Datasets:

pranjaljaiswal

/

arrowhead-bbc-news-summary

like 0

Summarize the following article: 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.

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Blunkett hints at election call Ex-Home Secretary David Blunkett has given fresh clues that the general election will be announced on Monday. He told BBC Radio Five Live: "I'm out in my constituency getting ready for what we presume will be an announcement very shortly at the weekend." He clarified that he meant he would be in his Sheffield seat this weekend, not that he expected an election call then. Tony Blair is tipped to ask the Queen on Monday to dissolve Parliament ready for a 5 May poll.

He clarified that he meant he would be in his Sheffield seat this weekend, not that he expected an election call then.Ex-Home Secretary David Blunkett has given fresh clues that the general election will be announced on Monday.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Tories 'would cut number of MPs' The Conservative Party would cut the number of MPs by about one-fifth if they were elected, Tory leader Michael Howard has said. The plan forms part of the party's "smaller government bill", to be unveiled later this week. Mr Howard told the Sunday Times the party would also reduce the number of government special advisers. And he said a referendum would be held in Wales to decide whether or not to scrap the Welsh Assembly. The changes would all take place within five years of the Conservatives winning a general election, Mr Howard told the paper. The precise number of MPs to go would depend on the result of the Welsh referendum, but it would probably mean a reduction of around 120 from the current total of 659. If Wales decided to keep its assembly it would stand to lose more MPs. Mr Howard said as both parties planned to cut the number of civil servants at Whitehall - Labour by more than 80,000 and the Tories by almost 100,000 - they should accept a similar drop in their own numbers. "It is all very well saying government departments should be reduced, but what about ministers, Parliament and special advisers?" he said. Shadow leader of the Commons Oliver Heald said: "This will be part of our aim to reduce unnecessary and costly interference in people's lives by reducing the size and role of the State". Mr Howard said the plan would also even out the "great unfairness" of there being proportionately more Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster than those from England. The average size of an English constituency was 70,000 people, Mr Howard said. In Northern Ireland it was just over 66,000, in Wales just over 59,000 and in Scotland 53,000. The number of Welsh MPs would be set at an amount that was "consistent and fair in terms of representation with the rest of the United Kingdom" if the assembly was scrapped. Mr Howard said the changes should be carried out quickly and could even be implemented by the election after next. "You have got to have a big bang. We don't want this like the House of Lords reform, getting to one stage and then not having the next stage."

Mr Howard said the plan would also even out the "great unfairness" of there being proportionately more Scottish and Welsh MPs at Westminster than those from England.Mr Howard told the Sunday Times the party would also reduce the number of government special advisers.The Conservative Party would cut the number of MPs by about one-fifth if they were elected, Tory leader Michael Howard has said.The average size of an English constituency was 70,000 people, Mr Howard said.And he said a referendum would be held in Wales to decide whether or not to scrap the Welsh Assembly.Mr Howard said the changes should be carried out quickly and could even be implemented by the election after next.he said.Mr Howard said as both parties planned to cut the number of civil servants at Whitehall - Labour by more than 80,000 and the Tories by almost 100,000 - they should accept a similar drop in their own numbers.

Summarize the following article: Labour pig poster 'anti-Semitic' The Labour Party has been accused of anti-Semitism over a poster depicting Michael Howard and Oliver Letwin - who are both Jewish - as flying pigs. Prospective Tory candidate Andrew Mennear, whose Finchley constituency contains a large Jewish community, branded it "tasteless" and offensive. The poster shows the two men's faces superimposed on winged pigs and says "the day the Tory sums add up". Labour said the poster was "not anti-Jewish, but anti-Tory". It is one of four designs e-mailed to Labour members, who were asked to vote for their favourite. Mr Mennear, who was sent the e-mail by a friend, said he had been "shocked" by the image and had shown it to friends who were similarly horrified. He said there was nothing more distasteful for a Jewish person than to be associated with a pig. "I am not suggesting there is any deliberate intent, but these sort of things can cause great offence. It clearly wasn't thought through. "It is possible the posters were designed for maximum impact, but this one clearly overstepped the mark and should be withdrawn." The campaign was particularly insensitive as it had come out at the same time as Holocaust Day, a "difficult" time for many Jewish people, Mr Mennear added. A Labour spokesman denied the campaign was anti-Semitic. "As we said at the time the James report (the Tory backed inquiry into possible public spending savings) was published pigs will fly before the Tory's sums will add up. This poster is making a serious point," he said. A Conservative Party spokesman said: "While the Conservatives are concentrating on the issues that matter to people, such as lower taxes and controlled immigration, it is clear to see that the Labour Party is not. People will not be fooled."

Labour said the poster was "not anti-Jewish, but anti-Tory".He said there was nothing more distasteful for a Jewish person than to be associated with a pig."As we said at the time the James report (the Tory backed inquiry into possible public spending savings) was published pigs will fly before the Tory's sums will add up.The campaign was particularly insensitive as it had come out at the same time as Holocaust Day, a "difficult" time for many Jewish people, Mr Mennear added.A Labour spokesman denied the campaign was anti-Semitic.This poster is making a serious point," he said.A Conservative Party spokesman said: "While the Conservatives are concentrating on the issues that matter to people, such as lower taxes and controlled immigration, it is clear to see that the Labour Party is not.

Summarize the following article: 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."

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".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.The chancellor also unveiled a one-off £200 council tax refund for pensioners and a rise in child tax credit.Mr Brown told MPs child benefit would rise to a maximum of £63 a week for the first child and £111 for two children.SNP leader Alex Salmond said Mr Brown had failed the "tartan test" as there were no measures to boost the Scottish economy.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.But trust in Mr Brown's economic stewardship would be a central election issue, he said.He said his Budget struck a balance "between tax cuts that are affordable, investments that are essential and stability that is paramount".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."Their only answer is to tax, to spend and to waste - to get people to vote now and pay later."The level where people start paying inheritance tax will also rise from £263,000 to £275,000 from April.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."The child tax credit will rise in line with earnings, giving families an extra £5 a week.During his 49 minute speech Mr Brown told MPs he had defied the pundits by hitting his growth target of 3.1% for 2004.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Royal couple watch nation's mood Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles are awaiting the nation's reaction after announcing they are to be married on 8 April. Mrs Parker Bowles will take the title HRH Duchess of Cornwall after a civil ceremony to be held at Windsor Castle. A Daily Telegraph poll of 1,313 people suggests two-thirds of Britons support the couple's decision to marry. But only 40% think Mrs Parker Bowles should become Princess Consort as planned after Charles becomes king. Some 47% believe she should have no title, while 7% think she should become queen. The poll also found that the majority of Britons would prefer the monarchy to miss a generation, with the Queen handing the throne to her grandson Prince William, 22, on her death or abdication. On Thursday night, Prince Charles, 56, and Mrs Parker Bowles, 57, hosted a dinner at Windsor Castle, their first public appearance since announcing their engagement. Mrs Parker Bowles said the prince went down on one knee to propose and added: "I'm just coming down to earth." She displayed her diamond engagement ring - a Royal Family heirloom - to reporters. Charles said he and his wife-to-be were "absolutely delighted". Their marriage will end years of speculation on a relationship which dates back to 1970. The Queen and Duke of Edinburgh said the news had made them "very happy". Princes William and Harry said they are "very happy" and wish the couple "all the luck in the future". The wedding will be a civil ceremony followed by a service of prayer and dedication in St George's Chapel at which the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, will preside. The marriage is likely to be a sensitive issue because Mrs Parker Bowles is divorced and her former husband is still alive. If he became king, Charles would be the supreme governor of the Church of England and some Anglicans remain opposed to the remarriage of divorcees. "His divorce from Diana and the disappointment the country felt over how Diana had been treated... opened up a sense of disillusionment with [Prince Charles]," said Ros Coward, who wrote the authorised biography of Diana, princess of Wales. The Archbishop of Canterbury said: "I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step." Tony Blair said he was "delighted" for the couple and offered his congratulations, as did Conservative leader Michael Howard and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy. Australia's Prime Minister John Howard also offered his congratulations, adding that their decision to marry was a "sensible and a good thing". Mrs Parker Bowles has joined the prince at numerous engagements in recent years - mostly at evening events for The Prince's Trust. Clarence House staff were at pains to point out that she attended these events in a private capacity.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said: "I am pleased that Prince Charles and Mrs Camilla Parker Bowles have decided to take this important step."But only 40% think Mrs Parker Bowles should become Princess Consort as planned after Charles becomes king.On Thursday night, Prince Charles, 56, and Mrs Parker Bowles, 57, hosted a dinner at Windsor Castle, their first public appearance since announcing their engagement.Mrs Parker Bowles has joined the prince at numerous engagements in recent years - mostly at evening events for The Prince's Trust.Mrs Parker Bowles said the prince went down on one knee to propose and added: "I'm just coming down to earth."Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles are awaiting the nation's reaction after announcing they are to be married on 8 April.Mrs Parker Bowles will take the title HRH Duchess of Cornwall after a civil ceremony to be held at Windsor Castle.Charles said he and his wife-to-be were "absolutely delighted".The marriage is likely to be a sensitive issue because Mrs Parker Bowles is divorced and her former husband is still alive.

Summarize the following article: Malik rejects all-black MP lists A call for ethnic minority shortlists to boost the number of black and Asian MPs has been rejected by one of Labour's most senior Asians. Shahid Malik, who is on Labour's ruling NEC, accepted people's frustration but said there should be targets not lists to boost representation of minorities. Just 13 of Britain's 659 MPs are from ethnic minority groups, he added. Commission for racial equality chief Trevor Phillips argued on Sunday the time had come for such shortlists. That came after it emerged that one of Britain's most ethnically diverse constituency, West Ham, was to get a women-only shortlist for the next election following an NEC ruling. Mr Phillips said changes to the race relations legislation might allow political parties to reserve seats for under-represented groups. For example in West Ham, this might allow only women and minorities to seek to be candidates. "If we get to the other side of the general election and find that minorities are not represented, we have to say that after 20 or 30 years of talking about this, we cannot go on the same way," he said. He added: "It would be terribly disappointing if in the least white constituency [West Ham] in the whole of Europe we didn't have a minority candidate." Appearing on BBC Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Malik, who is himself running for the seat of Dewsbury, acknowledged that so far women-only shortlists had failed to deliver a boost in the number of ethnic minority candidates. But he argued: "I do think that there currently things that parties can do and which they aren't doing... for example setting targets to ensure that existing democratic structures are more reflective." Labour MP Diane Abbot, who backs Mr Phillips' proposal of shortlists, said she had been elected along with three other ethnic minority MPs - Keith Vaz, Paul Boateng and Bernie Grant - in 1987 but it took another 10 years before another black woman was able to win a seat. That was a rate of progress Ms Abbott described as "painful". "I am a little older than Shahid and served on the National Executive Committee in the 1990s - I was the first black person on the NEC ... crossing our fingers and hoping we are going to get more black and Asian MP hasn't worked," she said. "The shortlist strategy works for women and I believe that it can be made to work for black and Asian people." On Tuesday Labour chairman Ian McCartney said his party was "ambitious" to improve black and Asian representation. "We haven't ruled out all-black shortlists and welcome a debate in the party about this," he said.

Labour MP Diane Abbot, who backs Mr Phillips' proposal of shortlists, said she had been elected along with three other ethnic minority MPs - Keith Vaz, Paul Boateng and Bernie Grant - in 1987 but it took another 10 years before another black woman was able to win a seat.A call for ethnic minority shortlists to boost the number of black and Asian MPs has been rejected by one of Labour's most senior Asians.On Tuesday Labour chairman Ian McCartney said his party was "ambitious" to improve black and Asian representation.That came after it emerged that one of Britain's most ethnically diverse constituency, West Ham, was to get a women-only shortlist for the next election following an NEC ruling."I am a little older than Shahid and served on the National Executive Committee in the 1990s - I was the first black person on the NEC ... crossing our fingers and hoping we are going to get more black and Asian MP hasn't worked," she said.For example in West Ham, this might allow only women and minorities to seek to be candidates.Just 13 of Britain's 659 MPs are from ethnic minority groups, he added.

Summarize the following article: Choose hope over fear - Kennedy Voters will have a clear choice between the politics of fear and the politics of hope in the next general election, said Charles Kennedy. In his New Year message the Liberal Democrat leader said Labour and the Conservatives were united in relying on fear and "populist scares". He said his party was the one of hope and was ready for a 2005 poll. On the Asian tsunami he said it had been "very heartening" to learn of the generosity being shown by Britons. Mr Kennedy said his thoughts were with all those caught up in the disaster, which had dominated the Christmas and New Year period. At home he said many people were turning to the Liberal Democrats as they became disheartened with the politics of the other two main parties. The general election would be a three-party struggle, as the Conservative party "fades away" as a national force and the Liberal Democrats challenge Labour in its heartlands, he said. "A clear division is emerging in British politics - the politics of fear versus the politics of hope. "Labour is counting on the politics of fear, ratcheting up talk of threats, crime and insecurity. While the Conservatives are re-working their populist scares about asylum and the European 'menace'," he said. He said the government was using this climate of fear to try to strip away civil liberties. It was already using detention without trial at Belmarsh Prison, ignoring a recent Law Lords judgement that this contravenes basic human rights, he said. He also criticised attempts to bring in trial without jury, plans to lower the burden of proof in some criminal trials, curbing of rights to protest, increased stop and search powers and ID card plans. He said while everyone had the right to be secure they also had the right to be protected against unfair discrimination. "But at the same time, an overmighty state is a dangerous one," he said. His party "instinctively" understood the "new liberal Britain" which is no longer a nation with one family structure, and one colour, he said. "We are less deferential; more inclined to think for ourselves; more open about sexuality and equality. "Our national institutions are changing too. We are no longer a nation of one church; we are a nation of many faiths. In our attitudes and the way we live our lives, this is in many ways a liberal Britain."

His party "instinctively" understood the "new liberal Britain" which is no longer a nation with one family structure, and one colour, he said.Voters will have a clear choice between the politics of fear and the politics of hope in the next general election, said Charles Kennedy.He said his party was the one of hope and was ready for a 2005 poll.In his New Year message the Liberal Democrat leader said Labour and the Conservatives were united in relying on fear and "populist scares".The general election would be a three-party struggle, as the Conservative party "fades away" as a national force and the Liberal Democrats challenge Labour in its heartlands, he said.At home he said many people were turning to the Liberal Democrats as they became disheartened with the politics of the other two main parties."But at the same time, an overmighty state is a dangerous one," he said.He said the government was using this climate of fear to try to strip away civil liberties.

Summarize the following article: 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.

