."

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

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.

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

Whitehall cuts 'ahead of target' Thousands of civil service jobs have already been cut or moved out of London as part of a major cost-cutting drive. Chancellor Gordon Brown said 12,500 jobs had gone while 7,800 were being moved out of the South East. He plans to axe 104,000 jobs to free up money for education, health, defence, housing and overseas aid. Unions oppose the plans but Mr Brown said £2bn savings had already been made and more jobs had been cut than had been expected at this stage. A further 200 jobs at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have been earmarked to be cut. At the Department for Work and Pensions, 30,000 jobs are to go, 560 will be lost by the end of the month at the Department of Trade and Industry and 400 are to go at the Inland Revenue and Customs. In his Budget statement, the chancellor said the first 12,500 civil service jobs had been cut, on target. About 4,300 civil servants will leave London and the South East by the end of March 2005 and there are plans to relocate another 3,500. Of those 300 Department of Health posts will go to Yorkshire while hundreds at the Department of Culture will move to Birmingham and Newcastle. Mr Brown also announced plans to merge 35 agencies into nine - described by one civil service union as a "bonfire of the quangos". Mark Serwotka, the leader of the Public and Commercial Services Union said: "In last year's budget we had the day of the long knifes as the chancellor kicked off the crude game of who could cut the most civil service jobs between the government and the Tories. "There was a time when the only worry thousands of hard working civil and public servants had on budget day was whether petrol or taxes would go up, nowadays the worry is whether they will have a job by the end of it." He said Mr Brown had made welcome announcements on closing tax loopholes and extending the New Deal, while cutting "the very people who deliver them." The Treasury also announced plans to reduce the number of public sector workers on sick leave with a new system of checks and tougher measures against those suspected of abusing the system.

Lib Dems demand new inquiry A 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.

Ban on hunting comes into force Fox 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.

MPs quiz aides over royal income Senior 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.

Mayor will not retract Nazi jibe London mayor Ken Livingstone has again refused to retract a Nazi insult made to a Jewish reporter. Labour's Mr Livingstone, who says he is "standing by" his remarks, had accused an Evening Standard journalist of being like a "concentration camp guard". At his weekly press conference on Tuesday he said his comments were not racist and refused to apologise. He said to media representatives: "If you think they are racist, I think you are wrong." The mayor said his comments would not affect the 2012 Olympic bid and added that his determination to stand up for what he believed in may impress bid chiefs, who arrived in London on Tuesday. "I think it is important that the IOC (International Olympic Committee) members realise that when we get the games...they have a mayor who is not going to panic, change course or get in a great flap but will deliver the games on time and to budget," he said. On Tuesday, the mayor said he would be making a full written response to the chairman of the assembly. Two motions were passed by the London Assembly, which is made up of 25 members elected to examine the mayor's activities, on Monday asking him to apologise and withdraw his comments. The mayor said he had recounted to the assembly a number of "examples of intrusion by journalists" into his, and his family's private life. "I don't suggest for one minute that has anything to do with the Holocaust which was uniquely the most evil chapter in history. "But when reporters say to me I'm only doing this because it's my job... that's the same abdication of moral responsibility at the thin end of the wedge that in its most extreme and horrific version ends up with others being prepared to stand as a concentration camp guard. "We are responsible for our own choices in this life, I always have been and so have reporters." An official complaint has been made to local government watchdogs by the Board of Deputies of British Jews, demanding an investigation by the Standards Board of England. It has the power to suspended or bar him from office but Mr Livingstone said: "There must have been 20 instances like this over the last 24 years. "I have never in response to any of that modified a policy I believed to be right or modified a position I believed to be right and I don't intend to now. "Because if I do that effectively you hand power over your policies and position to the editors of papers." On tape Mr Livingstone, who once worked as a freelance restaurant critic on the paper, is heard asking reporter Oliver Finegold if he is a "German war criminal". Mr Finegold replies: "No, I'm Jewish, I wasn't a German war criminal. I'm quite offended by that." The mayor then says: "Ah right, well you might be, but actually you are just like a concentration camp guard, you are just doing it because you are paid to, aren't you?"

Lib Dems 'to target stamp duty' The Liberal Democrats are promising to raise the stamp duty threshold if they win the general election, in a bid to court first-time house buyers. Vince Cable, the party's Treasury spokesman, said raising the threshold to £150,000 would prevent over 400,000 home-buyers from paying the tax. He said first-time buyers were being "squeezed out" of the housing market. The Labour party said the Liberal Democrats needed to explain how they would pay for the plan. The plan forms part of a wider Lib Dems policy to encourage first time buyers and those on lower incomes into the market. Under the proposals, the average saving for a new buyer would be more than £1,000, according to Mr Cable. "First time buyers are being squeezed out of the housing market not only by higher house prices but also by being swept into the stamp duty net," he said. "By failing to uprate the stamp duty threshold Gordon Brown has hit first time buyers and those on low incomes the hardest. "By pledging to increase the threshold to £150,000, the Liberal Democrats will make it possible for many first time buyers to buy a property without facing this tax." Paul Boateng MP, Labour's Chief Secretary to the Treasury, said: "The Lib Dems' sums don't add up. "They can have no credibility until they can say how they would fund their ever growing list of tax and spending commitments." Mr Cable will publish his "Alternative Budget" on Monday.

Mallon wades into NE vote battle Middlesbrough 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.

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

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.

Final hunts held as ban looms Hunts 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.

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

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

England children's tsar appointed The first children's commissioner for England has been appointed. Great Ormond Street Hospital professor of child health, Al Aynsley-Green, was chosen by the government and will start the £100,000-a-year job immediately. He will oversee a £2.5m annual budget and have the power to look into "any matter relating to the interests and well-being of children". Prof Aynsley-Green has also been the national clinical director for children in the Department of Health. He promised to make sure that children's opinions "count". "I will be drawing on my experience of working with children and young people to help ensure that those with the power to improve children's lives do live up to their responsibilities. "I want all children and young people to know that they can approach me to discuss any matter that affects them, knowing that I will value their opinion." Education Secretary Ruth Kelly said Prof Aynsley-Green would "strengthen the voice of children and young people". Prof Aynsley-Green was a lecturer at Oxford University, trained at Guy's Hospital Medical School, University of London; Oriel College, Oxford; and in Switzerland. He is described as "a proud grandfather" of four. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already have children's commissioners.

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%.

Tory leader 'cleared' over work Scottish Conservative Party leader David McLetchie claims he has been cleared over a potential conflict of interest. The Edinburgh MSP earns up to £30,000 a year from the law firm Tods Murray, where he is a partner. Mr McLetchie said he has taken advice from Holyrood officials about what details he needs to declare. He was advised to exercise judgement to avoid the perception of a conflict and said he had done nothing wrong. As an MSP, Mr McLetchie signed a parliamentary motion questioning expansion plans for Edinburgh Airport. It then emerged Tods Murray has a client which opposes the development. Mr McLetchie then sought guidance from the standards committee to clarify his position. BBC Scotland's political correspondent Glenn Campbell said no complaint had been made against Mr McLetchie, but questions were raised about his dual role. Glenn said MSPs are advised to guard against a conflict of interests and a perception of a conflict. Mr McLetchie said: "I'm quite clear that no conflicts of interest arise in my case, that the judgement I took has effectively been vindicated when you look at the advice that has been given to me and that these allegations are unfounded." He said nothing had changed in respect of his work with the law firm and it was a matter he would have to discuss with the other partners at Tods Murray. "The firm and I have a very good working relationship and we have done for the last six years," said Mr McLetchie. "I don't suppose I'll be working forever as a lawyer or a politician. I deserve to retire from both, but I'm not willing to put time limits on them."