"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.Education Secretary Ruth Kelly said Prof Aynsley-Green would "strengthen the voice of children and young people".Prof Aynsley-Green has also been the national clinical director for children in the Department of Health."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."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.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Plaid MP's cottage arson claim A Plaid Cymru MP believes UK security services were involved in some arson attacks blamed on Welsh extremists. It is 25 years since the start of 12 years of fire-bombings, attributed to a shadowy group known as Meibion Glyndwr. Plaid Cymru's Elfyn Llwyd has suggested the security services could have been involved, with the intention of discrediting the nationalist vote. Ex-Welsh Office Minister Lord Roberts of Conwy denied security services were involved. In March this year, North Wales Police reopened the case, saying materials kept during their investigations would be examined to find whether it would yield DNA evidence. Meibion Glyndwr - which means "sons of Glyndwr" - began burning property in December 1979 in protest at homes in rural Wales being sold as holiday cottages to people from England. The group was linked to most of the 220 or so fire-bombing incidents stretching from the Llyn Peninsula to Pembrokeshire. The campaign continued until the early 1990s. Police were accused in some quarters of targeting anyone who was a nationalist. Although one man, Sion Aubrey Roberts, was convicted in 1993 of sending letter bombs in the post, the arson cases remain unsolved. As a solicitor, Elfyn Llwyd represented Welsh singer Bryn Fôn when he was arrested on suspicion of being involved in the arson campaign. Fôn was released without charge . But now, as MP for Merionnydd Nant Conwy and Plaid Cymru's Parliamentary Leader, Mr Llwyd has argued that some of the terror attacks may have had the involvement of the security services and not Meibion Glyndwr. He believes that elements of the British security services may have carried out renegade actions in order to discredit Plaid Cymru and the nationalist vote ahead of elections. The claim is made in an interview for BBC Wales' Maniffesto programme to be shown on S4C on Sunday. Mr Llwyd said that the sophistication of many of the devices used in the attacks compared to the crude nature of many others, suggests a degree of professionalism which could only have come from individuals who knew exactly what they were doing. He said: "What I'm saying is that the role that they took wasn't the appropriate one, i.e. like an agent provocateur and perhaps interfering and creating a situation where it looked like it was the nationalists that were responsible." The programme also heard from Lord Roberts of Conwy, who was a Welsh Office minister at the time. He denied that the security services played any improper role. Mr Llwyd's theory has also been questioned by Plaid Cymru's former President, Dafydd Wigley. He accepted that the fires damaged Plaid Cymru's public image but believed that the security services had their hands full at the time with the IRA and animal rights activists. - Maniffesto can be seen on S4C on Sunday, 12 December, at 1200 GMT.

But now, as MP for Merionnydd Nant Conwy and Plaid Cymru's Parliamentary Leader, Mr Llwyd has argued that some of the terror attacks may have had the involvement of the security services and not Meibion Glyndwr.Plaid Cymru's Elfyn Llwyd has suggested the security services could have been involved, with the intention of discrediting the nationalist vote.Ex-Welsh Office Minister Lord Roberts of Conwy denied security services were involved.A Plaid Cymru MP believes UK security services were involved in some arson attacks blamed on Welsh extremists.He believes that elements of the British security services may have carried out renegade actions in order to discredit Plaid Cymru and the nationalist vote ahead of elections.He denied that the security services played any improper role.The programme also heard from Lord Roberts of Conwy, who was a Welsh Office minister at the time.He accepted that the fires damaged Plaid Cymru's public image but believed that the security services had their hands full at the time with the IRA and animal rights activists.Police were accused in some quarters of targeting anyone who was a nationalist.

Summarize the following article: Retirement age could be scrapped The "myth that ageing is a barrier" to contributing to society needs to be "exploded", the work and pensions minister has said. This was why the government was considering scrapping the retirement age entirely, Alan Johnson said. It was also committed to "stamping out" age discrimination and would outlaw it, he told a conference on ageing. All three parties have been wooing older voters with both the Tories and Lib Dems pledging higher pensions. Mr Johnson told Age Concern's Age Agenda in London the government was "seriously considering" introducing pensions based on residency rather than national insurance contributions. This idea has been adopted by the Lib Dems as policy, while the Tories have pledged to boost pensions by restoring the link between earnings and pensions. Mr Johnson's speech comes after he last week unveiled plans to find a consensus on how to reform the country's pension system. This would be based on a series of principles including tackling pensioner poverty and fairer pensions for women, he said. Speaking at the London conference he said: "Generalised stereotypes of people past state pension age as dependant, incapable and vulnerable are a particularly pernicious form of age discrimination". The government wanted to tackle this by moving to a culture where retirement ages were "increasingly consigned to the past". "We're sweeping them away entirely for people under 65, and we're giving those above that age a right to request to work past 65 which their employers will have to engage with seriously. "And the review in 2011, which will look at whether it is time to sweep retirement ages away entirely, is to be tied to evidence ... showing that retirement ages are increasingly outmoded". Mr Johnson said his department had a long-term aspiration of moving towards an 80% employment rate. This would involve an extra one million older people joining the work force, he said.

Mr Johnson told Age Concern's Age Agenda in London the government was "seriously considering" introducing pensions based on residency rather than national insurance contributions.This was why the government was considering scrapping the retirement age entirely, Alan Johnson said.Speaking at the London conference he said: "Generalised stereotypes of people past state pension age as dependant, incapable and vulnerable are a particularly pernicious form of age discrimination"."And the review in 2011, which will look at whether it is time to sweep retirement ages away entirely, is to be tied to evidence ... showing that retirement ages are increasingly outmoded".The government wanted to tackle this by moving to a culture where retirement ages were "increasingly consigned to the past".It was also committed to "stamping out" age discrimination and would outlaw it, he told a conference on ageing.

Summarize the following article: Conservative MP defects to Labour A Conservative MP and former minister has defected to Labour. Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party's leadership and its "dangerous" views on Europe. Prime Minister Tony Blair declared himself "delighted", saying Mr Jackson would be warmly welcomed by Labour MPs. Mr Jackson, who has clashed with his leaders over tuition fees and Europe in the past, served as higher education minister between 1987 and 1990. In a letter to his constituency chairman he wrote: "It is in the country's best interest that Tony Blair rather than Michael Howard should form the next government." While saying he admired Mr Blair's "courageous" leadership of the country, he bitterly criticised the Conservatives stance on Europe. "The Conservative Party's hostility to Europe has now hardened to the point at which it advocates the unilateral denunciation of Britain's treaty obligations," he wrote. Mr Blair said Mr Jackson was a "decent, fair-minded and dedicated public servant... who will be warmly welcome by Labour MPs and members". "As he rightly says, [the Conservatives] have learned nothing from their two election defeats and are, if anything, drifting further rightwards," he added. A spokesman for Michael Howard said Mr Jackson's views on policy issues were "very different" from those of the party leadership. "He believes students should pay tuition fees, that Tony Blair should not be criticised over his handling of the Iraq war and that more powers should be given to Europe," the spokesman said. He added that it was not surprising Mr Jackson had chosen to leave the Conservatives. Mr Jackson is due to stand down at the next election. He is the third Conservative MP to defect to Labour since 1997.

Mr Blair said Mr Jackson was a "decent, fair-minded and dedicated public servant... who will be warmly welcome by Labour MPs and members".Prime Minister Tony Blair declared himself "delighted", saying Mr Jackson would be warmly welcomed by Labour MPs.He added that it was not surprising Mr Jackson had chosen to leave the Conservatives.Mr Jackson, who has clashed with his leaders over tuition fees and Europe in the past, served as higher education minister between 1987 and 1990.Robert Jackson, 58, MP for Wantage in Oxfordshire, said he was disillusioned with the party's leadership and its "dangerous" views on Europe.Mr Jackson is due to stand down at the next election.

Summarize the following article: Blair's hope for Blunkett return The events leading to David Blunkett's resignation must not "swept under the carpet", the Tories have warned. On Wednesday Tony Blair said he hoped the former home secretary would serve again in government in the future. Mr Blunkett quit in December after a probe linked him to the visa application of his ex-lover's nanny. Mr Blair said he left "without a stain on his character" but Tory Dominic Grieve branded the way Mr Blunkett's office operated as "scandalous". Mr Blair told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I know David very well and I believe him to be a man of real integrity and real ability and I was very sad for him as to what happened." He said Mr Blunkett still had an immense amount to offer the country but he was not making any "guarantees or definitive statements" about future jobs. But shadow attorney general Mr Grieve said: "While I don't rule out the possibility that Mr Blunkett may return as a minister, I don't think it's something that can simply be brushed under the carpet." Senior Labour backbencher Martin O'Neill, who chairs the Commons trade committee, said he believed the prime minister would want one of his "praetorian guard" - a reference to the elite body guard of Roman emperors - back alongside him. But colleague Ian Gibson, who chairs the science and technology committee, said there was a "question mark" as to whether Mr Blunkett could serve at cabinet level again.

Mr Blair said he left "without a stain on his character" but Tory Dominic Grieve branded the way Mr Blunkett's office operated as "scandalous".But shadow attorney general Mr Grieve said: "While I don't rule out the possibility that Mr Blunkett may return as a minister, I don't think it's something that can simply be brushed under the carpet."But colleague Ian Gibson, who chairs the science and technology committee, said there was a "question mark" as to whether Mr Blunkett could serve at cabinet level again.He said Mr Blunkett still had an immense amount to offer the country but he was not making any "guarantees or definitive statements" about future jobs.

Summarize the following article: MPs to debate 'euthanasia laws' MPs are preparing to debate a bill which critics claim would legalise euthanasia "by the back door". The bill would give legal force to "living wills", where people say they want medical treatment withheld if they become severely incapacitated. The Mental Capacity Bill has broad support from charities who say it would give better safeguards over treatment. But Christian groups say it could mean doctors withholding food and fluids even if they think it inappropriate. Ministers insist the Mental Capacity Bill - for England and Wales - would not change laws on assisted suicide and contains a presumption in favour of preserving life. The bill would establish a legal presumption that everybody can make decisions about their own treatment unless proved otherwise. It would allow people to give somebody the power of attorney to make decisions on their behalf, which could be challenged by doctors. Critics fear it could allow "killing by omission" through withdrawing treatment. An amendment to the bill - specifically preventing decisions that would bring about death - has been tabled by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith. Ninety one MPs have signed a petition backing the amendment. MPs could vote on it later on Tuesday, during the bill's report stage debate. The Bill will then go to a third reading and be debated in the Lords, before becoming law. The Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF) said the Mental Capacity Bill would allow euthanasia by the "back door". Peter Saunders of the CMF said it believed advance refusals should be only advisory, not legally binding. "CMF is concerned that patients will make unwise and hasty advance decisions to refuse food and fluids without being properly informed about the diagnosis and the expected course their illness will take," he said. The LCF's Andrea Williams said there were "too many loopholes that could be abused by unscrupulous doctors". Ex-Labour minister Frank Field told BBC Two's Newsnight programme there was a danger people would feel under pressure to "do away" with themselves so relatives could inherit their assets. Constitutional Affairs Minister David Lammy said laws affecting 750,000 people with dementia needed updating. Mr Lammy told BBC News Labour MPs would not get a free vote as the law was being strengthened, not changed. "We are against euthanasia, we are against assisted suicide but we are in a situation now where people can make living wills and that has the force of the common law," he said. "Doctors are saying they want more clarity. Patients are saying they want more clarity." The Making Decisions Alliance, which includes the Alzheimer's Society, Age Concern, Mencap and the National Autistic Society, said misunderstandings over the bill had to be cleared up. "It will not change the current law on euthanasia and will actually provide a series of better safeguards when decisions are made for people who lack capacity," the alliance said in a statement. The British Medical Association also backs the bill, saying it just gives incapacitated people the same rights as others. Debate on legalising euthanasia has intensified in the UK because of cases like that of motor neurone patient Diane Pretty. She died two years ago after losing a legal battle to allow her husband to help her commit suicide.

The bill would give legal force to "living wills", where people say they want medical treatment withheld if they become severely incapacitated.The Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) and Lawyers' Christian Fellowship (LCF) said the Mental Capacity Bill would allow euthanasia by the "back door".It would allow people to give somebody the power of attorney to make decisions on their behalf, which could be challenged by doctors.The Mental Capacity Bill has broad support from charities who say it would give better safeguards over treatment."We are against euthanasia, we are against assisted suicide but we are in a situation now where people can make living wills and that has the force of the common law," he said.MPs are preparing to debate a bill which critics claim would legalise euthanasia "by the back door".The bill would establish a legal presumption that everybody can make decisions about their own treatment unless proved otherwise."It will not change the current law on euthanasia and will actually provide a series of better safeguards when decisions are made for people who lack capacity," the alliance said in a statement.Ministers insist the Mental Capacity Bill - for England and Wales - would not change laws on assisted suicide and contains a presumption in favour of preserving life.The British Medical Association also backs the bill, saying it just gives incapacitated people the same rights as others.An amendment to the bill - specifically preventing decisions that would bring about death - has been tabled by former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith.

Summarize the following article: 'Debate needed' on donations cap A cap on donations to political parties should not be introduced yet, the elections watchdog has said. Fears that big donors can buy political favours have sparked calls for a limit. In a new report, the Electoral Commission says it is worth debating a £10,000 cap for the future but now is not the right time to introduce it. It also says there should be more state funding for political parties and candidates should be able to spend more on election campaigning. There were almost £68m in reported donations to political parties in 2001, 2002 and 2003, with nearly £12m of them from individual gifts worth more than £1m. The rules have already been changed so the public can see who gives how much to the parties but the report says there are still public suspicions. The commission says capping donations would mean taxpayers giving parties more cash - something which would first have to be acceptable to the public and shown to work. "While we are not in principle opposed to the introduction of a donation cap, we do not believe that such a major departure from the existing system now would be sensible," says its report. If there was to be a cap, it should be £10,000 - a small enough amount to make a difference but which would have banned £56m in donations between 2001 and 2003. Even without changes the commission does urge political parties to seek out more small-scale donations and suggests there should be income tax relief for gifts under £200. It also suggests increasing state funding for parties to £3m so help can be extended to all parties with at least two members in the House of Commons, European Parliament, Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly or Northern Ireland Assembly. And it suggests new ways of boosting election campaigning, seen as a way of improving voter turnout. All local election candidates should be entitled to a free mailshot for campaign leaflets, says the watchdog. And there should be a shift in the amount of money allowed to be spent at elections from a national level to a local level to help politicians engage better with voters. The report suggests doubling the money which can be spent by candidates, while cutting national spending limits from £20m to £15m. The commission also says the spending limits for general elections should cover the four months before the poll - as happens with other elections. Electoral Commission chairman Sam Younger said: "There is no doubt that political parties have a vital role to play in maintaining the health of our democracy and for this they need to be adequately resourced. "Our research has shown that people want to be more informed about party politics and that they want politicians to be more visible and accessible. "The public are reluctant for the state to fund parties but at the same time are unhappy with large private donations." He called for a wider public debate on party funding to find the consensus needed for radical changes to the current system.

It also says there should be more state funding for political parties and candidates should be able to spend more on election campaigning.A cap on donations to political parties should not be introduced yet, the elections watchdog has said.The commission says capping donations would mean taxpayers giving parties more cash - something which would first have to be acceptable to the public and shown to work.Even without changes the commission does urge political parties to seek out more small-scale donations and suggests there should be income tax relief for gifts under £200.There were almost £68m in reported donations to political parties in 2001, 2002 and 2003, with nearly £12m of them from individual gifts worth more than £1m.The rules have already been changed so the public can see who gives how much to the parties but the report says there are still public suspicions.In a new report, the Electoral Commission says it is worth debating a £10,000 cap for the future but now is not the right time to introduce it.The commission also says the spending limits for general elections should cover the four months before the poll - as happens with other elections.

Summarize the following article: Candidate resigns over BNP link A prospective candidate for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has resigned after admitting a "brief attachment" to the British National Party(BNP). Nicholas Betts-Green, who had been selected to fight the Suffolk Coastal seat, quit after reports in a newspaper that he attended a BNP meeting. The former teacher confirmed he had attended the meeting but said that was the only contact he had with the group. Mr Betts-Green resigned after being questioned by the party's leadership. A UKIP spokesman said Mr Betts-Green's resignation followed disclosures in the East Anglian Daily Times last month about his attendance at a BNP meeting. "He did once attend a BNP meeting. He did not like what he saw and heard and will take no further part of it," the spokesman added. A meeting of Suffolk Coastal UKIP members is due to be held next week to discuss a replacement. Mr Betts-Green, of Woodbridge, Suffolk, has also resigned as UKIP's branch chairman.

Nicholas Betts-Green, who had been selected to fight the Suffolk Coastal seat, quit after reports in a newspaper that he attended a BNP meeting.A UKIP spokesman said Mr Betts-Green's resignation followed disclosures in the East Anglian Daily Times last month about his attendance at a BNP meeting."He did once attend a BNP meeting.Mr Betts-Green, of Woodbridge, Suffolk, has also resigned as UKIP's branch chairman.