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.

New drink limit 'would cut toll' More lives than previously thought could be saved by cutting drink-drive limits by a third, a report says. University College London research claims cutting the limit from 80mg of alcohol per 100ml of blood to 50mg would save 65 lives a year. The findings are being published by the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety as MPs are due to vote on the government's Road Safety Bill. The bill includes changes to speeding fines but not to the drink-drive limit. The research, carried out by transport expert professor Richard Allsop, says cutting the limit would also lead to 230 fewer serious injuries on the UK's roads compared with 2003. He estimates that this would save the country £119m a year. A previous estimate, contained in a 1998 Department of Transport Document, suggested such a move could save 50 lives a year. The findings are based on the assumption that drivers who currently keep below the legal limit would continue to do so were it to be lowered and that those who tend to exceed the limit slightly would also lower their drinking. Professor Allsop said: "Reducing the limit from 80mg to 50mg can be expected to save around 65 lives a year or around half of those who die in accidents where the driver's BAC [blood alcohol content] is within 30mg of the current limit. "Only about one in 50 of those driving during weekend evenings and nights will need to moderate their drinking to achieve this and fewer still at other times." Ministers do not support a lower limit, saying it is not clear it would have a major impact on drink drive casualties. They believe educating drivers is more important. The AA Motoring Trust said it was not sure what affect dropping the limit would have on drivers' attitudes to drink-driving. Road safety head Andrew Howard said: "It remains to be seen whether the social disapproval of the drinking driver will stay at the current rate if the alcohol limit is cut. "Parliamentarians need to consider this carefully. Britons police themselves by consensus much more effectively than they do by weight of enforcement alone." Liberal Democrat transport spokesman John Thurso said drink-driving remained a "major killer", with figures showing a worrying rise in the number of accidents involving drivers who had been drinking. He said there had been a 29% drop in the number of drivers being breathalysed since 1997, which he said the government needed to address if it wanted to reduce the danger caused by drink-driving. The Road Safety Bill, which gets its second reading on Tuesday, would allow the results of roadside breath tests to be used in court - currently a blood test is needed. It also includes plans for a staggered speeding fines and points system, penalising drivers who exceed limits by a wide margin more than those who are caught going just over. These have been criticised by road safety campaigners, including Labour backbencher Gwyneth Dunwoody, who says it will reduce the incentive for drivers to stay within the limits in residential areas, leading to more road casualties. In an article for the Times newspaper, Ms Dunwoody, who chairs the Transport Select Committee, says: "Slight increases to low car speeds increase hugely the risks to pedestrians and cyclists. "It is quite simple: if you hit someone at 30mph, they have a 50 per cent chance of survival. If you are going at 40mph, nine times out of ten they will die."

Labour MP praises Tory campaign The 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."

Lords wrong on detainees - Straw Jack 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.

Baron Kinnock makes Lords debut Former Labour leader Neil Kinnock has officially been made a life peer during a ceremony in the House of Lords. He will be known Baron Kinnock of Bedwellty - after his former constituency. Lord Kinnock - who led Labour from 1983 until 1992 - was until recently one of Britain's EU commissioners. A former critic of the House of Lords, he has said he will use the Upper House to advocate its reform and to talk on issues like higher education. "I accepted the kind invitation to enter the House of Lords as a working peer for practical political reasons," he said when his peerage was first announced. "It is a good base for campaigning on national issues like education, sustainable transport, industrial change and the ageing society and global concerns, particularly poverty and oppression." During his induction into the Upper House, Lord Kinnock was accompanied by Lords Leader Baroness Amos and Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, a former aide to the ex-Labour leader. It has been a long journey for the new Lord Kinnock from his earliest days as a rebellious youngster in the south Wales valleys. Born in 1942 in Tredegar to a miner father and nurse mother, he attended Lewis Boys' School in nearby Pengam, known then as the "Eton of the valleys". From there he went to Cardiff University, where he met his future wife Glenys, now a Labour MEP. After a brief career as a tutor for the Workers' Educational Association, he became an MP at the age of just 28 for his home seat of Bedwellty (later Islwyn). He gained a reputation as a left-wing firebrand, voting against his own Labour government's spending cuts proposals in 1975, and later rejecting a junior post in James Callaghan's administration. But he joined the shadow cabinet in 1980, and after Labour's heavy defeat in the 1983 he was elected leader. He took on the far-left Militant Tendency and began the long process of returning his party to the centre ground. He was not expected to win the 1987 election, when Margaret Thatcher was still riding high, but was bitterly disappointed to lose the next one in 1992 to John Major, and stepped down. He remained an MP until 1995, when he resigned to become European commission for transport. Four years later he became vice-president of the European Commission, with responsibility for internal reform. As he assumes the title of Lord Kinnock, he has also become chairman of the British Council, which promotes the UK's reputation for arts, science and education.

Drive to 'save' festive holidays Efforts are being made to 'protect' workers' days off on Christmas Day and New Year's Day. Support is being sought for a bill which would ensure that large retailers in Scotland remain closed on Christmas Day and 1 January. The Usdaw trade union said shop workers should be able to enjoy a break with their families. MSP Karen Whitefield wants to ensure only those whose roles are essential are at work over the festive season. In recent years, more stores have been opening on traditional holidays, with some starting their end-of-year sale on Christmas Day or New Year's Day. Ms Whitefield said: "I have found members of the public to be very supportive when I have been campaigning on the streets. "The early evidence shows quite clearly that the vast majority of people believe that shop workers should be given these two special days to spend with friends and family." Usdaw general secretary John Hannett added: "Christmas Day and New Year's Day are special days for everyone in Scotland and the fact that shops do not open is an important part of making them special. They are largely collective days of rest. "We want people to tell Karen, through her consultation, whether they want the special nature of these days to remain, or whether they want them to become like any other trading day, with shops open for business as usual." The consultation on a Christmas & New Year's Day Trading Bill has so far attracted almost 500 responses and closes on 7 February.

How political squabbles snowball It'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.

Muslim police stops 'more likely' UK Muslims should accept that people of Islamic appearance are more likely to be stopped and searched by police, a Home Office minister has said. Hazel Blears said innocent Muslims would be targeted because of the search for Islamic extremists. Qualifications for religious leaders to enter the UK could also be made tougher, she told a Commons inquiry. Her comments have been described as "irresponsible" and "outrageous" by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC). "The threat is most likely to come from those people associated with an extreme form of Islam, or who are falsely hiding behind Islam," the Salford MP told the Commons home affairs committee. "It means that some of our counter-terrorism powers will be disproportionately experienced by the Muslim community." It was a reality that should be recognised, she said. "If a threat is from a particular place then our action is going to be targeted at that area," she added. On ministers of religions, such as imams, she said faith groups would be asked what other qualifications and skills, such as civic knowledge and ability to engage the community, should be demanded. Last year, ministers introduced a requirement that ministers should speak English to a certain level. IHRC chairman Massoud Shadjareh accused Ms Blears of "playing an Islamophobia card" in the run-up to a general election. "She is demonising and alienating our community," he said. "It is a legitimisation for a backlash and for racists to have an onslaught on our community. "This sort of comment is just music to the ears of racists." Later, the prime minister's official spokesman urged people to put Ms Blears' comments into context. The minister had been saying she understood there was a perception that stop and search was aimed at one community, but that was not what was happening, the spokesman said. "What is happening is that those powers are aimed at those who are suspected of carrying out or planning certain activity who happen to come from one community. "It is not aimed at a particular community, it is not police policy to aim these powers at a particular community," he added. Statistics showed that of the 17 people found guilty of terrorist acts in the UK since the 11 September attacks, only four of the 12 whose ethnic backgrounds were known were Muslim, he added Figures published last week showed that people from ethnic minorities were increasingly likely to be targeted by police stop and search tactics. Figures showed that, for 2003/2004, Asians were 1.9 times more likely to be stopped and searched, compared with 1.7 times more likely in the previous year. Separate figures on police searches in England and Wales carried out under the Terrorism Act 2000 showed that ethnic minorities were more likely to be targeted. Muslim groups have repeatedly claimed that their communities are being victimised under terror laws. In 2003/2004, 12.5% searches under the laws were on Asian people, even though they make up 4.7% of the population. Last July, the police were accused of Islamophobia by Muslim groups after stop and search figures showed the numbers of Asians targeted had risen by 300% since the introduction of anti-terror laws.

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

Brown in appeal for Labour unity Gordon Brown has made an appeal for unity after reports claimed Mr Blair went back on a pledge to stand down before the next general election. The chancellor would not comment on the reports, but insisted he would not be "diverted or distracted" from tackling the challenges faced by the country. His only "motivation" was to ensure Labour was re-elected, he insisted. Mr Blair earlier dismissed the claim he had reneged on a promise to stand aside for Gordon Brown as old news. According to a new book, Brown's Britain by Sunday Telegraph journalist Robert Peston, Mr Blair went back on a pledge to make way for Mr Brown after Cabinet allies intervened in June 2004. In an interview with BBC One's Breakfast with Frost, Mr Blair said: "I've dealt with this six months ago. I said then you don't do deals over jobs like this - you don't. "What both of us are actually concentrating on are the issues that concern the country." In a separate interview with BBC political editor Andrew Marr, Mr Brown said: "It's very important that we all do what we can in a unified way to ensure the election of a Labour government. "I think it is very important to stress that that is the motivation that I have. "That is my purpose in politics, and that is what every day I seek to do. And I am not going to be diverted or distracted, nor is Tony Blair, by newspaper stories or books or rumours or gossip. "The only reason why we are in government is to get on with the job in a unified way to deal with the challenges facing this country." Mr Brown also said he had discussed the general election campaign with the prime minister on Saturday and pledged to play his part as he had been asked to do. But Mr Peston said the pair had "mutual animosity and contempt" for each other and that Mr Blair had decided in November 2003 he would quit because he felt he had lost voters' trust because of the Iraq war. He then changed his mind in June 2004, following intervention from allies in the Cabinet and the suspicion that the chancellor was deliberately manoeuvring against him, according to the book. Andrew Marr said: "This is enormously damaging. Gordon Brown knows it as well as Tony Blair. "I think the relationship is genuinely, privately, very poor indeed. Things are very difficult." He added: "Lots of ministers believe Tony Blair will attempt to move Gordon Brown out of the Treasury after the election. "That depends on whether there's still a Labour government and their majority." Senior MPs are expected to raise concerns about the latest reports of infighting at the regular meeting of Labour backbenchers on Monday. Health Secretary John Reid said those fuelling such reports were damaging Labour's re-election chances and would not be easily forgiven. Fresh speculation of a rift recently followed Mr Blair and Mr Brown's separate responses to the Asian tsunami. These rumours were fuelled by Mr Blair's decision to hold his monthly media conference at the same time as a long-planned speech by Mr Brown on UK plans to tackle global poverty with a new "Marshall Plan" for Africa. There was speculation the pair were trying to outdo each other's response to the disaster. But the prime minister said he had discussed these claims with the chancellor and dismissed them as a "load of nonsense". Tory leader Michael Howard accused the prime minister and Mr Brown of"squabbling like schoolboys". Liberal Democrat parliamentary chairman Matthew Taylor said the personal ambition of Mr Blair and Mr Brown was "getting in the way of good government".

Police probe BNP mosque leaflet Police are investigating a British National Party leaflet posted to homes in south Wales opposing plans for a new mosque. Anti-racism campaigners in Swansea have handed copies to South Wales Police. Swansea's Muslim community is raising money to open a new mosque and community centre in the former St Andrews United Reform Church. The building on George Street has been derelict since the 1980s. Taha Idris, director of the Swansea Bay Race Equality Council, said his organisation contacted police after receiving complaints from the public. "I'm quite shocked to see this sort of leaflet by the BNP in Swansea," he said. "The BNP has tried in the past to get into Swansea and this is another example of them trying again. "I am in no doubt that the BNP are not needed and not wanted here." A South Wales Police spokeswoman confirmed that they were looking at the contents of the leaflet. According to the BNP's website, they have been posted to homes in the Castle ward. The BNP website carries a photograph of party leader Nick Griffin - who lives near Welshpool, mid Wales - delivering the leaflet. The BNP has denied it is trying to stir up hatred of any race or religion, but argues that they should be able to debate this without fear of arrest. Swansea Unite Against Fascism (UAF) is meeting this week to plan a campaign. Following the death earlier this year of Kalan Kawa Karim, an Iraqi Kurd living in Swansea, it organised an anti-racism march in the city that was supported by more than 1,000 people. It is planning its own mail shot campaign and may launch a petition in support of the plans for the mosque. Andy Richards, of Swansea UAF, said the leaflet was exactly what he had come to expect from the BNP. "The people of Swansea will not put up with this." Swansea's Muslim community bought the former church, just across the road from the existing mosque on St Helen's Road, in the late 1990s. Mr Idris said the community was now raising money to renovate the building. "It is a landmark building in Swansea and would otherwise just crumble," he said. "It is the ideal opportunity for the building to be restored and used in the proper manner. "It will be a Muslim community centre. It's a holistic place used for education, weddings, deaths and births." He said space was limited in the current mosque and on some occasions Muslims had to travel to Llanelli for cultural events.