Summarize the following article: Lib Dems stress Budget trust gap Public trust in the handling of the economy can only be restored if Gordon Brown opens up his books for unbiased inspection, say the Lib Dems. City experts say there is a £10bn "black hole" in the public finances, a claim denied by the chancellor. Lib Dem spokesman Vince Cable said the public did not know who to believe and the National Audit Office should judge. Responding to the pre-Budget report, Mr Cable also attacked Labour's "unfair" and over-complicated taxes. In his report, Mr Brown insisted he was on course to meet his "golden rule" of borrowing only to invest, rather than for day-to-day spending, over the course of the economic cycle. Mr Cable said people did not know whether to believe the chancellor or the consensus among experts which said the rule would be broken. "There is an issue of credibility and trust," he said. "We cannot have a continuation of a situation where the chancellor sets his own tests and then marks them. "What we need is the equivalent of a thorough Ofsted inspection of the government's accounts." He asked what the government had to hide. Mr Cable also accused the chancellor of ducking tough choices. He argued: "There are serious challenges ahead from the falling dollar and from the rapid downturn in the UK housing market and rising personal debt. But they have not been confronted." Mr Brown confirmed he was setting aside another £520m for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr Cable compared that new cost with the £500m needed for Britain's role in the entire first Gulf War - when 80% of the bill had been met through help from European and Arab nations. He suggested keeping British troops in Iraq could cost another £1bn with the government also planning to spend at least £3bn for identity cards. The current economic climate meant Britain could not afford the "reckless, George Bush-style tax cutting spree" planned by the Tories, he said. Instead, what was needed was simple and fair taxation rather than the "complete mess" produced by Mr Brown's endless tinkering. Mr Cable said 40% of all pensioners were now paying marginal tax rates of 50%. And one-and-a-half million hard working families were paying 60% marginal tax rates. With that record, he asked why ministers attacked Lib Dem plans for a new 50% tax rate for the "very rich" - those earning more than £100,000 a year. Mr Brown earmarked £1bn to help keep down council tax rises next year. But the Lib Dem spokesman questioned whether that money was being found from cuts to education and health. He urged the government to scrap the "grossly unfair" tax completely. The Lib Dems want it replaced with a local income tax. In response, Mr Brown stressed the Iraq money came from a reserve funds. It was because he had rejected previous Lib Dem proposals, such as scrapping the New Deal, that Britain's economy was successful, claimed Mr Brown.

Mr Cable said 40% of all pensioners were now paying marginal tax rates of 50%.It was because he had rejected previous Lib Dem proposals, such as scrapping the New Deal, that Britain's economy was successful, claimed Mr Brown.Mr Cable said people did not know whether to believe the chancellor or the consensus among experts which said the rule would be broken.Mr Brown earmarked £1bn to help keep down council tax rises next year.Mr Cable also accused the chancellor of ducking tough choices.Mr Brown confirmed he was setting aside another £520m for the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.Lib Dem spokesman Vince Cable said the public did not know who to believe and the National Audit Office should judge.With that record, he asked why ministers attacked Lib Dem plans for a new 50% tax rate for the "very rich" - those earning more than £100,000 a year.Responding to the pre-Budget report, Mr Cable also attacked Labour's "unfair" and over-complicated taxes.Public trust in the handling of the economy can only be restored if Gordon Brown opens up his books for unbiased inspection, say the Lib Dems.In response, Mr Brown stressed the Iraq money came from a reserve funds.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Goldsmith denies war advice claim The attorney general has denied his statement to Parliament about the legality of the Iraq war was drafted by Downing Street officials. Lord Goldsmith said Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan played no part in drafting the answer. He added the answer represented his view that the war was legal, but was not a summary of his advice to the PM. The government has resisted calls to publish the full advice, saying such papers are always kept confidential. In a statement, Lord Goldsmith said: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer." He said the answer had been prepared in his office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials, a QC, Christopher Greenwood and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg. "No other minister or official was involved in any way." He suggested the claim that Lord Falconer and Lady Morgan had drafted the answer were the result of a mis-transcription of his evidence to the Butler Inquiry into pre-war intelligence. "As I have always made clear, I set out in the answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing (UN) Security Council resolutions," he said. "The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government." Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said Lord Goldsmith's admission that his parliamentary answer was not a summary of his legal opinion suggested Parliament may have been misled. "The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said. "What is clear from his statement today is that he does not believe that it was a full, accurate summary of his formal opinion." Earlier, Tony Blair dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion. "That's what he (Lord Goldsmith) said and that's what I say. He has dealt with this time and time and time again," Mr Blair told his monthly news conference in Downing Street. He refused to answer further questions on the issue. On the question of whether such papers have always been kept confidential, Tory MP Michael Mates, who is a member of the Commons intelligence and security committee and was part of the Butler inquiry, told the BBC: "That, as a general rule, is right, but it's not an absolute rule." He said there had been other occasions when advice had been published, most recently regarding Prince Charles's marriage plans. The government could not pick and choose when to use the convention, he said. Mr Mates added: "This may be one of those special occasions... when it would be in the public interest to see the advice which the attorney general gave to the prime minister." The claims about Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan's involvement were made in a book published this week by Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers. He also says Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair on 7 March 2003 that the Iraq war could be illegal without a second UN resolution sanctioning military action. A short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action - did not suggest this. Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said the ministerial answer was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action. She said the full advice should have been attached, according to the ministerial code, and demanded a Lords inquiry into the matter. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats say they still want the publication of the full legal advice given by the Attorney General. Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said Lord Goldsmith's statement still did not clear up the outstanding issues. "If his original advice of 7 March accepted that military action might be illegal, how was it that he resolved any such doubts by the time the Parliamentary answer was published on 17 March?" he said. "Only the fullest disclosure will now do."

Former minister Clare Short, who resigned from the government over the Iraq war, said the ministerial answer was the same statement that was earlier shown to the cabinet as it discussed military action.Former foreign secretary Robin Cook said Lord Goldsmith's admission that his parliamentary answer was not a summary of his legal opinion suggested Parliament may have been misled.In a statement, Lord Goldsmith said: "I was fully involved throughout the drafting process and personally finalised, and of course approved, the answer."He added the answer represented his view that the war was legal, but was not a summary of his advice to the PM.Lord Goldsmith said Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan played no part in drafting the answer."The attorney general may never have presented his answer as a summary, but others certainly did," he said."If his original advice of 7 March accepted that military action might be illegal, how was it that he resolved any such doubts by the time the Parliamentary answer was published on 17 March?"Earlier, Tony Blair dismissed questions about the attorney general's advice, and said his Parliamentary statement had been a "fair summary" of his opinion.he said."The answer did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government.""As I have always made clear, I set out in the answer my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing (UN) Security Council resolutions," he said.A short statement about Lord Goldsmith's position presented in a written parliamentary answer on 17 March 2003 - just before a crucial Commons vote on the military action - did not suggest this.He said the answer had been prepared in his office with the involvement of Solicitor General Harriet Harman, two of his own officials, three Foreign Office officials, a QC, Christopher Greenwood and the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine of Lairg.

Summarize the following article: 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.

"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.Last year MAB, which opposed the war in Iraq, urged Muslims not to vote for Labour in the European elections.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.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.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."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."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."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."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."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.

Summarize the following article: Petrol duties frozen, Brown says Chancellor Gordon Brown has announced a freeze on fuel duty in his pre-budget speech to the Commons on Thursday. Mr Brown told the House that government policy is to raise fuel duty at least in line with inflation each year to fulfil environmental commitments. But this financial year, because of "volatility in the oil market", he said the duty would be frozen. During 2000 many motorists campaigned against the rises but environmentalists believe less duty means more pollution. He said: "It is our policy that each year fuel duties should rise at least in line with inflation as we seek to meet our targets for reducing polluting emmissions and fund our public services. "But this financial year because of the sustained volatility in the oil market I propose to match the freeze in car vehicle licence duty with a continuation on the freeze on the main road fuel duties." The RAC welcomed the news, calling it an "early Christmas present" for motorists. But the organisation urged drivers to continue to shop around to get the best price for petrol. Environmental group Transport 2000 said the freeze sends the wrong message to motorists. "We are concerned that although Britain leads the world in rhetoric about climate change it often fails in practical action," said a spokesman. In 2000 the People's Fuel Lobby caused chaos by blocking roads with slow-moving convoys after Mr Brown threatened to raise fuel taxes. The chancellor did not raise duty that year, but despite threats of more protests in 2003, he added 1.28p per litre.

Mr Brown told the House that government policy is to raise fuel duty at least in line with inflation each year to fulfil environmental commitments."But this financial year because of the sustained volatility in the oil market I propose to match the freeze in car vehicle licence duty with a continuation on the freeze on the main road fuel duties."He said: "It is our policy that each year fuel duties should rise at least in line with inflation as we seek to meet our targets for reducing polluting emmissions and fund our public services.But this financial year, because of "volatility in the oil market", he said the duty would be frozen.Chancellor Gordon Brown has announced a freeze on fuel duty in his pre-budget speech to the Commons on Thursday.

Summarize the following article: Scots smoking ban details set out Smoke-free areas will save lives and improve Scotland's health, First Minister Jack McConnell has insisted. He told the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday that a "comprehensive ban" on smoking in public places would be introduced by the spring of 2006. Mr McConnell said the country's health rates were "lamentable" not least because of smoking. He said fines of up to £2,500 would be levied on employers and licences would be removed for non-compliance. Earlier, the Scottish Executive considered a range of options but agreed unanimously to introduce an all-out ban on smoking in public places. In a statement to parliament, Mr McConnell said that the licensed trade would be asked to join an expert committee prior to the ban coming into force. The health arguments far outweighed lingering public disquiet about a complete ban and claims by the licensed trade that jobs would be lost, he told MSPs. He said there would be an international marketing campaign whereby "tourists can enjoy smoke free environment and the sick man of Europe image becomes a thing of the past". "There are still national habits which hold us back - the time has come for this parliament to accelerate improvements in health," he declared. "Health rates are lamentable because of a lack of exercise, drugs abuse, excessive drinking and over-eating. "They all make us one of the most unhealthy countries in Europe, and too many smoke. "It is clear that Scotland must not be held back by poor public health - the single biggest contribution devolved government can make is to reduce the toll of preventable death caused by smoking." The legislation will be introduced as part of the Health Service (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which will be considered by parliament before Christmas. Main points of the plan: - A comprehensive ban on smoking in all enclosed public places in Scotland - The legislation will be enforced by environmental health and local licensing officers - Licensees or employers who fail to enforce the law will face fines up to a maximum of £2,500 - Licensees who persistently refuse to comply with the law will face the ultimate sanction of losing their liquor licence - A system of issuing fixed penalty notices for those individuals who break the law will be examined - Individuals who persistently break the law will face a maximum fine of £1,000. Mr McConnell claimed there was evidence that smoking bans had helped smokers to either give up quicker or smoke less. He said there had been falling cigarette sales of 13% in New York and 16% in Ireland. Mr McConnell added that there had been a near nine per cent rise in tax revenues from New York bars and restaurants and, in Ireland, only a one point three per cent volume sales fall, where they were declining before the ban. The afternoon announcement, following a cabinet meeting on Wednesday morning, won broad support from opposition parties. The Scottish National Party's Holyrood leader, Nicola Sturgeon, welcomed the move but added that the public should be consulted as the clock ticked towards the ban date. She said: "The time has come for a ban on smoking in public places. "There is evidence a ban can cut deaths from passive smoking and makes it easier for the 70% of smokers who desperately want to give up the habit. "But we must also recognise that some people have concerns and reservations - there are people who are yet to be persuaded." The Scottish Conservative Party leader, David McLetchie, questioned what would be exempted from the ban. He was keen to know if inmates in Scottish prisons would continue to be allowed to smoke. Mr McLetchie asked: "Would it not be ironic and perhaps entirely typical of the first minister's brave new Scotland that the criminals can be smokers but the smokers will become criminals?" The Scottish Green Party's health spokeswoman, Eleanor Scott, said she was pleased Scotland would be following the "success stories of New York and Ireland". She believed the majority of people in Scotland wanted to go out without having to breathe in harmful tobacco smoke.

He told the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday that a "comprehensive ban" on smoking in public places would be introduced by the spring of 2006.She said: "The time has come for a ban on smoking in public places.The Scottish Green Party's health spokeswoman, Eleanor Scott, said she was pleased Scotland would be following the "success stories of New York and Ireland".Mr McConnell said the country's health rates were "lamentable" not least because of smoking.In a statement to parliament, Mr McConnell said that the licensed trade would be asked to join an expert committee prior to the ban coming into force.Mr McConnell claimed there was evidence that smoking bans had helped smokers to either give up quicker or smoke less.The health arguments far outweighed lingering public disquiet about a complete ban and claims by the licensed trade that jobs would be lost, he told MSPs.The Scottish Conservative Party leader, David McLetchie, questioned what would be exempted from the ban.Earlier, the Scottish Executive considered a range of options but agreed unanimously to introduce an all-out ban on smoking in public places.He said fines of up to £2,500 would be levied on employers and licences would be removed for non-compliance."It is clear that Scotland must not be held back by poor public health - the single biggest contribution devolved government can make is to reduce the toll of preventable death caused by smoking."

Summarize the following article: Pre-poll clash on tax and spend Labour and the Tories have clashed over tax and spending plans as the row over Gordon Brown's Budget turned into a full scale pre-election battle. Tony Blair claimed a Tory government would "cut" £35bn from public services hitting schools, hospitals and police. Tory chairman Liam Fox accused Labour of "at best misrepresentation at worst a downright lie" and said the "smear" tactics were a sign of desperation. The Lib Dems accused Mr Brown of ducking the issue of council tax rises. Appearing together at a Labour poster launch, the prime minister hailed his chancellor's "brilliant" performance. And he claimed the Tories would cut £35bn from public services, which was the equivalent of sacking every doctor and teacher in the UK. The Tories said they would not cut spending but agreed public spending would increase more slowly under their plans - leading to a total of £33.5bn less spending than that anticipated by Labour by 2011. But they say not a single doctor, teacher or nurse will be cut. Dr Fox said: "We have said we will be spending more, year on year over and above inflation. "And to call that a cut is at best a misrepresentation, at worst a downright lie." Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin also predicted Mr Brown would have to raise taxes by £10bn or £11bn if Labour was re-elected because he was borrowing and spending too much. For the Lib Dems, Vince Cable said the chancellor had failed to deal with the "looming problems" of revaluation of council tax bands which he argued would result in "massive increases" for some. Mr Brown and Mr Blair staged a show of unity on Thursday morning, the day after the chancellor delivered a record-breaking ninth Budget. Mr Cable said taxation as a share of the economy would go up under all three of the main parties. The chancellor meanwhile insisted his spending plans were "affordable". In Wednesday's Budget, Mr Brown doubled the level at which homebuyers pay stamp duty, unveiled a rise in child tax credit and a £200 council tax refund for over-65s. Defending the plans, he told Today: "I will take no risks with the stability of the economy. "All our spending plans announced yesterday [Wednesday], including what we can do for pensioners, as well as for young families and on stamp duty and inheritance tax, all these are costed and affordable." In a further sign, if any were needed, that the election is approaching, the House of Commons authorities have formally told MPs their offices will be "deep cleaned" during the three-week poll campaign. Mr Blair has yet to name the day - but it is widely expected to be 5 May.