Protect whistleblowers, TUC says The government should change the law to give more protection to employees who raise health and safety concerns about their workplaces, the TUC has said. It said data from employment tribunals suggested 1,500 "safety whistleblowers" had lost their jobs since 1999. Some firms found it cheaper to sack a worker than to improve buildings or change working conditions, it said. The Health and Safety Executive said it was trying to get workers more involved in helping to make workplaces safer. The TUC figures were drawn from unfair dismissal cases at tribunals were health and safety were the main issue. Safety representatives were often ignored when raising concerns because there was no legal duty to respond, claimed the union organisation. General secretary Brendan Barber said: "It shouldn't be a firing offence to object to unsafe work. "Workers should not be placed in the situation where they are forced to choose between risking their job or risking their personal health and safety." Mr Barber, who said the "problem is far worse than official statistics show", called for a legal system that "protects safety whistleblowers". He added that workers who are not in a union, as well as casual and migrant workers, "stand little chance of redress." Rory O' Neill, editor of union-backed Hazards magazine, which conducted the research, said: "Giving union safety reps more rights in more workplaces is the ultimate win-win. "Death and injuries at work increased last year, for the second time since the turn of the century. "It would be a fatal mistake not to take full advantage of the union safety effect." The TUC has called on the government to appoint "roving" safety reps and to increase spending on health and safety work inspections. The Health and Safety Executive had said that it had launched an initiative to make factories and offices safer, with more worker involvement.

Sport betting rules in spotlight A group of MPs and peers has called for a tightening of regulations controlling betting on sport. The Parliamentary Group on Betting and Gaming held a substantial inquiry into betting last year. It followed fears that a massive increase in betting on sport, such as that done using the internet and mobile phones, has led to more cheating. The all-party group recommended 15 ways to protect punters and improve the integrity of sports betting. They include a proposal for raising the maximum jail sentence for gambling cheats above the current two years. Lord Condon, head of the International Cricket Council's anti-corruption unit, who originally made the call for longer prison sentences, said the two-year penalty was "derisory". "You could get a bigger sentence for failing to pay your hotel bill criminally than you could for corruption in major sports. "Symbolically, a higher penalty, perhaps as the Bill passes through the two Houses, might be appropriate." The report recommended the governing bodies of sports have a say in the type of bets offered to punters, and for bookmakers to set up "audit trails" - something the new betting exchanges already do - to allow suspicious betting patterns to be traced. Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who chaired the inquiry, said: "Whilst we accept that the greater part of sports betting is neither corrupt nor unfair to punters, the evidence convinces us that the growth of betting exchanges - because of the facility they provide to bet against a result - has increased the potential for corruption. "It is important that the government works with sporting administrators to review the difficulties faced by governing bodies in convicting the guilty and penalising them appropriately." The panel's aim was to try to define what constitutes cheating, assess how much might be going on and suggest what the government might do to put it right. As well as the growth of internet and mobile phone betting, there has been the creation of betting exchanges which allow punters to fix odds between themselves. Betting exchanges allow punters to back (to win) but also lay (to lose) a horse. This means they can control their odds at winning by placing their money both ways.

Labour's Cunningham to stand down Veteran Labour MP and former Cabinet minister Jack Cunningham has said he will stand down at the next election. One of the few Blair-era ministers to serve under Jim Callaghan, he was given the agriculture portfolio when Labour regained power in 1997. Mr Cunningham went on to become Tony Blair's "cabinet enforcer". He has represented the constituency now known as Copeland since 1970. Mr Blair said he was a "huge figure" in Labour and a "valued, personal friend". During Labour's long period in opposition, Mr Cunningham held a number of shadow roles including foreign affairs, the environment and as trade spokesman. As agriculture minister he caused controversy when he decided to ban beef on the bone in the wake of fears over BSE. He quit the government in 1999 and in recent years has served as the chairman of the all-party committee on Lords reform and has been a loyal supporter of the government from the backbenches.

Blunkett tells of love and pain David Blunkett has spoken of his love for married publisher Kimberly Quinn for the first time. The home secretary described how it affected his friends and personal life, but said he was a great believer in personal responsibility. Mr Blunkett is taking legal action to gain access to Mrs Quinn's two-year-old son. She denies he is Mr Blunkett's. The interview with BBC Radio Sheffield was made before allegations he fast-tracked a visa for Mrs Quinn's nanny. The allegations, which he has denied, are being investigated by Sir Alan Budd. Mr Blunkett talked about how he fell in love - but that she resisted his desire to go public. In an apparent reference to his court action to gain access to her son, he says he was a great believer in responsibility and consequences, even when they were painful. Mr Blunkett told BBC Radio Sheffield: "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. "I haven't spoken about it and I don't intend to. Even in the biography that's being written about me I've ensured that there's as little as possible." BBC political correspondent Carole Walker said the timing of the broadcast was unlikely to help his efforts to show that he is concentrating on getting on with the job of home secretary. Shadow home secretary David Davis says Mr Blunkett should quit if he is found to have influenced the visa process even indirectly. Reports have claimed Mr Blunkett chaired a meeting to discuss delays in the visa system after he learned of nanny Leoncia Casalme's wait. The Home Office has said it would be up to Sir Alan's inquiry to decide if any such meeting was relevant. Home Office minister Fiona Mactaggart said she hoped Mr Blunkett would survive in his job. "I work with him every day and I have always been surprised by how focused he is on the job in hand, on working to deal with things," she said. She told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost programme: "He is just really down for the job and I hope he does (survive)."

Brown to outline presidency goals Next year will be "make or break" for development in poorer countries Gordon Brown will say as he sets out UK goals for its EU and G8 presidencies. The chancellor is due to outline a series of key targets the government will be judged on in 2005. They will include doubling aid from donor countries and eliminating debt owed by the poorest nations. Mr Brown also wants other G8 nations to match his target for overseas aid - spending 0.7% of national income. He also wants the richer countries to do more to help the development of vaccines for Aids and malaria. The chancellor is travelling to America next week as part of his persuasion drive over the issue. He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "We need more resources allied to progress on trade and progress on debt relief if we are going to make an impact on the problems of ill health, of illiteracy, of poverty, particularly in Africa but right through the developing countries." His proposals were effectively a new "Marshall Plan" for the world, including an international finance facility, which would issue bonds in an attempt to double global aid cash to $100bn a year. Agreement in the Doha development talks could also give developing nations the trading ability they needed, he argued. The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy had caused aggravated trade problems, he said, but there was now an agreement to end export subsidies. Mr Brown said much had been achieved on issues such as debt relief in the last seven years. But with 30,000 children were dying unnecessarily every day more was needed, including 100% debt relief multilaterally. "That is why next year is a test," he said. "If after five years of making promises the world is not prepared to honour them, then people will be justified in saying they promised but they did not produce results." The Catholic aid agency Cafod will host Mr Brown's speech on Wednesday. Cafod wants Britain to use its influence to pressure countries like the US to make firm commitments to tackle global poverty. Mr Brown said America too needed to take more action but defended President George Bush for guaranteeing resources to countries which introduced reforms to tackle corruption. Oxfam's Paying the Price report this week said 45 million children will die needlessly before 2015 and aid budgets are half their 1960 levels. The charity's director, Barbara Stocking, said: "2005 offers the chance for an historic breakthrough, but unless world leaders act now the year will end in shameful failure." The report said the G8 of top industrialised nations had agreed in 1970 to spend 0.7% of their incomes on aid. But 34 years later none of the organisations members had reached this target and many had not yet set a timetable. Mr Blair, who has described Africa as a "scar" on the world's conscience, has already said tackling world poverty would be one his G8 priorities along with climate change and the Aids epidemic. But Band Aid founder Bob Geldof in July said he was sick of hearing "guff" about scars on the world. It was pathetic that Britain was the 4th richest country in the world but only the 11th most generous aid donor, he added. Conservative shadow international development secretary Alan Duncan accused Mr Brown of missing his target on providing anti-retroviral drug treatment to three million Africans by 2005. Instead, only 500,000 people would benefit, he said. "There's no point in him demanding praise and adulation for setting a whole new raft of targets when he has so woefully failed to meet the ones he already has," added Mr Duncan.

Crucial decision on super-casinos A decision on whether to allow Westminster to legislate on super-casinos is set to be made by the Scottish Parliament. The government has plans for up to eight Las Vegas style resorts in the UK, one of which is likely to be in Glasgow. Scottish ministers insist they will still have the final say on whether a super-casino will be built in Scotland. But opposition parties say that will not happen in practice. The vote is due to be taken on Wednesday and is expected to be close. The Scottish Executive believes that the legislation should be handled by Westminster. The new law will control internet gambling for the first time and is aimed at preventing children from becoming involved. A super-casino in Glasgow could be located at Ibrox or the Scottish Exhibition and Conference Centre. The new gambling bill going through Westminster will allow casino complexes to open to the public, have live entertainment and large numbers of fruit machines with unlimited prizes. But the Scottish National Party and the Tories say the issue of super-casinos should be decided in Scotland and believe the executive is shirking its responsibility.

Blunkett sorry over murder plan David Blunkett has apologised to MPs after the Home Office announced "prematurely" via press release a review of murder laws. The home secretary confirmed the review was to get under way in the wake of a Law Commission report which branded the current murder law as "a mess". He said the review would look at partial defences to murder, including provocation and at mandatory sentences. The Home Office has already said the review will begin next year. On Wednesday, a Home Office spokeswoman said the terms of reference for the review had not been established but it was likely to include only England and Wales. News of the review was released because it was thought Mr Blunkett would make the official announcement in a Commons debate on Wednesday. But the announcement never came, with the home secretary saying the debate had never reached that stage. Amid opposition anger, Mr Blunkett had to answer an emergency question in Parliament on Thursday. He said he had taken steps to ensure the incident was not repeated. Shadow home secretary David Davis welcomed his "gracious apology" and the review itself. But he argued the minister should have volunteered a formal statement instead of having to be "dragged" to face MPs. In its report, the Law Commission said it had found wide support among criminal justice professionals for an end to the mandatory life sentence for murder. The panel suggested different kinds of murders could be "graded" to recognise the seriousness of the offence. But the Home Office said mandatory life sentences would not be abolished and argued courts already had flexibility. The commission, an independent body including two judges, a senior barrister and sentencing experts, had been asked to consider reforms to the defence of provocation in murder cases. But it said its proposals were unlikely to work without a far wider review of the law. Results of a consultation exercise showed 64 respondents out of 146 - among them 21 judges - believed a mandatory life sentence for every murder was "indefensible and should cease". A key question was whether one category should continue to cover all types of murder from mercy killings to serial or contract killings. The commission found support for the idea of grading murders so that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence. But speaking after the report was published, Home Office minister Baroness Scotland said: "Murder is the most serious of crimes and we have no intention of abolishing the mandatory life sentence. "Where an offender is convicted of murder, the court must pass a life sentence." The commission also recommended tightening the law so that the provocation defence cannot be used in cases where someone has killed for revenge, such as a jealous husband who murders an unfaithful wife.

Lib Dems' new election PR chief The 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.

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.

Muslims discuss election concerns Issues that Muslims should be considering before voting in the next general election are to be debated by UK community representatives. The event is being held by the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB), which believes Muslim voters could influence the result in up to 50 constituencies. Last year MAB, which opposed the war in Iraq, urged Muslims not to vote for Labour in the European elections. But a spokesman stressed the meeting was "not necessarily anti-Labour". "This meeting is not anti-party in particular, it's anti-policy, it's on the issues we are going to ask Muslims to vote on," MAB spokesman Dr Azzam Tamimi said of Tuesday's event. "There are issues of concern to Muslims, and Muslims generally agree on them but have not in the past been aware of how a vote can serve these issues." Dr Tamimi said the main issues Muslims should consider were what he referred to as the war on Iraq, the Palestinian situation, the erosion of civil liberties for Muslims in the UK and economic, social and education problems. Approximately 1.1m of the UK's 1.6m Muslims are of voting age. Previous election research has shown the overwhelming majority have traditionally voted Labour, but more recent studies have suggested Labour support has been falling away significantly among some Muslim voters. Anger over the war in Iraq has appeared to be the main reason, with many saying it was "unjustified". Representatives from a number of Muslim organisations will attend Tuesday's event. Among them will be the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). The chairman of the MCB's public affairs committee, Sher Khan, said the war in Iraq would be a "significant factor" affecting Muslims' voting intentions. "I think it's going to be quite significant because of the number of seats in which they could have an impact," Mr Khan said. However, Professor John Curtice, of the University of Strathclyde, is sceptical about how much difference tactical voting by Muslims could make. "For the most part the Labour constituencies where there's a large Muslim community are relatively safe, but there are one or two that are not quite so safe," Professor Curtice said. The constituencies where Labour was most at risk from a Muslim tactical vote were Bethnal Green, in east London, and Rochdale in Lancashire, he added. In Bethnal Green, former Labour MP George Galloway, who founded the anti-war party Respect, is standing against sitting MP Oona King, who had a 10,000-vote majority in 2001. In Rochdale, the Liberal Democrats - the mainstream party a 2004 ICM survey showed was benefiting most from Muslim disaffection with Labour - secured second place in the 2001 election, securing just under 6,000 votes fewer than Labour's Lorna Fitzsimons. But Professor Curtice said the Muslim anti-war vote could be split between the Liberal Democrats and Respect, meaning neither would benefit much at the ballot box. "Ironically the Tories might be the beneficiaries if Labour does lose seats, which is generally the case," he said. But Dr Tamimi said MAB's intention was not to "empower" the Tories. "We know the next government will be Labour, but we are aiming to send a message that it will make a difference if the Muslims use their vote properly. "If the next Labour government has a reduced majority that's a great achievement because having a very big majority has been very harmful for politics in this country," Dr Tamimi said.

MPs demand 'Budget leak' answers Ministers 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.