The Tories said they would not cut spending but agreed public spending would increase more slowly under their plans - leading to a total of £33.5bn less spending than that anticipated by Labour by 2011.Tory shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin also predicted Mr Brown would have to raise taxes by £10bn or £11bn if Labour was re-elected because he was borrowing and spending too much.And he claimed the Tories would cut £35bn from public services, which was the equivalent of sacking every doctor and teacher in the UK.Mr Cable said taxation as a share of the economy would go up under all three of the main parties.Tory chairman Liam Fox accused Labour of "at best misrepresentation at worst a downright lie" and said the "smear" tactics were a sign of desperation.Labour and the Tories have clashed over tax and spending plans as the row over Gordon Brown's Budget turned into a full scale pre-election battle.The Lib Dems accused Mr Brown of ducking the issue of council tax rises.For the Lib Dems, Vince Cable said the chancellor had failed to deal with the "looming problems" of revaluation of council tax bands which he argued would result in "massive increases" for some.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Kennedy's cautious optimism Charles Kennedy is far too canny to make any grand claims about how his party may fare at the general election. In his 22 years in the Commons, he has seen his fair share of such claims dashed on the rocks of bitter experience and, he might say, the UK's political and electoral system. But even his caution cannot hide the fact that this is a party and a leader that believes it may well be on the way to something special in a few months' time. "Look, I have already said I am not going to put any artificial limits on our ambitions this time around," he said. He still seems to accept that the most likely outcome is another Labour victory of some sort. And his general election pitch is designed around the notion of the Lib Dems as the "real" opposition. But doesn't that lead to the jibe that his is a party actively bidding to come second? He is prepared to go this far: "A clear conclusion has been reached, including by Conservatives, that the Conservatives are not going to win this election. "Therefore the potential is there for the Liberal Democrat advance to be one of the big stories of the election, given that we have the capacity to take on Labour and win as well as take on the Conservatives and win. "This is really going to be the first modern three party UK election that we have all experienced". But haven't we been here before, with suggestions in the 1980s that Labour was finished. Won't voters looking for an alternative to Labour still naturally gravitate to the Conservatives? "The problem is that, geographically, the Conservative party has melted away in about a third of Britain. "We have supplanted them as the main alternative to Labour in whole tracts of mainland Britain. And they are a party with an ageing and declining membership base and they just do not look vibrant or vital or in touch any longer with contemporary Britain". Mr Kennedy is also eager to dispel any impression his party is the new party of the left and is likely to attract mostly disillusioned Labour voters. He insists his three headline commitments, to be financed from a 1% tax increase on those earning over £100,000 a year, will appeal right across the political spectrum. They are to replace the council tax with a local income tax, provide free long term care for the elderly and scrap student fees. He also believes being the only major party promising to increases taxes will not land him in the same trouble a similar policy did to Old Labour. "I think the tax argument has moved on a lot in British politics particularly in the context of the forthcoming general election," he said. Under a Labour government the tax burden would have to rise, while the Tories' plans to increase spending in some areas while also reducing taxes is just incredible, he claims. "We are being straightforward with people, saying you know there is likely to be an increase in the tax burden, we are only recommending one specific tax rise for the top end of income scale earners to fund three specific policies". "That is a clear cut choice for people, one I am very comfortable with and I think will distinguish us from the others". As to his own future, he is clear. If, as expected, his party increases its showing at the election, he intends to go into the next parliament "on the front foot with a view to leading it right through that parliament into the next election because I see that as the decisive opportunity for us". That last remark reflects a view gaining ground in Westminster that, if the Tories do as badly as some fear, the election after next might really see that historic breakthrough by the third party. Perhaps then Mr Kennedy will be ready to put some of the caution to one side.

He also believes being the only major party promising to increases taxes will not land him in the same trouble a similar policy did to Old Labour.Mr Kennedy is also eager to dispel any impression his party is the new party of the left and is likely to attract mostly disillusioned Labour voters."This is really going to be the first modern three party UK election that we have all experienced".Charles Kennedy is far too canny to make any grand claims about how his party may fare at the general election.Under a Labour government the tax burden would have to rise, while the Tories' plans to increase spending in some areas while also reducing taxes is just incredible, he claims.He is prepared to go this far: "A clear conclusion has been reached, including by Conservatives, that the Conservatives are not going to win this election."I think the tax argument has moved on a lot in British politics particularly in the context of the forthcoming general election," he said.If, as expected, his party increases its showing at the election, he intends to go into the next parliament "on the front foot with a view to leading it right through that parliament into the next election because I see that as the decisive opportunity for us".That last remark reflects a view gaining ground in Westminster that, if the Tories do as badly as some fear, the election after next might really see that historic breakthrough by the third party."We are being straightforward with people, saying you know there is likely to be an increase in the tax burden, we are only recommending one specific tax rise for the top end of income scale earners to fund three specific policies"."Therefore the potential is there for the Liberal Democrat advance to be one of the big stories of the election, given that we have the capacity to take on Labour and win as well as take on the Conservatives and win.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Howard and Blair tax pledge clash Tony Blair has said voters will have to wait for Labour's manifesto to see if the party has plans to increase tax. The premier was responding to a challenge from Tory leader Michael Howard who said Labour would raise taxes in its post-election Budget. Mr Blair derided Tory claims they could cut £35bn in "wasteful spending" saying the party had got its sums wrong. The two political leaders clashed just days after the opening salvoes of the pre-election period. Mr Howard told MPs that "every independent expert" from the International Monetary Fund to the Institute of Fiscal Studies had suggested the "government was spending more than it is raising and a Labour chancellor would have to put up taxes". Mr Blair replied: "I think they are wrong for this very simple reason: that the Treasury forecasts on the economy have been proven right." The Tories on Monday highlighted their plans for tax cuts worth £4bn, although the specific taxes to be cut have not been announced. They also spelled out their plans for reduced government borrowing and more spending on key services. Labour and the Liberal Democrats have said the party's sums do not add up and claim it would cut frontline services. But Mr Howard said voters faced a clear choice at the next election between more waste and more tax under Labour and Tory value for money and lower taxes. The Liberal Democrats have also launched their pre-election platform, with leader Charles Kennedy saying his party was the "authentic opposition", particularly on the Iraq war, council tax and university tuition fees. Labour hit back at the Tory proposals even before their publication with election coordinator Alan Milburn accusing Mr Howard of producing a "fraudulent prospectus".

The premier was responding to a challenge from Tory leader Michael Howard who said Labour would raise taxes in its post-election Budget.But Mr Howard said voters faced a clear choice at the next election between more waste and more tax under Labour and Tory value for money and lower taxes.Mr Blair derided Tory claims they could cut £35bn in "wasteful spending" saying the party had got its sums wrong.Labour and the Liberal Democrats have said the party's sums do not add up and claim it would cut frontline services.Mr Howard told MPs that "every independent expert" from the International Monetary Fund to the Institute of Fiscal Studies had suggested the "government was spending more than it is raising and a Labour chancellor would have to put up taxes".

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

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

Summarize the following article: EU rules 'won't stop UK spending' The shape of the UK's economy In graphics But he denied that he was ruling out British membership of the euro despite saying there would be no assessment of the five economic tests this year. Mr Brown said that it was vital the UK continued to invest in infrastructure, science, and education in the future. Otherwise it would be overtaken by the likes of China, he told MPs. The chancellor said that the EU's planned changes in the growth and stability pact - designed to ensure that countries in the euro zone do not borrow too much - would force Britain to run a budget surplus of 1% over the economic cycle. Under Mr Brown's rules, the UK current budget must be in balance over the economic cycle, but public investment is not counted as part of that deficit. He told the House of Commons Treasury Select Committee that the EU rules "make it difficult for a low debt country to run the investment programmes that are necessary to improve its infrastructure". But he argued that the EU was moving in the direction of the UK principles, and would eventually recognise the need to consider budget deficits over a longer period than one year, to include investment, and to take more account of the total size of government debt as well as the balance each year. Under Mr Brown's "sustainable investment" rule, government debt should be under 40% - in contrast to the 60% allowed under the growth and stability pact. Mr Brown vigorously denied Conservative claims that he had in effect fiddled the figures to ensure that he met his own fiscal rules. In March the Office of National Statistics (ONS) reclassified £3.4bn of spending on road repairs as public investment - shortly before the chancellor announced in the Budget that he would meet his own fiscal budget rule by only £6bn. Conservative Michael Fallon asked Mr Brown whether the Treasury had leaned on ONS to make this change, and said that the ONS had received a written paper from the Treasury on this matter. But the chancellor said Mr Fallon was "impugning the integrity" of the Office of National Statistics and said the decision had been made completely independently. Mr Brown also denied that he was increasing taxes to fund his spending gap. He told the Treasury Select Committee that a growing economy meant more people in work and more profits for companies which would boost Treasury coffers. Earlier, ex-Conservative chancellor Ken Clarke welcomed a relaxation of the rules governing the euro zone. Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clarke said political give and take would replace more "rigid" rules. But fellow Tory David Heathcoat-Amory said the folly of the system was in trying to run Europe's varied economies on one set of rules. "The essential point here is that the stability and growth pact has turned out to be a fake," he said. "The warning is about the European constitution, which we are going to have a vote on in a year or two, and that centralises and entrenches these rules in a constitution. It gives more powers to Brussels to co-ordinate things like employment and economic policy." But, speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, Gordon Brown said that the new stability pact rules were not part of a binding Treaty and could be changed again the future - potentially opening the way for future euro membership. "The conditions for euro entry are unchanged by this new decision about the stability and growth pact," Mr. Brown said.

"The conditions for euro entry are unchanged by this new decision about the stability and growth pact," Mr. Brown said.The chancellor said that the EU's planned changes in the growth and stability pact - designed to ensure that countries in the euro zone do not borrow too much - would force Britain to run a budget surplus of 1% over the economic cycle.But, speaking to the Treasury Select Committee, Gordon Brown said that the new stability pact rules were not part of a binding Treaty and could be changed again the future - potentially opening the way for future euro membership.Under Mr Brown's "sustainable investment" rule, government debt should be under 40% - in contrast to the 60% allowed under the growth and stability pact.Mr Brown said that it was vital the UK continued to invest in infrastructure, science, and education in the future.But the chancellor said Mr Fallon was "impugning the integrity" of the Office of National Statistics and said the decision had been made completely independently.Speaking on Radio 4's Today programme, Mr Clarke said political give and take would replace more "rigid" rules.Under Mr Brown's rules, the UK current budget must be in balance over the economic cycle, but public investment is not counted as part of that deficit.Conservative Michael Fallon asked Mr Brown whether the Treasury had leaned on ONS to make this change, and said that the ONS had received a written paper from the Treasury on this matter.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: 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.

Six government units would also be scrapped under proposals which the Tories say would save more than £4.3bn.Tory frontbencher John Redwood said Britain needed a slimmer government and lower taxes to be competitive.The government has announced plans to cut 100,000 civil servants as part of its efficiency drive."The Conservatives are committed to cutting Labour's public spending plans by a massive £35 billion," he said.The Tories say the strategic health authorities are not needed as it is better that local people, rather than officials, run hospitals and surgeries.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.The Liberal Democrats have said they would cut the number of Whitehall departments to make sure money reaches frontline services."Labour are creating Two Britains: the Britain of the forgotten majority and bureaucratic Britain," he said.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: 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.

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 leader Roger Knapman says he is glad to see the back of Mr Kilroy-Silk.UKIP won 31% of the vote in Erewash in last June's European elections - with Mr Kilroy-Silk among their candidates for the region.UKIP officials also argue Mr Kilroy-Silk has not been "straightforward" in attacking the party he once wanted to lead.Mr Kilroy-Silk announced his plans a day after launching his new party, Veritas, the Latin for truth.Mr Kilroy-Silk quit UKIP last week after months of tension as he vied unsuccessfully for the leadership of that party.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.Ex-chat show host Robert Kilroy-Silk is to contest the Derbyshire seat of Erewash at the next general election.

Summarize the following article: Jamieson issues warning to bigots Scotland's justice minister has warned bigoted soccer fans that she wants to hit them "where it hurts most" by banning them from matches. Cathy Jamieson said exclusion orders are one of a series of measures being considered in the Scottish Executive campaign against sectarianism. She praised Celtic and Rangers for their work in tackling the problem. However, the minister said stopping sectarian abuse associated with Old Firm matches is a key objective. Ms Jamieson was speaking ahead of the third round Scottish Cup clash between the Glasgow clubs at Parkhead on Sunday. The sectarianism long associated with sections of the support from both clubs has become a significant target for the executive. Last week Ms Jamieson and First Minister Jack McConnell met supporters' representatives from both clubs to discuss the issue. They plan to hold an anti-sectarian summit next month with officials from the clubs, church leaders, senior police officers and local authority chiefs among those to be invited. Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Sunday Live programme, Ms Jamieson described Friday's meeting as "very productive" and said putting the squeeze on the bigots would be a key aim. Ms Jamieson stressed that sectarianism has not been confined to football but it can act as a "trigger" for tensions and violence. Clubs have taken action in the past to ban troublesome fans and supporters' groups expressed their desire to ensure that the game is no longer tainted by the problem. Ms Jamieson said the executive should have a role in tackling the soccer troublemakers. She said: "We can't get away from the fact that in some instances some of the religious hatred that some people try to associate with football boils over into violence. "That is the kind of thing we want to stop and that's the kind of thing supporters' groups are very clear they don't want to be part of either, and they will work with us to try and deal with that." Ms Jamieson praised the police for their action and said: "The police do want to identify whether there are particular individuals who are going over the top and inciting hatred or violence - they will crack down very effectively on them. "We have of course already indicated that we will consider the introduction of banning orders to give additional powers to where there are people who are going over the top, who have made inappropriate behaviour at football matches, to be able to stop them attending the games. "That's the kind of thing that will hit those kind of people where it hurts the most in not allowing them to attend the games," she said. Praising Celtic and Rangers for their efforts, she said: "I don't think there is any doubt that we have seen some positive moves from the clubs. "Both Rangers and Celtic football clubs have been involved in working with the executive to produce, for example, an educational pack for young people."

Ms Jamieson said the executive should have a role in tackling the soccer troublemakers.Ms Jamieson praised the police for their action and said: "The police do want to identify whether there are particular individuals who are going over the top and inciting hatred or violence - they will crack down very effectively on them.Ms Jamieson stressed that sectarianism has not been confined to football but it can act as a "trigger" for tensions and violence.Cathy Jamieson said exclusion orders are one of a series of measures being considered in the Scottish Executive campaign against sectarianism."That's the kind of thing that will hit those kind of people where it hurts the most in not allowing them to attend the games," she said.Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland's Sunday Live programme, Ms Jamieson described Friday's meeting as "very productive" and said putting the squeeze on the bigots would be a key aim."Both Rangers and Celtic football clubs have been involved in working with the executive to produce, for example, an educational pack for young people."Last week Ms Jamieson and First Minister Jack McConnell met supporters' representatives from both clubs to discuss the issue.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Chancellor rallies Labour voters Gordon Brown has issued a rallying cry to supporters, warning the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the next general election. The chancellor said the poll - expected to fall on 5 May - would give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts. He told his party's spring conference the Tories must not be allowed to win. The Conservatives and Lib Dems insisted that voters faced higher taxes and means-testing under Labour. To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, Mr Brown accused shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin of plotting cuts that were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country. 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 promised to continue economic stability and growth in a third term in power. He also pledged to continue the fight against child and pensioner poverty. And he promised help to get young people on the property ladder. "My message to the thousands of young couples waiting to obtain their first home is that housing is rightly now at the centre of our coming manifesto," he said. "And the next Labour government will match our low mortgage rates with a new first-time buyers' initiative." In the speech, which prompted a standing ovation, 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, the creation of a network of children's centres and flexibility in maternity leave. Responding to the speech, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, George Osborne, said: "This was more talk from Gordon Brown. "We've heard it all before. Instead of talking about the future he kept on talking about the past. "He completely failed to say which taxes he would put up to fill the black hole in his spending plans. "There will be a simple choice at the election - value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown." Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable warned the picture was not as rosy as Mr Brown would like to portray it. "For all his trumpeting of Labour's management of the economy, Gordon Brown's record is very mixed," he said. "Gordon Brown has created a system of massive centralisation and bureaucracy, a system which subjects millions of people to means testing, and a system of taxation which is extremely complex. "For all his positive words, Gordon Brown is faced with economic problems looming on the horizon, not least the unprecedented levels of personal debt facing the nation." Also in Gateshead, the prime minister took questions sent in by e-mail, text message and telephone as part of Labour's attempt to engage the public in their campaign. Mr Blair told the audience he believed the Iraq war would have made Britain a safer place if its emerging democracy succeeded and that he wanted to bring troops home as soon as possible, but not before the job was done. He also said he wanted to carry on as PM "because I still think that there are big changes our country needs".