PM apology over jailings Tony Blair has apologised to two families who suffered one of the UK's biggest miscarriages of justice. The prime minister was commenting on the wrongful jailing of 11 people for IRA bomb attacks on pubs in Guildford and Woolwich in 1974. Mr Blair said: "I am very sorry that they were subject to such an ordeal and injustice." He made the apology to members of the Conlon and Maguire families in his private room at Westminster. In a statement recorded for television, Mr Blair said the families deserved "to be completely and publicly exonerated". The families had hoped the apology would be made during Prime Minister's Questions in the House of Commons. However, one of the so-called Guildford Four, Gerry Conlon - who was wrongly convicted of planting the bombs - said the families were delighted with the apology. He said Mr Blair had spoken with "such sincerity", adding: "He went beyond what we thought he would, he took time to listen to everyone. "You could see he was moved by what people were saying. "Tony Blair has healed rifts, he is helping to heal wounds. It's a day I never thought would come." The move followed a huge campaign in Ireland for a public apology after eleven people were wrongly convicted of making and planting the IRA bombs which killed seven people. Mr Blair's official spokesman said no-one present at the meeting would "ever forget the strength of feeling of relief that the prime minister's statement brought to them". Most of those convicted were either members or friends of the two families. All were arrested because of a family connection to Gerry Conlon. Mr Conlon's father Giuseppe was arrested when travelling to London from Belfast to help his son. He died while serving his sentence. Also arrested were Anne Maguire and members of her family. Mrs Maguire was the relative with whom Giuseppe planned to stay in London, as well as two family friends. She said it was a "wonderful feeling" to have had the apology and that a weight had been lifted off her shoulders. "The people who were still doubting us should now believe that we were totally innocent," she said. They were all jailed for handling explosives, based on scientific evidence which was later entirely discredited. In October 1989 the Court of Appeal quashed the sentences of the Guildford Four, and in June 1991 it overturned the sentences on the Maguire Seven. Mr Conlon's case was highlighted in the Oscar-nominated film In The Name Of The Father, starring Daniel Day-Lewis.