Responding to the speech, shadow chief secretary to the Treasury, George Osborne, said: "This was more talk from Gordon Brown."There will be a simple choice at the election - value for money and lower taxes with the Conservatives, or more waste and higher taxes under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown."The chancellor said the poll - expected to fall on 5 May - would give a "clear and fundamental" choice between Labour investment and Tory cuts.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.Liberal Democrat shadow chancellor Vince Cable warned the picture was not as rosy as Mr Brown would like to portray it."For all his trumpeting of Labour's management of the economy, Gordon Brown's record is very mixed," he said.Gordon Brown has issued a rallying cry to supporters, warning the "stakes are too high" to stay at home or protest vote in the next general election.To a packed audience at Gateshead's Sage Centre, Mr Brown accused shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin of plotting cuts that were the equivalent of sacking every teacher, GP and nurse in the country.Mr Blair told the audience he believed the Iraq war would have made Britain a safer place if its emerging democracy succeeded and that he wanted to bring troops home as soon as possible, but not before the job was done.He also said he wanted to carry on as PM "because I still think that there are big changes our country needs"."For all his positive words, Gordon Brown is faced with economic problems looming on the horizon, not least the unprecedented levels of personal debt facing the nation."

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

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

Summarize the following article: 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.

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".Tory co-chairman Liam Fox was speaking after Mr Blair told Labour members the Tories offered a "hard right agenda".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.The Lib Dems accuse Mr Blair of making a "touchy-feely" speech to Labour delegates which will not help him regain public trust.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 accused Mr Blair and other Cabinet ministers of telling lies about their opponents' policies and then attacking the lies.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."Meanwhile Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy is expected to attack Mr Blair's words as he begins a nationwide tour on Monday.He would not discuss reports the party repaid £500,000 to Lord Ashcroft after he predicted an election defeat.

Summarize the following article: Teenagers to be allowed to be MPs Teenagers will be able to become MPs under plans unveiled by ministers. In a written statement, Constitutional Affairs Minister Christopher Leslie said the current minimum age of 21 for an MP would be reduced to 18. The proposals follow a recommendation last year by elections watchdog the Electoral Commission. "The government intends to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to lower the age," said Mr Leslie, who was elected in 1997 at the age of 24. Even if the move does go ahead it is unlikely it will be in place before the next general election, widely predicted for May. The announcement from Mr Leslie - who was elected in 1997 in a formerly safe Tory seat - prompted calls for a lowering of the voting age to 16. The Votes at 16 alliance said it was a good thing to "engage people" by lowering the candidacy age but argued lowering the voting age would be much more effective. "Candidacy affects only politicians. The voting age affects millions of younger people," said spokesman Alex Folkes. "We would hope that the government will table a bill that is broad enough to allow for amendments to be brought to test support for a reduction in the voting age." Currently candidates in both local and national votes must be 21 while the voting age is 18. That is because the age of majority was reduced to 18 in 1969 but laws dating from 1695 which determine the current voting age stayed in place. Irish republican Bernadette Devlin was one of just a handful of 21-year-olds elected to Parliament in the 20th century winning a seat in 1969. But the youngest is understood to have been Tory Edward Turnour, who won the 1904 Horsham by-election aged 21 and 144 days and served in Parliament for 47 continuous years. Last April's report by the Electoral Commission said there was no strong argument for leaving the age for standing for election at 21. The commission found the most common approach around the world is for the voting age to be the same as the candidacy age.

The Votes at 16 alliance said it was a good thing to "engage people" by lowering the candidacy age but argued lowering the voting age would be much more effective.That is because the age of majority was reduced to 18 in 1969 but laws dating from 1695 which determine the current voting age stayed in place.The commission found the most common approach around the world is for the voting age to be the same as the candidacy age."The government intends to legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to lower the age," said Mr Leslie, who was elected in 1997 at the age of 24.The announcement from Mr Leslie - who was elected in 1997 in a formerly safe Tory seat - prompted calls for a lowering of the voting age to 16.Last April's report by the Electoral Commission said there was no strong argument for leaving the age for standing for election at 21.The voting age affects millions of younger people," said spokesman Alex Folkes.

Summarize the following article: Labour's core support takes stock Tony Blair has told Labour supporters he's "back" and still hungry for the job of prime minister - but does that sum up the mood at the party's spring conference in Gateshead? "The electorate are keener on the government than some Labour Party members," is the dry assessment of Graham Lane, leader of the Labour group on Newham Council. The problem, according to Mr Lane, is not continuing divisions over Iraq, foundation hospitals or tuition fees, or even voter apathy, but Mr Blair himself. "I have a new slogan. Vote Blair, Get Brown. That's what I am telling people on the doorstep. Don't worry, he will be gone soon." His friend, Saxon Spence, leader of Devon county Labour group, lays the blame for any lack of campaigning zeal on one issue above all others. "You cannot underestimate the impact of the war in Iraq. We lost people from our local party who had some key roles." But the two friends were fired up by Gordon Brown's speech on Saturday, with its appeal to core Labour values on social justice, health and education. "There was real passion. I think we have all felt a little jaded, but it reminded us why we joined the party in the first place," said Mrs Spence. "If he hadn't have walked off the stage, they would still be clapping," added Mr Lane. But for every Brownite at the spring conference there was an equally ardent fan of Mr Blair. Stephen Douglas, 26, from Wales, said after the PM's speech on Sunday: "I think it was a bit of a turning point, given the roasting he has had on some issues. The guy still has it." Tony Martin, of Burnley, said: "He is the first leader who has won us two terms. This bloke has delivered for us." Malcolm Shipley, of Shipley, said it was "as if he is coming round to the right approach again". Katrina Bull, a prospective parliamentary candidate said Mr Blair had shown he could rouse the party's grassroots: "I think if every voter was able to spend time in a room with Tony, the way we have today, we will have no problem with turnout." She had just emerged from a Q&A session, in which Mr Blair - tieless and supremely at ease - answered questions posed via the party's website. A party of councillors from Nottingham agreed that there was nothing wrong with Mr Blair's leadership - and they were adamant that the campaigning strength of the party in their city was as strong as ever. Iraq, they insisted, would not be a factor for most voters. "The biggest problem we have got at the moment is that we keep getting all these polls saying we are going to run away with the election. "It might sound great, but it does create this sense of complacency among our own voters and I think that is the greater problem than Iraq," said Nottingham City Councillor Brian Parbutt. And even Mr Blair's most vocal critics seemed to agree on one thing - he is a master of the sort of glossy, high-profile campaigning that has become Labour's hallmark, epitomised by Friday's whistle-stop tour of marginal seats. A group of shop stewards from the Swan Hunter shipyard, who said they were facing redundancy, could barely suppress their anger at Mr Blair's failure to, as they saw it, shake off his Tory leanings and stand up for manufacturing in the North East. They were also scathing about the alleged benefits of showpiece projects such as conference venue Sage Centre, heralded by John Prescott and others this weekend as a symbol of Labour's success in urban regeneration. "It is no good having the Sage or Baltic if you haven't got the money for the entrance fee," said Terry Telford. But when asked about Mr Blair's bravura performance on Friday, the men agreed he was "brilliant". And they would all be out on the doorstep pushing the Labour message come election time. "If you are not fired up about the election, then what's the point? There is no complacency as far as I can see in the Labour Party. We are fired up. We are up for this election," said Richie Porterhouse. Mr Telford agreed, but added it was becoming increasingly difficult to think of an answer when people asked "What has Labour done for the North East?" "I have had doors slammed in my face," he said. Every activist I spoke to said they were proud of what they believed Labour had achieved in their local communities - the new hospitals and schools, the better life chances for young people. The problem they faced, they said, was converting this local feelgood factor into votes. But they could at least rely on one "secret weapon", as one activist put it - Tory leader Michael Howard.

Mr Telford agreed, but added it was becoming increasingly difficult to think of an answer when people asked "What has Labour done for the North East?"Katrina Bull, a prospective parliamentary candidate said Mr Blair had shown he could rouse the party's grassroots: "I think if every voter was able to spend time in a room with Tony, the way we have today, we will have no problem with turnout."A party of councillors from Nottingham agreed that there was nothing wrong with Mr Blair's leadership - and they were adamant that the campaigning strength of the party in their city was as strong as ever.The problem they faced, they said, was converting this local feelgood factor into votes.Every activist I spoke to said they were proud of what they believed Labour had achieved in their local communities - the new hospitals and schools, the better life chances for young people.Stephen Douglas, 26, from Wales, said after the PM's speech on Sunday: "I think it was a bit of a turning point, given the roasting he has had on some issues.But for every Brownite at the spring conference there was an equally ardent fan of Mr Blair.The problem, according to Mr Lane, is not continuing divisions over Iraq, foundation hospitals or tuition fees, or even voter apathy, but Mr Blair himself.Tony Martin, of Burnley, said: "He is the first leader who has won us two terms.We are up for this election," said Richie Porterhouse.Tony Blair has told Labour supporters he's "back" and still hungry for the job of prime minister - but does that sum up the mood at the party's spring conference in Gateshead?But when asked about Mr Blair's bravura performance on Friday, the men agreed he was "brilliant"."It might sound great, but it does create this sense of complacency among our own voters and I think that is the greater problem than Iraq," said Nottingham City Councillor Brian Parbutt.And they would all be out on the doorstep pushing the Labour message come election time."The electorate are keener on the government than some Labour Party members," is the dry assessment of Graham Lane, leader of the Labour group on Newham Council.I think we have all felt a little jaded, but it reminded us why we joined the party in the first place," said Mrs Spence.Malcolm Shipley, of Shipley, said it was "as if he is coming round to the right approach again".

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

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

Summarize the following article: Tory backing for ID cards The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards. The shadow cabinet revealed its support ahead of next week's Commons vote on a bill to introduce compulsory ID. The decision follows a "tough meeting" where some senior Tories argued vociferously against the move, party sources told the BBC. The bill, which ministers claim will tackle crime, terrorism and illegal immigration, is expected to be opposed by the Liberal Democrats. They have said the scheme is "deeply flawed" and a waste of money. Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary. The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said. Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives 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 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. "It will do nothing to solve the immediate problems of rising crime and uncontrolled immigration." Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards. "The Tories should have the courage to try and change public opinion not follow it." The new 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."

If they haven't [ID cards] they are going to be detained."Sources within the Conservative Party told the BBC Michael Howard has always been in favour of ID cards, and tried to introduce them when he was Home Secretary.Lib Dem home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "This has all the signs of Michael Howard overruling colleagues' concerns over ID cards.The Tories are to back controversial government plans to introduce ID cards.Despite giving their backing to ID cards, the Conservatives insisted they would hold ministers to account over the precise purpose of the scheme.The party has been "agnostic" on the issue until now but had now decided to come off the fence, the Tory source said.They said they would also press Labour over whether objectives could be met and whether the Home Office would deliver them.And they pledged to assess the cost effectiveness of ID cards and whether people's privacy would be properly protected.

Summarize the following article: 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: 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."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: 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.

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: 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.

But Mr Howard said he rejected the idea that the Tories and BNP appealed to the same voting instincts.BNP leader Nick Griffin told the Independent he expected some BNP voters to switch to the Tories over the issue.Tory leader Michael Howard has dismissed claims that his immigration policy was "moving onto the turf" of the British National Party (BNP).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".Asked if he would welcome BNP voters he told the BBC: "I don't want anybody to vote for these extremist parties".Mr Griffin told the Independent the Tories' plans were "a definite move onto our turf".

Summarize the following article: 'No UK apology' for colonial past The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said. The chancellor, speaking during a week-long tour of Africa, said it was time to talk about enduring British values of liberty and tolerance. Mr Brown has signed a debt relief deal with Tanzania which could cost the UK £1 billion. South African president Thabo Mbeki has attacked British imperialists, saying they treated Africans like savages. Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty. He added that the history of internationalism and enterprise had given Britain a greater global reach than any other country. BBC political correspondent Mark Mardell said Britishness had long been a theme of the chancellor's but "never before has he been so outspoken in defending Britain's past history". The UK has pledged to pay 10% of the developing world's foreign debt bill in an attempt to fight poverty. On top of the relief deal with Tanzania Mr Brown said the UK would make similar offers to 70 poorer nations around the world. Under the plan - which could cost the UK £1bn - countries must spend the cash saved on health, education and welfare. "We make this offer unilaterally but we are now asking other countries to join us," the chancellor said. Mr Brown, on a week-long tour of Africa, spent two days in Tanzania before heading on Friday evening to Mozambique, a country where more than half of the 17-million population lives below the poverty line. There he is expected to strike a similar debt relief pact. The chancellor said he hoped other G8 and European countries would follow suit. The UK has already cancelled its bilateral debts - money the UK alone is owed - with the world's poorest nations including Tanzania. Former international development secretary Clare Short questioned the effectiveness of debt relief as a means of tackling poverty.

Mr Brown has signed a debt relief deal with Tanzania which could cost the UK £1 billion.On top of the relief deal with Tanzania Mr Brown said the UK would make similar offers to 70 poorer nations around the world.The days of Britain having to apologise for its colonial past are over, Gordon Brown has said.The UK has already cancelled its bilateral debts - money the UK alone is owed - with the world's poorest nations including Tanzania.Mr Brown said that missionairies had come to Africa because of their sense of duty.Mr Brown, on a week-long tour of Africa, spent two days in Tanzania before heading on Friday evening to Mozambique, a country where more than half of the 17-million population lives below the poverty line."We make this offer unilaterally but we are now asking other countries to join us," the chancellor said.

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

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

Summarize the following article: 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."

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Campaign 'cold calls' questioned Labour and the Conservatives are still telephoning the millions of people who have signed up to make sure they do not get marketing "cold calls". The parties say they can stick to the rules by ensuring that their calls are not marketing - for instance by asking about people's voting intentions. The Lib Dems are asking the watchdog overseeing the rules to stop the calls. The information commissioner's office says surveys are allowed but there is a "grey" area if personal data is kept. 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. Both schemes are run by the Direct Marketing Association and backed by EU directives on privacy and electronic communications. The rules on marketing calls apply as much to politicians as to private sector companies. But that does not mean Labour and the Tories are not calling people signed up to the TPS. A Labour Party spokesman told the BBC News website the party avoided those on TPS lists when telephoning people about membership or fundraising. But that did not happen for "voter identification" calls. "When we ask which party they will vote for, that is not marketing and we have very clear legal advice that it is not," he said. "So it is not covered by the Telephone Preference Service." He said the party always asked people if they would be happy to be contacted again and if they said no, they were not rung again. A Conservative spokeswoman said the party stuck to the rules when it rang TPS subscribers. She said: "We do apply TPS but in line with the law. We would not do things that are not allowed in the law." A spokesman for the Information Commissioner's Office said it would be classed as marketing if political parties telephoned people to encourage them to vote for them. But the rules did allow polling organisations to telephone people about their voting intentions if they recorded them only as part of a bigger set of statistics, not person by person. "If a political party was doing that than it may be that also would not be marketing," he said. The spokesman said it might be considered unsolicited marketing if a party recorded voting preferences with a view to marketing information in the future. The spokesman said there was "no yes or no" answer and the area was "pretty grey". He added: "If someone complained, then we would investigate that. Political parties are aware of the regulations. At the last by-elections, we reminded them." Lib Dem chairman Matthew Taylor has now written to the watchdog saying: "The advice we have received on several previous occasions is that such phone calls are illegal." He says evidence from local Lib Dem parties around the country suggests there are "significant" numbers of such calls. "I hope you can therefore take swift and efficient action to ensure that this ceases," he tells the commissioner. Mr Taylor argues there should be new guidelines so all parties can act in the same way if the watchdog believes the rules allow parties to ring TPS numbers about voting intentions and later urge those people to vote for them.

A spokesman for the Information Commissioner's Office said it would be classed as marketing if political parties telephoned people to encourage them to vote for them."If a political party was doing that than it may be that also would not be marketing," he said.The spokesman said it might be considered unsolicited marketing if a party recorded voting preferences with a view to marketing information in the future.He said the party always asked people if they would be happy to be contacted again and if they said no, they were not rung again."When we ask which party they will vote for, that is not marketing and we have very clear legal advice that it is not," he said.Mr Taylor argues there should be new guidelines so all parties can act in the same way if the watchdog believes the rules allow parties to ring TPS numbers about voting intentions and later urge those people to vote for them.The parties say they can stick to the rules by ensuring that their calls are not marketing - for instance by asking about people's voting intentions.A Conservative spokeswoman said the party stuck to the rules when it rang TPS subscribers.A Labour Party spokesman told the BBC News website the party avoided those on TPS lists when telephoning people about membership or fundraising.But seven million telephone numbers are on the Telephone Preference Service (TPS) lists, which ban unsolicited sales and marketing calls.He says evidence from local Lib Dem parties around the country suggests there are "significant" numbers of such calls.She said: "We do apply TPS but in line with the law.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Butler launches attack on Blair Former civil service chief Lord Butler has criticised the way Tony Blair's government operates, accusing it of being obsessed with headlines. He also attacked the way the Iraq war was "sold" to the public, with important warnings on the strength of the intelligence left out. Tory leader Michael Howard said Lord Butler had given the "most damaging testimony" he could remember. But Downing Street said Mr Blair should be judged by results not his style. Lord Butler said Mr Blair bypassed the Cabinet and relied instead on small, informal groups of advisers to help him make decisions. The prime minister's official spokesman said the Cabinet was still used to achieve a consensus on important issues. But he added: "You cannot, in a modern government, take every decision in Cabinet. It's just not possible." Lord Butler said the government had too much freedom to "bring in bad Bills" and "to do whatever it likes" and it relied too much on the advice of political appointees. The former cabinet secretary said in an interview with The Spectator magazine: "I would be critical of the present government in that there is too much emphasis on selling, there is too much central control and there is too little of what I would describe as reasoned deliberation which brings in all the arguments." Mr Howard described Lord Butler's intervention as "very important". "This is from someone who was an insider at the very heart of the Blair government. "It is certainly the most damaging testimony I can ever remember from someone in such an eminent position." Lord Butler's report earlier this year into Iraq intelligence said the government's September 2002 weapons dossier did not make clear intelligence about claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was "very thin". The reason for this is that it would have weakened ministers' case for war, Lord Butler said in his Spectator interview, which was conducted by the magazine's editor, Conservative MP Boris Johnson. He said: "When civil servants give material to ministers, they say these are the conclusions we've drawn, but we've got to tell you the evidence we've got is pretty thin. "Similarly, if you are giving something to the United Nations and the country you should warn them." Asked why he thought the warnings were not there Lord Butler said: "One has got to remember what the purpose of the dossier was. The purpose of the dossier was to persuade the British why the government thought Iraq was a very serious threat." When asked whether he thought the country was well-governed on the whole, he replied: "Well. I think we are a country where we suffer very badly from Parliament not having sufficient control over the executive, and that is a very grave flaw. "We should be breaking away from the party whip. The executive is much too free to bring in a huge number of extremely bad Bills, a huge amount of regulation and to do whatever it likes - and whatever it likes is what will get the best headlines tomorrow. "All that is part of what is bad government in this country." Lord Butler's assessment was backed by his predecessor as Cabinet Secretary, Lord Armstrong. Lord Armstrong told BBC Two's Newsnight: "I agree ... there doesn't appear to be the sort of informed collective political judgement brought to bear on decision-making that those affected by decisions are entitled to expect." Liberal Democrat deputy leader Menzies Campbell said he thought Lord Butler's comments were "well justified" and Mr Blair's style of leadership was "corrosive of the whole system of government". But Labour former minister Jack Cunningham accused Lord Butler of basing his comments on the first eight months of the incoming Labour administration, when he was cabinet secretary. Mr Cunningham told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Taken together, Robin Butler's comments are partial, inaccurate and cannot be taken as anything other than politically biased against the Labour government."

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Menzies Campbell said he thought Lord Butler's comments were "well justified" and Mr Blair's style of leadership was "corrosive of the whole system of government".Lord Butler's assessment was backed by his predecessor as Cabinet Secretary, Lord Armstrong.Lord Butler said the government had too much freedom to "bring in bad Bills" and "to do whatever it likes" and it relied too much on the advice of political appointees.Asked why he thought the warnings were not there Lord Butler said: "One has got to remember what the purpose of the dossier was.Lord Butler said Mr Blair bypassed the Cabinet and relied instead on small, informal groups of advisers to help him make decisions.Tory leader Michael Howard said Lord Butler had given the "most damaging testimony" he could remember.The reason for this is that it would have weakened ministers' case for war, Lord Butler said in his Spectator interview, which was conducted by the magazine's editor, Conservative MP Boris Johnson.The purpose of the dossier was to persuade the British why the government thought Iraq was a very serious threat.""This is from someone who was an insider at the very heart of the Blair government.But Labour former minister Jack Cunningham accused Lord Butler of basing his comments on the first eight months of the incoming Labour administration, when he was cabinet secretary.Lord Butler's report earlier this year into Iraq intelligence said the government's September 2002 weapons dossier did not make clear intelligence about claims that Saddam Hussein had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was "very thin".Mr Howard described Lord Butler's intervention as "very important".

Summarize the following article: Jowell rejects 'Las Vegas' jibe The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, has hit out at critics of the Gambling Bill. She told the Guardian newspaper there would be no "Las Vegas-style" super-casinos, as rumoured in the press. Meanwhile Labour backbencher Stephen Pound labelled casino-related regeneration schemes "a pile of pants". The MP for Ealing North claimed the legislation would encourage a mafia-like culture of vice and corruption, in an interview on BBC Radio 4. "You look at some of the people who are involved...they aren't in there to regenerate Blackpool. They are in it to fill their boots," Mr Pound told the Today programme. "I just really think that we have made a terrible mistake here. And over all of it hangs the shadow of the men in the chalk-stripe suits with names that rhyme with spaghetti," he said. Ms Jowell complained of the "scale of misrepresentation" in the media over the bill in her interview with the newspaper, her first since the bill was launched. The culture secretary said a four year consultation period had produced a consensus on the need to "protect children and the vulnerable" in a swiftly changing sector. Ms Jowell insisted: "We have a good track record for extracting planning gain in this country, for instance in social housing." And continued: "We can be proud to have one of the lowest rates of problem gambling in the world. I intend to keep it that way." Ms Jowell will set out her position when the Bill is debated in the Commons on Monday. In prime minister's questions last week Tony Blair assured Parliament that 90% of the bill was about tightening up the regulation of the gambling industry.

Ms Jowell complained of the "scale of misrepresentation" in the media over the bill in her interview with the newspaper, her first since the bill was launched.The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, Tessa Jowell, has hit out at critics of the Gambling Bill.Ms Jowell will set out her position when the Bill is debated in the Commons on Monday.In prime minister's questions last week Tony Blair assured Parliament that 90% of the bill was about tightening up the regulation of the gambling industry.They are in it to fill their boots," Mr Pound told the Today programme.She told the Guardian newspaper there would be no "Las Vegas-style" super-casinos, as rumoured in the press.

Summarize the following article: Tory leader urges Harry apology Prince Harry should personally make clear how sorry he is about wearing a Nazi uniform to a friend's fancy dress party, says Tory leader Michael Howard. Mr Howard, whose grandmother died in Auschwitz, said many people would be offended by the prince's actions Clarence House has issued a statement saying the prince has apologised and realised it had been a poor costume. Number 10 said an error was made but now Harry had apologised the matter should be left to the palace. That was a message repeated by Home Secretary Charles Clarke who said the matter should now be left to lie. But Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said Harry was in a privileged position and said he should apologise in person. "There is a reservoir of goodwill for Prince Harry, and Prince William with him, in this country, but I think he needs to remember that it can't last forever." He added that Sandhurst would probably be good for Harry as it would teach him some self discipline. Former Labour MP Lord Janner, who is a high profile member of Britain's Jewish community, branded Harry's action's "stupid and evil". He told ITV: "The time has come for him to make a public apology. It is about common decency, of respect to the people who fought the Nazis, to the families of those who were killed by the Nazis and to people who suffered during the Holocaust." He added: "I would send him in the army as fast as possible. I hope that would teach him not to behave like that." A photograph of Prince Harry wearing a swastika armband and German desert uniform at the party appears in Thursday's Sun newspaper under the headline: "Harry the Nazi." Mr Howard acknowledged the prince's apology and said he had no doubt the prince's father and family would have much to say to him privately about the incident. But he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It might be appropriate to tell us himself just how contrite he is." Mr Howard declined to say what form the statement should take. But former Buckingham Palace press spokesman Dicky Arbiter said the prince should make a personal, broadcast apology. Mr Clarke said he recognised people's concerns about the costume but argued: "He has apologised and I think we should leave the matter there."

Mr Howard, whose grandmother died in Auschwitz, said many people would be offended by the prince's actions Clarence House has issued a statement saying the prince has apologised and realised it had been a poor costume.Mr Howard acknowledged the prince's apology and said he had no doubt the prince's father and family would have much to say to him privately about the incident.Number 10 said an error was made but now Harry had apologised the matter should be left to the palace.But former Buckingham Palace press spokesman Dicky Arbiter said the prince should make a personal, broadcast apology.But Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy said Harry was in a privileged position and said he should apologise in person.He added that Sandhurst would probably be good for Harry as it would teach him some self discipline.Mr Clarke said he recognised people's concerns about the costume but argued: "He has apologised and I think we should leave the matter there."Prince Harry should personally make clear how sorry he is about wearing a Nazi uniform to a friend's fancy dress party, says Tory leader Michael Howard.

Summarize the following article: Clarke plans migrant point scheme Anyone planning to move to the UK will have to pass a test to prove they can contribute to the country, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said. He is proposing a points system similar to Australia's but would avoid the quota system planned by the Tories. Mr Clarke, who will unveil his plans on Monday, said economic migration helped the UK but "needed proper policing". The Lib Dems say they will look at his plans, but Tory Liam Fox said his party offered a "clear choice" on the issue. The Conservative Party Co-Chairman said the British electorate had a choice between a Labour government that had "done nothing for eight years and will not set a limit" on immigration and a Tory one that would impose quotas. The home secretary said, by 2008, he wanted everyone given a visa and entering the UK to have their fingerprints taken, to "ensure we can know everybody who is in the country". Speaking on BBC One's Breakfast with Frost, he said "economic migrants are of great value to this country", but stressed that proper policing was needed to ensure that they do not become a "burden on society". He said: "We will establish a system ... which looks at the skills, talents and abilities of people seeking to come and work in this country, and ensures that when they come here they have a job and can contribute to the economy of the country." The home secretary, whose five-year blueprint for immigration and asylum is expected to be published on Monday, also rejected claims that the immigration debate encouraged bigotry. "The issue of who does come into this country, and whether they are entitled to be in this country, who does settle here, how we have border controls, is a perfectly legitimate aspect of public debate," he said. Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "Whilst it is good that Labour has rejected the Tory idea of quotas on asylum, the jury is still out on the Home Office's ability to deliver a fair and efficient asylum system." Mr Howard has said Britain should take its fair share of the world's "genuine refugees". But he claims the current asylum system is being abused - and with it Britain's generosity. Trevor Phillips, chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, called on Mr Clarke to denounce the suggestion Britain's hospitality was being tested by immigration. "Tell that to the 44,000 doctors in the NHS and the 70,000 nurses without whom we would really see what pressure on the health service means," he said. "Ditto the teachers, from South Africa, Australia, Jamaica, who are reducing the sizes of our classes and schools." The Refugee Council said Mr Howard's proposals would mean there would be no safe haven in the UK.

Anyone planning to move to the UK will have to pass a test to prove they can contribute to the country, Home Secretary Charles Clarke has said.Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten said: "Whilst it is good that Labour has rejected the Tory idea of quotas on asylum, the jury is still out on the Home Office's ability to deliver a fair and efficient asylum system."Mr Clarke, who will unveil his plans on Monday, said economic migration helped the UK but "needed proper policing".The Refugee Council said Mr Howard's proposals would mean there would be no safe haven in the UK.The home secretary said, by 2008, he wanted everyone given a visa and entering the UK to have their fingerprints taken, to "ensure we can know everybody who is in the country".He said: "We will establish a system ... which looks at the skills, talents and abilities of people seeking to come and work in this country, and ensures that when they come here they have a job and can contribute to the economy of the country.""The issue of who does come into this country, and whether they are entitled to be in this country, who does settle here, how we have border controls, is a perfectly legitimate aspect of public debate," he said.