Terror powers expose 'tyranny' The Lord Chancellor has defended government plans to introduce control orders to keep foreign and British terrorist suspects under house arrest, where there isn't enough evidence to put them on trial. Lord Falconer insists that the proposals do not equate to a police state and strike a balance between protecting the public against the threat of terrorism and upholding civil liberties. But thriller writer Frederick Forsyth tells BBC News of his personal response to the move. There is a mortal danger aimed at the heart of Britain. Or so says Home Secretary Charles Clarke. My reaction? So what? It is not that I am cynical or just do not care. I care about this country very much. But in the 66 years that I have been alive, there has not been one hour, of one day, of one month, of one year, when there has not been a threat aimed at us. My point is, the British have always coped without becoming a dictatorship. We have coped with fear without becoming a state based on fear; we have coped with threat without turning our country into a land of state threat. But that is what the Blair government now seeks to do - create a tyranny to defend us from the al-Qaeda tyranny. I was born on 25 August, 1938. The mortal threat back then was a scruffy little Austrian called Adolf Hitler. A week after my first birthday, the threat had become reality. We were at war. My father wore a uniform for five years. After 1945 we yearned for peace at last. But in 1946 Winston Churchill told us - from the Baltic to the Adriatic an Iron Curtain has descended across Europe. Behind the Iron Curtain, another genocidal psychopath, another threat. Josef Stalin triggered the Cold War, with the Berlin blockade in 1948. My whole generation was blighted by it. We were threatened by the nuclear holocaust, the nuclear wind, the nuclear winter. We built shelters that would have sheltered nothing. We spent our treasure on weapons instead of hospitals. We took silly precautions. Some fought it; some marched futilely against it. Some pretended it was not there. The Cold War lasted 43 years, but we remained a parliamentary democracy. By the early seventies it was terrorism as well. Al Fatah, Black September, Red Brigades, but most of all for us the IRA and the INLA. Thirty more years; 300 policemen and women, over 600 soldiers, more than 3,000 civilians dead, but we won because even IRA bombs could not force us to become a tyranny. That was why the tyrants lost. Civil rights were infringed as little as humanly possible. Evidence had to be taken in secret to protect covert sources; yes , and one judge, no-jury courts had to be instituted when juries were terrorised. Informants had to be given immunity from their own crimes to win the bigger battle. But habeas corpus did not die; right of appeal was not abolished. Now the threat is Islamic fundamentalism. Its leaders want to destroy our society; so did the IRA. It is based and funded abroad; so was the IRA. It has sleeper fanatics inside our society; so did the IRA. It is extremely hard to penetrate with our agents; so was the IRA. The prime movers are not easy to bring to trial; neither were the IRA. But we did. And without becoming a tyranny. Now the Blair government proposes the law system of fascism and communism. The citizen can be arrested and held without charge or trial, not even on the careful consideration of an experienced judge, but the whim of a political activist called a government minister. To be protected from terror the government says, we must become a tyranny. But a tyranny is based on the citizen's terror. This is not victory; this is defeat before a shot is fired. An interesting article - its good to see widening participation in the debate - but I suggest we move one step further. Our own bombs and bullets will can only shatter peace, because invading foreign nations, imprisoning the innocent and 'hunting' in the 'shadows' cannot destroy an evil of the mind, and hatred within the heart. Rather than focusing upon effect, we should consider the cause, because terrorism does not begin with bombs. Why not try a foreign policy of compassion, it can only enhance our democracy, and share our freedom. I agree with Frederick Forsyth. We really can't deal with terrorism by turning Britain into a fascist state. What we really need is more honesty from our security services and our politicians. If they do not have evidence to bring these people to trial, there probably isn't any. Our security services, behave like the detective who having decided that a certain person is guilty, rakes over all kinds of obscure and flimsy evidence to try and prove it, while the real villain gets away. Remember there were no WMD in Iraq. Just because a person may have made some stupid and naive decisions in life does not make them a terrorist. In this overly 'politically correct' society, it is good to see someone like Mr. Forsyth speak out. Yes, there has been oppression by the British government in the past, and overstepping the mark in places like Ireland, but yes, we are still a democracy where it is rare to be arrested without charge/trial etc. (apart from a number of prisoners in Belmarsh goal, for example).This country signs up to human rights, and then pretends that they only apply to the people with nothing to fear, the innocent people (defined by whom?). When ID cards become mandatory, the data collected will not be protected by the Data Protection Act, and will be readily available to people like GCHQ, with no control by the person whose ID is being checked. The threat now is new. You cannot compare the threats of past years with now. Forsyth says 3000 died over 30 years or terrorism; 3000 people died in one morning in NY on September 11th 2001. The threat today is that terrorists will acquire nuclear or biological technology. A Kilo of Semtex will flatten a building, a Kilo of plutonium will flatten a city. You now have a combination of people who will perform terrorist acts with technology that is rapidly becoming accessible. I agree, the government is probably encouraging a degree of mass-hysteria and talking up the threat; but talking-down the threat and doing nothing is unacceptable too. The problem with this issue is not that it isn't important, but the fact that in general we Brits can be so politically apathetic some times, that we will just let this go without telling the government no. However, as the nation that gave the world the common law and a true sense of the rights of individual liberty I hope this will prove to be one step too far. As somebody of Chinese origin, I can say that this country used to be a good place to migrate and start a new life. Whilst life wasn't perfect, we could make better for ourselves. Now we are riddled with red tape and be told what we can or cannot do. We have to be politically-correct and we are not allowed to have beliefs or opinions. We have a Prime Minister who spends too much time meddling in US politics and affairs which have little to do with the lives of British Citizens at home or abroad. Mr Forsyth has done a good job in voicing his opinions. Let's hope the BBC doesn't get gagged for letting people express their views. The people have the right to know and the BBC's role is to Inform, Educate and Entertain... I agree. Terrorists intend to spread fear but in reality it is the government which has spread the fear, by its constant publicising of the this invisible enemy so dangerous that we must allow them to ride roughshod over our rights and liberties. In the end, the very thing we seek to protect is what we are giving up in the name of safety from this invisible enemy. The terrorists have already won. I absolutely agree with Frederick Forsyth. Yes we have to defend ourselves against terrorism but existing laws seem to be more than adequate. The idea that the "new terrorism" demands new powers is erroneous. The evidence of any real terrorist capability in the UK is scant. Ricin, for example, is a dangerous poison but it is not a weapon of mass destruction. What is really worrying is the enthusiasm of Mr Blair and his government for authoritarian reactions and attempts to manipulate the electorate through fear. If the government has its way with ID cards, tracking and so on then totalitarianism has won and as such it then matters little whether we give in to the terrorists demands or not. We will have lost the precious freedom which Bush and Blair constantly tells us we have and that they seek to bring to others. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth. I am shocked at the ease with which this government is prepared to wipe out a major portion of the liberties that British people have enjoyed for centuries - the right not to be deprived of our liberty without a trial in open court. That goes right back to Magna Carta, and ordinary people have spilled their blood to enforce that right against governments who thought they "knew best". When you look at today's Britain, you realise George Orwell was only wrong about one thing: the date. Frederick Forsyth puts it beautifully. The government is seeking to introduce a police state. The new powers of home internment without trial follow a pattern which includes the introduction of surveillance via compulsory ID cards and the linking of data bases, together with the un-British idea that we will have to swear allegiance to the state at the age of 18 years. We are sleep-walking into this. Wake up! An interesting view but missing two crucial facts of this new threat: 1) If these terrorists acquire weapons of mass destruction they WILL use them without fear of Mutually Assured Destruction that kept the cold war in a state of tense balance. These people will use devastating force against us without fear of ANY consequence. 2) The terrorists are prepared to use suicide bombers which means they could kill innocent people on the London Underground and we could do very little to stop it. Because these terrorists are potentially SO deadly, we have to come up with new, tougher responses. It will be a little late in the day when people outside London wake up one morning to find out that London has been nuked. We won't have much of a society left to debate ! He's correct in most of what he says. Mind you he does seem to have forgotten that disgraceful internment policy in Northern Ireland which probably caused many idealistic if misguided young Catholics to join the IRA. Administrative detention of Muslims could have a similar effect now. Surely we the public would be better protected if the security services, rather than alerting a suspect terrorist by placing them under house arrest (and for how long?)They were to place suspect terrorist under surveillance and maybe acquire sufficient evidence to prosecute or even better prevent a terrorist attack. I don't usually have much time for Mr Forsyth's largely right wing views but this time he has got it spot on. There is no doubt that there are terrorist organisations who would like to do harm to the U.K. but it is very doubtful whether al-Qaeda is a global organisation co-ordinating this. The rise of surveillance cameras, ID cards, the plan to charge for road use by tracking every vehicle at all times, this is the stuff of nightmares. Add to this this new legislation which effectively means that the protection of the law will be removed from anyone at the whim of the Home Secretary, and I genuinely wonder what sort of world my two children will inherit. Where will this end. As it stands terrorists do not need to attack the U.K. it's government will soon have it's people terrorised more that they could very achieve with a few bombs. Mr Forsyth has expressed exactly what my gut fears and reservations were about this proposed legislation, but could not verbalise. Thank you. Mr Forsyth seems to forget that killings in the Troubles occurred on both sides of the religious divide and was carried out by killers from both sides. He also forgets basic Human Rights were suspended then as now. Experienced Judges sat over some of the greatest miscarriages of justice during those times. For very little return and maximum alienation. These laws and the emphasis on the Islamic threat will just do the same. Forsyth is wrong. The nature of the current threat is new. It is no longer to our armed forces, as the Soviet threat in the Eastern bloc was. It is to you and I. The terrorist aim to kill indiscriminately. The best comparison is therefore the blitz, 1941. At this time, let us not forget, suspects (foreign and British were routinely rounded up and interned for the duration of the war, without any complaints from the public. We must not forget we are at