Summarize the following article: What the election should really be about? A general election is the best chance most pressure groups get to make a real impact on government policy. Here is how six leading lobbies plan to make sure their cause is being debated ahead of an expected Spring poll. We've called for the state pension to be increased from £79.60 to the pensioner credit guarantee level of £105.45. That's what we're calling for. Many pensioners are disadvantaged by the current system. If we've got one in five pensioners below the poverty line, we've got to make it more generous or have these people living in poverty. We've drawn up a pensioners' manifesto. This will be sent to each of the candidates in the 659 constituencies. They will be asked which of the top five issues, including the pension issue, they would support. Once we've got their responses we will publish the results within the constituencies and nationally as well. It's our way of putting the politicians on notice. We are trying to get across the fact that there are 11m voters over 60 in the country, they are more likely to vote than other sections of society and thirdly they are true swing voters. Before 1997 most pensioners voted Conservative. In 1997 and 2001 they voted Labour. But there is no guarantee they will vote for a Labour government this time around. They cannot take that vote for granted. Pensions generally will certainly be a big election issue even though the government has postponed the publication of Adair Turner's full report into the issue. He said the UK had one of the least generous pensions systems in the developed world. That the government takes seriously the impact of aviation on the environment. We haven't worked out specific plans but I imagine we will lobby political parties and incumbent MPs. Various local groups will do that in their particular areas and we will provide a national briefing. We don't have any large demonstrations planned but they can't be ruled out. It is hard to say whether we will be successful. We have got the issue in the public consciousness to an extent, but it is difficult to say whether an election will raise its importance in the public mind or whether it will be pushed out by big issues like Iraq. Repealing the Hunting Bill. We are challenging the use of the Parliament Act 1949 in a High Court action. We are hoping to hear in the New Year. Whichever way the court rules the other side will appeal so we expect it to fall plumb in electioneering time. When the ban comes into force on 18 February we will be going to the European Court because no compensation is being paid. So there's a lot of legal territory to go. We are trying to engage with the ministers by demonstrating and talking. Whatever intelligence we get we will try to turn up and speak to whoever it is. (Rural affairs minister) Alun Michael has avoided us and cancelled engagements so that makes it difficult. It is not intimidatory - on the whole it is groups of angry housewives. Of course there is an element of shouting because people are angry but there is no violence because that does not achieve anything. It will fall plumb in the run up to the most important general election Tony Blair will ever face. It's exactly what the prime minister did not want. He wanted the issue off the table until after the election. People using live animals as targets for sport both here and abroad. The reason for including abroad is because of trophy hunting. It is another sort of form of shooting for sport. The principle is the same whether it's a tiger or a pheasant. We will widely publicise what's happening in relation to trophy hunting. We will publicise the darker aspects of the target animal industry the UK. We will seek to get pledges from individual MPs and would-be MPs saying that they are against the use of animals as targets for sports. We would like the support of political parties but I think a general election is very much to do with pledges MPs make to their electors. With hunting we had many MPs who were happy to say they were against it. I think what we will get is a very real climbing up the agenda. Whether or not we will get a ban I am not sure. But it will mobilise public opinion. Everything we do will reduce animal suffering and in time that will lead to a ban. The issue that we think is the most important for this election is choice. The language of consumerism is very commonplace in government and across the political spectrum. Choice as an ideology is beginning to be the privatisation of this decade. It's become an issue in itself but what's really missing from the debate is the consumer's choice in that. Choice is not choice at all if all you have to choose from is two failing schools. We have seen so many pensions mis-selling scandals and in the pensions industry there's a maximum of choice but a minimum quality in that. We want choice on the consumer's terms - that means clear and accessible information to operate that choice. Firstly, we have our website. It features our campaigns and changes every day. Secondly through our 700,000 members who communicate with us. Thirdly through the media and also what we will be doing is holding a pre-election conference. We will invite the opinion formers, MPs, journalists and others. The idea is that we open up communications between members of the public and the politicians. I think we will be successful. It's very much the language being used by the main political parties. Politicians on all sides are very sensitive to this issue they want to be seen to be responding to this issue. Fuel duty is a large part of operational costs for road haulage workers. We have been hearing about this proposed increase of 1.92p per litre that Gordon Brown has been postponing and postponing. Tuppence does not sound like a great deal but every year if you operate one vehicle that's an increase of about £750. If you're running 10 vehicles it's obviously 10 times that. If fuel duty does rise we will be absolutely horrified. There will be a huge effect throughout the industry and I would not be surprised if you see widespread demonstrations. What it will mean is there will be a number of firms going out of business. We will continue to do what we have always done we keep the issue in the trade press. Regrettably it's one of those stories that it is getting harder to get into the national press. Whatever we do, the public don't like lorries - they see us as a complaining minority. But they don't realise that when you see a car on the road it is probably going to work, when you see a lorry it's already at work.

The issue that we think is the most important for this election is choice.We have got the issue in the public consciousness to an extent, but it is difficult to say whether an election will raise its importance in the public mind or whether it will be pushed out by big issues like Iraq.We would like the support of political parties but I think a general election is very much to do with pledges MPs make to their electors.A general election is the best chance most pressure groups get to make a real impact on government policy.Tuppence does not sound like a great deal but every year if you operate one vehicle that's an increase of about £750.Whether or not we will get a ban I am not sure.We will seek to get pledges from individual MPs and would-be MPs saying that they are against the use of animals as targets for sports.Pensions generally will certainly be a big election issue even though the government has postponed the publication of Adair Turner's full report into the issue.Politicians on all sides are very sensitive to this issue they want to be seen to be responding to this issue.If we've got one in five pensioners below the poverty line, we've got to make it more generous or have these people living in poverty.He wanted the issue off the table until after the election.But there is no guarantee they will vote for a Labour government this time around.With hunting we had many MPs who were happy to say they were against it.It's become an issue in itself but what's really missing from the debate is the consumer's choice in that.We have seen so many pensions mis-selling scandals and in the pensions industry there's a maximum of choice but a minimum quality in that.Whatever we do, the public don't like lorries - they see us as a complaining minority.They will be asked which of the top five issues, including the pension issue, they would support.We want choice on the consumer's terms - that means clear and accessible information to operate that choice.I think what we will get is a very real climbing up the agenda.We've called for the state pension to be increased from £79.60 to the pensioner credit guarantee level of £105.45.People using live animals as targets for sport both here and abroad.We are trying to get across the fact that there are 11m voters over 60 in the country, they are more likely to vote than other sections of society and thirdly they are true swing voters.Regrettably it's one of those stories that it is getting harder to get into the national press.Whichever way the court rules the other side will appeal so we expect it to fall plumb in electioneering time.Everything we do will reduce animal suffering and in time that will lead to a ban.Choice is not choice at all if all you have to choose from is two failing schools.It is hard to say whether we will be successful.We will publicise the darker aspects of the target animal industry the UK.The language of consumerism is very commonplace in government and across the political spectrum.But they don't realise that when you see a car on the road it is probably going to work, when you see a lorry it's already at work.The reason for including abroad is because of trophy hunting.We haven't worked out specific plans but I imagine we will lobby political parties and incumbent MPs.

Summarize the following article: Opposition grows to house arrests The Conservatives have expressed "serious misgivings" about government plans for keeping UK and foreign terror suspects under house arrest. Michael Howard said he would not back the Home Secretary's plans for "control orders" which include home detention. "I do not believe that anyone should be deprived of their liberty on the say so of a politician," he said. The Lib Dems also oppose the proposals, but ministers insist they are proportionate to the terror threat. The government proposed the idea and a range of other new powers after the laws lords said current detentions without trial broke human rights laws. New Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair has backed the control orders, saying: "I'm sorry. It is a dilemma, but there is only one choice." But Mr Howard said: "We have serious misgivings about both their effectiveness in protecting life and their consequences for the British way of life." He argued that people accused of terrorist offences should be brought to trial and be held in prison - not at home - while they await trial. Mr Howard said he feared "internment without trial creates martyrs" and could be "a very effective recruiting sergeant" for terrorists". His party plans to move an amendment to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Bill next week that would give a judge responsibility for assessing evidence and ensuring a balanced case is presented to the court. He called on the prime minister to "enter into constructive discussions" with his party to find a "better way forward". Controversy over the issue continues after a foreign terror suspect held in the UK without trial or charge since December 2001 was freed from jail. Home Secretary Charles Clarke said there was not enough evidence to keep the Egyptian man, known only as C, certified as a terrorist suspect. On Monday, the legal team for two Algerian suspects being held without trial told a court the men did not want bail if it meant being put under house arrest. Most of the terror suspects are detained at Belmarsh Prison in London. The Liberal Democrats say they also oppose house arrests and questioned the human rights implications of the measure. Home affairs spokesman Mark Oaten told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "It's a matter of principle for us that we can't have a situation where the Home Secretary is able to impose house detention now on UK nationals as well as foreign nationals." The Lib Dems believe the Home Secretary should allow phone tapping evidence in prosecutions. "We think there could be a role for some form of control order - tagging, surveillance, limitation on use of mobile phones - but not with the Home Secretary's say so. That must be done with a proper judicial process, a judge involved in making those decisions," said Mr Oaten. Mr Clarke has rejected that idea saying intercept evidence is only a small part of the case against terror suspects and could put the lives of intelligence sources at risk. He said prosecutions were the government's first preference and promised the powers would only be used in "serious" cases, with independent scrutiny from judges.

Michael Howard said he would not back the Home Secretary's plans for "control orders" which include home detention.Home Secretary Charles Clarke said there was not enough evidence to keep the Egyptian man, known only as C, certified as a terrorist suspect.The Conservatives have expressed "serious misgivings" about government plans for keeping UK and foreign terror suspects under house arrest.Mr Clarke has rejected that idea saying intercept evidence is only a small part of the case against terror suspects and could put the lives of intelligence sources at risk.Controversy over the issue continues after a foreign terror suspect held in the UK without trial or charge since December 2001 was freed from jail.Mr Howard said he feared "internment without trial creates martyrs" and could be "a very effective recruiting sergeant" for terrorists".The government proposed the idea and a range of other new powers after the laws lords said current detentions without trial broke human rights laws.On Monday, the legal team for two Algerian suspects being held without trial told a court the men did not want bail if it meant being put under house arrest.But Mr Howard said: "We have serious misgivings about both their effectiveness in protecting life and their consequences for the British way of life."The Lib Dems believe the Home Secretary should allow phone tapping evidence in prosecutions.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Kilroy-Silk attacked with slurry Euro MP Robert Kilroy-Silk has had a bucket of farm slurry thrown over him by a protester in Manchester. The UK Independence Party member was arriving for a BBC radio show when the attacker emerged from behind a bush. Fellow guest Ruth Kelly MP was also hit by the slurry. Mr Kilroy-Silk said the man, who later disappeared, claimed he was "doing it in the name of Islam". In January, Mr Kilroy-Silk quit his BBC One show for remarks he made about Arabs, who he called "suicide bombers". Mr Kilroy-Silk had already been taken off air by BBC bosses for the comments, in which he also described Arabs as "limb-amputators, women repressors". The remarks prompted outrage among Muslim groups. The slurry attack took place on Friday as Mr Kilroy-Silk and Ms Kelly, a Cabinet Office minister and Bolton West MP, arrived at Manchester High School for Girls for the recording of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions. The police were called but the attacker had disappeared by the time officers arrived. They are treating the incident as assault. The programme's host, Jonathan Dimbleby, later told the audience the MEP had been covered from "head to toe". Mr Kilroy-Silk was still able appear to appear on the show after being loaned a change of clothes. He told reporters he was "very angry" and planned to press charges if his attacker was caught. He said the man shouted: "You've offended my religion, I'm doing this in the name of Islam." "As I started to turn round a guy tipped a bucket of farmyard muck over me and then threw the rest of it over me and the car," Mr Kilroy-Silk said. "I was totally covered, it was all through my clothes, and it stank to high heaven. It went all inside the car and splattered Ruth Kelly." A BBC spokesman said: "He took his seat as Jonathan Dimbleby was introducing the show. Fortunately someone at the school had a change of clothes to let him have." Greater Manchester Police said people near Mr Kilroy-Silk had also been hit by the waste. Officers took statements at the scene, but no arrests have been made. Police say the suspect ran off after towards Wilmslow Road after committing the offence but is believed to have been driving a red Vauxhall Corsa earlier. The suspect is described as white, aged 30 to 40, with a ginger beard. Police want to hear from anyone who has any information. Mr Kilroy-Silk, an MEP for the East Midlands, resigned the UK Independence Party whip in the European Parliament in October, after criticising UKIP and stating his ambition to be leader. However, he remains a member of the party. He said on Friday he hoped to be elected party leader before Christmas. "I think that is sufficient time for us to put in process what is necessary... in time for us to fight and have a significant impact upon the General Election." But a UKIP spokesman said that would be impossible under the party's constitution, which requires 70 days before any leadership ballot can take place.

Mr Kilroy-Silk said the man, who later disappeared, claimed he was "doing it in the name of Islam".Greater Manchester Police said people near Mr Kilroy-Silk had also been hit by the waste.A BBC spokesman said: "He took his seat as Jonathan Dimbleby was introducing the show.Mr Kilroy-Silk was still able appear to appear on the show after being loaned a change of clothes.In January, Mr Kilroy-Silk quit his BBC One show for remarks he made about Arabs, who he called "suicide bombers".The slurry attack took place on Friday as Mr Kilroy-Silk and Ms Kelly, a Cabinet Office minister and Bolton West MP, arrived at Manchester High School for Girls for the recording of BBC Radio 4's Any Questions.The UK Independence Party member was arriving for a BBC radio show when the attacker emerged from behind a bush.Mr Kilroy-Silk had already been taken off air by BBC bosses for the comments, in which he also described Arabs as "limb-amputators, women repressors".Fellow guest Ruth Kelly MP was also hit by the slurry."As I started to turn round a guy tipped a bucket of farmyard muck over me and then threw the rest of it over me and the car," Mr Kilroy-Silk said."I was totally covered, it was all through my clothes, and it stank to high heaven.Mr Kilroy-Silk, an MEP for the East Midlands, resigned the UK Independence Party whip in the European Parliament in October, after criticising UKIP and stating his ambition to be leader.

Summarize the following article: Brown 'proud of economy record' Gordon Brown has delivered a rousing speech to Labour's spring conference setting out the government's agenda for the next general election. The chancellor said he was proud of his party's record on the economy, and would strive for continuing stability if elected. The Gateshead conference was told he would help young people who were struggling to buy their own homes. And the chancellor vowed to continue the fight against child poverty. Later, Prime Minister Tony Blair will answer questions sent by the public via text and e-mail. Analysing Mr Brown's position before the speech, BBC correspondent James Hardy said Mr Brown would draw "sharp dividing lines" with the Conservatives for the forthcoming election campaign. He would contrast Labour's plan to invest £60bn in services with a Tory plan to cut spending by £35bn. "Mr Brown will lay out his credentials as a reforming chancellor determined to take on and beat the Asian tiger economies which increasingly dominate world trade," our correspondent said. On Friday night, Mr Brown confirmed he would not make any tax commitments until the Labour manifesto had been published after the Budget, expected in March. But commentators will listen to his speech closely for hints on whether, as the Conservatives claim, he plans to raise tax after the election. The Tories accuse Labour of raising taxes 66 times since coming to power in 1997. Following the chancellor's keynote speech, the prime minister will face interactive questioning from ordinary voters on Saturday. Mr Blair is thought to be deliberately putting himself on the line in a bid to engage the electorate ahead of an expected May election. Capital Radio DJ Margherita Taylor will select questions to put to him from thousands e-mailed and sent by text. The prime minister's enthusiasm for the job remains undimmed, Alan Milburn, Labour's election strategist told Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday. Mr Blair has "the same passion and the same commitments for the job" as when Labour came to power in 1997, he said. And he confirmed Mr Blair's insistence that no poll date had yet been set. He said: "I'm the General Election co-ordinator and I don't know, and Tony has not made up his mind." On Friday, the prime minister completed a whistle-stop tour of England, during which he unveiled his party's six pre-election pledges. Starting in London, he visited marginal constituencies pledging to build on what he said were Labour's achievements on the economy, crime, education and public services. The Conservatives and Lib Dems said the pledges - set to underpin Labour's election campaign - were "worthless".

Analysing Mr Brown's position before the speech, BBC correspondent James Hardy said Mr Brown would draw "sharp dividing lines" with the Conservatives for the forthcoming election campaign.Mr Blair has "the same passion and the same commitments for the job" as when Labour came to power in 1997, he said.The Conservatives and Lib Dems said the pledges - set to underpin Labour's election campaign - were "worthless".On Friday night, Mr Brown confirmed he would not make any tax commitments until the Labour manifesto had been published after the Budget, expected in March.Gordon Brown has delivered a rousing speech to Labour's spring conference setting out the government's agenda for the next general election.The chancellor said he was proud of his party's record on the economy, and would strive for continuing stability if elected."Mr Brown will lay out his credentials as a reforming chancellor determined to take on and beat the Asian tiger economies which increasingly dominate world trade," our correspondent said.He said: "I'm the General Election co-ordinator and I don't know, and Tony has not made up his mind."The prime minister's enthusiasm for the job remains undimmed, Alan Milburn, Labour's election strategist told Radio 4's Today programme on Saturday.

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Watchdog probes e-mail deletions The information commissioner says he is urgently asking for details of Cabinet Office orders telling staff to delete e-mails more than three months old. Richard Thomas "totally condemned" the deletion of e-mails to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information laws coming into force on 1 January. Government guidance said e-mails should only be deleted if they served "no current purpose", Mr Thomas said. The Tories and the Lib Dems have questioned the timing of the new rules. Tory leader Michael Howard has written to Tony Blair demanding an explanation of the new rules on e-mail retention. On Monday Lib Dem constitutional affairs committee chairman Alan Beith warned that the deletion of millions of government e-mails could harm the ability of key probes like the Hutton Inquiry. The timing of the new rules just before the Freedom of Information Act comes into forces was "too unlikely to have been a coincidence", Mr Beith said. But a Cabinet Office spokeswoman said the move was not about the new laws or "the destruction of important records". Mr Beith urged the information commissioner to look at how the "e-mail regime" could "support the freedom of information regime". Mr Thomas said: "The new Act of Parliament makes it very clear that to destroy records in order to prevent their disclosure becomes a criminal offence." He said there was already clear guidance on the retention of e-mails contained in a code of practice from the lord chancellor. All e-mails are subject to the freedom of information laws, but the important thing was the content of the e-mail, said Mr Thomas. "If in doubt retain, that has been the long-standing principle of the civil service and public authorities. It's only when you've got no further use for the particular record that it may be legitimate to destroy it. "But any deliberate destruction to avoid the possibility of later disclosure is to be totally condemned." The Freedom of Information Act will cover England, Wales and Northern Ireland from next year. Similar measures are being brought in at the same time in Scotland. It provides the public with a right of access to information held by about 100,000 public bodies, subject to various exemptions. Its implementation will be monitored by the information commissioner.

All e-mails are subject to the freedom of information laws, but the important thing was the content of the e-mail, said Mr Thomas.The timing of the new rules just before the Freedom of Information Act comes into forces was "too unlikely to have been a coincidence", Mr Beith said.Mr Beith urged the information commissioner to look at how the "e-mail regime" could "support the freedom of information regime".Richard Thomas "totally condemned" the deletion of e-mails to prevent their disclosure under freedom of information laws coming into force on 1 January.Mr Thomas said: "The new Act of Parliament makes it very clear that to destroy records in order to prevent their disclosure becomes a criminal offence."Government guidance said e-mails should only be deleted if they served "no current purpose", Mr Thomas said.But a Cabinet Office spokeswoman said the move was not about the new laws or "the destruction of important records".He said there was already clear guidance on the retention of e-mails contained in a code of practice from the lord chancellor.

Summarize the following article: Kinnock to urge reform in Lords Neil Kinnock has said his acceptance of a seat in the House of Lords will allow him to help "achieve further progress with substantial democratic reform." On the BBC's Breakfast with Frost it was put to Mr Kinnock that he had once referred to Lords members as "brigands, muggers, bribers and gangsters". But the outgoing European Commissioner said his comments - made some 26 years ago - needed to be put in context. He said advocates for reform needed to be inside the Lords to vote for it. "It was pointed out to me that if the additional democratic reform is going to take place it is going to require advocates in the Lords and people there willing to vote for it." Mr Kinnock added that the second factor behind his acceptance of the peerage was his appointment as chairman of the British Council. "History demonstrates that it's immensely useful for the British Council to have its chairman in the House of Lords and that was a conclusive factor." Mr Kinnock said he thought about the decision for "quite a long time" because he had long had reservations about the Lords. But he added: "The process of reform has developed substantially but not sufficiently, and consequently I did take all these factors into consideration because it's not a decision to be made glibly." The former Labour leader said he would probably take the title of Lord Kinnock of Bedwellty - his first constituency for which he was selected in 1969.

He said advocates for reform needed to be inside the Lords to vote for it.Neil Kinnock has said his acceptance of a seat in the House of Lords will allow him to help "achieve further progress with substantial democratic reform."Mr Kinnock added that the second factor behind his acceptance of the peerage was his appointment as chairman of the British Council.Mr Kinnock said he thought about the decision for "quite a long time" because he had long had reservations about the Lords.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Councils 'must find Gypsy sites' Ministers are telling councils to find more sites for travellers, amid continuing rows concerning a string of unauthorised encampments. Councils are also to be given stronger powers to move on illegal settlements by Gypsy communities on rural land. More money is to be given to councils to develop official caravan parks, said housing minister Yvette Cooper. In November, MPs urged ministers to make councils create sites because 3,500 travellers have no place to stop. Ms Cooper said an annual scheme to refurbish existing traveller sites would now be extended to consider council bids for new stopping places. That scheme has paid out £25m in four years, with £8m available for 2005. "There are two major problems in the planning system at the moment concerning Gypsy and traveller sites," said Ms Cooper. "Firstly, local authorities are not identifying enough appropriate locations either for private or public sites. And secondly, they do not have enough powers to deal swiftly with development on inappropriate sites. "The result is that there are too many developments on inappropriate sites, causing tensions and difficulties for both the neighbouring communities and the Gypsies and travellers. "That is why we are consulting on a new obligation on local authorities to identify more appropriate sites, as well as new powers to take immediate action if the development is in the wrong place and cannot be tolerated in even the short-term because of risk to local amenity and the environment." Under the new regulations, expected to be in force in the spring, officials will be able to serve "temporary stop notices" aimed at preventing works on a site before a council has had chance to obtain a full legal ban. Many MPs with rural constituencies, particularly in eastern England, have been pressing the government to create stronger enforcement powers, saying villagers are suffering because of the legal delays in removing illegal encampments. Andrew Ryder, of the Traveller Law Reform Coalition, said: "We welcome talk about an obligation on councils to identify land for Gypsies and travellers, so long as it is a real obligation as opposed to a recommendation which could be and was easily ignored. "New accommodation proposals for travellers need to be backed up with decent funding and intervention by the government when councils attempt to dodge their responsibilities towards travellers, as they often do. "Living on the side of the road or being worn down by planning appeals, legal action and eviction is no one's idea of fun." In their November report, MPs from the committee scrutinising the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, responsible for housing, said most illegal traveller encampments were caused by a lack of places to stop. Numerous communities and councils were paying for lengthy and expensive evictions against travelling communities, said the MPs. In turn, the problems had worsened because councils were reluctant to voluntarily provide sites because of resistance from residents. Two of the most controversial traveller sites - Cottenham in Cambridgeshire and Minety in Wiltshire - remain embroiled in an ongoing legal battle.

In November, MPs urged ministers to make councils create sites because 3,500 travellers have no place to stop.Ms Cooper said an annual scheme to refurbish existing traveller sites would now be extended to consider council bids for new stopping places."There are two major problems in the planning system at the moment concerning Gypsy and traveller sites," said Ms Cooper.Numerous communities and councils were paying for lengthy and expensive evictions against travelling communities, said the MPs.More money is to be given to councils to develop official caravan parks, said housing minister Yvette Cooper.Under the new regulations, expected to be in force in the spring, officials will be able to serve "temporary stop notices" aimed at preventing works on a site before a council has had chance to obtain a full legal ban.In their November report, MPs from the committee scrutinising the Office for the Deputy Prime Minister, responsible for housing, said most illegal traveller encampments were caused by a lack of places to stop.Andrew Ryder, of the Traveller Law Reform Coalition, said: "We welcome talk about an obligation on councils to identify land for Gypsies and travellers, so long as it is a real obligation as opposed to a recommendation which could be and was easily ignored.

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

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

Summarize the following article: Clarke faces ID cards rebellion Charles Clarke faces his first real test as home secretary on Monday with a possible backbench rebellion over the controversial ID cards bill. Up to 30 Labour MPs could oppose the scheme during a Commons debate. Mr Clarke, who took on the post on Thursday after David Blunkett quit, has rejected calls to "pause" on the bill. Tory leader Michael Howard also faces a possible rebellion after deciding to back identity cards. The Liberal Democrats oppose the plans. Mr Clarke, writing in The Times, accused some critics of "liberal woolly thinking and spreading false fears" by claiming ID cards would erode civil liberties. He writes that it is actually a "profoundly civil libertarian measure because it promotes the most fundamental civil liberty in our society - which is the right to live free from fear crime and fear". Mr Clarke is expected to try and win over opponents to the scheme by saying officials who secretly accessed information they were not allowed to see would face up to two years in jail. He is also expected to cut the £85 cost of the card and passport, for the elderly and those on lower incomes. Mr Howard last week said his front bench team had reached a "collective view" to back ID cards after holding a "good discussion", but admitted it was "not an easy issue". He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration. But former shadow attorney general Bill Cash said there was still "very deep" disquiet about the plan among senior Tories. He told BBC Radio 4's Today the government was "intensely authoritarian" and was creating "increasingly a Big Brother society". Critics argue that introducing the cards would be a costly scheme with no specific aim. Ministers say it would help the fight against terrorism, illegal immigration and organised crime. But opponents say that similar schemes in other countries have not prevented attacks like the Madrid rail bombing. On Sunday, Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy repeated his call for a "pause" in considering the legislation. He told BBC's Breakfast with Frost programme that Mr Clarke had a "real opportunity" on Monday following the departure of Mr Blunkett. "If you were running a family or a business would you have the second reading of the Identity Cards Bill tomorrow or would you pause to reflect and see what you might do about it in the New Year? "That is the sensible way to go about it but I think this government has got itself so much into tram lines now that it is not behaving sensibly at all." The first cards would be issued in 2008 and, when he was introducing the bill, Mr Blunkett suggested Parliament could decide in 2011 or 2012 whether to make it compulsory for everybody to own the cards, although not to carry them. The new bill would also create new criminal offences on the possession of false identity documents.

The first cards would be issued in 2008 and, when he was introducing the bill, Mr Blunkett suggested Parliament could decide in 2011 or 2012 whether to make it compulsory for everybody to own the cards, although not to carry them.Mr Clarke, writing in The Times, accused some critics of "liberal woolly thinking and spreading false fears" by claiming ID cards would erode civil liberties."If you were running a family or a business would you have the second reading of the Identity Cards Bill tomorrow or would you pause to reflect and see what you might do about it in the New Year?Mr Clarke is expected to try and win over opponents to the scheme by saying officials who secretly accessed information they were not allowed to see would face up to two years in jail.Charles Clarke faces his first real test as home secretary on Monday with a possible backbench rebellion over the controversial ID cards bill.Mr Clarke, who took on the post on Thursday after David Blunkett quit, has rejected calls to "pause" on the bill.Critics argue that introducing the cards would be a costly scheme with no specific aim.The new bill would also create new criminal offences on the possession of false identity documents.He had decided to support the plans as the police said they would help fight terror, crime and illegal immigration.

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

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

Summarize the following article: 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".

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

Summarize the following article: 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.

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

Summarize the following article: 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.

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

Summarize the following article: Tories attack EU asylum moves David Blunkett has been accused of using the "politics of confusion" to disguise new EU immigration measures. Tory spokesman David Davis told MPs the UK was losing its power of veto over who was allowed to come to Britain. The EU has opted to adopt qualified majority voting in this area - previously measures needed unanimous agreement from all member states. Mr Blunkett told MPs the UK would still be able to reject proposals on immigration it did not agree with. He argued closer co-operation with Europe over asylum and immigration was crucial to controlling the flow of people into the UK. "If we don't like what other EU countries do on immigration and nationality we have the right to opt-in or out to suit the British people," he said. The home secretary was responding to an emergency question from his Tory opposite number Mr Davis. "The government is employing the politics of confusion - I think, deliberately," argued Mr Davis. "By confusing the country it hopes no one will notice the disappearance of the asylum and immigration veto." On Monday Tony Blair insisted closer co-operation did not mean losing control of British borders. He said an enlarged 25-member EU needs a streamlined decision making process. Mr Davis said once Britain had opted into policies then it could not opt out - leaving the UK open to unfavourable interpretations of what those policies actually meant. He accused the government of being "pathetic" when it came to its efforts over immigration and asylum and of "surrendering" on the issue. And he asked why the government was agreeing to the measure on asylum and immigration now when the whole issue was part of the EU constitution, which voters in the UK had been promised a referendum over. Mr Blair told his monthly news conference Britain had the "best of both worlds" and would keep the veto. "There is no question of Britain giving up our veto on our border controls," he said. "With the Treaty of Amsterdam seven years ago, we secured the absolute right to opt in to any of the asylum and immigration provisions that we wanted to in Europe." Mr Blunkett met his EU counterparts in Luxembourg on Monday to consider proposals aimed at streamlining decision making on the issue. The 25 member-states are expected to scrap the requirement for unanimous agreement on immigration policy, in favour of the qualified majority voting (QMV) system. Under this scheme larger states such as Britain are expected to have more power than the smaller EU states. Britain is expected to retain an "opt-in" right which will allow it to ignore any measures it disagrees with. Liberal Democrat spokesman Mark Oaten called the change pragmatic and argued it gave a better chance of producing a European asylum solution. "If we don't work together it means some countries can ignore their responsibilities at the expense of their neighbours," said Mr Oaten. "The Liberal Democrats have long argued that Britain should be a safe haven for asylum seekers but it's right that we don't do this in isolation."

And he asked why the government was agreeing to the measure on asylum and immigration now when the whole issue was part of the EU constitution, which voters in the UK had been promised a referendum over."If we don't like what other EU countries do on immigration and nationality we have the right to opt-in or out to suit the British people," he said.He argued closer co-operation with Europe over asylum and immigration was crucial to controlling the flow of people into the UK.Tory spokesman David Davis told MPs the UK was losing its power of veto over who was allowed to come to Britain.Mr Blunkett told MPs the UK would still be able to reject proposals on immigration it did not agree with.Mr Davis said once Britain had opted into policies then it could not opt out - leaving the UK open to unfavourable interpretations of what those policies actually meant."The Liberal Democrats have long argued that Britain should be a safe haven for asylum seekers but it's right that we don't do this in isolation.""By confusing the country it hopes no one will notice the disappearance of the asylum and immigration veto."David Blunkett has been accused of using the "politics of confusion" to disguise new EU immigration measures.He accused the government of being "pathetic" when it came to its efforts over immigration and asylum and of "surrendering" on the issue.

Summarize the following article: 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.

Veteran Labour MP and former Cabinet minister Jack Cunningham has said he will stand down at the next election.Mr Blair said he was a "huge figure" in Labour and a "valued, personal friend".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".

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

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

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

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

Summarize the following article: Howard 'truanted to play snooker' Conservative leader Michael Howard has admitted he used to play truant to spend time with his school friends at a snooker hall. Mr Howard said his time at Jack's Snooker Hall in Llanelli in the 1950s had not done him "any lasting damage". But he told the Times Educational Supplement that truancy was "very bad" and said "firm action" was needed. Mr Howard also called for a return to O-levels and more classroom discipline. Mr Howard eventually left Llanelli Grammar School - and the snooker hall - to go to Cambridge University. He said: "I don't think it's done me any lasting damage. Nor has it made me a snooker world champion. "There might have been some occasions when we left early of an afternoon. "I'm just being honest. I think truancy is a very bad thing and that firm action should be taken to deal with it." Another player who has failed to win snooker's world championship - Jimmy "the Whirlwind " White - has previously admitted missing lessons, instead spending his days in smoky halls. "Tony Meo [another player] and me used to spend all of our spare time there," Mr White said, "We loved the game and the atmosphere. "School went out of the window. I went for a while and then started taking time off." Mr Howard's fellow Welshman Ray Reardon - known by his fellow professionals as "Dracula" - won the snooker world championship six times, having left school at 14 to work as a miner. And Terry Griffiths, like Mr Howard from Llanelli, won the tournament in 1979. It is not known whether the two of them ever clashed cues at Jack's.

Mr Howard said his time at Jack's Snooker Hall in Llanelli in the 1950s had not done him "any lasting damage".Mr Howard eventually left Llanelli Grammar School - and the snooker hall - to go to Cambridge University.Conservative leader Michael Howard has admitted he used to play truant to spend time with his school friends at a snooker hall.Mr Howard's fellow Welshman Ray Reardon - known by his fellow professionals as "Dracula" - won the snooker world championship six times, having left school at 14 to work as a miner."Tony Meo [another player] and me used to spend all of our spare time there," Mr White said, "We loved the game and the atmosphere.And Terry Griffiths, like Mr Howard from Llanelli, won the tournament in 1979.Nor has it made me a snooker world champion.