war. I'd say that that the likelihood of an attack by a sleeper cell of fundamentalist lunatics against a major UK target is a "When" not an "If" probability. I'll bet any money you like that the day after any such attack Freddie Forsyth will be saying that the government didn't do enough to protect the UK. People like Forsyth can only see one side of any argument and for him it is the side that is opposite New Labour and Tony Blair. I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth. The very reason this country has been such a wonderful place to live, is under attack, not from terrorists, but from this government. The perpetuation of the perceived terrorist threat is not because of what the 'alleged' terrorists are doing, but from our own government. I believe what this government is doing, is, at the very least, highly questionable and at worst, sinister. At what point will they feel they have enough control over every single person in the British Isles; when we are all tagged and monitored constantly? Our freedom is being craftily and surreptitiously whittled away by this government and we are gaining nothing. It should be of great concern to everyone. I am slightly older than Mr Forsyth and therefore have lived through the same history as him. I am against a police state and would not like to think that I lived in one. I think that the attack on Iraq made the international situation worse and may have provoked further acts of terrorism. How true. There are extremely worrying parallels between Britain now and Germany during the 30's. I never thought it would be so easy to take over a country from within. Mr Forsyth has forgotten one key point; the terrorists who threaten Britain today are well aware that Hitler, Stalin, and the IRA all failed. As a result modern day terrorists are willing to do things their predecessors did not. That does not mean that the civil liberties of modern Britain must be eroded to counter the threat; that should always be the absolute last resort. But to meet the new threat, to defeat the sinister fanaticism of today's terrorists, we may need to do things a little differently. Let us hope not. Frederic Forsythe's comments seem to me to be a well-thought-out analysis of why we (human society as a whole, and Britain in particular) should resist the temptation to over-protect through fear. It is this fear which enables terrorists to succeed in the end, and terrorists can come in all forms, as Mr. Forsythe's opening comments suggest. I am reminded of a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson. "A nation that limits freedom in the name of security will have neither." The government are faced with an incredibly difficult task, and have made a policy to deal with it. It's all very well criticising that policy, but if Mr Forsythe can't draw on his years of experience to offer an alternative, I say 'So what?' to his opinions. Frederick Forsyth's rhetoric is absurd and his conclusions laughable. He distorts reality to serve his own prejudice against New Labour. This government seeks to balance protection of our democracy with minimum loss of civil rights. It is Frederick Forsyth who is the extremist, because he does not appreciate the need for balance. I rarely find myself agreeing with My Forsyth, but in this instance I think he is correct. The rule of law must prevail, civil liberties are worth defending. If the government can hold 'suspects' without charge or trial, what's next? I agree absolutely. By introducing fascist type laws we loose the moral high ground in our fight against terror. Our democratic system is not perfect, but as Churchill points out it is "better than all the others that have been tried". Terrorist attacks will take place but for many reasons we should take that personal risk in return for personal freedom. I do not usually agree with Mr. Forsyth, but he is spot on here. The single biggest threat we face is that of a government dedicated to acting illegally and manipulating international and national law to suit its own purpose. Totalitarianism always requires an outside threat, justifying a range of extraordinary powers leaders want. The British government is a far greater threat that and terrorist organisation. Although, in principle I agree with him, Frederick Forsyth fails to address one key point- al-Qaeda attacks (though obviously there have been none yet in the UK) seek to kill the maximum number of people. The IRA wanted to limit the death toll of their attacks so as to maintain support among the republican movement. Yes, I agree with Mr. Forsyth's views. I do not believe the government's plans are justified. There is over reaction to and the negative influence of the US President's interpretation of democracy and freedom. He uses the same arguments that were current before the WWII, the Wars to "liberate" Iraq, Afghanistan with Syria and Iran to come. We are leaving a poor inheritance for the future generations. Mr Forsyth is a wonderful writer and should keep his fiction where it belongs. The British Government is not going down the road that Mr Forsyth suggests. Sadly comments such as his will make a lot of people believe that they are governed by people who are fast becoming tyrants instead of being genuinely committed to stopping tyranny, even if the method employed to do that is at the moment alien to the British people who have lived in a democracy protected by Tony Blair and others of like mind who, Mr. Forsyth seems to be putting along side the 'scruffy little Austrian.' Thomas Hobbes would be smiling in his grave at Labour's propositions. Like New Labour, he called himself a libertarian. Like New Labour, he believed he was promoting the people's best interests. But as Forsythe criticises this government, Hobbes has been criticised by most subsequent philosophers for arguing his way into the hands of the totalitarians. Simply put, he argued that in favour of the ultimate liberty - the liberty to live - man should be prepared to surrender all other liberties to a supreme sovereign, as protection against his fellow, barbaric, man. Hobbes has been roundly condemned by posterity, and rightly so. I hope New Labour suffers the same treatment. I agree with Mr Forsyth's views. The governments approach is totally against the spirit of British democracy. They must not be allowed to get away with it. Of course Frederick is wrong about Britain winning the war against the IRA and he's wrong too about the country not becoming a tyranny. Has he forgotten about shoot to kill, torture, internment without trial, collusion with loyalist death squads etc? My background is somewhat similar to Freddie's so I am persuaded to agree with many of his sentiments. We can have no moral justification for imposing our system of government on anyone while we are systematically depriving our own citizens of basic individual and collective freedoms. Whilst the principle of keeping potential terrorists under house arrest might seem superficially attractive, it is, unfortunately, also the first step towards totalitarianism. Who is to decide whom is a suspect? Why should we believe them? Who can have faith in the honesty, integrity, and competence of our intelligence services and politicians in light of the events of recent years? What is to stop false denunciations? What of those falsely accused who will lose their careers? Who will support their families? Will their children still go to school? It smacks to me of the methods of Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Ceausescu's Romania - the list goes on. It looks as if a new dark age is coming. I see that opinion on Mr Forsyth's remarks are divided. The problem I see is that those who support imprisonment without trial believe it will never happen to them or their family, only to people they don't like or are scared of. But history has shown that if you have laws like that, they always get abused by those in power. After all, today you may be scared of the same people as those in power but someday those in power may be scared of you! And that day, you'll be the one imprisoned without the chance of justice. Our laws are such that you cannot just be imprisoned at the whim of our police forces, you have to be shown to be deserving of it. If we imprison people without trial for an indeterminate period, we are no better that those we are fighting. I never thought it possible for me to agree with a single word uttered by Frederick Forsyth, but I'm in wholehearted agreement with him on this one. We, as a nation are in grave danger of being duped by pro US propaganda, which of course also means we'll inherit most, if not all of their total paranoia, and allow our governments, of any political persuasion incidentally, to gradually, and insidiously, impose a police state by well tried & tested back door methods. I grieve for the future of my children, it's no wonder they're adamant they don't ever want any of their own. This government, with much fanfare, signs us up to the European Convention on Human Rights but now wants to introduce indefinite house arrest without trial. This puts it on a par with the government of Burma. Like many of your respondents, I wouldn't usually think of Mr Forsyth as someone whose views I share, but in the instance of opposing Charles Clark's proposals for house arrest, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr Forsyth/ I agree with Mr Forsyth. Just look at the facts - our government (along with the US) invaded another sovereign country (Iraq) by selecting intelligence that backed it's case based on fear. The facts turned out to be very different. If individuals are treated in the same distorted way, then we've done ourselves more damage than any terrorist organisation could with bombs. We become animals too. I agree in many ways with what Mr Forsyth has said - if we are to be respected and have influence within the world we must be seen to be walking the walk as well as talking the talk - how can we accuse countries such as Zimbabwe and Burma of human rights abuses when we are locking up people who may be totally innocent, it is hypocrisy of the highest order. Mr Forsyth links "Islamic fundamentalism" to the new "threat". However it appears that he has misunderstood the term "Islamic fundamentalism". It should be pointed out that a Muslim who adheres to the true fundamentals of the Qur'aan and the teachings of the last Prophet Muhammad is an Islamic Fundamentalist. This person does not commit suicide in any shape or form, nor does she/he kill innocent women, men and children. This person is self-reflective and constantly tries to better her/his actions by being good to others. The people who Mr Forsyth labels the new "threat" are those who do not follow the correct teachings of Islam. They have arrived at their own interpretations and assumptions with regards their actions. On top of that, they claim to be following Islam in its true form! I accept that the intentions of these policies are to make Britain a safer place but I cannot think of a single example from history where doing this sort of thing has ever made any difference - in Northern Ireland internment certainly didn't achieve anything - the bombings didn't stop, and it could be argued that all it achieved was to just supply the IRA with yet more angry and resentful republicans willing to take up arms against the British. Being eight years older than Frederick Forsyth and a survivor of the Blitz on London, it is easy to agree with him, he is absolutely spot on. During the IRA bombings there were massive explosions in Canary Wharf, to the right of where I write this, and also to the left in the City of London. Notwithstanding these and the attempted and nearly successful assassination attempts on Prime Minister Thatcher in Brighton and on later occupants of 10 Downing Street, there was no retaliatory blitz on Belfast or Dublin as there has been on Afghanistan and Iraq. Even when England was in true peril in 1940 apart from some detentions there were no wholesale derogation of habeas corpus and the like. We have to see off these latest attempts on our liberties including ID cards, which Winston Churchill decided had to go since, he said, the average Bobby on the beat could not be relied on to not be tempted to take undue advantage against the citizen going about their lawful activities (incidentally I can still remember my old ID card number). Hence it is clear that the far too great police state powers set for the statute books have to be resisted and neutered. What can I add to Mr. Forsyth's eloquently put arguments... except applause! Well done that man for standing up and being counted in the "war against tyranny".